Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 20 May 22 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect. Renata (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henrickson's Home Plus

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Henrickson's Home Plus
Henrickson's Home Plus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fictional establishment with no independent notability. Cquan (after the beep...) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete fictional store in a tv series, not independently notable. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Make redirect This might be a decent search term in regards to the show, but NN in regards to being a separate article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect: Borderline notable, a redirect would provide more information - especially as the subject doesn't seem to be notable enough to grow beyond a stub...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 13:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:43, 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 --JForget 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qhays Shayesteh

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

A football player who hasn't played an official match yet. He has been on the bench on one game over a year ago, that's it. AecisBrievenbus 23:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boxie (singer)

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

Young, upcoming artist. Might become notable in the future, but doesn't meet WP:MUSIC yet. AecisBrievenbus 23:46, 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 Gnangarra 12:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iván Ulchur

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

This article was tagged with unclear notability tag since May 2007. So listed DimaG (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, sigh He appears notable on a quick google search, I suspect that if he was writing in English there would be no problem. The problem we have is what to do about articles like this one; on a writer of some notability with no one volunteering to put up a decent article - probably because he writes in a foreign language.Elan26 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the opinion above hits some important and valid points. However, the fact is, someone seldom steps up to rework the article into something that feels right for the encyclopedia. --Stormbay (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not a reason for deletion. An article on a notable topic should be kept. If it needs improvement, it should be improved, it should be tagged appropriately (or, of course, improved right away if possible). Wikipedia has no deadline. Klausness (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. He is not notable in the English-speaking world, and thus seems to have no reason for an article in the English-speaking Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:N says nothing about notability being restricted to the English-speaking world. We need to avoid systemic bias. If he's a notable Spanish-language writer, then he's notable. Klausness (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Several hits in Google Scholar and Google Books. Appears to be notable. Klausness (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per consensus. Article needs clean up though, and better sourcing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Namahn

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

consultancy organisation with slim notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Namahn was the first user-centered design consultancy in Belgium. The article satisfies the notability requirements as set forward in WP:CORP. References to scientific research and publications, whitepapers, lectures could be added. Mvuijlst (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more evidence of notability is presented. GoogleNews returns only 6 hits[1], at most 5 of which appear relevant. There are two foreign-language sources referenced in the article. I'd like to know what they are about. Perhaps someone with necessary foreign language proficiency can provide a summary here. (Strictly speaking, some kind of translation of selected portions should be included in the article, per WP:RSUE). I am fairly skeptical at the moment as for a truly notable company I would have expected more coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Namahn keeps a low profile. The first article referenced is an extensive two-page article (see [2], [3]) in Knack, the Belgian equivalent to TIME, Newsweek, Der Spiegel, L’Express. The article introduces the concept of user centered design. At the time, Namahn (then called Integration by Design) was the only company doing that kind of work in Belgium. The article title is "It isn't the computer's fault"; it situates the issue (with an example of Stinger missiles in Aghanistan, supplied to the Mujahedin by the US, but sadly not user friendly enough so unused and rusting away :). It goes on to describe user-centered design, explaining that "Integration by Design creates prototypes and wireframes, that are then user-tested and lead to a style guide". It goes on by describing Integration by Design's methodology: "Both developers and end users participate in short, intensive workshops to arrive at a correct task analysis. Integration by Design then interviews users at their place of work to gather their business needs." The article continues along those lines; the methodology described is still recognisable as one of the tracks in Namahn's current (and much liked in the community) methodology poster.
    • Actually, the simple fact that Integration by Design's name change to Namahn in 1998 warranted a -- granted, short -- mention in Trends, Belgium's leading financial and economical weekly, headlining the section, above MCI/Worldcom's merger and Apple's third quarter financial results, pretty much establishes notability. :)
    • A more recent article in Computable (market leader in the Netherlands for information avout ICT jobs, products and services, with the highest reach amonst ICT decision makers, according to DIMS 2007, an independent study by Interview-NSS/Synovate) was probably written after one of Namahn's lecture events. It talks about user-centered design concepts and features an in terview with Namahn's Joannes Vandermeulen, where he mainly talks about mental models. Mvuijlst (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ADVERT. It's quite blatant and just not notable enough. It would require extensive re-writing and referencing to be worthy of remaining. TorstenGuise (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you feel that way. You had it earmarked for G11 speedy deletion about a minute after the article was created, but I think I addressed your concerns. The assertions are non-controversial and backed by relevant and independent sources. As for notability: as I mentioned before, I think the article complies with WP:CORP, as it has been the specific subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Yes, there is room for improvement. It's a stub that I'm confident will be improved over time. Mvuijlst (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Does it not say that you are an employee of the company? That breaks WP:CONFLICT. Not an excuse for deletion, but it should be taken into account as to your reasoning and point of view. Also the other keep vote is someone that has had a lecture from the company. Very shaky ground. TorstenGuise (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is of course a very slippy concept. I just want to add that for the country in Belgium and in the sector in which it is active, it is certainly a very notable company. The company is also mentioned for its quite unique, at least in Belgium, open bookkeeping policies - Michel Bauwens. Warning: I was once invited for a lecture, this is how I know them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.47.44.59 (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A non-consumer consulting business, apparently Internet oriented. This sort of business needs a strong showing of notability, and the article's assertions do not make the case. I couldn't even find the name of the business in the Dutch language website mentioned. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • As the article mentions: the name of the company has changed over the 21 years it has existed. I am surprised at the statement "this sort of business needs a strong showing of notability". Notability is a relative thing, as Michel Bauwens mentioned above. Namahn is notable among its peers in its wide region. Mvuijlst (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Michel Bauwens has not mentioned it. Someone claiming to be Michel Bauwens from a random IP and not a Wikipedia user account has commented. I'm slightly concerned with the use of this alleged "referee" who seems to be very supportive of your argument, and then you reference his page on Wikipedia. If I were a betting man, and had less good faith, I'd think an RFC could be used here to see if there is a bit of WP:SOCK going on. I'm assuming that it's not though, even if you are the only vocal advocator with a legitimate account. Hope you can see where the concerns are coming from. TorstenGuise (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah. I can see where you're coming from, indeed. I trust the comment is indeed by Michel Bauwens, but how would one go about verifying the person's identity? Would someone send him an e-mail? Or do we AGF it to be the case? Mvuijlst (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Well just a quick whois reveals a Thai ISP. Still doesn't mean it's him as it seems to be a dynamic IP and still could be an open proxy. It's also a one-off entry unique to that IP. TorstenGuise (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, as a matter of fact, I do think that inclusion standards should be somewhat higher for non-consumer businesses, especially if they involve consulting, advertising, publicity, computers, or the Internet. Brick and mortar businesses selling consumer goods have a public face, and generate reviews and discussions of their products. Non-consumer businesses IMO need to be noticed by the general public; trade publications, industry awards, and the like should not count as notability.

    It's also no secret that Google likes Wikipedia, and getting a Wikipedia article is a good way to boost your search engine prominence. Tech, advertising, and consulting firms are presumed to be aware of the phenomenon. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand this. However, in its field Namahn is a notable company. I don't want to do a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but, you know, it does. :) -- Mvuijlst (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Very funny guys, what can I say, only I know that I' m me it seems, but it shouldn't matter whether I'm the real MB or not, it is the argument that counts. Greetings from Chiang Mai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.47.42.198 (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article in a prestigious Flemish newspaper ([4]), Lithuanian website ([5]), so they are known outside Belgium, and at least two (possibly a third, but not 100% whether it is about the same Namahn) Google books: ([6] and [7] - Namahn is on page 722, which Google Books does not show, but page 721 makes it clear that it must be about this Namahn). I do not like the state of the article myself, but since I am more into history, literature and linguistics, I do not feel much like working on an article like this. However, the abstract here may help.

--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alaska Triangle

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

Non-notable paranormal theory or neologism describing disappearances in Alaska. This appears to have been covered in one History Channel documentary (which I admittedly have not seen), but few or no other independent sources appear to use this name. (Perhaps the History Channel just happened to use this name in a program describing misc true disappearances in AK, and then others picked it up?) I am from Alaska and have never heard of this. Yes, people disappear in Alaska, and maybe more often than elsewhere considering Alaska's remoteness, but I don't think an article on a supposed "Alaska Triangle" is warranted. Very few ghits. Mangostar (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete neologism. WillOakland (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WillOakland and nominator. I live in Alaska, and have never heard of this. This isn't to say it isn't true merely because I'm an Alaskan and haven't heard of it, but this is likely a hoax. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. No opinion on notability yet but this does not appear to be a hoax. There was a History Channel special about this which is avialble from Amazon.com:[8].Nsk92 (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unestablished neologism.Cquan (after the beep...) 00:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Article set to disappear also, no triangle required, neologism. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable and completely unreferenced. Artene50 (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above comments Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and safely relocate article somewhere within the Bermuda Triangle. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:45, 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 as a neologism. --jonny-mt 06:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cricketainment

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

Fails to assert notability; Possible neologism not covered up by reliable sources, so speaks rohith. 22:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:NEO.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable neogolism that is not present in reliable sources. Only sources are blogs and sources related to the founder. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -, so speaks rohith. 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable Obnoxious (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not delete as it is a valid article under "Sports entertainment" Category. check the articles under sports entertainment, which have similar articles. If you delete this article then all articles under that category should be deleted as well.

Gururaj 007 (talk)

  • Comment: I support creating a redirect to Indian Premier League, but I am not so convinced about the merger option. The only reason I nominated it for deletion was because I felt that it was mainly neologism. Of course, there are perfectly reliable sources, after all, neologisms get covered in the media for a specific period of time, and then die out. But is there sufficient evidence to prove that the term has entered common usage and that the subject has gained enough popularity to justify an article/section dedicated to it on Wikipedia? That is my question, so speaks rohith. 08:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that we need to draw a distinction of substance between a page and a section in another page. I fully agree with you that it doesn't merit a page both because, as I say above, I doubt that we have the content for one and, as you rightly say, it hasn't entered common usage. However, for a section different criteria apply; these are that it should be relevant and encyclopedic in the page and reliably sourced. In the context of the IPL it is in common usage and relevant and as I have shown can be reliably sourced. Consequently, I think that a short, pithy section would be useful and is all that is required. I am not sure that there is any real difference between this page being closed as a redirect or a merge; if it was closed as a redirect then someone could still add sourced content to the IPL article. Whether the content stayed in would be up to the regular editors of the IPL page which would also be the case if it was closed as merge though, perhaps, editors might be more inhibited about removing it in the latter case. HTH. Smile a While (talk) 03:26, 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 no consensus (kept by default) - Nabla (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bart Van Es

Bart Van Es (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not shown. Is he notable? DimaG (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. He has written 3 books [13] and a look on Google Scholar [14] shows citations to his work, and some reviews of it. Someone with more expertise in the field is likely to be able to come up with more sources. Overall, I think this author/academic just passes the guidelines of WP:PROF. Kevin (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notable as a writer of standard works on his subject. A critical companion to Spenser studies publ. by Macmillan, in 335 libraries. Early modern English poetry : a critical companion by Oxford UP , in 338; Spenser's forms of history again by OUP, 250. 3 books by major publishers in essentially all major university libraries. Overthe bar. DGG (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Google Scholar lists only six citations for all his works combined.[15] I need evidence that his books have influenced his field before I !vote to keep.--FreeKresge (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
these are basically reference books, not the sort of thing that usually gets cited. The OUP critical companion series is a major comprehensive series & doing one of the volumes is quite a sign of recognition. DGG (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
My Google Scholar search was for all his works as an author, not just the Critical Companion series, so I cannot see if he has done something to merit this sign of recognition or if he was just someone willing to do the work. Furthermore, I cannot find any independent reliable sources that provide nontrivial coverage of him, something that WP:PROF requires regardless of whether other criteria are met.--FreeKresge (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The nature of the publications and the lack of serious coverage by any independent sources point to a non notable subject. --Stormbay (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment he also appears to have written for The Times although I doubt that this role has been covered by reliable sources. The works he has authored/ edited seem to have recieved some attention, is their any precident for an X and their works article on Wikipedia? Guest9999 (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-in general we've been doing the article on the person, and the works are discussed as what shows the notability--the exception is sometimes when there is one principal very well known work , much better known for the person. After all, one person will possibly write more works, but not the other way round--so the bio article is the one likely to be expanded. DGG (talk) 04:18, 28 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. Punkmorten (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silicus Technologies

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

This article does not assert notability per WP:CORP, which the original author seems to agree with on the talk page. I couldn't find any secondary sources that do much more than verify the company's existence. The article has been speedily deleted 5 times to date (see the log), but was declined the last time around. I'm bringing it to AFD to get the community's opinion. Kevin (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete doesn't meet notability criteria. The author should probably have a nice note placed on their usertalk as well to help them avoid the COI conflicts of self-created articles as well as an invitation to contribute to other articles constructively in the meantime. No reason not to create a new article once notability is confirmed through the reliable 3rd party sourcing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A non consumer technology business. References seem to be listings of directories or awards and credentials. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I found only 2 News hits, neither of which appear to be substantial. Not notable. Jakew (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:45, 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Candidates of the next Western Australian general election

