Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 19

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

The result was No consensus, leaning towards keep, since most of the delete "votes" were made before the improvement to the article. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D. Bap Reddy

D. Bap Reddy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. On googling his name, most of the results that turn up are about his official capacity. Yes, he is with United Nations, but that in itself cannot be a notable thing. Article in its present form is more like a directory entry and hence proposed for deletion. Prashanthns (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N. --Jacob ^Talk 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:N, not only is article unsourced WP:OR violation but also appears to be copyvio. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

uh?How is it a copy-vio? There are only 2 lines in the article!;)Prashanthns (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be established. Merely being associated with the UN in some capacity seems insufficient. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced and insufficiently notable. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Still needs sources, but not now convinced he's not notable in the light of improvements to the article. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Tagged. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment An earlier speedy was declined. Prashanthns (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And I removed this one. What is asserted is possibly notable. DGG (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Unsure about this one. It is true that currently the article is in terrible shape, no references or sources. But the guy might actually have been a notable agricultural scientist/ecologist and it is possible that he might pass WP:PROF. Apparently there is something called "Dr. D. Bap Reddy National Award for Integrated Pest Management" by Plant Protection Association of India[1]. GoogleScholar does not show much in terms of citability of his work[2] but GoogleBooks returns 81 hits[3]. Granted, many of these are books/articles/technical reports by him, rather than citations of his work (of which there are still quite a few). However, we are talking about someone who did most of his scholarly work in the 60s and, moreover, in India, so one could understand that the electronicaally available sources might be scarce. One of the references above is to some book[4] where he is explicitly characterized as "eminent agricultural scientist" (although the publication date of 1936 looks strange to me in view of his age; I think that date might be wrong or something). So, all in all, I have a feeling that we might be missing some significant info here that might show actual bona fide notability. Still, unless some knowledgeable person actually digs up some more conclusive references to indicate his academic notability, the article probably would have to be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Article looking better now. An IP editor is working, it seems. Assuming that all that is added is true, his notability may be asserted. Sources lacking for now. Good research work there. Prashanthns (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there are still no references in the article to substantiate the info added. Nsk92 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The article has been brought to AFD very quickly. Let's give some time to the article, we may find sources establishing a stronger notability. He has also been cited in a 1948 article of the Oakland Tribune. As for my !vote, don't delete just now. Cenarium (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from relisting admin: Article has changed substantially since the majority of the above discussion took place. Relisting so the discussion can focus on the article as it now stands.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment he does seem to be mentioned in some papers in Google Scholar, Google search turns up Scholar related results and he is shown to be the author of 37 books on Google Books [5]. I would say that conveys some notability, but he does not seem to meet human notability criteria. I'm going to have to stay neutral on this one—Preceding unsigned comment added by Atyndall (talk • contribs)
• Comment The article has definitely got some sources, but they are links to people who got an award named after him. No sources for the biographical details or his acheivements as yet. His university days has a source from a newspaper archive which mentions him as a president of the Indian students union, while the other two sources are from profiles of the awardees. HOwever, per User:Nsk92 above, in view of his work being in the 70's and 80's and him being from India, electronic sources may be few. NOtability indicated if not asserted. Going neutral on this one for now. Prashanthns (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that the Plant Protection Association of India chose to name an award after him would seem to show clear notability, as well as all the stuff found at Google Books and Scholar, which is far more than you would expect to find for a non-notable person who was active in the pre-Internet era. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. With an award named after you, there is a pretty good chance you are in fact notable. The article is fairly verifiable as it stands now, and though it doesn't meet the letter of the notability guidelines for biographies, I think we can safely assume that this is a notable person, even if he doesn't meet our guidelines. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:21, 26 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 Agriprocessors. Singularity 06:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Rubashkin

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

Reason: The article isnt about the person himself; all the information is about the company, which has its own article. Completing unfinished nom for User:Ironholds, apparently twinkle choked. I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the twinkle linking broke. Ironholds (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete, seems slightly notable but not really anything written about him as distinct from his company. Alternatively redirect. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep sufficient sources for notability as a businessman. Heads of notable companies are notable. He is individually a major community figure, and I hope more information to that effect will be added.DGG (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTINHERITED. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • is that support for deletion or keep? i read it as support for deletion, but i just want to make sure. Ironholds (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Generally it is support for deletion. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Agriprocessors. The sources are primarily about the company, only incidentally about him. The book apparently has a lot of inofrmation about him but it's not about him, it's about the community and the industry and agribusiness trends with his company being a case study. --Dhartung | Talk 00:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Dhartung. It seems that the company is more notable than the person. Jakew (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge This article is definitely notable. The only question is whether it would be easier to avoid WP:BLP by redirecting to the main article on agripocessors. In any case, just deleting the article would be idiotic considering the tremendous media attention focused on this family and company right now.--Chakira (talk) 23:38, 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 keep. John254 16:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kegg Pipe Organ Builders

Kegg Pipe Organ Builders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've just declined an A7 request on this, mainly due to the fact that it's been up for two years without anyone raising any complaint. Although it's unreferenced, I have absolutely no idea if this is a notable company in the pipe-organ world — and I'm not even sure how I'd find out, since I'd imagine most coverage would be in the specialist musical and religious press which wouldn't necessarily make it online. This, bringing it over here for some kind of consensus, as at the moment it doesn't quite meet inclusion rules, but I'm loath to delete it if it's a major company in its field. This is a procedural nom so I abstain. — iridescent 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I added references from three different newspapers. --Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Comes up near the top of Google List, they sell organs across the country and built the largest one in northern California. As much, if not more, notable than other pipe organ builders on here. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the company appears to be notable within its niche field of pipe organ building. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Exactly how does this meet WP:CORP? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. i.e. The Times-Standard, Eureka, California, Akron Beacon Journal, and The Cincinnati Post. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:26, 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 00:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stand There and Take It No Matter What

Stand There and Take It No Matter What (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've declined a CSD request on this thanks to our old friend "hoax is not a speedy criteria". However, I've no doubt whatsoever this is either a hoax or a thing made up in school. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise, now's your chance... — iridescent 23:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFT. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

All, Stand There and Take it is a legitimate game that is known to many and is popular here on the beaches of Southern California. It has been around for years...longer than I can remember, and likely exists here due the year round weather for playing it. Will you see it sponsored by Gatorade? Not anytime soon, however that does not make it an invalid wikipedia submission. Its a grassroots game that is common to the area. Its similar in popularity to bean bag toss or beach bocce....all of which can be found everyday on the beaches here.

Ddgray (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)dgray

Except that there exists in literature outside of Wikipedia references to Tag and cornhole and bocce... your game shows no evidence that it is reported in reliable sources, and thus it is not a notable game. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Find some reliable, 3rd party sources that assert notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete idiocy. JuJube (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete par WP:NOT, manual subsection along with likely notability and sourcing issues. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Might be a fun thing to do, were I half in the bag, but...WP:NOT is too had to discount here. Drieux (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• delete unless notability is asserted and verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense. Also, per this J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have played this game. It is for real! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1967camaro sd (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - drivel/nonsense --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Legitimate. People in Colorado play a similar game with snowballs. Search yahoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sand native (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. A game pretty much identical to this was actually played in the Outrageous Fortune Christmas special telemovie. But never referred to by this name, and an appearance in a TV show is hardly grounds for supporting this article anyway. --Stormie (talk) 23:46, 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 deleted. Singularity 20:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nihal Singh Kairon

Nihal Singh Kairon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notabilty neither demonstrated nor asserted. Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Google reports a grand total of four hits, including WP: [6] Also looks like a WP:COPYVIO from here [7], though that site might merely be a Wikimirror. Qworty (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Notability is vaguely asserted; However, this is still a possible copyvio, so I will tag it for speedy deletion. Otherwise, delete per nom; fails RS and BIO. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as blatant copyright violation of this page. So tagged. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:58, 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 Keep (Non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aurotype

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about a photographic printing technique, without indication really what it is, why it differs from others, whether this is a trade name pushed by one company, or anything approaching notability assertions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep I added additional content describing the chemical components of this historical process, the category to which it belongs and its notable discoverer, with two external references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.141.215 (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep stub article that has moved beyond one line and is now sourced/referenced. More can be done to improve though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Stub on notable topic, it is referenced now. --Itub (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep There's really no reason for this to be deleted. The article is now referenced properly and passes WP:N. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 06:18, 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 KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Share International

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:N. A lot of OR too. There are only two sources cited, one being cited quite a bit. I don't know of the validity of the sources. The links in the first paragraph all redirect back to the article. Undeath (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep a cult/new religious movement that advertizes the messiah in newspapers all over the world passes Wikipedia:notability. Sources are fine and I have more (see talk), but cannot improve it here and now, because I do not have access to the sources right now and because I was topic banned by the arbcom for a related subject (Sathya Sai Baba). Andries (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • how does placing newspaper ads, even "all over the world", satisfy WP:CORP? At all? dab (𒁳) 13:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, I admit I did not read it well, but it certainly satisfies WP:N according to the first sentence: "it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", as the references of the article prove. Andries (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Sources appear to be O.K. Article needs better footnoting to sort out what's really in the sources and what is not, but deletion is not the answer to this problem, IMO. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Passes notability. asenine ^{say what?} 09:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but remove all the unsourced Bible discussion and find better sources. This group is rather notable in the development of the New Age movement. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Benjamin Creme. Share International is notable in the New Age movement as the group which placed newspaper ads around the world proclaiming a New Age Christ has arrived, but whether this is actually a "group" as opposed to a one-man show is in question. It is one of several such groups founded by Benjamin Creme, all of whose notability is one and the same as Benjamin Creme's notability and perhaps best consolidated into a single article about Creme and his activities. Changing vote from the above "keep". KleenupKrew (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It is certainly not a one man show. Share International has local offices in among others London and Amsterdam. I have seen the one in Amsterdam. Nevertheless, I admit that merging increases maintainability. Andries (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or do a major rewrite - The nom is correct that this article has serious issues with WP:CORP and WP:N as well as having WP:V and WP:OR problems. If the group has indeed had an impact on the developement of the New Age movement, that fact needs to be stated in the article and there should be far more reliable sources that discuss that impact. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The main claim to notability seems to be a 1988 The Sunday Times article. In any case merge with Benjamin Creme. dab (𒁳) 13:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or major rewrite as per Blueboar's points, and if we keep it seriously needs to be merged with the Creme article.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep as a notable subject but badly written article. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Benjamin Creme - there are thousands of people in over 40 countries that support Share International and the work of Benjamin Creme. To suggest that it may be a one-man show, is uninformed. Jon33 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Blueboar, or alternatively merge as per Dbachmann Jimfbleak (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article is nothing more than blatant advertising intended as promotion for Share International. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That is a ridiculous allegation when the article contains sourced statements like "These beliefs and claims have been described as fantastic and outlandish by the British journalist Mick Brown.", and "Some Christian pastors maintain that the Share International version of Maitreya is the Anti-Christ." Andries (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Really? The article was already speedy deleted on those grounds, and all you did was restore it. The article, as a whole, is written in a way intended to attract attention to, and promote, Share International, and it has nothing encyclopedic about it. I call that blatant advertising. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, I did more than just restoring it, but you may have missed that. I added sourced criticisms. Andries (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I will be happy to let the other editors who are participating in this AfD to read the article and judge for themselves if it is blatant advertising. (NB: If you want to argue about this further, it might be better to put that on the talk page.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am the only one who is active on the talk page until now and I agree with you that that is where the discussion should take place, so please come there too. Andries (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as a notable subject but badly written article. Afd is not for cleanup, if you think the article is an advert/original research etc then use the tags {{original research}} {{advert}} as that's what they are for, or if you have the time change the tone so it's not advertising and/or remove the WP:OR. SunCreator (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • on what grounds do you judge it is "notable"? A 20 year old newspaper article? dab (𒁳) 07:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A quick read of WP:N reminds me that Notability is not temporary. SunCreator (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This editor did not read the article, and was annoyed that I suggested he should! [8] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey, I was not annoyed! The nominators issue is with notability, having found that it's notable, that is enough. SunCreator (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The subject is notable as is proven for example by the sourced statement that Creme's statement served as catalyst to the Christian Evangelicals to make up their minds about the New Age movement. Also the extensive and in depth treatment by the British journalist Mick Brown. Andries (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand There seem to be plenty of sources available for such article: [9]. If these sources, after being evaluated, are not sufficient, the article can be redirected as proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What I see in your link to googlebooks is two or three self published volumes, and a book by Lee Penn that was controversial when proposed as a source in the Alice Bailey article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - the feeling simply won't go away that we are being taken for a ride here. One Sunday Times article is insufficient for notability and the rest of the references are essentially self-published. I remain unconvinced about the notability of the organisation. TerriersFan (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Rest of the references are essentially self-published? You are completely mistaken. Andries (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • TerriersFan, only one of 22 references is self-published. Please explain how an article published by the Free university Amsterdam press is "essentially self-published". Andries (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree, comment withdrawn. TerriersFan (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Andries, every book that you use for a source is a compilation, which mentions Share International in a by-the-way manner. Never is Creme, or his so-called organization, discussed in a serious manner, or is it presented as truly influential in the New Age movement (or any other movement). Share International gets the attention that it does only because Creme is wealthy and can afford to pay for newspaper ads, press conferences, and can pay for publishing the Share International journal and site. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Untrue, the book by Mick Brown gives an in depth treatment. pages 6-25 and pages 250-260. Andries (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Mick Brown's book, The Spiritual Tourist: A Personal Odyssey Through the Outer Reaches of Belief, does not give an "in depth treatment" of anything, and particularly not of Creme and Share International. The book is not a scholarly study, but intended as an impressionistic account of some strange and amusing aspects of the New Age. Brown makes it clear that he considers Creme's claims bazaar, and considers him fascinating but not important. It is not necessary for anyone who is interested to take my word for it because Amazon.com makes this book searchable [10], so all that is necessary is to enter "creme" in the search box. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Your statement that Creme is wealthy is not supported by a reliable source. Andries (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• [11] seems more credible than anything in the entire, laughable, article. What seems incredible is Wikipedia allowing, and editors actually discussing keeping, an article of that nature and that quality. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think you or I should place a request on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Even if this article is deleted our dispute will not go away but simply continued at Benjamin Creme. Andries (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Your angry reaction about this surprises me. Benjamin Creme's willingness to fund Share International, as something he believes in; seems very admirable, and makes me respect his sincerity (although that makes the article no better). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Mick Brown (journalist) is convinced about his sincerity. You do not have to be rich to place once is 30 year large advertisements in newspapers. Andries (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• This article has now 29-2=27 notes to 8 7 different reliable 3rd party sources. This must be better than more than 95% of the other Wikipedia articles. Andries (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Note from relisting admin: Article has changed substantially since most of the above discussion took place. I am relisting it so the discussion can center on the article as it currently stands.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:34, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Howard (author)