Candidates of the next Western Australian general election (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The entire article is a crystal-ball exercise. The date for the election is not known, nominations are not open and much of the article (including the lists of MP not returning) is original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an election guide. Mattinbgn\talk 22:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree, everything in this article is likely to change once the election gets closer. In the meantime, it's all speculation really. Kevin (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment No spec at all - theyre up and running - current editions of the West Australian have all the labour endorsed candidates open to see SatuSuro 00:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I know what you are saying but none of them are nominees yet, they are endorsed prospective nominees and can't be nominees until they have submitted a nomination. There are 101 things that could happen between then and now. I would suggest we leave election guides such as this to Antony Green who doesn't have the content restrictions that we have here. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is an absurdly tight standard you're trying to hold the article to. The close of nominations happens very late in the process and all these candidates will be out there campaigning long before that happens. Look at Gippsland by-election, 2008 where the formal close of nominations is still two weeks away. All the candidates listed have been preselected, exactly as the article states. If the parties happen to change their candidates over the next 6-12 months then the article will change accordingly. Bush shep (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's only a crystal ball if we speculate: posting reliable sources' projections of the future isn't a problem. Some parts of the article may need to be cleaned, and the article needs inline sourcing, but this is a reasonable topic right now because of the sources listed at the bottom of the page. It's reasonable to assume that endorsed people will be candidates, since that's the point of the parties posting the pages that are used as sources. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as an original research, crystal ball article. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's only crystal ballery if it's not sourced by reliable secondary sources. In this case, there is no speculation going on, it's merely reprinting what's already been said in credible sources. User:Mattinbgn's points are noted and I appreciate the argument is a good one, but I don't see any problem with the article right now. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep Everything in the article either is sourced or can be sourced (in particular the retiring MPs should each have inline citations) so is not a crystal ball violation. Davewild (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. All sourced, very useful article. Rebecca (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per G11 - Spam and A7 - Non-notable web. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Visible.net

Visible.net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has no outside sources and fails to establish notability. DerRichter (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It does have one source, the google checkout one. It appears as though its newer, looks less bare than some corp. pages ive seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.176.58 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is no assertion of notability here, so it could probably be speedy deleted. The Google link doesn't actually mention visible.net. The site has been up only 3 weeks, so maybe notability will come later, but it isn't there yet. Kevin (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Creator's username shows a pretty clear COI. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure? There's no dot before the 'n'. :-) Kevin (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable spam article fail WP:Corp and WP:WEB Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi, I am the original publisher. Wanted to assure you all that this listing is in no way intended as spam, just want to show off our corporate brand on the infamous Wikipedia. I recently added more references and hopefully added more 'notability'. I also cleared up some of the text references that might not have been clear, like the checkout reference and added the pubcon one. Yes, the site is new, however if the page remains, I pledge to continue improving it to be more in line with your ideas of notability and authority. We are making a lot of changes and are sure to be covered during at least some. I want to know if there's anything I can do more to keep the page active and to become more notable. I am newer to Wikipedia, so any help would be great, got to start somewhere. Also, a log upload and screenshot would be a nice addition, however i do not have the privileges, otherwise i would have included those as well. i also plan on adding some notable clients we have, with their permission of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.176.58 (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOT. Showing off a corporate brand is not what Wikipedia is for. --DerRichter (talk) 22:40, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Daniels

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

Non-notable, google returns only MySpace for 'Josh Daniels', 'Josh Daniels and the Addictions' returns more MySpace, personal websites and passing references from blogs. ninety:one 22:13, 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 merge to Mark S. Weiner.  Sandstein  21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Juridical racialism

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

This appears to be a non-notable concept that appears essentially only in the writings of a single author and has not been picked up by others. Google books and google scholar each generate five hits. Perhaps this should be placed in an article about the book in which the concept was proposed? Mangostar (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The redirect has been reverted for now, because I jumped the gun, but the author article still has the merged info. If the consensus is to delete, then that article may need to be reverted also. Kevin (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect per above, does not seem notable on it's own. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge, It can take a while for a new concept like this to catch on, maybe this one will and maybe not, it's not my field, but until it does, the best place for this material is on the page of the law professor who is proposing this new term.Elan26 (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26
  • Redirect per Kevin's Merge. Although I'm not sure if Mark S. Weiner himself meets WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect as above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • merge and comment This particular theory has not yet been picked up by other legal scholars, either because it is very controversial or because it is less than 2 years old. The author himself has been quoted in 17 other accademic journals according to westlaw.com about his other theories in race and the law. Legis Nuntius (talk) 20:07, 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 speedy delete as a blatant copyright infringement. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trigger Effect

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

This band has some assertions of notability: three north american tours, and an album out. However, there are no reliable third party sources that currently reference the article, and as it stands, it fails WP:MUSIC Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:52, 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 to delete, default to keep. Also no consensus that this is irremediable WP:OR, but (as noted by Guest9999) the article needs to be rewritten based on secondary sources that are specifically about this comparison, or it may be re-nominated for deletion at a later time.  Sandstein  21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparing Italian Fascism and German Nazism

Comparing Italian Fascism and German Nazism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:OR-filled essay. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep Several active Wiki editors with different political viewpoints discussed and supported the need to break this out of the main articles. It is not original research, but reflects a discussion among scholars that goes back over 70 years. There are numerous cites in the entry, and several of us planned to add more. Creating the new page was the best solution. Give it a chance.--Cberlet (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, very clearly OR in spite of any citations. In order for this topic to be salavaged ... well ... I'm sorry, but this is just an essay and inherently OR. Arkyan 22:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per no sources, and there are many articles already on this topic. See Wikipedia:Sandbox to play around in. --DerRichter (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:OR.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Needs lots of work, but only one day old. Topic not popular, but should exist. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep There are plenty of sources here, and it looks like commitment is promised (above) to improve the article. I don't see WP:OR or WP:NPOV being a problem if there is already a group of editors with differing opinions working on the article. I say WP:AGF and let it go. Plvekamp (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The topic is well referenced and correctly highlights the differences between German (race based) and Italian (state) fascism. It may not be a popular subject but it certainly merits a place on Wikipedia. Also, the article is only 1 day old. Artene50 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't mean the subject notable. I could right a page that highlights the difference between Cheese and the Supreme Court of the United States. I could source it well but it would not be encyclopedic. The subject here is the comparison and if the comparison itself hasnt been sourced then it is non-notable and OR. --neonwhite user page talk 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Your comparison of the relationship between Italian fascism and Nazism to Cheese and the Supreme court is just insane to say the least. Bobisbob (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But we ran out of space on Fascism, and this is a distinct area of scholarship, and a fascinating issue. It help readers. That's the point, right?--Cberlet (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Relationship is notable, article has just begun (1 edit prior to nomination!), and there are obviously some editors keen on working on it. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither were any of the good articles on WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yea but using a sandbox didn't hurt either. --DerRichter (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Article is not OR, it is well-referenced. Much more can be easily found. It is a notable topic describing the difference and relation between Italian Fascism and Nazism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Jakew (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep encyclopedic, now has a bunch of sources. Give an article a chance. It now has over 10 references; therefore it is not OR. However, I would suggest this page be Moved to Differences between Fascism and Nazism or something along the line. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete If this is in fact a comparison of the two subjects then the title needs to reflect that. The currect title is misleading and suggests an article convering two seperate subjects that both already have articles, however, I fail to see why such a comparison is at all notable or in fact encyclopedic. Unless there are reliable sources available that compare these two subjects in detail then it is not notable and constitutes OR. --neonwhite user page talk 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are numerous academic books that compare these regimes. This is not an OR, but a notable and interesting subject. Some people think that Italian fascism and German Nazism were the same. No, they were not.Biophys (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep, and Move to something else. Generally speaking, we should not allow articles like 'Differences between X and Y', 'Similarities between trucks and apple-carts', 'Comparing boats and tax returns', since that opens a pandora's box of indefinate OR subjects. We can have an article, which could be very interesting, which deals with the relationship(s) between fascist and nazi movements, how the two movements evolved, how they inspired each other, points of disagreement, differences in policy development, and the post-WWII attempts to actively disassociate fascism from National Socialism by contemporary far right movements. --Soman (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
As long as it can be sourced that this particular comparison is notable and has been covered in reliable sources. An editor cannot simply take two subjects and create an article about the percieved differences that would be original research. My prefered title would be "Comparisons of Italian Fascism and German Nazism". --neonwhite user page talk 03:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't just two random subjects. These ideologies and regimes are related and had an evolving relationship. We've run out room in the fascism article and as I said before much of the details in this subject are irrelevent to that article. How come we don't need it article but we have an article on the left and feminism? Bobisbob (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep While the two movements had much in common, this article also highlights the differences, which helps in understanding both. Edward321 (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This subject subject deserves an article of it's own. Most of the information here is irrelevent to the fascism article. Bobisbob (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Opinion currently the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten in order to meet our editorial standards, particularly those relating to original research, it also needs a new title if kept - as stated above. I am not able to examine all the sources (books I don't own or have access to) and so cannot give a definitive opinion on whetehr I think the article should be deleted or kept but would say that some of the sources that are used in the article appear to only deal with one of the regimes. Finding information on the two regimes separately and putting it together to make an article would be syntehsis, disallowed as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought so I think the article should only be kept if sources that specifically compare the two regimes can be found. Having said that World War 2 must be one of the most published subjects in history and I would be extremely surprised if reliable sourcing for a rewritten and retitled article wasn't out there somewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 14:21, 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 Speedy Delete per G11 - Advertising and Promotion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FOREST OF THE SPRITES

FOREST OF THE SPRITES (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable children's book, only 316 Google hits. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:37, 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 delete. Punkmorten (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LUCY Gateway

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

Notability concerns. Only 142 Yahoo hits ... but most of them appear to be press releases. High COI as well--author is Ruconcept.lucy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Blueboy96 21:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 06:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Pooja

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

I'm sure Miss Pooja has a wonderful singing voice, but I see zero evidence that this artist meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC guidelines for inclusion. Perhaps I'm missing them because they're in another language and I just don't know where to look. If that's not the case then this article should be deleted as a hopeless (and I do mean hopeless) vanity page. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keep until someone actually checks on the one hand, notability is not demonstrated yet, but on the other hand, nobody has tried to find out either. DGG (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment So far, in my search, I'm not finding much, if any, information about Miss Pooja that isn't a blog, a myspace page, a copy of some version of the Wikipedia article, or a list of download links. Will keep looking, though. I think that notability might be established, but I'm not sure if there's going to be much beyond a stub -- not that there's anything wrong with a good stub. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all of the links about this artist are either blogs or on MySpace which fails WP:MUSIC criteria JBsupreme (talk) 17:26, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rory Preston

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

Violates WP:N The Jacobin (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as no sources to demonstrate notability. A quick look on Google suggests this may in fact be a hoax in the first place, I cannot easily find any reference at all to the particular Rory Preston mentioned here. ~ mazca talk 21:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, zero sources available means zero chance of a Wikipedia article too. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per A7; there's no notability that I can find. Plvekamp (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax -- when an asserted performer with Queen has the 4th top google hit being the notification that the article has been nominated for deletion here, then he probably doesnt exist. DGG (talk) 22:17, 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 per an apparent WP:HEY. --jonny-mt 02:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Young Money magazine

Young Money magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn magazine (see WP:NOTABILITY). Quick Google search turned up no independent reviews, but plenty of subscription offers. Disputed prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - minor publication, references are trivial (one-paragraph quote from the publisher, for example); fails to meet notability standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - a reference from the Washington Post was added after your last comment that "references are trivial" Stanley011 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Now there is a ref. from USA Today in addition to the Wash. Post. 2 references from major national publications hardly qualifis as "NN." Stanley011 (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • explanation - Read our guidelines on notability. Merely being mentioned in passing does not suffice. There must be significant coverage, not a single-paragraph quote from the publisher or a passing mention in an article not about the subject of this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable; in addition to those noted above, I've repaired those refs on the page. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Also added the other refs. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 01:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lego SpongeBob SquarePants & Avatar: The Last Airbender

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Lego SpongeBob SquarePants & Avatar: The Last Airbender
Lego SpongeBob SquarePants & Avatar: The Last Airbender (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I hate to be such a deletionist, but this is yet another useless article in the Avatar: The Last Airbender task force. The page is a list of LEGO merchandise for two TV shows. Wikipedia is not a directory, especially for such a non-notable list of items. There is no important information in this article, except for the fact that the products were released, which can be mentioned in one sentence in either of the TV shows' main article page. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, no evidence that this has any real world notability. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - is this anything other than a virtual catalogue listing? Arkyan 22:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There doesn't appear to be anything setting these two Lego themes apart from all the other Lego themes out there. The notability of each is dubious, but the notability of these two specifically is downright nonexistent. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable sources and seems to be only a skeleton of crufty material. I would have suggested a merge to lego if there were actually anything to merge. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As Arkyan says, looks like an obscure catalog listing. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. Jakew (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:59, 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 delete. Punkmorten (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Chiu

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

Fails WP:BIO, doesn't even tell us who he is, or why is he notable. Delete GreenJoe 20:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Reads like self-promotion. Fails WP:N. Delete--The Jacobin (talk) 20:14, 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. Singularity 07:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Champions of Faith

Champions of Faith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN documentary. Possible COI. Disputed prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete no evidence of notability for this production; no external reviews at IMDb. JJL (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The dispute over the notability of the distribution company does not reflect the notability of this film as referenced here.[1] The film features many prodominant baseball stars all of whom are have Wikipedia articles. The film carries 8 out of 10 stars in IMDB user ratings and is endorsed by Major League BaseballAsh1028 (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)ash1028
  • Neutral for now - looking around, I find a reference to a Detroit News article, and a USA Today article that write about this topic. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the sources to find out if the coverage is trivial or not. I found this list of articles at the website for Champions of Faith which lists a lot of blogs, admittedly, but also the dates and authors of these newspaper articles. Is anyone able to find out if the coverage was trivial or not? Only then can we really make a decision Fritzpoll (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep While it may have little notability, it's still a movie. There is also enough info to stand by itself.--LAAFan 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - A news search reveals a number of potential sources, although not all of these focus solely on the film and a number of them are Christian newspapers, whose reliability as sources is difficult to determine. Still, this is evidence of significant press coverage--whether it's enough or not is a little more difficult to say. --jonny-mt 02:14, 30 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. A close call this one, but having looked at the article I'm convinced that (1) there are sufficient independent sources and (2) the event itself is of sufficient notability as it had an attributable effect on the fortunes of one (what appears to be) one of Americas biggest wrestling franchises. There's still a lot of room for improvement, but I'm satisfied that notability is established (more through WP:IAR than WP:N though) Waggers (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Fingerpoke of Doom

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

Strong Delete. Okay, I gave it 6 months to improve, but this needs to go. Article is of deceiving importance and does not meet WP:V. Sources provided in the article have little to no relevance to the topic. These sources violate WP:RS as they are opinion columns from a wrestling websites (LordsofPain.net itself being WP:QS per talk on WP:PW). Fourth source is referencing the main event of the rival show (WWE RAW). The Impact portion of the article is littered with statements that violate WP:OR & WP:ASF. Per the original AfD, I dispelled any notion that this single event was the cause of or even assisted in the downfall of WCW with this source. This source demonstrates that WCW's ratings increased for a month after the events took place. Kevin Nash (one of the two participants in the angle and as a side note, does not call this event the Fingerpoke of Doom) also debunks this myth in several shoot interviews (including this one [16]) by explaining Bill Goldberg's injury & CNN/Time Warner's merger was more at fault than any wrestling angle. And finally, and I think most importantly, Fingerpoke is not a word. Endless Dan 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems to be a non-notable event created by wrestling enthusiasts. Has no reliable sources, only several websites that pretend to be ones. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I would bet there is better sources out there. It seems to me you hate wrestling, so your personal view is a conflict of interest here. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I would bet you're not assuming good faith. Keep in mind that there are plenty of non-events out there for all kinds of sports - there are entire books on the decades' worth of baseball lore that exists, but very little of it is encyclopedic. Hence, it doesn't belong here, and neither does this. If this had been a major media event, covered and analyzed from several angles, you might have something - but that's not the case. So, until proven otherwise, delete. Duncan1800 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep G-hits tend to indicate that this term is used. It even pulled up a g-news hit from January 2008, where it was credited as one of several reasons WCW failed. Article is sourced (though not well); nom's source would fail WP:RS due to the URL of the website. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment:I realize the link isn't reliable, but if there is a reliable site that has decade old Neilsen ratings, I'd like to see it. Even then, the numbers would not change.--Endless Dan 12:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Although the event is quite notable amoung a subset of people (wrestling fans) the article itself doesn't seem to really meet the requirements for inclusion as most of the "reliable" sources would be first or second party (the actual tape of the incident and wrestling magazines amoung them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep based on changes although, not sure "ECW Press" counts as a 3rd party source. The article still desperately needs cleaning up and wikifying though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
'Comment Please note that ECW Press is not related to the ECW wrestling promotion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This was the second of two turning points in the monday night wars (Montreal Screwjob anyone?) WP:PW articles seem to be coming under fire lately. It's notable as a turning point and the biggest ever exampe of a swerve. Thank you. Sexy Sea Bassist 15:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Biggest example of a swerve? C'mon. What can you show me that supports your arguement? Just ask me, and I can list at least 10 swerves "bigger" then this. I'm begging you - just ask me on my talk page. --Endless Dan 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Pro wrestling articles being under fire isn't that relevant to this discussion. If you look at just about any subject, you could probably find a bunch that are under fire. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Reliable sources exist, if people are willing to look for them. I added three print sources, which I believe establish notability. I agree that the article needs work, but that is not grounds for deletion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per GaryColemanFan -The Hybrid- 06:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The original article for deletion needs to be reread. Every keep-voter says "sources exist" and not a single source was added until it was renominated for deletion. And all the sources added are by the same authors that were discredited in the first discussion. It has been established (including within this article itself) that the finger poke wasn't even the major ratings-shifting event that occurred on television that night. Clearly, this is the project banding together to keep their propaganda page, and in opposition to Wikipedia standards. Obligatoryhandle (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Also of all the sources recently added, only one of the sources pertain to this actual incident.[2] The other sources are given for inconsequential events (Goldberg being tasered, the nWo reforming, describing Kevin Nash's overreaction). Those actions are not being disputed. What is being disputed is the notability of this event. --Endless Dan 19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment A few things to note here: (1) It does not matter if sources were added before or after the AfD was created. The important thing is that they were added. (2) The claim that "all the sources added are by the same authors that were discredited in the first discussion" is incorrect. Although The Death of WCW was mentioned in the first discussion, it was certainly not discredited. The two books by Davies, the book by Fritz, the second book by Reynolds, the Wrestling Digest article, and SLAM! Wrestling were not even discussed in the first AfD. (3) While I have added 7 reliable sources to the article, you seem to believe that one source, which, as a 100megsfree.com self-published hobby site, has been deemed not reliable, can override that. I do not believe your view is supported by Wikipedia policy. (4) All of the sources provided pertain to the incident. They establish the notability of the event because many authors felt it important to include a description of the events on the January 4, 1999 episode of Monday Nitro. If authors did not think it was worth mentioning and devoting space to in 5 books plus a journal and an unquestionably reiable website, I agree that notability would be hard to establish. (5) I have yet to see anybody claim that this was the single event that caused WCW's downfall. The only people who claim that this has been argued are the people pushing for deletion. The article states that it is "a pivotal storyline", but it definitely does not say "the single event that caused the downfall of a multimillion-dollar company". It is simply a well-known event that is documented by many reliable sources. That, according to Wikipedia policy, warrants its inclusion in the encyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the second RD Reynolds book, all the added sources do is establish the one-finger pin occurred. And even RD Reynolds himself admits in Death of WCW that WCW was already losing the ratings war at this point. Yes, ratings steadily dropped after this. They had also been steadily dropping before this event. A cherry-picked quote does not prove this is a pivotal occurrence. No "unquestionably reliable" website has been cited. The reference index has been padded, yet the notability of this event remains unestablished. Obligatoryhandle (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Article of an important event in WCW history, thogyh it does need to be cleaned up. --PlasmaTwa2 22:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not nearly as important an event in wrestling history as it is made out to be. Nowhere near the level of the Montreal Screwjob. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Confused comment I have yet to see a Wikipedia policy stating that events much be at or above the level of the Montreal Screwjob for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The question being debated is whether or not the event is notable. According to the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability, it seems pretty clear that the answer is yes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment. I don't agree that this article meets the notability guidelines. The internet sources are either not reliable (fan opinion pieces) or do not show significance (TV character timelines). The print sources show no depth of coverage. These books are wrestler biographies and collections of crappy storylines, and they are by the same authors. Availability of secondary sources remains assumed, but has never been demonstrated. The results of the first deletion nomination was that this article should be deleted if notability is not established. As it has not, it seems obvious now that it can't. Obligatoryhandle (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ref

  1. ^ USCCB: 'Champions' on the field, and in their faith, highlighted on DVD. Retrieved on 2008-05-21.
  2. ^ Fritz, Brian; Christopher Murray (2006). Between the ropes: Wrestling's Greatest Triumphs And Failures. ECW Press, 41. ISBN 1550227262. 
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ➪HiDrNick! 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Berkshire Maestros

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

Not notable, only cite from organizations website Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:52, 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. --jonny-mt 08:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Daft Monkeys

3 Daft Monkeys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep:We have enough sources.--Freewayguy T C 03:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ➪HiDrNick! 20:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Webitor

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

NN Neologism...search turns up the term being used by some editing software, but not so much the person doing the editing LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:41, 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 both - Nabla (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Small Hours

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

Non notable band with a self published album. GHits are for anything using the term EXCEPT this band. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TruePlanning Software Model

TruePlanning Software Model (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN proprietary software, advertisement written as a response to a competitor's article. Toddst1 (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable, un-referenced, corporate spam; "TruePlanning software" gets a whopping six g-hits, and "TruePlanning software model" gets zero outside of this article. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Baffling, badly written essay full of original research, referenced to some fellow's thesis and to other Wikipedia articles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Two "references" are included in the aticle, but neither mention the model, so it also fails verifiability. I don't think it's over the top enough to be blatant advertising. —C.Fred (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment. Chrispfister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), the original editor of the article, has been blocked for 24 hours for disruption for removing the AfD tags from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:47, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson Chan

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

Music video director. No refs, no press coverage. Speedy deleted several times... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

with these gathere info, should we put on the article itself, or shold it just be revised here?--Oingoboing69 (talk) 13:38, 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. --jonny-mt 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rally Salinas!

Rally Salinas! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local fund-raising event, no natability outside this area. This article was written by a user named "Rally Salinas" so this is basically an advertisement.--Coasttocoast (talk) 18:51, 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. Singularity 01:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kieran Palmer

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Kieran Palmer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been speedily deleted for WP:CSD#A7 five times since October of 2007, being recreated by two single purpose accounts, User:Cobass and (this time) User:Spartakss. (Eight times if you count Kieran ramsey palmer and Kieran Ramsey Palmer.) There is no verification of notability here, and I can’t find any. I get nothing significant on Horonism or Church of Horus. While the name hits 142 distinct, I find nothing to verify notability for an artist of the name, although I did hit on a number of myspace style pages and a self-added student profile, here. Of the external links on the page, there are currently 3 primary websites and 2 blogs, [17] & [18]. There is a list of exhibitions, here, that does not seem to add up to the notability guidelines on creative professionals.

Recreated today, the article was tagged for notability, but the tag was removed by the creator without any attempt to address the concern.

I believe that unless reliable sources can be provided to verify that this individual meets the relevant notability guidelines, the article should be deleted and this spot and related titles protected against further recreation until it can be demonstrated that such reliable sources exist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this page was already up for six months and has been deleted. The page now has more references than it did.

This guy is an emerging artist in the underground art scene in Birmingham UK. He is becoming very important due to his concerns about the way information is presented.

I feel he does match the 'notability guidelines on creative professionals' as he is a co founder of two fairly big art groups in the Midlands, UK and has created a group 'the church of horus' that has a following of nearly 140 people worldwide.

As I say this guy operates mainly underground but has a great following from those who are involved and 'in the know'

Perhaps allow the page to stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.14.105 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.14.105 (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC) — 77.100.14.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The artist has a clear input to the art that is going on in the Midlands, Britain. It is quite difficult to justify the standing of this page as Palmer's fame and contribution to the art scene here is more wrapped up in 'word of mouth' as opposed to published review.

From my research in creating the page I have found that he has a definite presence and is recognized to be having a serious input.

There is a book being published in June this year which is the 'doctrine' of the church he created. Again, this is to be distributed in the form of street art as opposed to shelve sales.

Thankyou for your time and messege moonriddengirl. I hope we can sort this out and the page can remain! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartakss (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The keeps above look like they're all from sockpuppets.  AcroX  23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


I think it seem genuine. If he is up and coming why not? And I have looked into this guy and he does not seem like he has a bunch of 'student myspace pages' and what not. He has a clear web presence, especially horonsism (Speling?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.11.73 (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC) — 77.100.11.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete per all the above. "up and coming" doesn't mean notable and the article doesn't assert his notability to any of our policies/guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 11:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the well researched and argued nomination. The hurdle for proving notability is significantly higher than the hurdle for proving that one exists. Unfortunately for the person/people creating the article, wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is notability. Debate (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. The first 2 weblinks seem dead. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep I understand that wikipedia is a tertiary source. It is a shame that he operates underground in a similar way to Heath Bunting, in so much that his work is important, but is largely unknown at the moment throughout the world. I stress he is an important figure, (which is why I have tried to create the article so many times!) but I understand the regulations.