Chris Howard (author) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable writer who's published a couple of non-notable short stories and one non-notable book. Faills WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:BK, WP:V, etc. Notability not even asserted. Qworty (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Winner of the Heinlein Centennial Writing Contest[12]. Pburka (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. He won in the "Amateur Division," hardly a notable distinction. You'll find that just about every little writers' conference or get-together out there likes to give out "certificates" and "awards" like candy. While some of these pieces of candy have impressive-sounding names, there really isn't any notability to them by WP standards. Qworty (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Winner of the Heinlein Centennial Writing Contest, Amateur Division. Heinlein Centennial was not a "little writers' conference or get-together" there is some notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Are you seriously suggesting that somebody who wins a short-story contest in an amateur division is suddenly a notable author? That is not what WP notability for authors is all about. Please read WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The only real claim to notability at this point is the contest, and I can find no evidence that this one-time event with a $175 prize and publication via PDF has any notability itself. That link is the single independent search result listing winners, and it's barely more than an announcement. Notability to come. --Dhartung | Talk 00:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Award is minor; novel has not even been released yet; entry is sole contribution by user NoahWesler. --Thetrick (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Dhartung's link to details on the writing competition he won, there is clearly no notability there of the sort requested by WP:CREATIVE. --Stormie (talk) 23:52, 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 delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeless Productions

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

A not notable music project founded in February 2007. Only reference is a bebo link, no coverage in news or books. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RS. --Eustress (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 07:03, 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 delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Awakening

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

The band doesn't obviously meet notability criteria. It was created by a representative of the band. A web search for "Online Music Awards" "third awakening" yields only two pages, both by the band themselves. Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per nomination. Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC for bands. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 06:25, 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 Speedy Delete SirFozzie (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kilmarnock Central

Creator of article has been blocked for sockpuppetting, was user User:Bennet556 SirFozzie (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable block of flats. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• 'Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. --Eustress (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Creator of article has been blocked for sockpuppetting, was user User:Bennet556 (amongst others) SirFozzie (talk) 00:06, 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 delete --JForget 00:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy of Johns Hopkins

Legacy of Johns Hopkins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was written as an essay and duplicates information already found in Johns Hopkins and in the other articles that reflect the "legacy" (Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins Hospital, etc.). -- Atama^chat 21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (I originally prodded, but this is fine). NawlinWiki (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant information and non-encyclopediac writing. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete essay Ultra! 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - obviously no more than an essay, also presents no more information than found in Johns Hopkins. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete because it is no more than an essay. Happyme22 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Would there be any reason for a slight merge and redirect of the reliably sourced material to Johns Hopkins#The legacy of Johns Hopkins? -- saberwyn 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge — Any reliably sourced statement in this article that's relevant to John Hopkins#The legacy of Johns Hopkins and not already there, should be merged there. (I added a Ref section to the article so that the sourced statements are viewable.) Rosiestep (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, subject matter is boosterish rather than encyclopedic; any unique material should go in other articles and be linked to from biographical article; article not even properly wikified, and that no one has bothered to make even this rudimentary fix-up since the article was AfD nominated does not speak well to its prospects for future improvement. Robert K S (talk) 05:03, 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 00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Juicee News Daily

Juicee News Daily (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only claim to notability is breaking two stories quickly. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it, especially without any reliable sources. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Moderate delete If it were formated closer to Wikipedia's standards, I might consider otherwise, but for the most part I don't see anything particularly notable about it. The bigger problem, IMO, is the non-encyclopediac writing in some places, the trivia-type section, what appears to be vandalism, etc. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:HOAX. At first glance I can't find anything via google and the website link on the article goes to a page full of adverts, see [13]. Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Interesting fact; the site doesn't exist now and leads to a linkfarm. As for these claims it broke news? Anyone with novice RSS knowledge can whip up a news site using feeds and get the story from someone else unrelated to them, which seems like what they did to get those scoops all the way from Alabama. As unnotable as our old friend The Post-Chronicle. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Article states this website was created by the webmaster for his high school friends. Website is now down and goes to a link farm. Fails WP:WEB by a long shot, how this article survived since 2005 without anyone noticing is anyone's guess. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. While this site did once exist as a news aggregator, I can't find any evidence that it broke the stories mentioned in this article or any other nationally reported news, or that it was ever as popular or significant as this article claims. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 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 speedy deleted, apparently first under G4 by Orangemike and then G7 by Lectonar. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NeoAxis Engine

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

Non-notable software. Not out of alpha, not in use anywhere. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I see this article was deleted a few months ago and it appears no more notable than last time. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case Speedy Delete per G4, recreated material, unless the article is substantially different. Tagged it for such. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:52, 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. Noticeably, most of the keep "votes" are from IPs or single-purpose accounts. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nexus (novel)

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

We deleted this in 2006 - see this AfD on crystal ball grounds. It has now been published but I don't see much evidence of notability. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability on following grounds:
1. The book relates with other books in the mind-body-spirit genre in both style and content, including "The Celestine Prophecy," "The Peaceful Warrior" series and books by Carlos Castaneda.
[These other books have an article on Wikipedia. So the article on Nexus (novel) would link nicely with them.]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.158.128 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 2. The book has a strong and steady following among spiritual readers particularly in the UK (please check Richard & Judy Book discussion) and in Canada.
3. The book deals with a number of hot topics that are popular, including depression, spirituality and meditation.
What do you consider as evidence of notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al192 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reliable, published sources independant of the author(s) or publisher that can be used to verify/prove the contents of the article and demonstrate that the book passes the notability inclusion guidelines for books. You should look at the policies and guidelines for WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Notability (books). -- saberwyn 04:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I made a concerted effort to find something notable online about this book. There's nothing in google news. I can find no reliable sources in a Google search. Their publisher, Manor House, has a website linked from the book article, but it doesn't seem to have been updated since last year. I can't find anything online about this company, I don't know if they're a reputable publisher or a self-publisher. If somebody can verify that this is a reputable publisher, please let me know. The book itself is over 300,000 on the amazon sellers' list. If somebody can provide reliable sources, I will come back here and change my mind. Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It looks as though Corvus and I were running the same searches at the same time. I found no reliable independent sources at all—just blogs, message boards, and outfits selling the book. The one review cited in the article is from "an online forum for volunteer reviewers," which doesn't sound any more reliable than an Amazon review. Fails WP:Notability (books). Deor (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This book is not a bestseller at this stage, therefore you will not find it reviewed in major places such as newspapers, magazines, journals, etc. For those unfamiliar with spiritual book marketplace, most of these publications rarely make it to conventional media outlets, since they are generally not discussed unless they built a large following after which they receive some limited press coverage. "The Secret," "The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari," "The Celestine Prophecy" and other have rarely receive much media attention until after they became hugely successful. "The Secret" actually first spread due to virial online marketing. The book's sales number in Amazon UK at present are 44,297 and 51,972 in Amazon Canada. The book seems to have steady and growing sales since I have tracked it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.45.155 (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Manorhouse Publishing (MHP) is small to medium, independent publisher in Ancaster, Ontario (Canada). It has published and distributed books Worldwide through its distribution channels. While relatively small, this is NOT a self-publishing or vanity press. It's a creditable Canadian publisher with some promising titles, "Nexus" is its highest selling title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoDaddy (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC) — WhoDaddy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete based on current content. Being in the same genre as some prominent books is not enough to establish notability. After all, the genre presumably includes books ranging from the extremely notable to the non-notable. However, even if this novel is not being considered for review in general interest newspapers and magazines, there are professionally published magazines that take a particular interest in this sort of spirituality. If this novel has been reviewed by such magazines, that would help toward establishing notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It has been reviewed by Belief.net (the largest faith site on the net), by Alive magazine (the largest free health magazine in Canada), The Hamilton Spectator (a daily newspaper), The Toronto Star (one of Canada's largest dailies) and a few other notable print sources, which I will need to recheck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoDaddy (talk • contribs) 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Struck out double !vote by SPA. Deor (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, it may need some work here and there, but it is full length article with book image and other things that give notability. Also, per above reason. -- AmericanEagle 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What "other things" give notability? Corvus cornix_talk 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep sigh. Whilst I think it's a trashy novel, I can't see a policy reason to delete it. I did remove a bit of text that I thought was WP:POV, but apart from that, it seems legit. --  Chzz  ►  18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Legit how? The keep !voters are not explaining where they find any reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete An utterly non-notable book--there are only 5 copies in US/Canadian libraries, which for what is supposed to be a popular sort of book is as unpopular and insignificant as possible. But I knew it would come out to that without searching, because the first paragraph talks about how it is similar to 3 other actually notable books, thus giving a specious appearance of blue links and having something to say, the so-called "review" of the book is in something called "Reader's Bookwatch" in "Midwest Book Review", a PR publication of the small press community. The external links" are to books that are listed as references in this book, making it clear that not only is there nothing at all to be said, but not even anything real to link to. And defended here as "not a bestseller at this stage, therefore you will not find it reviewed in major places". A possible speedy as G11, promotional, except it will be good to have a easy way to remove re-creations as G4. Undoubtedly worse books have become best-sellers & notable, but it does not follow that all bad books are notable. DGG (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. According to its website, the publisher's last scheduled event was on 11/19/06. From what I've heard here, read in the article, and found myself, the only claims to notability are tangential: a sometimes-notable book genre and thin associations with Dan Millman and James Redfield. Until this book can generate enough notability to provide reliable 3rd-party coverage, I'd say it doesn't belong in WP. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability should not entirely rest on popularity of a work because what is popular at a given time is not always what is notable. Those looking to delete this book are looking only at popularity not on how this title adds to overall debate and understanding on Wiki. I don't think Wiki enteries should only promote what is considered popular or elevated according to critics, rather the focus needs to be on enteries that add to the discussion on Wiki. I believe this article qualifies as adding to understanding on Wiki and therefore it needs to be kept. Wiki must not become a closed place where only popular enteries are permitted or ones that satisfy critics. While this book isn't popular at this point, it seems to have a following among spiritual readers in the UK and Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritualBookLover (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • — SpiritualBookLover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix_talk 19:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Where have I even once mentioned popularity, other than to note the book's sales figures from amazon? My concerns are with its notability, and until such a time as reliable sources are provided, there is no notability proven. Corvus cornix_talk 19:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete notability and reliable sources are lacking. Most all of the keeps are apparent SPAs. Dimitrii (talk) 03:57, 26 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 20:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] H.I.M. (History In Making)

H.I.M. (History In Making) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced information; can be recreated later on but with sources. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Will make a come-back in 2010? What a load of balls. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Article about album that has not been released. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 06:26, 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 speedy deleted for copyvio--I could not see an easy way of reducing to a non-copyvio stub. No prejudice against a proper original article. DGG (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National hispana leadership institute

National hispana leadership institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

copyright violation http://www.nhli.org/about.htm Ultra! 21:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, no need for an AfD. Corvus cornix_talk 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a copyvio. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete so tagged. JuJube (talk) 02:10, 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, kudos for rewrite. Singularity 20:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yves Gérard

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

This bio is fictitious.

The article Yves Gérard is the only contribution of User:Crunchochango made by December 31th, 2007. At the same day user Crunchochango wrote at livejournal.com:

Yves Gérard goes live. I repeat, Yves Gérard is a go. Let me tell you a little story; one night a bored Karsten and Tim were wasting time listening to music when someone wondered aloud who Boccherini's contemporaries were. A short trip to wikipedia later, we had our answer. Well, would of had our answer if I hadn't insisted on doing a "dramatic reading" of the text (I screamed all the hyper-links. Yes, it is good to be my roommates!) Three quarters of the way through my reading, I noticed the name of Yves Gérard was red... yes, this poor man had no one to tell his tale. Until now. After probably at least six hours of brainstorming and research, Tim and I have completed the 100% fictitious account of the life and times of Yves Gérard. To truly enjoy our achievement to the fullest, I recommend you do the following. 1. Start here, with the original Boccherini article, moving on to old Yvesy when you come to him. 2. Keep track of how old he is throughout his adventures. 3. Check out our sources. And finally, check it out soon, because this thing could be axed at any point. I'd also ask that you leave it for now as it is, pristine and beautiful.

So, I guess, the whole article is fake (except the fact that french musicologist Yves Gérard exactly is the author of complete catalogue of works of Luigi Bocherini). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax. Sigh. That's been there for four and a half months :~( I did find this mention of him here, but I don't have access to JSTOR, and I cannot otherwise find sources that make me think we should re-write the article at this time. Excellent catch by the nominator, and no prejudice to creating a proper article if the subject is actually notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• G3 Obvious hoaxness. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten Rewrite to be about the real person and you'll have a decent biographical article to meet WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep De-hoax and start a real article. This is a real person with an entry in Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Dekkappai (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A Google-search turns up articles at The New York Times.[14] He was named professor of musicology at the Paris Conservatoire, in 1975[15] ("generous historian of international distinction - an alumnus of the Conservatoire, a researcher at the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), and a soon-to-be president of the Societe francaise de musicologie"), etc... Dekkappai (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no doubts that he's notable. But I haven't be able to find sufficient info at open access. Would be glad if anybody have a chance to rewrite. But I could find only some bibliography [16] (it is clear that for most of these books Gérard actually was editor or compiler, not the author himself). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I know little about this area, but the consensus atm is that he's is in fact notable, so I've stricken my delete !vote. I'll ask for help in providing sources to make a stub. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Also, unless someone else beats me to it, I'll be happy to take a stab at starting the article tomorrow. I've got access to the Grove article on him, which will make a good start. Dekkappai (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete this article. The hoax should not be in its history. Then rewrite it as a real article. JuJube (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the article about the hoax person and start over with a properly referenced article about the real one. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I still oppose deleting it. This would be an extreme measure when far worse exists in the edit-histories of many articles, not to mention talk pages. With the hoax still up and present, I feel a sense of urgency to rewrite it, and I'll try to do so within the hour. If it's gone, I, for one, will probably put it off indefinitely. Dekkappai (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment OK-- I've started a real article on the guy. Dekkappai (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment And you've finished it. Keep this entirely new version (excellent work Dekka!) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, Xymmax! Dekkappai (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as rewritten of course. though I'm not quite sure why we didn't delete and then write a new articleDGG (talk) 03:27, 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 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Charleston

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Charleston (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

advert? Ultra! 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment it's not written clearly but are gov't contractors notable? There appears to be RS coverage. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not a contractor, it's a U.S. Navy organization. We can discuss whether the organization is sufficiently notable to have its own article, but since the nominator did not challenge the article on this ground, I'll wait to see if that truly is at issue. Just for comparison, here's the article for an equivalent organization. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment thanks for clarifying. I'm not too familiar with military orgs. The article does have a promotional tone but I think it can be re-wrotten based on what I found by someone who understands their role and function. I tried but their website confused me. So yes, my !vote is keep based on the info provided by Xymmax. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Military installation/organization, automatically notable. MrPrada (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but the article could use some clean up and additional references. Happyme22 (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite to make NPOV and remove the promotional language. As it stands the article reads like an advertisement. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:32, 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. Singularity 20:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viv Baldwin

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

Very minor soap character. Appeared on and off for 2 years in a 45-year-lasting soap opera. Article contains mo real world information except (actor's name and years of appearances). Fails WP:N. Fails guidelines per WP:FICTION and WP:SOAPS. Magioladitis (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable fancruft. JuJube (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of reliable third-party sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:N. Jakew (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)]
• Delete. Definitely non-notable. If this article stays on Wikipedia, every minor fictional actor would merit a spot here. Artene50 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of characters from Coronation Street, there are already several minor characters listed there, seems the appropriate place for an article containing nothing other than actor's name and years of appearances, that's exactly the detail that List contains. --Stormie (talk) 23:59, 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 Speedy Keep as bad-faith nom; nominator is going through hellfire and brimstone to try and get this page nuked and is even going so far as to edit others' opinions to support his. Note that this does not preclude a good-faith nomination later. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical joke

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

This article is one big pile of original research. The first link that shows up on google for "mathematical humor" or mathematical joke is a professor webpage at the University of Utah. It is not a well-established type of humor like "knock knock jokes" or the "one-liner" and so, likely does not deserve its own page. Just to compare, the "That's what she said" joke does not have it's own article. I recommend a merge to Joke, Humor, or American humor. WhatsUpPussycat? (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. WhatsUpPussycat? (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • — WhatsUpPussycat? (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Question Is your vote delete or merge? We can't do both. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree with the premise that something has to be as well known as knock-knock jokes to merit an article. We'd have to delete most of this encyclopedia if that were true. The Google argument doesn't hold any water either. Whole books have been written about mathematical humor - check Amazon. It's true that the article has many problems (references among them), but it passes general notability guidelines. – jaksmata 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and verifiable subject. `'Míkka>t 22:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to see the article kept since I believe it's a notable enough topic: however, the current references don't really demonstrate this. If the decision is to merge it should be to humour or joke; America has no monopoly on mathematicians or their humour. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It is a common and sad problem with wikipedia articles on humor: while jokers are abound in wikipedia, rarely they want to take a scholar approach. I compiled a huge List of publications in humor research, but no one seems to make any use it, and I am quite busy in wikipedia with other even more useless jobs and can only occasionally come back to humor. `'Míkka>t 01:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough topic. Article could use review by someone familiar with the subject to make sure the content is limited to notable and verifiable jokes, and weed out any original research. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If mathematical joke deserves a page, then there might as well be pages for animal humor, or humor in other fields of study. It simply does not belong as its own page. If it is not deleted, it should be shortened greatly and merged with American humor, I doubt most even makes sense in other languages due to heavy reliance on puns. AboriginalDuck (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC) — AboriginalDuck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • A-Duck's very first edit. While his first sentence make sense (anything can go asl nog as well referenced), the last two ones are heavily misguided. `'Míkka>t 01:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • While it may be my first edit, I think my comment should stand on its own merit-- the language and cultural barrier makes it difficult for non-Americans to understand, I would be more than content with merging it with joke, but I thought American humor might be more fitting. AboriginalDuck (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Speaking as one of the 30 to 50% of native English speakers who doesn't live in the US, I don't have any difficulty understanding these jokes due to cultural differences. Unless there's any evidence Americans make more maths jokes than other people, I don't think it's a good place for it. After all, would we make pun a subsection of that page (assuming it wasn't given one of its own) simply because puns made in American English are confusing to a Frenchman? Olaf Davis | Talk 07:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think mathematical humour does qualify as more notable in its own right than say animal humour: it uses particular esoteric references and has relation to ideas of mathematical aesthetics, whereas I think most animal jokes are more 'mainstream' jokes which happen to have animals as their subject. Again though, the current article does a poor job of asserting this. Olaf Davis | Talk 07:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It meets notability guidelines, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, who hasn't heard this joke? Here are a couple referenced found using Google News(set to "all dates"): Math and humor: the connection, Math jokes in adult cartoons, Math = cool(available to registered(free) users, only). I'm sure more exist. Why was six afraid of seven?, Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 04:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. The article needs improvements, but I think the topic is certainly worthy of Wikipedia and the article is at least some progress towards what it should ultimately be. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable subject. Has some sources. Could use some more, but AfD is not cleanup. Nominator has very short edit history and their argument amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As to the absurd idea that this is somehow American humour - don't make me laugh ! Gandalf61 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly a notable topic (as has been pointed out, books have been written about it). Yes, it probably needs cleanup to ensure that all listed jokes have reliable third-party sources, but that's not a reason for deletion. Klausness (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously it's not original research since most of these are things that everybody's heard and has been hearing for decades. They're mostly fairly lame, but they're part of the culture. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, I hope you're not calling the abelian grape joke lame. Because that's the funniest joke ever. Klausness (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The nominator attempted to close this AfD as delete while changing other editor's votes (did they think no-one would notice ???). I suggest this has become a bad-faith nomination and should now be speedily closed as keep. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:37, 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 CSD A7. — iridescent 23:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Omar Stephenson

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

Real person; doesn't indicate importance Ultra! 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Article has been tagged for speedy deletion under CSD A7. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Not notable. Any weak claims to notability (performed at Royal Albert Hall) are unverifiable. Pburka (talk) 23:18, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scot24news

Scot24news (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are too many news sites to list them all. This seems particularly unnotable as it is a citizen journalism effort; most of these aren't. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete When I looked for sources for this site, the only information I could find was from sites that aren't very reliable sources. Therefore, it fails the notability guidelines for websites (all three parts of it). When looking for sources, I could not find one mention of any major awards that it has won. Razorflame 19:27, 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 delete. Singularity 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle Long

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

Delete. Unsourced article about an amateur soccer player, fails WP:ATHLETE and general biographical guidelines for inclusion. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Possible hoax? Doesn't even appear on team roster. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not a hoax - he DOES play for the Kings (http://www.uslsoccer.com/teams/2008/roster/2466028.html), but he's definitely not notable yet. --JonBroxton (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:06, 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, defaults to keep. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop Doss

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

Contested prod. Essentially an autobiography, no real notability asserted, certainly nothing that suggests notability guidelines are met. Paulbrock (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, I'm not sure but this might be possible to speedy delete. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Cleanup and move to Joe Morris Doss. He's a bishop, which pretty much infers automatic notability. Furthermore, his diocese represented 64000 people, and he's received extensive news coverage, e.g. this article in the New York Times. Pburka (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep & rename per Pburka. Also, see Google News and Google Books for other possible sources. Jakew (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I admit to searching only under "Bishop Doss", so missed the references cited. Am I right in thinking a lot of the significant coverage is over his resignation though? Maybe the events surrounding that are notable.... Paulbrock (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think they probably are notable, and should be included in this article. Pburka (talk) 02:09, 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. Ty 01:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sonia Hansman