The Church he has created though is publishing an official doctrine in June 2008. Would this count? And the Church now has 130 members worldwide. It has also been given residencies throughout the Midlands area over the coming summer. (I do not stalk this guy, honestly!)

The first two links are dead because I put them on wrong, :-s I tried to edit them but was emailed by wikipedia stating I was unable to edit this page.

Thanks for your time guys. spartakss

Comment I'm afraid that publications by the church would not count as independent sources, as he is its founder. If the book receives enough notability to confirm notability for the church, then he might at some point gain press from that, but the book in itself is not likely to aid in establishing notability. You really need reliable sources to confirm that he is an important figure. As to the notice you received, you were evidently prevented from changing the sources because blogspot is on a Wikipedia blacklist. You can read more about it here. It is evidently blacklisted for newer users as problematic with regards to point 11, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and, since it keeps getting recreated no matter how many times it's deleted, salt it like a snail. Qworty (talk) 06:53, 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 00:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family Motor Coach Association

Family Motor Coach Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:45, 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. Not notable for itself, and as they are ex-Gentoo developers merging to Gentoo would be odd. As said, and as always, with no prejudice for recreation, should sources for notability show up. - Nabla (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exherbo

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

Announced unreleased software with no schedule. Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL No sources cohesion 18:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not unreleased per se -- code is available already, and works. It just doesn't have a nice friendly installer. spb 21 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.100.201 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: agreed with nominator. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Merge... somewhere... until there's an actual release somewhere. Some attention has been sent Exherbo's way (Slashdot story). But on the other hand, it's not a giant loss if the article gets deleted and rewritten when the release is ripe and the media at large really notices this thing. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Source code is out there as spb said, people can fetch it and use it. If you want to remove the article because it's irrelevant for Wikipedia, that's perfectly understandable, but the existence of installation media has nothing to do with the fact that the distro is there and is public. The information about the existence of Exherbo is perfectly verifiable by downloading and checking the sources. --ColdWind (talk) 16:41, 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 but allow restoration on request for the purpose of a merger to an appropriate article (which does not seem to exist yet). After discounting some particularly inane comments ("All hail my Anglo-American pov!", "The year in question clearly occurred", "like the potato famine", "Lets start a new guideline", etc.), consensus is that events in this country and era should be covered at the century level for now (or possibly at the decade level once WP:SS requires it), due to the apparent scarcity of verifiable exact dates or even verifiable events. As soon as someone creates an article such as 7th century in Ireland, we can undelete and merge the contents there.  Sandstein  22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I overlooked that work on 7th century in Ireland has already begun, but it was a redirect at the time of the closure. Feel free to undelete 619 in Ireland and merge the contents to the century article, to the extent that consensus there allows.  Sandstein  22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 619 in Ireland

619 in Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The one listed event actually happened in 618 according to the article Fíngen mac Áedo Duib. Tim! (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: for context, see List of years in Ireland. - Ev (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. So fix it. I'd suggest moving the data to the correct article, but leave any speedy tags off just in case. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to "fix it" as it already exists at 618 in Ireland... Tim! (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Then methinks we're done, and we can have a beer to celebrate. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the subject matter, that would mean dancing with the blonde in the black dress, no doubt ;) Grutness...wha? 01:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, and most of these articles (the early ones anyway) need to go; a completely unmanageable editing nightmare. Perhaps best to be merged into a larger Irish chronology article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep on condition that there'd be a combined article. Example would be 600's in Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have nothing in particular against 619 or Ireland. As far as the births [deaths] go, they're a listified category intersect of "is a member of a subcategory of Irish people" and "is a member of year X births [deaths]". Some of these deserve to be deleted, most merit merging into timelines. Deletion seems best in this particular case. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have been bold and redirected this to a new article I started, 7th century in Ireland, which now contains 40 years of merged entries and links to the rest. Mangostar (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, that has been reverted (as "vandalism", ugh). If the consensus is to merge, as I believe should be done, could the closer go ahead and put 7th century in Ireland where I had it and redirect the constituent pages, as I did? (Or let me know, so I can do this?) Thanks. Mangostar (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The year-in-Ireland series is a work-in-progress, and it's depressing to see that some editors are so keen to dismantle it just because it isn't yet complete. It's much easier to merge these articles than to unmerge them later, so this sort of mergeism has disruptive effect on building these chronologies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    Brownhairedgirl, these individual articles (well, the early ones), are historically unviable nightmares. I took some time to explain this a few months ago. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I cannot believe there is enough documented early history to have decently developed articles on individual years. (Perhaps Ireland editors could thoroughly investigate one representative year and prove me wrong?) For now, it makes sense to start with century articles, breaking them up into decade and year articles as they grow and need space. Mangostar (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, consistency was the argument for the by-year categories, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18. It wasn't accepted there. The argument that consistency and systematisation means treating 500 AD the same as 1000 AD, and that the same 1500 AD, or 2000 AD, seems to me to be fundamentally wrong-headed. As we move further into the past, there are fewer documented events which can be reported, and the precision with which they can be dated declines. Sometimes editing means starting over again on a blank sheet. This is probably one of those times. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge to century articles per Mangostar. --John (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge. Many of the early years are probably doomed to remain permastubs so combining them into a larger article makes sense. If enough documented content emerges then they could be split later. Valenciano (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a technical fix to this? Lose the empty articles (bringing them back if the need arises) and devise some form of automatic navigation box that generates navigation links between "interesting" years (maybe through Dynamic Page List over a category) in a manner that's no-effort for the page authors and understandable for the readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Can someone else please tell User:Sarah777 that AFD tags cannot be removed from articles until the discussion is over? She removed it again after I warned her the first time. Mangostar (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete per above. ThuranX (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. The information contained in the article is also contained in the correct year (618 in Ireland), and removing it would leave this as a content-free page, blank except for the template. Looking at the articles in Category:610s in Ireland, 615 and 614 redirect to History of Ireland, there is no article for 617, and the only article in the entire decade with more than a single entry is 618. I'd suggest merging all of the individual articles into a single article, using headers to separate each year. Horologium (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. With all due respect to BHG, this isn't viable and given the paucity of historic sources, is unlikely to be viable. No other country in the world currently has a "619 in..." article; even the article on the year as a whole worldwide is sketchy at best. If the material to flesh it out does become available, it can always be recreated; otherwise, this would be far more useful as a subsection of "Ireland in the 7th Century". — iridescent 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: No content, not much of anything. We can't keep placing pages as mere placeholders for someone to eventually fill in. Enough time has elapsed for content to be added and nothing was done. seicer | talk | contribs 03:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, no future prejudice to recreation. Keeping with the format of "This stuff happened in this year" idea is pretty important, especially for people who navigate by page title. On the other hand, having an article with no content in it doesn't really make sense. However, future historical things may come to light, so I don't really see the point in harassing people who remake the article with actual content in the future. Celarnor Talk to me 05:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to century or decade articles per Mangostar. We've been down this road before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1248 in Ireland. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral (changed from keep) I do think that back this far it is often difficult to give exact years... and maybe era or decade would be better if properly sourced, etc. It depends. But, I tend to think you need a reason to delete or change the title since year in country articles are otherwise inevitable. gren グレン 10:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into 600s in Ireland. Total nonsense to have every year in Ireland. Snappy56 (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge content to 600s in Ireland or a similar article. EJF (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sarah has a valid point that the date of this man's death is different from different sources. If the article is kept then other items for 619 can be easily added in the future.GDD1000 (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Added two more verified items to this article.GDD1000 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ZOMG Keep: Who cares this year article is non-notable and against common sense? Lets start a new guideline that wikipedia can have article with zero content and keep this page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This page is a part of a "work in progress", and should not be deleted. Deleting the page will ruin the format that Sarah777 has put much work into, and the finished result will be worth efforts thus far. Cherry rose (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (struck !vote of a banned user Rockpocket 19:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC))
Note this user has been blocked as a sock puppet. Tim! (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge unless someone can find something else that happened that year. Make it into a redirect or something. 1 != 2 16:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - like the potato famine, one of Ireland's natural disasters ;-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge per iridescent. Nakon 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge, present content would be better combined into 600s in Ireland, or similar. Leithp 16:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Umm, This guy's death Fíngen mac Áedo Duib, king of Munster, has no reference in this article. But it does have a reference in the article 618_in_Ireland that he died in 618... Soooo I think this article truly is blank as it only contains information contrary to our references. 1 != 2 17:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect A century article makes more sense - if fact the above date controversy can be easily avoided. Agathoclea (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. All hail my Anglo-American pov! ➪HiDrNick! 19:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — The year in question clearly occurred. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- unless WikiProject Ireland wants to take all of these articles under its wing -- setting standards for sources, chronology, reconciling conflicts of expert opinion. I've worked in this area, so I can state with some confidence: (1) The sources uses GDD1000 aren't reliable, I hate to say -- try some of the books written by Kathleen Hughes, Francis J. Byrne, Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, etc.; (2) the chronology of Irish history before AD 700 is very controversial -- even the experts disagree over the exact years events happened in; (3) unless kept under a careful eye by someone with a good knowledge of the topic, year pages prior to the 8th century will become a mare's nest of fringe theories & other cruft. -- llywrch (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reason to litter the project with articles that have shown zero promise of ever some day containing actual content. - Merzbow (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles in this series dealing with Antiquity, Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, per Iridescent & Llywrch. The dates of many (most?) of these events should be preceded by ca. anyway. — Use a X century in Ireland format instead. - Ev (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete echoing the above. There is no demonstrable need here. Eusebeus (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this article appears to be one article is a series of articles that make up a timeline of Ireland. I see no reason to delete an entire year from the history of this country because of the supposed lack of information on a page. Monobi (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment/question. I think it may be helpful to ask, to find out, what those behind this project see as its limits. Where do you plan to stop? At the year zero BC/AD (I'm not sure what it's called)? Or do you plan to go back earlier? I'm just asking... hell, I got my fingers burnt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1248 in Ireland so I'll say no more specifically about that.
    But I'll say just one thing, as I know everyone's watching (although this might be better a matter for AN/I), I'll address you directly. Get off your anti-Sarah bandwagon. Look at this, despite me having nommed 1248 for deletion. [19]. There are too many people round here who have an agenda. Drop it, stop it, please. Stop looking for reasons to nuke a very serious editor. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For Christ's sake. Are you seriously suggesting that the nomination of this article for deletion is the result of an insiduous, dastardly "Anti-Sarah" plot? Give me a break. Even cowgirls get the blues, and even experienced editors may have a few contributions that aren't suitable for the encyclopedia. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, badger drink, I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I haven't mentioned a plot, so I don't know where you get that idea. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, then. It's just rather dicey when one sees statements like "Get off your anti-Sarah bandwagon" and "Drop it, stop it, please. Stop looking for reasons to nuke a very serious editor", AfD being the barrel of... the barrel that it is and all. No hard feelings? --Badger Drink (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge any relevant information into a larger Irish history article. Unless a year is especially notable (it's not), it doesn't merit its own article. Enigma message 22:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to a 619 section of 7th century in Ireland (after reverting the redirect of that article to History of Ireland). Deletion is unnecessary: a "619 in Ireland" redirect is harmless as a plausible (even if unlikely) search term and an existing redirect would discourage future recreation unless and until the 619 section of the merged article grew to a significant size. DHowell (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This is the plan I most agree with. And I don't see where the "delete and merge" votes are coming from - that is impossible under the terms of the GFDL. EJF (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete is perfectly feasible in these cases, there's no creativity involved in snipping factoids out of other wikipedia articles or turning category intersects into articles and thus nothing to be copyrighted. If you disagree, where's the attribution in this article then? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge - The number of known events of any year at such a remote era will inevitably be very small. There is thus no case for one article per year. An article on the whole decade - 610s in Ireland might possibly be. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Note - People above have suggested a merger to 600s in Ireland, but that should refer to the decade 600-609, not the century 600-699 or 601-700. The use of "600s" for a century is ambiguous - "7th century" is always to be preferred. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to a 619 section of 7th century in Ireland, as per DHowell. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as per DHowell. This was a serious effort by somebody to add useful information to Wikipedia in an organized way. It's not the kind of vandalism or slander or self-promotion that needs to be dealt with by "Delete", which IIUC removes not only the article but also its history, talk page, etc. betsythedevine (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is sufficient information for article to stand alone. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:49, 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 delete. Punkmorten (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 41:30

41:30 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable DJ. No sources. Damiens.rf 16:35, 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. John254 00:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economic consequences of the 2006 Thai coup d'état