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

Non notable artist. Hasn't won any award DimaG (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication of notability, no news coverage. Pburka (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, sole reference is to personal web site. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 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 deleted by User:Versageek--JForget 00:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghotit

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

Not notable web site DimaG (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

coroberti (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Unclear, what is the intention. Web-sites can explain, what they are doing, including the problems, that they are solving. References provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coroberti (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep as the topic is notable, but additional, in-text citations are needed. Happyme22 (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In text citations added. References to other wikipedia pages as well. References for general background improved. --Coroberti (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam that needs to be entirely rewritten. Did anyone even read it?--Otterathome (talk) 21:21, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Hadler

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

While I dislike AfDing a page shortly after creation, this subject fails WP:BIO. There are no reliable sources proffered, and with Google as a judge none are likely to turn up. Creator is an SPA (User:Jesshadler) who has also just created an article for her personal brokerage.  RGTraynor  19:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, typical vanity page. Rob Banzai (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I would have thought, under the non-notable biography option. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete still appears to be an option, at least in my book. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete pres/CEO claim probably avoids speedy but there's no evidence amid false positives that she's notable _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not seeing any coverage of the company, let alone Ms. Hadler. Ergo, "this is vanity, and it is a grievous ill" (Ecclesiastes 6:2). AnturiaethwrTalk 21:56, 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 Redirected to Black Mesa Research Facility. Anything that needs to be merged can go there (not much, I think). Black Kite 20:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Mesa East

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

Unlike the case of the Black Mesa Research Facility, this fictional location in the Half-Life 2 game is not notable. The article admits that gamers are unsure of whether or not this is the eastern part of the Black Mesa Research Facility or in Eastern Europe. No substantial coverage found in Google Books, News nor Scholar searches. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Potential Merge into a Locations in the Half-Life series (see the AFD for Black Mesa Research Facility). --MASEM 04:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Plot summary of a non-notable location which has not been covered substantially by sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- no salvageable information for a merge, and have found no significant coverage in archives and web searches. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Black Mesa Research Facility per the editing policy to preserve information. Wikipedia is not paper. WP:N is supposed to be treated with common sense, not blind totalitarian obedience. --Pixelface (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Black Mesa Research Facility. There's not much additional here, and the other article is the more extensive one, anyway. Xihr (talk) 21:37, 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 19:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiFur

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

This website appears to lack non-trivial coverage by independent third party publishers, failing WP:WEB and WP:N guidelines. It should also be noted that this article has been deleted twice as a result of two previous deletion debates, but has since been re-created despite the consensus of the community. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and salt per the rationale provided in my nomination above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Since the prior deletion we have been used as a reference (indeed, as their first reference, for the definition of furry fandom itself) by a published third-party peer-reviewed academic source (see Nast in the reflist). Four localization projects have also been started, though I appreciate this indicates popularity more than notability. GreenReaper (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Redirect to Furry fandom. With a few minutes of searching I was able to locate two references to Wikifur, one in a Canadian newspaper [17], and one in a college newspaper [18]. Both were more recent than the previous AfD. I can probably find others if I keep looking. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

On further reflection, the references to date are not really sufficient to qualify for notability at this time. There is still a definite possibility the website may become notable enough to qualify within the foreseeable future, and with a redirect in place, good faith attempts to recreate the article by persons not familiar with it's history could be more easily dealt with (and I don't think anyone involved in this discussion is going to try recreating it before it has substantially better references and notability). --Mwalimu59 (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Addendum: Strongly oppose salting, even if the decision for now is to delete. References that may satisfy WP:WEB and WP:N are becoming more frequent, and even if it is decided that the ones currently present are not sufficient, that may well change in the future as additional references become available. It should not be assumed that because the article was found to be lacking notability in the past that that is still the case, or that it will continue to be the case in the future. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

    I'm actually in the progress of replying to a set of interview questions sent to me from a third-party (non-furry) website wishing to cover WikiFur (specifically) and the furry fandom. I'm not sure whether Wikipedia would consider that a reliable source, since I'm the source of replies, but it's something to keep in mind. GreenReaper (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Consensus has already spoken on this subject twice. Keeping now would render the AfD processes and consensus policies meaningless. Xihr (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  And salt. The others are right; that this article keeps popping up despite consensus suggests strongly that it should be put to bed. Xihr (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  Are you saying that consensus cannot change based on new evidence? The last AfD was held in 2006, and strongly contested even then. Both the substantive use as a reference and the two news articles given by mwalimu date from after that point. GreenReaper (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  Since I never said that, no, I'm not saying that. You simply haven't demonstrated anywhere near enough evidence that it is actually notable now -- and since it's gone through two AfDs were delete and twice the article was recreated against consensus. By the way, why are you !voting in an AfD for a site you founded? Xihr (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  Your wording implied that the sole reason for your decision was the prior consensus. If it was not, that's fine, but more clear wording would have been better. As for participating in this discussion, why not? My affiliation is quite clear on my user page. For what it's worth, I didn't think it should be kept the first time it was deleted - and I said as much - but I do now. This is an article with verifiable information on a website that has been noted by third parties as a reference within its topic area. GreenReaper (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep per User:Mwalimu59's sources; seems to just barely meet WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, may not be similar enough for a G4, but there's still no proof that it meets WP:RS (I misinterpreted a source). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (G4). Consensus has deemed this website to be non-notable on two separate occasions. The article cited by Mwalimu59 makes no mention of WikiFur at all, not even a trivial one, other than a link to the site. External links != reliable sources. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: User:GreenReaper just mentioned the AfD on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry talk page.[19] Votestacking or not, keep that in mind for the flood of keeps that's sure to follow. Xihr (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  This is the WikiProject dedicated to improving articles on the furry fandom. WikiFur is an article on the furry fandom that is apparently in need of improvement. What is your point? WP:CANVASS says that making neutrally worded notices on a WikiProject is the right thing to do. I have made no comments outside of Wikipedia, as this is a Wikipedia matter. GreenReaper (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• speedy delete they are non-notable independently of furry. Wikifur have their own wiki where they can advertise or write about themselves. Sticky Parkin 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt as re-creation of a twice deleted article. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  This is not the same article as the one that was deleted the first time. The article was recreated in good faith by a furry fan who (I think) had never edited it before. A substantive reference was added, along with many other tweaks and updates. Salting this page indicates to me that you think it will never be an appropriate encyclopedic topic, and I find it hard to understand why that is the case. GreenReaper (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  Deletion discussions have already twice concluded the topic is insufficiently notable for an article, and that it was re-created a third time is sufficient reason to salt. Deletion should be based on whether or not the topic warrants an article, not on the content of the article; if the topic has twice been deemed insufficiently notable it shouldn't matter that the content of the third re-creation is different, the topic is still not notable. Salting is not necessarily permanent, an article can always be unsalted by an admin should this non-notable wiki ever become notable enough in the future for an article (highly doubtful, but you never know.) Wikis are a dime a dozen and I can count the ones notable enough for an article on two hands. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  My understanding is that any specific deletion is always based on the current state of the article, at the closing of a deletion discussion. If an article is not able to meet verifiability concerns at that time, then it is deleted, whether or not it theoretically could. I guess I find it hard to understand why the additional reference, which both cites WikiFur as "an extensive website set up by and for furries to represent furry culture and history" and goes on to rely on it to outline the fandom, is - if not sufficient evidence for notability now - at least evidence that it is getting to that point and should not be thrown onto the "assumed non-notable" pile. If it was such a close thing last time, why is it so far now that it would take a huge change to become notable? GreenReaper (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: and protect the title. Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no substantial coverage to suggest notability.--Otterathome (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Given the current trend in this AfD compared to the previous one, juxtaposed with the observation that the previous AfD was a close call and the article has better references this time around than it did then, I find myself wondering why that is the case. There are three possiblities I can think of. First is that the judgments expressed this time are based in large part simply on the fact that it's been AfD'ed before and the reviewers are predisposed to vote for deletion without examining as critically as might be whether the article has better references or the subject has become more notable since the previous AfD. Second is that the bar has gone up over the last year or two; what might have passed muster a year or two ago with regard to references and notability is no longer good enough. Third is that it is simply a result of who contributed, because let's face it sometimes the outcome of a particular AfD could go either way depending on who knows about it and decides to weigh in (and it seems ironic that the flood of keeps from supporters that User:Xihr warned about has not materialized). --Mwalimu59 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  This line of reasoning doesn't make any sense. The result of both of the previous AfDs was delete, so no "bar" is going up here. The topic in question has never been deemed worthy of keeping in any AfD process. Xihr (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse salt. In the interest in assuming good faith, I will not comment on whether or not any canvassing took place here, but it is clear to me that the only two motions to keep are coming from people who hold a personal stake in the WikiFur project. (jarbarf) (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Even though I edited this article (added a Category tag), my categorization should not indicate an endorsement of its topic. There are zero substantial sources for this article. There are only two trivial sources mentioning the subject in passing. The other sources are *.wikia.org or the like, and cannot be considered as WP:RS. Any basis with which to build this article clearly does not exist, even after it became apparent to editors that reliable sources were required. Therefore the article itself does not belong in Wikipedia. Quatloo (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep based on available references. The information could be merged into Wikia but would clutter that article by creating a severe imbalance, with far more detailed coverage of one Wikia project than of others. I note in passing my surprise at the hostility expressed toward re-opening a previous AfD. The last one was in late 2006. It's been fairly well established that an AfD decision is not carved in stone; the attacks on the Daniel Brandt article finally succeeded on the fourteenth try. When a Wikipedian wants us to revisit a topic after more than a year, based on a good-faith assertion of changed circumstances, people can of course disagree on the merits but shouldn't be so dismissive on procedural grounds. JamesMLane t c 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  Nothing about the pages notability has changed, so no, a new AfD was not warranted. As for your example, the fact that an AfD failed thirteen times in a row and then succeeded on the fourteenth isn't indicative to me that consensus changed or that notability changed, but rather that all you have to do if you want an article deleted is keep bringing it up for nomination, and eventually you will succeed. Xihr (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  None of the sources in the article are substantial from a secondary source, so easily fails WP:WEB without a second thought.--Otterathome (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment You say 'keep based on available references.' Can you provide one single, reliable source, nontrivial reference? I ask because I don't think one exists. Your argument is therefore null. Quatloo (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral With a username like mine, you'd probably think I'd choose Keep, but no. My request is not to salt. It would be useful as a redirect, and there's no reason to think it can't get sufficient coverage in the future. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:25, 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. Anyone wanting the content to merge into the list can drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zoe Tattersall

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

Delete no indication that this unsourced one-liner about a soap opera character is notable. WP is not a guide to minor characters on soap operas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not notable and I don't believe this withstands WP:FICT either. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of multiple reliable sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:N. Jakew (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to List of characters from Coronation Street. The search term could be valuable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment- Zoe Tattersall is part of the Category:Coronation Street characters, 236 pages on that category. Whatever happens to this article should establish precendent to all 235 other pages that remained on that category.

Why are we going to keep Matt Ramsden for example?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:49, 26 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 16:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bible Society in New Zealand

Bible Society in New Zealand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's one major concern: it doesn't become clear, either from the article, from internet or from the organisation's own press clippings, that this is a notable organisation. There is not a single indication that this organisation meets WP:ORG. Furthermore, the article is written from the perspective of the Bible Society, it's written like a personal homepage or profile, in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete coverage appears limited to the accomplishments of the former president, rather than the org itself. There's no evidence of its notability _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Keep I apparently didn't look hard enough. I still don't think the appointment of a new CEO establishes notability or the fact that a Bible was used in aboriginal communities is relevant (no one is debating thr notability of the Bible here) but the book establishes enough notability since it doesn't appear self-published _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS. --Eustress (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Books on the history of the Bible Society were published in 1946 and 1996. I found listings for them in the catalogue of the National Library of New Zealand. I also added some newspaper articles. In my view, notability has been established. --Eastmain (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I wanted to mention another point which applies to bible societies in general. For many aboriginal languages, the first printed book has been a bible or excerpts from it. Bible societies often played an important role in printing and distributing aboriginal-language bibles, and continue to do so today. --Eastmain (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep based on Eastmain's efforts. GRBerry 00:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep there is a book called The Bible and the Bible Society in New Zealand on this subject. There is also a history of the society published by the society but apparently written by an independant historian : "A Sesquicentennial History of the Bible Society in New Zealand". There are news article in reliable sources covering the appointment of a new CEO in 2006, about a rugby-related bible campaign by the society, and about the society distributing 60,000 bibles in 2001-2002 which was 3/4 of bibles distributed and kept them the best-selling book in New Zealand. The first book and those three news articles combined demonstrate notability, and the second book is likely to be a reliable source of encyclopedic information. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Apparently notable society, has been around since 1845, referenced. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to show notability per the references. Also has reliable sources.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryan Paddy. Also, looking around, there seems to be quite a bit of other coverage: Scholar Books News. Jakew (talk) 19:46, 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 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clubbox

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

Delete nothing to indicate that the subject of this unsourced one-liner, a computer program, is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom also fails to give any real-world context (borderline speedy). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I was able to find the official website for this program. Cheers, Razorflame 19:42, 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 keep. Easily referenced. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valencia (song)

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about a song from a silent movie ??? later recorded but nothing showing notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I was able to reference this article in about five minutes. Carlos, do you ever tag an article and then wait to see if the tags are responded to before bringing it to AFD? If you tag at the same time as you AFD, it seems that you intend AFD as cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 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 - no assertion of notability at all. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carrie Beneš

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

Just an average professor DimaG (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Zero sources/references of notability. Article previously deleted A7 (and nothing seems to have changed since then). Author still doesn't indicate significance of the subject. Suggest {{db-bio}} (speedy deletion) next time. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete again. Nothing has changed, and it still meets speedy deletion criteria, correct? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: If nothing has changed since this was last deleted then this should be speedily deleted per CSD G4 as recreation of deleted matter. WilliamH (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• G4 only applies to afd-deletions.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• My bad. I misconstrued "nothing has changed" as it if had been relating to a previous discussion. WilliamH (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. unestablished notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 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. Successful rescue by Nate.--Kubigula (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daddy's Home (Cartoon)

Daddy's Home (Cartoon) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced one liner about a comic strip with no indication of its notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep This comic strip started just a couple of months ago and is produced by a cartoonist from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which did a profile about the strip, and has been added to a few papers around the country. I will research further and add sources when I get some time to confirm the notability (it'll take a couple days due to the strip's newness), but I think it can be rescued. Nate • (chatter) 22:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Article has been expanded and retitled as Daddy's Home (comic strip) to meet title standardization. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per failure to establish notability unless, of course, Mrschimpf improves it to do so. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep, per the refs in the article. But for the record, this comic has never been in the Chicago Sun-Times. Maybe they plan to add it eventually, but I haven't seen it. Zagalejo^^^ 05:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Corrected...I was going by the MJS article so some signals must've been crossed in that writing. Thanks for letting me know. Nate • (chatter) 06:23, 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. Singularity 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maahi

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about a given name with no indication why this name among millions given is notable. WP is not an Arabic nor a Hindi dictionary, nor a baby-naming guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for the many different reasons provided by the nominator. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Tombomp (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, and the fact that this is English Wikipedia. Happyme22 (talk) 23:58, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bester News

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

No coverage in reliable sources and an Alexa ranking of 1,179,130 means that this website doesn't meet WP:WEB Aecis^Brievenbus 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree; this looks like Some Guy's Newsblog.  RGTraynor  20:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A brief search did not reveal any suitable references to demonstrate notability.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 26 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 21:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cihat Aktaş

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

Sad story, but Wikipedia is not a memorial DimaG (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I agree; this young man does not seem to be notable in his own right. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As Wikipedia is not a memorial, so I had originally tagged it for speedy. Although, it is really a saddening story. Shovon (talk) 20:22, 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. If anyone wants the content userfied they can ask me. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leon ousby

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

Completely unsourced bio of "award winning" actor. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, me smells some falsehoods here mixed with a bit of spam. Only 113 GHits for the name, and most aren't for this person. Seriously doubt a Broadway performer would be so unheard of. Collectonian (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete while ghits are not the be-all and end-all this person's work should be garnering some web-based attention, it isn't. I don't think it's a hoax, just rather enhanced. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, smells like yet-another-hoax coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Debate I think the problems with new entries/articles is that as much as these features hold certain truths, there simply isn't enough time to create and gather further sources to place in the article before users are nominating them for deletion.. even when 'Under Construction' is placed on the page. I have recently had articles deleted and yet again this seems to be another forum for people to delete/edit and sabotage information gathered. I assume a lot of people are disheartened and left to simply not contribute to this site. I have noticed a lot of articles up for deletion. It all seems a waste of the contributors time and energy. _orson20 09:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Hopefully the updated article will convince you. I am still awaiting some other source and references _orson20 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.64.90 (talk)

How? No references have been added at all, and minor, unconfirmed awards are not evidence of notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Orson20, what do you mean when you say you are "awaiting some source and references"? I see people saying similar things in these deletion debates and I'm never clear where these references are coming from. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

*Delete as you guys have said.. just delete it.. this forum seems childish.. >orson20 14.57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My question above was serious - I'm honestly curious why people say they are "waiting for sources". In your case, where are they coming from? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

They're coming from Western Australia. I know that the Alexander Library in Perth holds (Not a great deal) several references on this Actor. >orson20 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.64.90 (talk)

• Userfy. Orson has a valid point about deleting new articles too quickly, particularly when they are being actively worked on. There is also the point that an Australian stage actor may be a lot more notable in Australia than in the US, and that Googling may not be the best test in this case. That being said, there is the problem of it being an article about a living person. These articles are held to a significantly higher standard of sourcing. Would it be possible to move this article into Orson's area until such time as he can get the proper references? --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. As I don't know how long references are going to take. Maybe it would worthwhile moving the article. I am a little cofused as I have read through the site's policies and I am seeing articles on BLPs that don't contain cites or refs. I do agree with AnnaFrance with respect to Australian stage actors/actor. Googling isn't always the most reliable source, test or evidence for notability. _orson20 14:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  Orson, you have now said Keep twice, debate once, and delete once. You need to either strike your earlier three, or combine your comments into a threaded set of comments with a single "Keep" or "Delete". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, totally unsourced bio. WP:BLP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:02, 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gangster Disciples

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

Rather dubious gibberings about some gang of thugs Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. The golden standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Nothing within this article appears to be readily verifiable. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The GDs are one of the most important postwar Chicago gangs among the most important in the U.S. generally, and much of their history is well-known and copiously documented. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, sources are plentiful: [20], [21]. The current article may be lousy, but there's no reason why we couldn't at least have a well-sourced stub by the time of this AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article needs some major help, but the name continues to be in the local Chicago media based on trials and criminial activities that continue to this day. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep GD is quite notable...even if it's only for being drug dealers and criminals. I seem to remember an article about GD moving from the streets and prisons, into the US Military...I'll see what I can dig up LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, they had an hour-long documentary on this gang on American Gangster (TV series) not too long ago. Has 3,130 Google News hits, 505 Google Books hits, and 286 Google Scholar hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I believe the abundance of independent coverage as demonstrated above asserts notability. WilliamH (talk) 19:09, 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 merge to Lemuria (continent). Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lemuria and Easter Island

Lemuria and Easter Island (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

well-meaning but an essay/OR Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge (but trim judiciously) into Lemuria. This is goofy anachronistic stuff but it's legitimate, it just isn't important enough for its own article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge — Merge as a subsection into Lemuria (continent), an article that currently doesn't address Easter Island. Rosiestep (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into the Lemuria continent page. Should be trimmed, but the bulk kept as its all good reason. --Danbrown99 (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:Sounds good to me, I'll withdraw the AfD, what's the procedure now?--Doug Weller (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into the Lemuria continent page for the goofy stuff, and into Easter Island for the scientific evidence. Makana Chai (talk) 01:25, 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. The lack of reliable sources or coverage is a problem that no arguments and assertions can overcome. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Team Fremont Live

Team Fremont Live (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable podcast. None of the references is to a reliable page, other than links to the site itself, they're either "ain't this cool" types of reviews, links to videos, and blogs and forums. There are only 72 google hits total for the site, and nothing in Google news. I had originally listed this for speedy deletion, but an spa with only the single edit to their credit removed the speedy tag. Corvus cornix_talk 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. To claim that sites like Kotaku, Joystiq, Engadget, and 1up.com (one of the leading gaming journalism outlets on the internet) are not "reliable" makes it apparent that this user does not actively participate in or understand the gaming community or the relative impact a podcast like this has. Nonetheless, I believe that this article should stay.

1. I believe this article is notable in relation to the Podcasting Wikiproject, the goal of which is to "(make) Wikipedia's knowledge of notable Podcast and podcast-related information as complete as possible."
2. Moreover, the site also meets the requisite 2/4 requirements for the proposed Wikiproject Podcasting Notability Guidelines. It has gained news coverage from several different notable news groups including Joystiq, Kotaku and Engadget, and it has hosted several notable people within the gaming industry including Ross Erickson (Former Xbox Live Arcade Worldwide Portfolio Manager, now head of Sierra Games Online), Walter Day (Founder of Twin Galaxies, also played a large role in the film "King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters"), and Dan Loosen (one of the co-founders of the Midwest Gaming Classic). While this proposed system was not agreed upon, the fact that this podcast does meet these requirements should at least lend it some credence.
3. There are articles that showcase websites and podcasts FAR less notable than this one. I'm not saying they don't deserve to exist, but I don't understand why this article would be singled out for deletion.
4. Moreover, the only criteria for deletion that this page may meet states: "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". Therefore, it shouldn't be necessary to prove to someone that this site is notable. I believe that the sources provided, particularly the one from 1up.com, are strong enough to keep the page.
5. I don't know HOW Corvus got only 73 google hits, but the search I performed showed over 17,000 hits. Sounds like someone is trying to spin nonexistent evidence in their favor.
6. With what evidence I have provided, along witht he lack of evidence against the page, I am confident that the right decision will be made and the page will be kept. Rwiggum (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed that Joystiq, Kitaku and Engadget are not notable, I claimed that the links provided to those sites are not notable. They're reviews, discussion of cool links, and links to videos. Nothing to write an article from. Rwiggum has been extremely uncivil to me to the point that I have told him to stop posting on my Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 22:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the link to 1up.com is to a message board. Corvus cornix_talk 22:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of these accusations are false. I have tried to be as civil as possible, but Corvus has made that increasingly difficult. He has continued to rally against the page, even after I have provided several arguments to the contrary, many of which he has ignored altogether. However, that doesn't have anything to do with this article, and bringing personal attacks into it seems petty.

And concerning the 1UP link, Corvus is referring to a different link altogether I was referring to this link, a main-page story referencing the major announcement that Team Fremont Live broke.

Also, The link to the video he was reffering to is in fact a Team-Fremont-produced video that gained a great deal of attention not only from the gaming and technology websites, but it was also posted on the official website for the Microsoft Zune, and THAT is what was linked to. I believe that, in itself adds to the notability of the page. I would say that an official Microsoft product website could be considered "reliable". Rwiggum (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and none of the links provided are "reviews". They are news reports, many of them concerning announcements broken through interviews with Team Fremont Live. There are countless pages for websites and podcasts that are far less notable than this one, and I find it odd that Corvus has singled this page out for deletion. Rwiggum (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Just a podcast. Nothing to indicate notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. There is no reason to delete this article. It is a well written article and includes plenty of references.QuentinV (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Which of those sources meet the guideline at WP:RS? Corvus cornix_talk 05:24, 26 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. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LyricWiki

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

While this website claims to be the "7th largest wiki with over 670,000 pages" it does not meet our standards for verifiability and lacks independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable, third party publishers. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• The External links policy forbids linking to sites which violate copyright. An entire article about a site which violates copyright seems majorly iffy. Unless there were some really important reliable sources on this, such as lawsuits, takedown notices, etc., then this is not a page we should have. Delete. See International Lyrics Server for what we could talk about. Corvus cornix_talk 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has already been gone over on Sean Colombo's (the owner's) userpage, here. We pay royalties just like anyone else would have to. King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 17:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The above was added by User:Kingnee1114. Corvus cornix_talk 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, that link only says that you take down lyrics when the copyright holder asks you to, it doesn't say that you get prior approval. That means you violate copyright. Corvus cornix_talk 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Correction:

"We spend a significant amount of time contacting publishers and running a system to compensate them for with a rather hefty royalty. It is clearly impossible to make sure we have them all, however our efforts certainly qualify as due dilligence."