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Economic consequences of the 2006 Thai coup d'état
Economic consequences of the 2006 Thai coup d'état (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The page breaches WP:UNDUE. It's true that the coup had some economic consequences: these are amply detailed here. This article goes far beyond that, and needlessly so. Example: "The SET Index dropped 9.99, or 1.4 percent, to 692.57 at the 4:30 p.m. close in Bangkok. The SET Index fell 29.64 points, or 4.2 % to 702.63 in the first minutes of trading Thursday to its lowest intraday level since July 21. But quickly bounced back, suggesting the coup would do no greater damage." It also sounds like a financial report rather than an encyclopedia article: "'The initial reaction was kind of a knee-jerk reaction,' said Adithep Vanabriksha, who helps manage $1.6 billion at Aberdeen Asset Management Co. in Bangkok. 'Coups aren't viewed positively in the first instance, at least. Still, we wouldn't recommend investors sell. Valuations are still quite cheap.'" And it also crystalballs (but hasn't been updated since 2006): "Investors said the coup is unlikely to trigger another financial crisis in the region. 'The situation is very different than it was in 1997 and 1998, when you had large current account deficits in the region and large vulnerability because of borrowing,' said Michael Mussa, the IMF's research director in 1997 and 1998 who is now an economist at the Institute for International Economics in Washington. 'It is a purely domestic political event and when the smoke clears, it may be a good time to buy,' said Kevin Hebner, global investment strategist at Greenwich, Connecticut-based Third Wave Global Investors LLC, which manages over $400 million." Biruitorul (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Detailed subarticles are a usual feature, and not subject to UNDUE in any imaginable fashion. Undue, in fact, dictates we do exactly what we've done here - move overly detailed stuff to subarticles. Wikipedia functions both as a general encyclopaedia and a specialist encyclopaedia, and has no space constraints, so there's no need to delete useful information which has already been covered in reliable secondary sources. WilyD 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • To a point, yes. But given the article itself (written in the immediate aftermath of the coup) acknowledges these consequences were "relatively minor", and given the main coup article pays a fair amount of attention to the economic angle, must we keep this level of detail? Especially, I may add, rather poorly-formatted detail (lots of quotes and predictions) that have little lasting relevance. Biruitorul (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Must? Are the harddisks running out of space? - although "other things" is a weak argument, most of our articles are far less important and influential than a Military Coup - that's not a good standard of comparison. WilyD 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
        • First, WP:NOT#PAPER is not an excuse for preserving rubbish. I appreciate that we have less space constraints, but do see WP:EVERYTHING. Second, about a dozen Thai coups of the 20th century lack articles, so clearly we don't care that much about them. Third, the coup itself is absolutely notable - no one says we should delete that article. And its economic consequences are notable enough to merit a few paragraphs - which we give them there. What is not notable, certainly, at least, in the current form, is the content of this article - largely a pastiche of quotes from experts, mixed with some stock and currency numbers and plastered with a couple of graphs. We can safely do without this. Biruitorul (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
          • This article is poorly written, but the information content is solid. So "rubbish" is simply not applicable as an adjective. The correct response to good information that's poorly formatted is to reformat it, not delete it. That coverage of political events in Thailand is poor is not a reason to delete coverage of political events in Thailand, but to write more about them.
Beyond this, there's nothing like "paragraph entitlement" based on notability. Paragraph entitlement is done article by article with undue - so George Washington should receive no mention in Universe, some mention in United States, a good deal of discussion in American Revolution and by the focus of every paragraph in George Washington. There's absolutely no reason not to go into the available depth at a specific, tailored article, with one or two paragraphs and a {{main| }} template on 2006 Thai coup d'etat. The ability to do this is what makes Wikipedia better than my New American Desktop Encyclopedia.
In short, this meets the usual inclusion criteria (probably WP:N) and runs afoul of nothing. It's merely poorly written - poorly written is not a deletion criterion - if it was, I'd have already worn the label off my delete button. WilyD 20:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
          • There is, of course, another argument: that the article has sat there almost unchanged for over a year and a half, in rather poor condition. If someone came and made a decent attempt at cleanup or restructuring, maybe there would be a persuasive case for keeping this. But while there is no deadline, this does seem to be going nowhere.
          • Now, to address your point. I don't see the information content as solid at all. It reads like a news report, not an encyclopedia article, and I'm curious how it could be made more like the latter. Moreover, there are two good reasons not to delve further than the main article. First, as the lead here admits, a "relatively minor" phenomenon is being discussed - stock market fluctuations over a couple of days. Second, the encyclopedic content, that which is of interest to the general reader as opposed to the economic historian, is already well encapsulated in the main article. If a persuasive case can be made that something in conformity with the MOS can be written on this topic, then there might be a case to keep it. However, that hasn't happened - it doesn't appear a convincing rationale for preserving the article has been made. Biruitorul Talk 21:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The lead SAYS that the coup was in part aimed at changing the country's economic policy. This is a valid subarticle. The article includes sourced speculation from an IMF economist -- I don't know how much more authoritative speculation can be. I don't know that we need to include the "good time to buy", but WP:SOFIXIT instead of focusing on one problem area to take down an entire article. --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see that - I see an assertion that the coup had a long-term economic impact, but it's not backed up. Indeed it's the only substantial change to the article since the month after the coup, made in February 2007, but no references are presented to bolster the assertion. Biruitorul (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep not sure what the problem is if simply it's not been well updated — surely somebody with a greater familiarity than I with current economics could update it. Surely a valid topic for an article. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks like a notable topic backed up by sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, perfectly good and notable topic. Everyking (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That raises a couple of questions. First: what about, say, Economic consequences of the 1953 Iranian coup d'état or Economic consequences of the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état -- coups where, unlike what is acknowledged in this article's lead, these consequences were rather more than "relatively minor"? Yes, I know the stock answer ("somebody's going to write those at some undefined point in the future"), but realistically, those probably aren't coming down the pipeline, and this one did, for the simple reason that Wikipedia didn't exist in 1948 or 1953, and did in 2006. Second, and more important: in the 20 months since the coup, we've shown ourselves quite capable of writing decent material on this subject - in the main article. Will we suffer if we keep that content and remove this one, which is far beneath standard? If, some day, that section of the main article becomes long enough, then split, but for now we can easily make do with the quality content there and axe this hack job. Biruitorul Talk 04:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I have more faith than you do in the future scope of Wikipedia's coverage, but even if not, that would be no reason to limit what we have on events occurring in 2006—it would make as much sense as a person who, having lost one leg in an accident, decides to chop off the other as well, for the sake of symmetry. Everyking (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        That takes care of my first point, and the issue probably won't be resolved in this AfD. However, what about point 2? What precisely would we lose by deleting this? The topic, notable or not (and let's assume notability for the sake of argument), receives ample coverage here and -- would you agree with me? -- substantially poorer treatment here. Personally, I don't think deleting this until and unless well-written prose on the subject can again be split off the main article is such a bitter pill to swallow. Biruitorul Talk 17:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above.Biophys (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Possible frivolous nom by a monarchist. Well-sourced article, notable and valid topic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as subject with real world significance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:35, 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. --jonny-mt 03:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Emerson Show

Rick Emerson Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

article fails to assert why this radio show is notable outside the local area. No mention of awards or syndication. Only a single reference from the local newspaper. Rtphokie (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this unsourced fansite mess as unverified, unencyclopedic, and not notable. I'd support a shorter, better article about Rick Emerson as his career appears notable but the show does not meet the threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A quick look at the article's talk page will demonstrate that other sources -- from outside the Portland area -- exist, that editors are in the process of seeking them out, and that the show was once nationally syndicated. Furthermore, the nomination is in error: an article's subject need not be notable outside the local area, it simply needs to be notable. Not an issue in this case though, because as mentioned, the show was once nationally syndicated, and covered by a national publication. (I acknowledge that the article, in its current state, is in need of a whole lot of help. But that's not a reason for deletion, either.) -Pete (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment sources are better, in footnote form, in the article rather than the talk page.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well yeah, of course they are! I'm just pointing out that improving the article is well within reach. I will be working on that during the AFD. I hope you are open to reconsidering if sourced information is added to the article during that time. I'm not going to copy them over, though, until I have a good enough understanding of how the articles relate to the subject. -Pete (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, when properly footnoted references are added to the article, I will consider withdrawing this AFD.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Okay, I have now removed a bunch of the fansite cruft, and there are five citations to general interest newspapers. I wouldn't say it's exactly up to good article quality or anything, but I hope this is enough to show that an acceptable article is within reach. -Pete (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Continually, articles like this are attacked and kept. This is nothing more than an attack on interesting articles, that the nominator(s) has/ve no knowledge of. Just because you have never heard of someone, or their show, does not mean that they lack notability. Also, the article clearly states that the show was syndicated from 1998 to 2001, and that it has a loyal world-wide following thanks to podcasts and streaming. Obviously, the person who nominated this article, never read it. TEG (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Please take a look at WP:ATTACK, let's focus on the article, not the editors. I've read the article and have questions about the subject's notability, thus this discussion. Dont take it personally.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing !vote to Delete. Trying to improve the article has become more trouble than it's worth. -Pete (talk) 16:39, 29 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 - Nabla (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iwari

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

Apparently non notable record label. No reliable sources cited, and I can't find any after a quick search. Only claim to fame appears to be being the former label of Vector Lovers. Prod was removed with the comment "Improved entry - hopefully - linking to 'what the label has actually released'" by the author. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: The label "undergoing a relaunch," and the acts it seems to have hosted do not appear to be very substantial. The information missing that would make this a notable label would be distribution deals and total sales. Everyone with a CD copier is a "label" to some degree, but a real indie label gets distribution from Rough Trade or someone like that. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:10, 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 A7 by Cobaltbluetony . Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DSX

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

Non-notable rap group, unable to locate sources to verify their notability. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete fits all the criteria for a db-band. "article about band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" and has zero verification. Tagged as such. --Pmedema (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: I concur: everything about it suggests that it's an A7. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:05, 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.-Wafulz (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Horror rock

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

This article was previously deleted because it was completely unsourced and about a non-existent musical genre. The author then created what is essentially the same article again, with no improvement. It is completly original research and is not verifiable . Woland (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - Hello I am the author of the page Horror Rock and i believe that my page should not be deleted, the reason that Horror Rock is so undefined is because it is a very small underground type of music and more often than not horror rock bands tend to not be able to refer to themselves as "Horror Rock" because of the lack of knowledge that people have as to what "Horror Rock" is, which is why i made this wikipedia page, i hoped to bring Horror Rock more into the public and help explain what it is and yes it is original research i did through the internet but it is very reliable research coming from many of the bands themselves who refer to themselves as "Horror Rock", there are also several Record Labels that specialize in Horror Rock such as: http://worldhorrornetwork.com/ , http://www.drcyclopsrecords.net/ , and http://www.bloodandgutsrecords.com/aboutus.html , there is also a story from the BBC that labels a band as "Horror Rock" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5001578.stm as far as i know this page is not interfering with any other pages nor is it a biased page it is just a small description and history of what "Horror Rock" is, it also includes a small list of bands that are seen as "Horror Rock" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicky Stake (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    Hello there. Naturally, all contributions to Wikipedia are generally welcome. Unfortunately, this particular topic is, as you say, largely original research. If you read our verifiability policies and this article called WP:OR, you will have a clearer idea why the three other contributors to this page believe the article should be deleted. If you can, try to find some reliable, independent sources that define what "horror rock" actually is. If you can find sources (that ideally meet the guideline for reliable sources), then add them to the article and drop another note onto this page. If you have any questions please ask either here, or on one of our talkpages Fritzpoll (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure I'd call it non-existent, as the phrase has been mentioned in reliable sources. The first one that comes to hand is this one. I'm leaning towards keep, and very far from delete right now. I'm going to see if I can find a source to pin it down Fritzpoll (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Going to leave this for now. So far, I've managed to turn up a lot of people claiming they like horror rock, articles on how to appreciate it, and a number of articles like the one I've quoted referring to others as belonging to it. Although some vague definitions exist, I can't yet find any in any reliable sources. I'll let someone else run with this for a while and see if they have better luck pinning down a source that defines Horror rock - fwiw, it seems closely related to Horror punk... Fritzpoll (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep My WP:HEY is that it get some reliable source citations and references to get ride of the original research issue. --Pmedema (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete My WP:HEY was not satisfied. Obliterate... Poof!
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak Delete - despite my comments above, I have been unable to locate sources that define what horror rock is. I have found plenty of usages, but no defintions. My !vote should be completely disregarded if someone can find these elusive sources, as I've only searched the net and done a title search of my Uni library Fritzpoll (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-declarations and a catchy title doe not compensate for what seems to be a lack of reliable sources bout this genre.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:22, 29 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. Pigman☿ 03:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association

Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable organization. Article was originally deleted under CSD A7, but some editors think that was unfair and recreated the stub. So, I'm bringing it here. The organization has virtually no google hits [20], (if we disregard wikipedia and its mirror sites). The two "references" in the article are reports on some seminars organized by the group. Ragib (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I have refactored some of the longer discussion to the talk page to aid readability and reduce the amount that people viewing all the day's AFDs have to scroll through. This is not an assertion that that content was not as important, merely that it was longer. Please place all long comments on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:N. --Ragib (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very little coverage by independent reliable sources. The two references given in the article are OK but insufficient to satisfy WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, but could be recreated if more significant coverage in secondary sources is shown. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete due to failure to meet WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep according to WP:ORG Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." and it also says however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favouring larger organizations. On this basis I believe that this organisation is notable, the two countries have had a complex relationship. Millions of refugees have crossed the frontiers, their are all sorts of issues that affect the two nations. The Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association does have reliable sources noting its efforts to help Afghan refugees by speaking out on their behalf against government policies and trying to help them resettle. This association is involved in efforts to help the Afghan refugees as well as building a relationship between the two counties. Admittedly their is not a deluge of information on google, but surely deleting it would be indicative of a bias against smaller organisations. This article now has six sources, why was say European Friends of Israel (one external link no refs) not up for deletion or American Iranian Council, Friends of the Soviet Union (Norway). And what of the Friendship Association Norway-Albania? - Check out the google hits for that one and how would it be notable. I believe that the article does indeed meet WP:ORG - if deleted I think this may give rise to an impression that there is some sort of bias against Pakistan related articles. Again I ask that you re-read WP:ORG and visit the examples given above - and hopefully reconsider. Pahari Sahib 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep largely agree with Pahari Sahib's rationale - except his statement about suspicion of an anti-Pakistan bias. No harm in keeping this article even if it's compliance with WP:N and WP:ORG are borderline or foggy. Vishnava (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - From the talk page it appears that so far only the relability of Refs #2, 3 and 7 is being questioned. Which implies that all the others are reliable! --IslesCapeTalk 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep since it shows a relationship between two countries which makes it a somewhat major organization. Plus the people supporting deletion are criticizing the article's context instead of the notability of the organization, which is the premise that Ragib brought this discussion forward. (Might I remind those users that Wikipedia is a expanding site and the article will expand in due course of time). --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - I'm not that much concerned about the lack of English-language Ghits; it appears to be notable from its mission, and is a well-cited stub. On the other hand, I think this is a good faith nom: there is little in the way of information available. I'd lean towards keeping it in the expectation that additional print sources be located ASAP. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 21 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) 14:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:ORG: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment If this is to be deleted, shall we delete Democratic Portugal-China Friendship Association, Finnish Vietnamese Friendship Association, Faroe-Soviet Friendship Association, Sweden-Israel Friendship Association, Polish-Soviet Friendship Society and Friendship Association Norway-Albania as they all "qualify" for deletion since they are not very "notable". They also lack "reliable, independent secondary sources" if not even having any sources. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Le Tigre Clothing

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

This article has been around for a while and has had 1 AFD before. I have tried with no luck to find reliable sources to support the article. It seems easily notable as we have all heard of the brand, but without sources to support the facts it is hard to keep this. The only source I found was this which mentions that Kenneth Cole owns the rights to the shoe line (towards the bottom of the page). Unfortunately it fails to meet WP:CORP. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole article reeks of WP:OR. The only thing we can verify is that Kenneth Cole now owns the trademark. Seems like that should be in the Kenneth Cole article. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Junk article on a keep topic: The label is notable. The company is substantial. The clothing line is common. The article is wretched in the extreme. This requires a complete rewrite to be sustainable, but the topic is ok. Will anyone volunteer to research and actually write the real article? If not, it's better to delete than carry this. If so, do. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. Hold that tiger! The article needs work, but that it needs work is not a good reason to nuke it. (Yes, it is a reason, but not a good reason. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, even a casual glance at Google News Archive shows plenty of sources. Eastmain's WP:HEY efforts have already passed the bar for WP:CORP. --Dhartung | Talk 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Dhartung that is what we needed. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Close per nom Sources are available. Happily withdraw nom. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and speedy close. I'm surprised to see this once nominated, twice? coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:52, 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.

[edit] Science Showdown

The result was Speedy Deleted Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable competition at a middle school. Prod disputed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete: A7 organization or event. It's a primary school science fair. I'll bet a model greenhouse effect wins. <shrug>. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A7 (calling club here). So tagged. Literally something made up in school. Interesting concept, but not for here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:09, 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 keep all . This AfD, as well as the AfD and DRV cited by the nominator, give the impression that the community wants to cover sourced responses to major disasters, but that such coverage should not simply consist of massive lists of boilerplate condolences and trivia, per WP:NOT#NEWS. That's more of a case for cleanup than for deletion, at least in the case of the articles nominated here. We also seem to be arriving at a consensus to selectively merge the country-specific articles back to the main article, but that's an editorial decision.  Sandstein  21:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International response to Hurricane Katrina

International response to Hurricane Katrina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Following on from this Afd (now at Drv), pages of the form of lists or descriptions of the responses to international disasters, in the form of condolences, donations and aid packages from every country on Earth, do not seem to be notable in themselves, in the sense that this will always occur for such large disasters. While very well sourced, the information seems to be more a collation of news reports and not a permanent record of note. Any actual notable responses (i.e. beyond the expected norm) could easily be accommodated in the relevant disaster articles, or any article about a government/rescue service/military. I am listing related response articles, although you will note this does not include the 9/11 article, which I think is notable as a single world event where reactions have a political and military aspects as well as a humanitarian element. MickMacNee (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional pages:

International response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Canadian response to Hurricane Katrina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
French response to Hurricane Katrina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Mexican response to Hurricane Katrina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
New Zealand response to Hurricane Katrina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Singaporean response to Hurricane Katrina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Swedish response to Hurricane Katrina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Keep (only responding to the main nom, you may want to split out the other articles). Well sourced article supporting a notable event. Is too large to merge into the event article. Contains useful information. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with the above; you may want to split up this nom. Redfarmer (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep International response to Hurricane Katrina. Clearly notable international responses to a notable event, and too much information to fit into main Hurricane Katrina article. Some cleanup (such as removing that long list of countries at the beginning, since it's followed by information about individual countries anyway) might be appropriate. Merge other "response to Hurricane Katrina" articles into "International response to Hurricane Katrina". Klausness (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Define 'notable response', as the article contains a large variation of responses, including several single lines to the effect "offers of help and assistance", which also appear in the other 'international response to' articles named. MickMacNee (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Any non-notable responses should be deleted as part of the normal editing process. There are definitely notable responses in the article, and there will be even more if the other articles are merged in. Deletion is not a substitute for editing. Klausness (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also, International response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake should not be included in this AfD, since it's a totally different event. Klausness (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Grouped based on 'response to xyz notable natural disaster' being similar enough titles per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. I don't think it achieves anything to say katrina is keepable and the others are irrelevant (i.e. I see no point in creating separate Afd's when my nomination reasons would be exactly the same). MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well my reasoning is I could see someone arguing the individual country's responses to Katrina aren't notable enough for articles but that the International response to Hurrican Katrina article is notable as an overview. Redfarmer (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Maybe, but they all look like overlong prose versions of some of the larger paragraphs in the main list. People can still give arguments to the effect above, but as far as I see, there's no difference between the argument for existence of the main articles or the sub-articles, as they basically all exist on the premise that the type of information they contain is notable without any extraordinary claims for each particular country. As such, even the reverse position could be argued, that possibly one country's efforts deserve an article if they were massively involved (i.e. Canada for America, China for Burma etc), but still arguing that the main 'international' list with one line entries and paragraphs doesn't need to exist. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:UNDUE. Yes, lots of countries and organisations gave aid following these disasters. We make sufficient note of that here and here. That's encyclopedic, but exhaustive country-by-country lists are not. The average reader is interested that help was offered, not in a detailed breakdown of its particulars. Biruitorul (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't see how WP:UNDUE is relevant here. That refers to violating NPOV by giving undue weight to some points of view or to some verifiable facts, relative to other points of view or facts. I don't see any violation of NPOV here. And even if there were a violation of NPOV here, violation of NPOV is never a reason for deletion -- NPOV violations should be fixed by editing. Klausness (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You're right - I'd forgotten UNDUE has to do with NPOV. Let me reach into my grab-bag of reasons to delete...hmm, how about WP:EVERYTHING? As I said before, "we make sufficient note of" disaster relief efforts in the main articles, and the added depth here is not warranted. Biruitorul Talk 21:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep when there's too much, too detailed or unduely focused information on a main page, a subpage is the right response. This seems to be a textbook example of that. WilyD 17:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep both International response articles, but confine them to discussing substantive aid and relief efforts. We don't need the individual country articles nor do we need long lists of condolences and sympathy. --Dhartung | Talk 17:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all of the articles. The information in International response to Hurricane Katrina is the summary style expansion of Hurricane Katrina#International response, and it cannot be merged into Hurricane Katrina without significantly affecting its structure, and as a result, its Featured Article status. The rest of the country articles can be merged back into the International response article, but that is an editorial decision outside of the purview of the deletion process. (Merge defaults to keep and all that stuff.) Ditto for the Kashmir earthquate article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per summary style, and consider merging the individual country articles. Editorial decision. DGG (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Simply put: WP:NOT#NEWS. This information is excessively detailed to the point of uselessness; does anyone anywhere need to know that, to pick a random example, 'Guatemala offered 135 flooding and sanitation experts', or 'Hungary pledged $5,000 and offered to send a Special Search and Rescue Team, and also five doctors.'? The most relevant and significant aspects of the international response are listed in the main Hurricane Katrina article, as is appropriate; these articles go far beyond that, and are simply not needed. Much of the same is also true of the 'international response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake' article, which should be merged back into its parent article. Terraxos (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And as an aside - while I know 'precedent' isn't generally an accepted deletion argument, I do find it odd that there was just consensus to delete the article on the international response to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, but there is not (so far) to delete these articles. Why the double standard? Why is one international response more notable than another? Terraxos (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The critical quantity here is "volume of information" - but Sichuan might have been decided wrong. The point is that this is really part of "Hurricane Katrina", but that article's too big, so we have to section out chunks. If the precedent is wrong, we've no reason to feel bound to it. WilyD 02:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This Afd is in response to the Sezchuan Afd/Drv, to establish consensus as to whether lists of international responses to disasters are notable. I don't see any point in the summary/volume argument unless particular efforts are noteworthy, the sub-articles and main articles for different countries are the same type of information, country X did this, country Y did that, NN food parcels were sent, DD dollars of aid were promised, on X month Y year Mr Z said this. Why is this information notable? Number of words <> notability. MickMacNee (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Because it is required to have it under WP:WIAFA §1.b. This is not a notability issue, but a summary style issue, as this information would be inside the Hurricane Katrina article if it weren't so freaking big. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you're going round the houses, when all you are meaning to say is this is notable. No article gets kept purely because it's too big to fit into another one, every article is expected to stand on its own. MickMacNee (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that notability has absolutely nothing to do with it. But if you insist on labeling something as notable or not notable, the two International response articles are notable to stand on their own. The rest of the articles supplement these two articles, and are required if merges are decided. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not insisting on notability, it's a core wikipedia policy. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability has the following text at the top: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Splitting articles when they get too big is not only common sense, it is a Wikipedia guideline as well. Unless you're arguing that Hurricane Katrina and the 2005 Kashmir earthquake are not notable, then I don't see how editorial organization of the articles (which mandated splitting) would be covered under the notability guideline. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Read my nomination again, I am arguing that lists of responses to notable natural disasters are not notable (and no-one is giving me a reason why they are, but rather just simply stating that they are, or deflecting the issue to notability of the disaster itself by arguing that notability is inherited just by virtue of sheer length - in other words the sheer amount of trivia - causing a split. I will repeat what I said at the Drv, what is being asserted here as noteworthiness, is in fact newsworthyness, and is going to date ridiculously quickly, if it is not actually useless to the encyclopoedia right now. Also, Notability is never inherited by default in the creation of a sub-article, this principle is applied right across wikipedia for large articles. Perhaps it might help you by actually looking at some of the other major disaster articles from years earlier, where the response section is adequately covered in the main article, without needing a list of response of every country on Earth down to minutia such as numbers of food parcels etc. This response to trend is definitely a recent phenomena, a case of 'it can be done', not 'it needs to be done'. I see absolutely no validity in ignoring a requirement for notability of a list of responses just because it doesn't fit in the main article. That stance could applied to many different assortments of lengthy info that gets added to wikipedia all the time, but is deleted due to not being worthy of inclusion, and this is certainly not a case of common sense along the lines of ignore the notability requirements. MickMacNee (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Or alternatively, just read the short version: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content. MickMacNee (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Essentially, your entire point is that you think that these articles are trivia, and you're not going to convince me about that. If anything, you're picking the wrong examples, as for example, Katrina resulted in the first occupation of U.S. soil by a foreign army since the nineteenth century, to pick an example. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) No, most of it is trivia (how can it be argued it is not? read the list), but at the core, the entire article is newsworthy not noteworthy for an encylopoedia. You can argue it's not trivia, but, again, it realy would help if a decent rationale for that position was given, rather than just asserting it. So Mexico invaded the US, are we seriously claiming that event (for which I agree is a noteworthy event) requires its own article outside of the Katrina article? Let alone it needs to be a sub article of a sub article because it's being treated as just as notable as all the other entries in a list of reponses, that I have argued time and again don't really belong in an encyclopoedia, as there is nothing remarkable about them at all. It is a case of recording for the sake of it. MickMacNee (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, it's not at all clear that there was consensus to delete the article on the international response to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. That's why it's in Drv. If you look at that AfD discussion, it certainly looks like "no consensus" (and, if anything, tending slightly towards "keep"). The closing admin thought the "keep" arguments were unconvincing and decided to delete based on that. Klausness (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per my previous AfD and DRV arguments regarding the identical Sichuan article, as well as WP:IAR, WP:WIAFA §1.b, and the opinion/stance that the article(s) go beyond the current scope of WP:NEWS.   — C M B J   10:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete It is too poorly referenced. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's certainly a plausible sub-article on a notable topic. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable topics, subarticles are appropriate due to the amount of info. Everyking (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Moderate keep A notable topic, no doubt. It'd just be nice if the articles were of higher quality. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Dhartung. While the International response articles do contain a lot of 'excess fat' (i.e. newsworthy but encyclopedic trivia), deletion is not the appropriate method of cleanup in this case. The individual country response articles should probably be merged into the main International response article, but that would best be handled outside of AfD. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all Wikipedia is not paper and this is verifiable and useful information. Shii (tock) 00:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was speedy delete by author request. Closing in spite of my contribution to the discussion as the deletion is uncontroversial. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Care-A-Thon