User:Kingnee1114 00:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The article was recently stripped of most of its content in order to cleanup the page and find sources. If you need a list of sources that have covered LyricWiki, see LyricWiki:In the Press. --WillMak050389 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable wiki. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see how anyone could call this non-notable unless they simply use that word as a Maoist hammer on articles they don't like. Get rid of the external link if you want, but a site with nearly a million hits a day, with millions of pages, and in constant use by several programs to obtain lyrics (Amarok, WinAmp, foobar2000, LyricsFinder11) it noteworthy. Object all you want to the site's content, but that's no reason to delete the article. --Aquatiki (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  "...with millions of pages.." - They are mostly bot-generated. I can create a larger wiki myself. --Damiens.rf 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:WEB. No good sources.--Otterathome (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Not anymore, see SColombo's edit below.--Otterathome (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing has changed since the first time this was nominated and kept. It should stay for the same reasons as before: 7th largest wiki (3rd largest non-Wikipedia-related) with multiple applications for integration into music players of all sorts (covered in MacWorld, Mac User, Wired, etc.) certainly makes it notable. Evidence of non-trivial coverage was given then, and again now. If the situation hasn't changed, why waste time rehashing the same arguments again? KieferFL (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  Delete: It's interesting how the keep arguments in the 1st afd read as "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..." WHERE?, "Among other places the site was featured in the German tech magazine, C't." SOURCES?, "The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation." WHICH?. No reliable source has been added since that afd... --Damiens.rf 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  You obviously didn't follow the link in WillMak's comment above to the listing of the non-trivial published works, which was also given by Spurious Q on the original AFD. (It gives the issue number for C't, as well as links to the publications that I mentioned.) If you want to say "Delete", that's your right, but at least follow up on the evidence for keeping first. KieferFL (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The WikiMedia meta link is given now to show that it's really the 7th largest Wiki. Lyric is an important part in human knowledge and life. This Wiki uses systematic ways to arrange data. The data is reliable and helpful so that it's widely used on Earth. --Noking (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • — Noking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. To elaborate upon my points from the previous RFD, but with updated information (which refute this RFD's claim of lacks independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable, third party publishers.):

  As per WP:WEB: Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

  1. CRITERIA: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

     HOW IT IS MET:

     • The site was featured in the German tech magazine, C't (issue #13/2006) (this was the only publication mentioned in previous RFD)
     • LyricWiki was cited in an academic paper published in the 2007 Music Information Retrieval Conference[22].
     • Brief mention in IEEE Spectrum article in Volume 43 Issue 12, Dec. 2006 [23]
     • Discussed in Incite Volume 27 Issue 12, Dec. 2006 in article 'Webb's Web: The World at Your Fingertips [24] (that link is unfortunately to pay-per-view version of journal, don't have a free web-link).
     • Usage of API included in paper EASAIER Semantic Music Retrieval Portal regarding the EASAIER project which was published / presented several times.
     • In addition to these physical publications, the site has been covered in numerous very-notable online sources such as LifeHacker [25][26][27], Wired News [28], and also less in-depth mentions by MacUser [29] and Macworld's blog [30] in the context of mentioning usages of the API and specifically that this usage was powered by LyricWiki

  2. CRITERIA: The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.

     HOW IT IS MET:

     • The site was DreamHost Site of the Month in April 2006[31] which seems pretty notable since DreamHost hosts around 700,000 domains, and any of their sites are allowed to win site of the month.
     • The Facebook Application that is part of LyricWiki was named to the 20 Great Music Applications for Facebook by Mashable.

  In the very least, I think the above has established that LyricWiki does not lack independent or non-trival coverage by reliable third-party publishers.

  -SColombo (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per SColumbo's rationale. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:27, 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 delete. Singularity 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tucson, Arizona Community Organizations

Tucson, Arizona Community Organizations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory or a repository of links. This article does not show notability and is just a collection of red links and external links, occasionally with a brief description. There are no sources cited. swaq 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per swaq. This is not the yellow pages. Corvus cornix_talk 18:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Brewcrewer. --Eustress (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Web directory, list of almost entirely redlinks, and an indiscriminate collection of trivial information. Not encyclopedic. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:49, 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 Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) per CSD G#3, blatant hoax. WilliamH (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serg Klimov

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

Prodded as suspected hoax; my searches on dogpile.com similarly turned up nothing to substantiate claims of being the greatest basketball player of all time. In fact typing in that phrases turns up very different results. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a "blatant and obvious hoax". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as an obvious hoax -- don't waste any more time. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, The text is taken almost entirely from Michael Jordan, with Klimov's name in place of Jordan's. Obvious hoax. Zagalejo^^^ 19:24, 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 Delete --JForget 00:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Johnson (artist)

Carol Johnson (artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable musician, fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Not a single source provided in over a year to confirm or provide any evidence of notability; total number of ghits = 0. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, linked to Neal Century, another non-notable artist. Corvus cornix_talk 18:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, linked to Neal Century, another non-notable artist. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for exactly the same reasons as on Neal Century's AfD. The fact that the creator's first edit was this should probably give an idea of exactly how good-faith an editor we're dealing with here. Once the AfDs are closed, someone's going to have to clean up this mess, too. — iridescent 00:32, 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 --JForget 00:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Jeremijenko

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

This has the appearance of a vanity page, and in any case the subject does not meet WP:BIO or any other notability guideline that might apply. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep significant coverage of the artist and her work. Result of a 2 second google search. That says, it's in dire need of clean-up but the appearance of a vanity page is not reason for deletion _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a vanity article, although a clean-up and better sourcing are certainly needed here. A fairly unusual career and I think notability can be established both per WP:BIO and probably WP:PROF as a notable artist/designer and engineer. TheGoogleNews results cited by the Busy Bee are quite impressive already: 157 hits, most with nontrivial coverage related to her [32] . GoogleScholar also returns a substantial number of hits[33] as does GoogleBooks, which yields 132 hits[34]. Several of them give detailed biographical coverage, such as this [35], and this [36], and where many more provide nontrivial coverage of her. Salon.com had an in-depth feature article about her [37]. Other examples of in-depth coverage include a review in New York Times [38]. More than enough here to satisfy WP:BIO. Suggest the nomination be withdrawn. Nsk92 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above. I have to say, I don't understand this AfD: she's shown at MASSMoCA, the Whitney Museum, Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt; she's a Rockefeller Fellow (among other achievements). This satisfies notability as an artist and an academic. freshacconcispeaktome 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'd also like to point out that "Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions" (from WP:GTD). I've done this in the past myself and it's worth mentioning now. freshacconcispeaktome 00:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The article needs some work, - a reference section, some clarity, otherwise it's fine...Modernist (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable as an artist by our normal standard. the article certainly does need a sharp trimming though. DGG (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Some impressive exhibit involvement is mentioned. Those venues don't accept just anyone off the street. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 05:00, 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 redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Participants and nominator are unanimous in the opinion that the subject should not have an article; whether any of information currently included in the article is an editorial decision not really within the bounds of AfD (non-admin close). Guest9999 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D. Aubrey Moodie Intermediate School

D. Aubrey Moodie Intermediate School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to cite sources, non-notable, complete waste of Wikipedia space. Delete GreenJoe 17:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Corvus cornix_talk 18:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per the person I just stole a signature style from. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, doesn't need to be at AfD _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board where it can be discussed in context until sufficient sourced content warrants a separate article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect - as per above. Find it curious through that it the AFD was launched basically on the same date the individual himself passed away.--JForget 00:37, 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 merge to IntelliCAD. No consensus to delete, but not a single 'keep' also, so merge. I did a brute force merge, please help clean up. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IntelliCAD) - Nabla (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IntelliCAD Technology Consortium

IntelliCAD Technology Consortium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Full disclosure: This article has been the target of a long lasting spam campaign. That is not a valid reason for deletion. This consortium failing to meet WP:ORG however is a valid reason for deletion, and I am unable to confirm that this subject has received coverage in reliable, independent third party publications. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per the reasons in my nomination above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the article had no secondary sources, just the consortium's own website. The article consists mainly of information about the consortium's products, very little about the consortium itself. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not seeing much that ins't a press release. IntelliCAD is already up for Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IntelliCAD with a possible merge here, which will need to be addressed. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• You guys have far too much time on your hands. Delete the article? Can't find any sources? What a bunch of bullshit. If this were the AutoCAD Article you wouldnt be complaining. IntelliCAD has just as much right to be here as any other valid CAD product. Get a life. http://search.cadalyst.com/results.php?cx=008600089690839190750%3Af7ucb4sfdoq&q=intellicad&cof=FORID%3A9#1371 http://www.google.com/custom?domains=worldcadaccess.typepad.com%3Bwww.upfrontezine.com&q=intellicad&sitesearch=worldcadaccess.typepad.com&client=pub-3390771493678065&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&flav=0000&sig=R1eh-eMkuHgRr-gi&cof=GALT%3A%23006688%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A006688%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A006688%3BGIMP%3A006688%3BLH%3A50%3BLW%3A205%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.upfrontezine.com%2Fwca.jpg%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2F%3BFORID%3A1&hl=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadrules (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC) — Cadrules (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge - OK, I can't see many reliable sources *about the organization*, but I can about it's (sole?) product, IntelliCAD. I would say that one of these two articles should be kept, and I suspect that it is the IntelliCAD one. For example, both the links mentioned above by cadrules appear to help the notability of the product, not the organization. Wrs1864 (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge, No-one (including myself) seems to be able to find a single, independent source for this company, and thus fails WP:ORG. However, there seems to be no problem finding independent and reliable sources for the product. So stick in the info on the "technology consortium" into the IntelliCAD article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per wrs1864 and arsenikk to [[IntelliCAD] Dimitrii (talk) 19:26, 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 speedy delete - clear candidate for {{nn-band}}. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KMw katie and willy

KMw katie and willy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was tagged for Speedy Deletion at the start. Non-notable music duo that fails WP:MUSIC, but also basic WP:NOTE guidelines as there is no significant coverage from reliable sources. [39] and [40]. The page itself declares that they have no record deal, and that, most likely, their only exposure is that of myspace. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not shown. No independent reliable sources. swaq 18:07, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Horstmann technique

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

This minor variation on a hyperbolic million other massage techniques is not mentioned at PubMed or NCCAM, nor is it listed in the Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine or other usual suspects. All of the internet hits seem to be either substantively copied from the originator's website or mere directory listings. While this does confirm that someone invented this technique and started selling classes, it does not provide anything with which to work for improving the article. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY indicates that this article should be deleted until independent notable sources mention it. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Nominator. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —- Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —- Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep, I have papers but little time. Electron9 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment Then please by all means share what they are or where they might be found. If notability can be established I have no problem withdrawing this nomination. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:Fringe theories, the absolute lack of reliable sources point that this massage is just another massage.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Notability and reliable sources. Dimitrii (talk) 04:25, 26 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 because of notability concerns. Alex Muller 08:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OSBIWiki

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

This is another website which does not meet either WP:WEB or WP:NOTE based on my own external searches and a review of the article content. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, yet another non-notable wiki. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing in News, Books, or Scholar. Non-notable, serious doubts whether it is even verifiable via third-party sources. Jakew (talk) 19:53, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus H. Christ

Jesus H. Christ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is simply a procedural nomination. One editor is attempting to delete the content of the page and replace it with a soft redirect to the wiktionary entry. Because there was a previous AfD which ended in keep, I felt there needed to be a new community consensus to de facto delete the article. Is the current article in such poor condition that it does not meet any wikipedia inclusion policies (including stub), and therefore should wholesale be deleted from the project? Andrew c ^[talk] 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (categories)

• Comment. The contents of the article were merged to the Wiktionary entry Wikt:Jesus H. Christ. 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC) this comment was made by user:Silly rabbit
  • This is true for some, but not all.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The content that was not merged was also not verifiable or was already better covered in the Christogram article (which is linked on the Wiktionary page). But if you disagree about the merger, fix it. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Question to nom Why is this article in such poor condition that it couldn't meet a stub? I'm not trying to be glib, I'm just not sure I understand. There does seem to be a basis for a brief article here. Considering it already strongly passed a separate AfD, I'm also not sure how this is just a procedural nom, regardless of the wiktionary entry. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying the article is in such poor condition, but simply am asking a question of the community. Please see this diff. All the content of the page was deleted, and replaced with {{wi|Jesus H. Christ}}. A soft redirect is different from a stub. I dispute this bold action, especially in light of the previous AfD, so I am bringing the issue again before AfD, to see if the community supports the edit in question, or if they support another option, or a pure keep or pure delete or whatever. Hope that clears things up.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all which cannot be properly verified through reliable third party publications. We have standards to uphold here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The two references seem reliable though, don't they? Of course, can't check them on the internet (at least I can't). Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the term has been the primary topic of scholarly articles, wouldn't it at least be worth of a stub?Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to this article or any other on Wikipedia so long as it meets our core policies and guidelines. If I may clarify my original comment, I have no problem with this article being reduced down to a stub so long as the material within said stub is verifiable through reliable sources, that's all. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The second reference seems to be available at JSTOR, although I can't access JSTOR myself at the moment. Zagalejo^^^ 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There is nothing wrong with an article on an expression. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Trans-wiki to Wikitonary. GreenJoe 17:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Normally I would agree, as I just did for the afd on Green thumb, but it appears that were actually reliable source which were solely about this term. I'm a little surprised myself, but they seem legit. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, there's research on the usage of the phrase and its meanings, certainly more than a dicdef _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• First, I will object to the wording of the nomination. I have never suggested that this page or its content be deleted. I acted to turn this page into a redirect after merging the content to a better location. In this case, the better location for the dictionary definition is Wiktionary and the redirect was a soft redirect but it is still a redirect, not a deletion. Since content was merged, we are obligated to keep the attribution history in order to comply with GFDL. Second, I recommend that this discussion be closed since neither I nor the nominator want the page deleted. Decisions about whether or not to redirect a page get worked out on the respective article Talk pages. AfD is not the right forum for this discussion.
  If we must have the discussion here (and I suppose we must since at least one person above has now recommended deletion), count my opinion as a very strong keep as redirect to Wiktionary. But if that is not an option, deletion is better than keeping a page that is a mere dictionary definition. So far, no one has been able to point to any content in this page or any potential for additional content which goes beyond merely lexical content - that is, meaning, origins and usage of the word or phrase. The fact that it's sourced is irrelevant (except to make it a particularly good dictionary definition). Rossami (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think usage and application is exactly what brings it from a dicdef to an encyclopedic article. Note also it was kept <2 months ago, what's changed since then? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Usage notes are both accepted and desired in a truly great unabridged dictionary (like Wiktionary). What goes beyond lexical content? (As to "what's changed since the last discussion" - nothing. The AfD was closed and normal editing resumes. That includes routine decisions like mergers and redirects. The AfD only concluded that the page not be deleted, not that it must forever after be preserved in the form or even at the title it was at during the discussion.) Rossami (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You are making good points Rossami, because honestly, the article is basically the same thing as the wiktionary entry. The only reason I think a term like this warrants further discussion is because of the sources given, which apparently were written primarily about the term. Although, playing Devil's Advocate on myself, I wonder how I would feel if someone wrote a scholarly article on the history of the term "Green Thumb". Ugh, AfDs as such are hard. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, notable expression that should have encyclopedia coverage. Everyking (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per prior AFD, which also has sources which haven't been added yet. Is also a redirect of Jesus Christ (profanity), so it contains references to other versions than JHC; perhaps move over redirect is in order. I would think the Wiktionary version and the WP version should be free to grow separately because they are for different purposes; there is some overlap but not 100%. Christogram was disappointingly weak and would not be a good merge. The relevant policy is WP:NOTDICDEF: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness", with special reference to items with independent cultural significance. JJB 20:03, 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. Charted album. Went gold. No brainer. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cute Is What We Aim For

Cute Is What We Aim For (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Disputed speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't a valid reason for deletion. Do you have any reason other disputed speedy delete? Maxim_(talk) 16:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • An edit war had started in Cute Is What We Aim For. One party in that edit war (not me) wanted Cute Is What We Aim For to be deleted. Discussion, here or elsewhere, is better than an edit war. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • For goodness sake. That was one of the most blatant POINT violations I've ever seen. He didn't want it deleted, he wanted to disrupt the process for everyone. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree with above, the user who put the speedy up clearly does not like the band and doesn't understand notability guidelines Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, having a US-charted album is an obvious claim to notability. The user who tagged the page is violating WP:POINT. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and agree with WBOSITG. Refs show coverage in multiple independent etc etc. At the very least was certainly never a speedy candidate. — iridescent 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Their debut record went GOLD in the US. That's good enough for me. Meets most if not all criterion for WP:MUSIC (at least 1,2,3,4,5 and 11). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:42, 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. Consensus is that WP:WEB is not met.--Kubigula (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wind Repertory Project

Wind Repertory Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Website which fails any fair test of notability, be it WP:WEB or WP:N. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The article cites one source which seems to be reliable. The article also does no harm to anyone and might be useful to a few. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please see WP:HARMLESS the only non-primary source cited is a blog, http://www.musicedmagic.com/blogtales-from-the-podium/the-wind-repertory-project.html which does not meet our guideline for reliable sources. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete it sounds interesting, but not yet notable. No evidence it's had any reliable coverage anywhere. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I swear that there was a speedy deletion criteria for websites like this, but can't seem to find it. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources and this site is less than 4 months old. How could it possibly achieve notability in such a small time? So delete per WP:Notability.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:59, 26 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 21:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knine01

Knine01 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsigned underground rapper. Completely fails WP:MUSIC. Improbably declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, is written like an advertisement and has no third party mentions that I can find easily or any linked. --Tombomp (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 06:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:MUSIC no notability. There are rappers and then there are notable rappers.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:59, 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. Singularity 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Green thumb

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

Article is a combination of a dictionary definition, which is more suitable for Wiktionary, and a television show which does not appear to be notable. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The term itself is just that, a term, expression, etc. Suitable possibly for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Gardener already exists. As for the TV show with the same name, that would really have to be a seperate discussion, as this article doesn't claim to be about that show, but rather mentions it in passing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a dictionary definition, maybe create a placeholder for Wiktionary if need be. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and soft redirect to wikt:green thumb, which probably says all there needs to be said (including the UKism green fingers and the jocular antonym brown thumb). This is frequently used as a title of books, magazines, and TV shows or segments, so might lead to recreation if we don't keep the redirect here. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- The article is 2 years old but has no sources and very little information.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:05, 26 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, no new reasoning for deletion given beyond notability claims which have been discussed repeatedly before and almost unanimously rejected. Stormie (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wookieepedia

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

The subject of this article lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable publications, and thus fails WP:WEB as well as WP:N, heavily relying on primary sources for content. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons in my nomination above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: The sources here demonstrate there's sufficient coverage to pass WP:WEB. That they not been used in the article is a content issue -- the subject itself is notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I cannot access that link for some reason, might I suggest you integrate whatever reliable sources are available into the actual Wikipedia article for consideration? Thank you, Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep... and expand references found on the site ...based on the references cited by Wookieepedia. Why does it keep getting nominated? Is there bias present here??? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC) added cmts - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I can only speak for myself, and this article continues to fail WP:WEB and notability guidelines, hence the nomination. If this cannot be resolved within the week, I would not be surprised if an administrator saw fit to delete it. The {{Refimprove|date=April 2007}} request has been sitting there since... Well, see for yourself. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The previous three AFD nominations resulted in a keep consensus. At this point, should it not have become more notable now? Notability is not strictly held to WP:WEB, but WP:NOTE mentions multiple nontrivial mentions in notable sources, which exist on the above-linked Wookieepedia page by Quasirandom. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As we continue this conversation, the article continues to fail both WP:NOTE and WP:WEB. If I could access the link that Quasirandom provided I would fix the article myself. So where are the multiple non-trivial mentions? The nominations from a year+ ago do not address this problem, and the verifiability issues remain outstanding. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So we fix it; we don't nominate for deletion. The Wookieepedia references are now on the article talk page. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Are these the links you were referring to? They all appear to be passing, trivial mentions. Which third party publication is expressly about Wookieepedia? I didn't see a single one. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Please Google it before wasting everyone's time. --Explodicle (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Which of the references returned in this link are nontrivial? Theforce.net is a fansite...A notable fansite that is officially aknowledged, but still, is that sufficient? The other links appear to be trivial or passing references. -Verdatum (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Variety? SF Chronicle, St. Paul Pioneer? Keep, notability proven. Corvus cornix_talk 18:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. For the purposes of covering a wiki on canon and fanon, I think fansites devoted to the work in question are fine. Apart from the references in the article, Wookiepedia maintains a list of things that reference it. The list is substantial and contains enough traditional RS (Time, CSPan, Scifi.com, New York Times, TimesOnline) to warrant keeping it, even if they are trivial mentions. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that the mentions are all trivial, but collectively I feel they satisfy any notability concerns. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep This is the FOURTH time that TPTB at Wikipedia have attempted to axe this page. I suspect that this is a case os institutional snobbishness. The ARTICLE ITSELF certainly meets the notability test. The problem, rather, is that some Wikipediains are offended that their pet project isn't the only game in town. (Pardon the mixed metaphor.) I have a news flash for you: Wikipedia is not the world's only online encyclopedia. Eliminating references to others via AFD wlll not make those outlets go away. Trasel (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable as a website and specialized resource. Article facts easily verified. John Nevard (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I don't share Trasel's suspicions about the motives for yet another AfD listing, I do believe that repeatedly re-listing the same article, without a showing of significantly changed circumstances, is a questionable practice. JamesMLane t c 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, if only for the name. Also, out of principle, since I don't think articles that have passed several AfDs should be relisted without a significant new deletion reason. And it does seem to be a notable site, per links in the article and numerous Google News hits. Klausness (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral - I don't think that an article like this is necessary on Wikipedia, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to keep it. It could be longer, though. C Teng 21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. WP:WEB and WP:N are our slaves, not our masters. Besides, Wookieepedia has been covered by Variety[41], SciFi.com[42], The New York Times[43], Howard Stern[44], and TimesOnline[45]. And the nominator appears to have an improper username. --Pixelface (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, what appears improper about the username? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's a variation of the slang term "cock block". I'll let you search Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary for it. --Pixelface (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, okay, the user page is also somewhat of a concern, i.e. what is the point message there with "not censored" image? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as plenty of references and fairly evidence consensus suggests this site is notable by our standards. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:N by having enough reliable sources. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now. If deemed necessary, at some point in the future all the articles on wikis hosted by Wikia could be merged. However, I'm not aware of a convincing rationale to delete the content. PhilKnight (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. How many more times is this going to be nominated, anyway? - Sikon (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Oh, get off it already. You knew the outcome of this vote before you ever nominated the article. Glaug-Eldare (talk) 12:33, 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 by Cobaltbluetony. Tikiwont (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Back and in Attack (Milli Vanilli album)

Back and in Attack (Milli Vanilli album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unexplained, contested PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC: unreleased/forthcoming albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I wonder if this is a hoax, but not sure. Google search and news search brings nothing with this album title. Some source needs to be produced for this to be included. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I thought the prior deletion of this was a PROD (and it may have been). However, I now see there was a prior AfD deletion as well Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Back_and_in_Attack. As I've been all over this one more than once, I'll leave it to someone else to judge if this should be speedied. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as re-creation of an already deleted article. Also likely a hoax. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 06:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Article was deleted yesterday as a repost. Has been re-reposted by the editor who posted the most recent version. I've tagged it for a new speedy and suggested deletion review to the editor. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:38, 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 nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Council for Educational Research

The result of this AfD was stubbify and keep. Non-admin closure. Tan | 39 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Australian Council for Educational Research (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy declined, probably a good idea in retrospect. I had grouped this with ACER Press, which did get speedied as advertisement. This article takes text from multiple sources, mostly from the ACER site itself. It seems that there is a bit of non-copied text, which appears to be WP:OR.