Care-A-Thon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This annual college dance party fails the notability standard of WP:ORG. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete unless reliable sources can be produced to verify otherwise. I've addressed the kinds of sources that could be used with the creator at the article's talk page, here, but do have some doubts under the circumstances that anything can be located. I've done a google search myself, but failed to disclose anything. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Localism. If someone follows this comment with a desire to "keep," please at least argue to move it to University of California Irvine#Student life. In my book, it's not even a keep as a section of another article. First, the title is hardly unique. Second, it's a campus social and therefore a localism. Third, it's not a particularly important local event (e.g. the annual Miss Irvine Pageant or Kwanis Club scholarship contest), as it's only of import to a segment of the city. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • comment: Just had to note that I do agree that this is the proper home for information about this. It's one of the suggestions I made to the article creator at the talk page earlier today. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 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.

[edit] Marko Cic

The result was Speedy Deleted Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

A non-notable Slovenian footballer. Eleassar my talk 14:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - no evidence player has ever played in a fully-pro league so fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 16:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: Criterion A1: no article. Everyone is born. Everyone dies. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete I have listed the article for speedy deletion under the no context guide. --Jimbo[online] 19:18, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Lowe (journalist)

Ed Lowe (journalist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

article fails to assert why this newspaper columnist is notable outside the local area. Rtphokie (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: Reluctantly, and on the borderline, I would say keep for the columns done for Newsday. The circulation figures for that are staggering, and it also has a significant web readership. I agree that this is on the edge, that the article was probably prompted by a local interest, but the work from 1976-2004 is over that line. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets notability criteria per work for Newsday. Neıl 龱 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:11, 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 as a non-notable film. Based on the evidence below, I've blocked Zymaseman (talk · contribs) Clint507 (talk · contribs) as an obvious throw-away sock. --jonny-mt 08:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six Reasons Why

Six Reasons Why (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable film. All sources are either primary (the film's own website and yourgeeknews.com) or unsuitable (Youtube video, imdb, Myspace). A google search doesn't yield any reliable secondary sources of note. As it is, the article is primarily used as a vehicle for advertisement.Atlan (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: A websearch yields release info including the date of July 22, 2008 on several online retailers such as Amazon.com and the IMDB article on the film supports it as a release including a wikipedia notable cast member as well in Colm_Feore. Additionally, the YouTube link is not a primary news source, it is an Entertainment Tonight video news piece, not a user generated video.Clint507 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please note that I do not contest the film's existence or its release. The fact that your websearch yields release info does nothing to address the issue of notability. Wikipedia's notability policy states that significant and in depth coverage by reliable third party sources is required to assume notability. You haven't provided any sources that qualify. Anyone with an account can submit a film for inclusion in the IMDB. Standards for inclusion are low and not in line with Wikipedia's notability policy (obviously). Selling a product through online retailers such as Amazon isn't an indication for notability as described in WP:N either. Colm Feore is a known actor, but his notability is not automatically inherited by the film.
Furthermore, there's the issue of a conflict of interest, as is ever the case with Matt Campagna (the film's director/writer/cinematographer/editor, User:Zymaseman here) on Wikipedia. You are obviously either in league with him or you are Matt yourself with a new account (all the edits on May 16th to the article, including the addition of the poster by the Zymaseman account, establish this fact). All of Campagna's created articles have so far been deleted as self-advertisement failing the notability requirement and I have no doubt this article was created for the same reason. For reference, see these Afd discussions: Your Geek News, Anastasia Tubanos.--Atlan (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. This is a completely non-notable film. It's strongest argument for inclusion is in fact a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Qworty (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: An upcoming release date does not seem to be 'unverifiable speculation' as per WP:CRYSTAL for several notable films on Wikipedia are yet to be released. In the case of something like The Incredible Hulk (film) a simple 'scheduled or expected films' is preamble enough. Is this just a double standard that favors Hollywood produced films that I don't know about? For the sake of completion, I appreciate that a poster was uploaded so promptly, but I just caught this film at the film market at Cannes few days back and thought it warranted an article. I can post it again in 60 days if that's all that is needed for it to be less offensive to the WP:CRYSTAL policy. Additionally, has anyone reviewed that Entertainment Tonight piece? Is there another method of asserting notability through television news coverage addressed than for it to be sourced as an online video? I've looked around the Wikipedia guidelines and haven't found specifics on video news references.Clint507 (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I struck your vote, you only get to vote once. Sorry, but I really don't buy the "coincidence" story when it comes to User:Zymaseman uploading the poster. You start a new account and right away begin to work on this article. Immediately User:Zymaseman uploads a poster after six months of inactivity, which you add to the article only 1 minute after it was uploaded. I would be hard pressed to believe coincidence even if you had an established account. Also, you can argue WP:CRYSTAL all you want. My concerns are, again, with WP:N. I've already explained that quite clearly.--Atlan (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Sorry to blow the coincidence theory, Atlan, but there's a media team that combs the internet for Six Reasons Why related information at all times... very little slips past, and they noticed the Wiki Article right away. Once a movie gets picked up by an Oscar winning distributor, media teams are kind of standard stuff. Monitoring an article like this one for a property of theirs is a high priority for Thinkfilm, and that's why I knew to put the poster up so 'promptly'. Zymaseman (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, that sounds entirely unconvincing (it's not a keep rationale either, but rather a rebuttal). The fact that you uploaded the poster doesn't bother me. It's the fact that User:Clint507 managed to add it to the article within 1 minute after you uploaded it, without any on-wiki interaction between you two. I've seen enough sock- and meatpuppet cases in my years here to spot them miles away. Anyway, that's not really the point. I really don't care that you 2 are in league with each other (unless you are the same person, in which case you now voted twice). That was just an observation. The notability issue is why this article is nominated for deletion.--Atlan (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: The poster mentioned above has since been deleted for lacking a proper fair use rationale.--Atlan (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Apologies for initially not having proper fair use rationale on the poster... I've not uploaded a photo to Wikipedia before, so I left that incomplete. It's been uploaded again as 'work entirely my own' so hopefully that covers it. You're right that Keep was not the right term for me to use for a rebuttal of your 'you two must be in league together' point if your point has no bearing on your case for a Delete vote based on notability. The meat of my Keep vote is that the notability of the Distribution company thows its weight behind the notability of the film and its release. Zymaseman (talk) 04:58, 28 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 Climate model. --jonny-mt 03:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Climate modeller

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

There already is an article Climate model. The present article does two things: (1) it discusses how to become a climate modeler, and (2) it discusses where climate modelers work. The first would seem to violate WP:NOT#HOWTO. Furthermore the text has a tone which is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Finally, the text of the article is not verifiable, since no references are given, and probably constitutes original research. Useful content (if any) should be worked into the article Climate model. silly rabbit (talk) 12:11, 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 Deleted by User:Selket --JForget 01:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mini Minnesota's Shot at Break Dancin Love 1

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Mini Minnesota's Shot at Break Dancin Love 1
Mini Minnesota's Shot at Break Dancin Love 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete as made-up thing. No sources can be found to verify the existence of whatever this is. Contested prod. ... discospinster 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. There's no verifiable content to merge - if anyone wants the content to source it, I'll provide it. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marilyn Manson's seventh studio album

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Marilyn Manson's seventh studio album
Marilyn Manson's seventh studio album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced + "xth studio album" Sceptre (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, unsourced, fails WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete possible merge into Marilyn Manson main article of any useful info. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we get written into WP:MUSIC the comment that if the album name is not yet known, it almost certainly is not yet notable and so an article should not be created? There or WP:OUTCOMES, given just how often such articles don't survive AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems a worthwhile suggestion to bring up on WT:MUSIC. It might possibly stop at least a couple of these from getting created in the future. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:03, 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. Article can be undeleted or recreated if sufficient sources are found to establish notability. Waggers (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mallala Magpies Football Club

Mallala Magpies Football Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable amateur football club. Grahame (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep 104 years of history must be traceable somehow. Some cleanup and a trip to the library could certainly rescue this article. As a country Australian rules football club, the team would have been the social hub of the town for over 100 years and the most important sporting/cultural institution in the district. There would almost certainly have been professional players from the club who made it to the SANFL and there could be some who made it to the VFL/AFL. Note: Adelaide Plains Football League has links to a range of clubs and articles not any more developed than this one. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment- I was about to go weak keep as I lean towards being an inclusionist. My problem at present is lack of any WP:RS to establish WP:N. If going by WP:ORG then, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." So a trip to the library might bring something to light? I'll wait before I cast my vote.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, keeping User:Mattinbgn's comments in mind, but there does not appear to be any secondary sources on this club that I can find. Will cheerfully change my !vote if a trip to the library turns something up. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete - amateur team that plays in a local league. Length of existence is no indication of notability. What is required are reliable secondary sources that cover the club non-trivially and there are none. Fails WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I respect the delete comments above and would normally concur - however Adelaide Plains Football League is a notable league and in my view Mallala Magpies Football Club as one of 5 founding members, with 104 years of continuing history and 16 premierships is enough to keep. Please note I have since referenced the above facts also within the article from 3rd party sources - although I agree with Mattinbgn that a trip to the Mallala library would assist with further references - and probably the linking of notable football players who initially came from Mallala.--VS talk 01:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • PS I wonder if a note to the original creator of this article (who appears to still be around) by the nominator Grahame might assist?--VS talk 01:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - We have many leagues in many sports where the individual teams are not notable. Winning a local league doesn't meet WP:N. The sources that you have helpfully added support WP:V but we need something more to confer notability. Has it won a state championship? Has it had substantial coverage in reliable sources? The hope that something might turn up in a library search simply doesn't cut it. TerriersFan (talk) 02:31, 29 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 01:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] METRO church

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

Nothing about this church appears notable, even if Brian Houston (pastor) and Guy Sebastian atrended its opening Grahame (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The article reads like advertising, doesn't use references, and I failed to find any independent sources in a cursory search. Notability isn't established at this time, but maybe an Australian based editor would have a better time of it. Delete unless independent sources are found. GRBerry 13:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It certainly is just a puff piece for the church at present but NPOV could be improved by deleting nearly all of the waffle and adding in some notability (or notoriety) I found here.[21]; although I suspect that's not the content the creators had in mind. Murtoa (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing to demonstrate notability for this church. Individual churches aren't notable by themselves, unless it's proven otherwise on a casebycase basis. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, spammy. Having a celebrity attend your opening ceremony does not make you notable, otherwise there'd be articles here for every supermarket in Australia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:44, 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 redirect to List of past Emmerdale characters. Singularity 07:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barney Chugspoke

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

It is a stub, and the character has had no impact whatsoever on pop culture, so if the likes of fictional characters Roman Harris and Aden Jeffries can't have pages, then neither can this fictional character

Delete See above —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKR619 (talk • contribs) 2008/05/21 09:04:43


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of past Emmerdale characters. Singularity 07:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beryl Chugspoke

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

It is a stub, and the character has had no impact whatsoever on pop culture, so if the likes of fictional characters Roman Harris and Aden Jeffries can't have pages, then neither can this fictional character

Delete See above —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKR619 (talk • contribs) 2008/05/21 09:02:31


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Big dog syndrome

Big dog syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod by creator, prod supported by one other editor (see history). No ghits, no sources, no evidence of notability of this neologism, could very well be a hoax. NickPenguin(contribs) 21:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable, few relevant Google hits, and the ones that Google does hit are often at odds with the claims of the article. Original author has a history of making up "syndromes." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Update: The original author has since been blocked indefinitely for vandalism and creating inappropriate pages. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd have to decline a speedy - there are plenty of Google hits for big+dog+syndrome (although nothing reliable in the first 10). ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, without prejudice. If this really is something veterinarians have discussed, it ought not to be impossible to find sources for it. It might remotely also support an article about this being a common trope or motif in comedy scenes. But this article seems too speculative as is. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find any notable support. The phrase exists, not surprisingly, but 68 g-hits are all I find, and most seem to be coined on the spot as needed. Tim Ross (talk) 00:16, 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.