Perhaps just stub to the first sentence? I don't have a vendetta against the article, but the way it is, it violates a few Wiki policies - WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPOV, WP:V... Tan | 39 13:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is a long-established and reasonably well known Australian educational organisation. Many Australians (maybe of my vintage!) would recall doing ACER tests at school. The article needs a lot of work on it to bring it up to scratch, but is not a reason for deletion. Murtoa (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your sentiment and nostalgia, but the problem is that it appears that a large part of this article is text that is copied from websites in violation of WP:COPYVIO. The other text, being uncited, is assumed to be original research, and is highly non-neutral. There's not much to keep here! In other words, this needs a fundamental re-write... Tan | 39 02:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• in need of a fundamental re-write? yes; a justification for deletion? no. Murtoa (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep An important Australian organisation. Can I remind the nominator that AfD is not the place for cleanup, referencing, rewriting or partial copyvios? --Canley (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears that people did not really read my comments but thought that I somehow said that this article needed "cleanup". I removed all the copyvio, OR and NPOV material, which left one sentence that doesn't really meet WP:V. However, I'll back off; I have no vested interest in deleting this article! AfD withdrawn. Tan | 39 11:48, 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 deleted. Singularity 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Hits That Shook the World

The Hits That Shook the World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:MUSIC, promo-only albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 06:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Copyright violation of [46]. Also delete because of no sourcing, no album charting, no commercial sales. Since the hit songs already have their own individual articles, there's absolutely no reason to have a separate article . - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:01, 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. DS (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional Arnis

Non-notable newly created martial art. Most ghits are for the generic use of the name. JJL (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have not nominated the related pages Jendo and Jonathan Makiling though I question their notability also.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability, and possible WP:HOAX children listed includes Prince Charles... Other two mentioned should probably be grouped since a significant amount of the unsourced content (ignoring geocities) is the same. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note to an ADMIN This and the other mentioned pages have had semi-protect templates added, these appear to be incorrect Can someone check please? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not verifiable. jmcw (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • geocities claims that Jonathan Makiling Abaya and Rafael Claro are professors at San Beda College.
  • Officials and Staff lists Rafael Claro as department chair - no mention of Abaya.
  • geocities claims that Jonathan Makiling Abaya is/was an instructor at the National College.
  • Unesco reports that the National College of Physical Education (NCPE) has been closed.
  • Department of Education of the Philippines has no mention of Jonathan Makiling Abaya.
• Comment I believe that this link clears up all three articles: http://wikimartialarts.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=2 Philjendo, the author of the three articles, appears to be Grandmaster Jonathan "June" Makling Abaya himself. jmcw (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 22:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete search using Makiling Abaya + "traditional arnis" yields no hits in Google Books. Google search gave a sole reference in FMA Digest. This publication garners only 3 hits on Philippine google so I don't think that it is that reliable.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:25, 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. Singularity 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cristiano Novembre

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

Previously deleted via WP:PROD, now recreated. The subject is Juventus' fourth-choice goalkeeper; he has not made any professional appearance in all his career, and played first team football only with Serie D amateur team Brindisi. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO#Athletes failure. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 12:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A unused member of first team may notable, but seems just playing for reserve team. Matthew_hk tc 18:16, 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 (non-admin closure) --MPerel 00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pinto Canyon Road

Pinto Canyon Road (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable road (not a highway or some main city road). Links to a few Google News hits and Google books hitsare posted on the talk page, but these are passing mentions, not articles about the road (one link appears to have an actual sentence about the road, and that's it: the rest are toureistic mentions of it on route, or mentions of things located along the road). Suggested merge location doesn't exist yet, so hard to judge that proposal. Fails WP:NOTE and appropriate sub-guidelines. Fram (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; this is one rural road that does appear notable, given the sources on the talk page. --NE2 14:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or possibly move to Farm to Market Road 2810. There does seem to be enough sources for a good article here. MookieZ (talk) 15:11, 26 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 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unfinalised

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

This has no reliable sources that I can find that supports it in its own right, and appears to be on the same topic as Michael Jackson's forthcoming studio album. I would argue for a merge or at least a verification of the reliability, very vague and WP:CRYSTAL may apply. SGGH ^speak! 10:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete this article. The closest thing I find to sources on this are torrents supposedly giving an advance copy of the album and one video on Youtube. I find no reliable sources and, even if reliable sources are found, the proper thing to do would be to move Michael Jackson's forthcoming studio album to Unfinalised, if this is the official name of the album. Redfarmer (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above. It contains little information other than tracklists, speculation and some opinions, with Michael Jackson's forthcoming studio album being a better article. --Tombomp (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced crystalballing. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources, personal opinions, nothing reliable to merge to the other article. JohnCD (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete is this a hoax? I can't tell, but it sure isn't verifiable. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:07, 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 g4, substantially similar repost of material deleted after 1st AFD. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] W. Dan Hausel

W. Dan Hausel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article deleted last year and reappeared. It seems to be like a resume or something. I am not sure about its notability so I think Afd it's a good place to discuss it. The google hits are not that many and i didn't see something of real importance. The sources given are certainly copy-pasted from somewhere (check article's history before my cleanup). Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, CSD G4 as recreation of previously deleted material. So tagged. Redfarmer (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And the deletion wasn't last year; it was in January. Redfarmer (talk) 11:29, 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 --JForget 00:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lucky the Rabbit

Lucky the Rabbit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I like rabbits as much as anyone. But I don't see the notability of this rabbit nor of the sad events surrounding it. There's one source, but this is a case of a bunny known for a single event, and unfortunately not a very noteworthy one. UsaSatsui (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, I agree this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Also, WP:NOT#NEWS. If there is any relevant information in the article, maybe it can be merged into Cruelty to animals or a similar article. Redfarmer (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS is the relevant policy here, misdemeanors are generally not part of what Wikipedia covers unless there are bigger implications. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, rabbits are people too. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, otherwise merge to stewpot, along with carrots, potatos, onions and parsnips. :-)) Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you do not donate $50,000 to me, I will delete this rabbit! --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Mention this, if you want, in an article about cruelty to animals, Mandsford (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- forgive me Lucky! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - like everyone else said, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:51, 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 : Speedily deleted - copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andy howell

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

American artist, skateboarder and entrepreneur. Almost certainly an autobiography. Is he notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• CSD Copyvio [47] But no complaints about recreation from scratch...notability as author of a book at a glance...I'm sure there's more there. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 09:10, 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, POINTy nomination. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Universities Debating Championship

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

Notability and verifiability JJJ999 (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Reasons -I personally am an inclusionist, and I believe the content here is useful and worth keeping. I have edited articles positively which are no more notable. However, if you want a page to be included which would be disputable as being within what is technically WP guidelines, then you can't make the argument that any content you don't like won't count, because it fails to meet WP. The whole article technically fails to meet WP, and I am unconvinced the standard Purple and other partisans wish to hold this article to (but only when it comes to content they dislike) could be met by the article itself (not to mention most articles they edit). There have been claims made that content I have added, which is entirely supported, is invalid because sources like the official mailing list of these sites is "not notable or independant", and likewise the pages themselves from either rival tournament. This obviously doesn't make much sense, in light of the rest of the content, which they've decided somehow does meet it (despite no sourcing at all). Well, fine, if that's what they want to hold the article to, the best resolution seems to be an AfD, where we can either scrap the article, or edit out any of the unsourced material as a resolution (ie, all of it). To be clear, if the tournament itself is notable, then such notable tournaments official documents and minutes should likewise be notable, thus I don't see how you can claim they fail notability when being used to reference content you don't like, but attain it when you want to reference content you doJJJ999 (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. The nominator has admitted here (editing under the IP address 122.148.218.27, which he admits he uses on the article's talk page) that he does not in fact think the article should be deleted, but is nominating it to play games as part of a currently ongoing content dispute at the article. It's all detailed on the talk page. The subject is verifiable by the external links. It ideally needs some more sources to verify some aspects of the content, but that's not a reason to delete it. Purple Watermelon (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Liking the article is not the same as meeting WP wiki.JJJ999 (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I should add I don't feel a speedy keep is productive. I think 5 days or discussion may ensure we have some sort of consensus on what is notable in regards to such content, and exactly what the consensus on this sort of thing really is. At the very least this thing needs a massive overhaul, and to do that an independant party is going to need to see what the consensus on it is. For that we need an AfD discussion.JJJ999 (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The article is about regional championships of debating. Every year notable universities from Asia are participating in this championship. These two links (here, and here) shows 4th events of Asian championship, which was hosted by International Islamic University Malaysi.--NAHID 07:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• How do you reconcile these sources as meeting the WP requirements? They are no more notable than the ones rejected for content requirements? These sources are inherently self-referencing, which seems fine to me in principle provided it is notability, but that seems in dispute. Or is it just enough to have "alot" of blog references?JJJ999 (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Bad faith nom. Nominator has basically admitted on the talk page that he is only AfDing the article because others disagreed with his addition. V-train (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• It is worth adding that since Purple has gone out and gotten people to come en masse to support this, it would be nice to hear actual independant voices (you know, people who didn't create the page, like Purple, and ones he didn't call over, like V-train, or the guy whose name indicates quite clearly his support of this IV). Allowing it to go through a 5 day discussion process is productive. Closing now is not. Whichever Admin has to deal with this page should probably note the massive effort that has already been mobilised to stack this vote and prevent the productive discussion we could be having, as so far all the respondants are either partisans, were told to come here by partisans, or are in the process of alerting more partisans, ie (here or here & here )JJJ999 (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've certainly not tried to stack the vote. I asked two people (because they've been involved in a similar dispute before) to look at the article's talk page and see if they wanted to comment there. This was before it was put up for AfD. I've not asked anyone to come to this page. Purple Watermelon (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's a meaningless distinction as you well know, because the effect will be the same. Nor is getting a bunch of people who you know "forming consensus" as you were asked to do.JJJ999 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • They're only people who I know have an interest in the issue (becuase of one similar discussion last year). But they're indivduals who have their own minds and will weigh up the issues on their merits. I thought their insights might have been helpful in the content discussion. But I don't know if they'll agree with me until and unless they choose to comment. Purple Watermelon (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• JJJ999, editors are bold to discuss with other editor about any WP matter. User:Niaz is a member and creator of Wikiproject Debating. So he might be helpful in developing this article. This doesn't mean we are stacking vote. And also please do not add spam link as reference--NAHID 08:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• When 4 people are alterted within 30 mins of an AfD opening, and every vote is for "speedy keep" most objective people would have to ask serious questions about a stack, and I think it makes giving a speedy keep from such votes a bad idea. I am not necessarily advocating the removal of your article, I think it is an open question, but I have serious questions about the claims made regarding notability. From a purely interest level I enjoy and see value in it, but that isn't the same as meeting WP guidelines. I want an explanation of how this article meets those guidelines, and hopefully an outcome which creates a clear basis for the addition of future content. Can you explain to me why there is a double standard on content?JJJ999 (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know where you get 4 people from. 2 people were altered about the content dispute before the AfD opened (of whom only 1 has voted here), and 1 person (who hasn't been here yet) was altered after. Purple Watermelon (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This is clearly a bad faith nomination. JJJ999 is upset over a content dispute about whether one sentence should be added to the article, and is annoyed that two editors (me and Purple Watermelon) disgaree with him. He's admitted that he thinks the subject is notable, the dispute is simply over whether one sentence is adequately verifiable. Nominating the article for deletion in these circumstances is bizarre. Singopo (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Per the articles for deletion page, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. WilliamH (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, WP:POINTY nom. After reading the talk page linked in the first vote, I am convinced this user is attempting to use AfD as a means of getting revenge on those who disagree with her/him. That is not what AfD was intended for, ever. An article is either appropriate for inclusion or not; saying that you'll nominate an article for deletion if the person doesn't admit you're right is POINTY and uncivil. Redfarmer (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. AUDC is one of the two major regional debating championships in Asia (beside All-Asians) and notable by its own right. It is silly to question about it's variability when so many strong sources are present online (Please help yourself with Google!). WUDC, EUDC, Australs, All-Asians and AUDC - these five tournaments are most popular among university level students[48] and it is unfortunate to see such nomination. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:54, 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.