[edit] Dorian's identity

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorian's_identity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable, unreferenced. Looks like one of many such identities from any trigonometry textbook. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks like a hoax, like claiming that (x+x)/2x - 1 = 0 is significant. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable/non-notable, a search for this name finds no relevant results. --Snigbrook (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I found nothing in Google scholar, Google books, or MathSciNet to indicate that this identity is known by this name. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I haven't even been here at Wikipedia for a year and this is probably the 50th hoax article I've witnessed on Articles for deletion. Shame. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. And please close this before it WP:SNOWs any more. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Essentially this same double-angle formula for the cotangent function has long been listed in the list of trigonometric identities in the form
\cot(2\theta) = \frac{\cot\theta - \tan\theta}{2}.
This article looks like an attempt by someone who derived this identity from scratch to name it after himself. If in fact it had never been discovered before and if there were a reason to name it after the person who posted it here, then it would violate the ban on original research on Wikipedia. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:05, 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 redirect to List of past Emmerdale characters. ➪HiDrNick! 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesley Meredith

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

It is a stub, and the character has had no impact whatsoever on pop culture, so if the likes of fictional characters Roman Harris and Aden Jeffries can't have pages, then neither can this fictional character

Delete See above —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKR619 (talk • contribs) 2008/05/21 09:06:52

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of past Emmerdale characters. Singularity 07:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peggy Skilbeck

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

It is a stub, and the character has had no impact whatsoever on pop culture, so if the likes of fictional characters Roman Harris and Aden Jeffries can't have pages, then neither can this fictional character

Delete See above —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKR619 (talk • contribs) 2008/05/21 09:09:13


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ——Ryan | t • c 12:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse closure as keep. --jonny-mt 04:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Estevan (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:DAB#Partial_title_matches, only Estevan would use the title Estevan. Please also see Talk:Estevan_(disambiguation)#Requested_move for relevant history. DigitalC (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a dab page. Let it stay. Pburka (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - perfectly reasonable dab page. Mjroots (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - in addition to the above, the talk page contains some discussions that affect this and other pages (deleting the page would delete the discussions too). --Qyd (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Qyd says it all. Risker (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - a reasonable disambiguation page. Estevan is also a personal name. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it is a REASONABLE disambiguation page, as it disagrees with WP:DAB#Partial_title_matches. If there was another place called Estevan, then I can see a need for a DAB. As it is, no one is going to type in Estevan, for Estevan Point, or for San Estevan. In analogy, should there be a Diego (disambiguation) page for San Diego, Diego, and Diego Ramires Islands? DigitalC (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, Estevan is also a personal name and can be either a given name or a surname. Someone could type Estevan to find out about its use as a personal name just as someone might type Tom, Dick or Harry. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
A poor analogy, as none of those DAB pages only include partial title matches. For example, there is a need to disambiguate Saskatoon (electoral district)from Saskatoon, Saskatechewan; Calgary, Mull from Calgary, Alberta; and Edmonton, QLD from Edmonton, Alberta. There is no ambiguity with Estevan, and therefore no need for a DAB.DigitalC (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (though it does little harm to keep it). Strictly speaking, the only page that should be listed on here is Esteban (name). When there are only two topics to disambiguate, I think a hat note on the primary page suffices. So there should be a hat note on Estevan, pointing to Esteban (name), and that's it. Sam Staton (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. For goodness sake, it's a harmless dab page. For those that request a policy argument, I say that there's no policy argument for deletion. The policy that nominator provides concerns additions to a dab page, not the very existence of a dab page. There's no notability concern here, no original research concern here, nor any of the other bases for deletion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
How can one have a notability concern or OR concern over ANY dab page?DigitalC (talk) 05:35, 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 per lack of independent sources or other indication of notability.. Tikiwont (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hefner Hall (Georgia Tech)

Hefner Hall (Georgia Tech) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech Freshman Experience was deleted, I don't think this is in any way notable. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Georgia Tech Freshman Experience appears to have been re-created and is quite a decent article. Unless it's going back up for deletion this moment I'd suggest merge as I agree, individual dorms aren't notable TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 17:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, I still think it was a bad idea for an article, but at least it has external sources for notability claims now. --Dhartung | Talk 18:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless bearing historic designation, residence halls are generally not notable. Longstanding precedent that is unrelated to the GTFE. --Dhartung | Talk 18:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. As unnotable as the hundreds of apartment buildings in the city that I live in.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Georgia Tech. This single dormitory does not seem to be overtly notable, but a lot of the cited information present in the article can certainly be merged into the GT article. Happyme22 (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Individual college dormitories are almost never notable except when architecturally important. A few may be, for some particular disaster or great historical importance, but that would be about it. None of that applies here. There are no external sources for notability--dhartung, what do you see--I see 3 sources from within Georgia Tech & nothing else. I cant see how anything here is even significant for the main article on the university, except as one on the list of dormitories, butI'd leave even that to the college web site. And I'll be glad to renominate their Freshman orientation program for deletion DGG (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per DGG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armstrong Hall (Georgia Tech). Regards, High on a tree (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Apart from the fact that I lived there for one quarter of my freshman year, I can't think of any reason why it's notable. Armstrong Hall (Georgia Tech) is equally non-notable, as are the rest of the dorm articles, as yet un-nominated. None of these buildings were designed by nationally prominent architects or have received notice in the design community. Acroterion (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Georgia Tech Freshman Experience or a new article Georgia Tech Freshman Experience Halls of Residence. The precedent is University of Exeter Halls of Residence. There is no point whatever in deleting just this hall when there is a whole bunch of other identical halls - by all means add the other halls to the AfD or, as is my preference, to create an omnibus article but lets deal then all together. TerriersFan (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, it's worth at least a little content somewhere. Everyking (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of architectural or lasting historical importance. Biruitorul Talk 17:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, the editors in Wikiproject Georgia Tech are busy creating more of these residence hall articles rather than making any effort to merge. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:37, 27 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 G11, blatant advertising. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windowmaker

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

Article about a company that fails to assert notability. They have developed a product which has an article in it's own right, but this doesn't automatically infer notability to the company. The current article is written in an advert style (and has been tagged as such). Several attempts at changing the article to a redirect to Window Maker have been made on and off since August 2006, but these have been repeatedly replaced by articles about the company by anonymous authors (who have been warned about reversion). I actually want the article changed to a redirect, rather than being deleted, so that we have some sort of 'official' standing on this article (at least until an improved or notable version is created). CultureDrone (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete It is not the same company that created Window Maker software. There is some coverage of the company but it appears to be just promotional or press releases. The current article does not assert notability as it does not cite any sources. --Snigbrook (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - aarrgghh - perfectly true - it's not the same company - I knew I shouldn't edit WP with a bad cold and a head full of goo ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 11:51, 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. ➪HiDrNick! 05:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ring of Honor events

List of Ring of Honor events (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Would be the same as listing every episode of RAW, SD or ECW, or even iMPACT. As 2-3 events are held each month this list will probably never be full of bluelinks. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Not every event is notable, just because Ring of Honor is. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is great for a quick reference of event names/dates, and I have used it plenty of times for that purpose. --WolfLord718 (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC) — WolfLord718 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. I must agree with Wolflord - I have used this page many times to find out when a specific event happened or what it was called. It is a good reference page and should not be deleted. (Mikeyconcon (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)) — Mikeyconcon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"I like it" isn't a valid keep reason. You do realize, there is wrestling-only sites with this same exact information? RobJ1981 (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"I like it" was not my reason - I believe it to be a useful reference page. If there are other sites that have this same exact information I have not come across them. However if that is the case then deletion seems more viable I admit. Mikeyconcon (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:30, 27 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. Punkmorten (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wurtland Church of God

Wurtland Church of God (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. MidgleyDJ (talk) 09:21, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Axiom (band)

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

Non notable band, article not supported by any third party sources, and failing WP:MUSIC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:08, 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 Gnangarra 12:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oceanic (scuba gear makers)

Oceanic (scuba gear makers) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Was speedy-deleted {{db-corp}}, but Oceanic is an important scuba gear makers. And they developed several models of modern rebreather, and the Data Mask, which is an eyes-and-nose diving mask with a built-in LED display which displays various dive and breathing set conditions. It is noteworthy to scuba divers. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete was speedy deleted over a year ago according to the logs. Was there a deletion review to bring it back? The article at the moment looks like an advert. It contains no reliable 3rd party sources. The "data mask" mentioned appears to be a single product as opposed to an innovation in dive technology (at least according to the google search I did - "data mask" diving). Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • An LED display in a diving mask looks quite like a significant underwater technology advance to me. The rebreather development is significant also. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • but "The Data Mask" is a product and is being advertised as such in the article. And you still aren't addressing the resurrection of the article or what makes the company notable and reliably sourced to 3rd parties. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Nearly everything man-made that comes into the world is a product. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • They seem to have been fairly important in the history of modern rebreathers including US Navy naval rebreathers. Frogman's rebreathers and the men that use them in action are at least as relevant to the world as any one of the thousands of minor popular music musicians and their songs and albums that clutter Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, OK, I have evacuated the Data Mask info to Diving mask and the rebreather info to Rebreather. But I thought that one of USA's big scuba gear suppliers deserved some brief mention, if only to satisfy people who come across the name Oceanic in conection with scuba gear and look in Wikipedia to find who or what the name refers to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - This could be expanded. The stuff on rebreathers for the military could well be notable also this bit about mask with built in display sounds notable if it were one of the first to be developed for sport dive market. (also, I've made some edits to make it less like an advert) Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment The HUD mask is covered by third party sources as being the first mask of this type for non-military market. Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment have changed to a Weak Delete based on the recent changes by Anthony Appleyard and the comments by User:Nk.sheridan. I'm still worried about the very short supply of 3rd party reliable sources showing the company as notable and some of the language. If the article was expanded using reliable 3rd party sourcing and the issue of its resurrection could be addressed I may swing more towards keep. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:19, 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 01:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biggest Indonesian Philanthropists

Biggest Indonesian Philanthropists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

List with inadequate sourcing, repeating material already in another list within the Indonesian Wikipedia project, and like many lists in The Indonesia project more red links in the list than any links to completed articles. SatuSuro 06:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Also I consider the use of biggest in the title is a POV issue and could not be proved in any way SatuSuro 09:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, and for lack of notability. Further, even if a source was found, how do we know if it is at all based on anything approaching reliability? It would be a stab in the dark. --Merbabu (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unsourced, lack of notability and bordering on WP:POV - what is basis for inclusion on this list Davidelit (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds like promotion to me. Meursault2004 (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Philanthropy most certainly is notable; however, if no source can be identified, then this should be deleted. I suspect that this is probably original research. If this is a top 30 ranking, I can't figure what it's ranked by... it's not by net worth, and it's not by "wealth giving ratio", whatever that is... I've heard of people "giving 110 percent", but not "144%" or "132.5%" Mandsford (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:19, 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. The consensus is that the article violates WP:NOT and WP:NOR--Kubigula (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elimination (game)

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

Looks like original research, no references, Google returns a lot of hits, but most are about the sport term "elimination game," none about a game called Elimination. —Chris! ct 05:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

All I can tell you is I used to play this game as a kid with my friends in my neighborhood in the northern part of Cheektowaga, NY, and "elimination" is what we called it. As to whether it is "original research," that's certainly debatable. It's my contention that just because noone else on the Web has chosen to document this game is not a denial of its existence. In that sense, it's original. I just think it's a shame we have plenty of other games with entries on Wikipedia, but we somehow sort of deny the reality of this just because this is the only place it's chronicled. However...it does seem fitting maybe to include some of this in dodgeball as a variant. Joe (talk) 15:25, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GCML series cricket

GCML series cricket (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable amateur social cricket competition. No evidence of notability or mainstream coverage has been provided Mattinbgn\talk 05:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article refers to a Nitin Gupta who appears to have had an article on him deleted on numerous occasions. Further note this earlier discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GCML Series Cricket -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete – not notable team.--Grahame (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as a recreation. While not word for word - if it's not notable in December and nothing has changed, it wouldn't be notable now. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per arguments in the previous discussion. I don't have access to the old, deleted version of the page, but this looks pretty familiar, so it may also be a CSD G4. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC).
  • If I remember correctly, it's not a direct G4. The old one had a lot more ad-language. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:05, 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. JIP | Talk 06:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gaii

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

Sorry, but "Gaii" is not "the family name of Gaivs Ivlivs Caesar". His family name was Julius; Gaius was his praenomen. There doesn't seem to be any speedy category to cover this, and I'm darn close to asking someone to indef-block this persistently problematic user. Deor (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Someone probably has a very bad understanding of declensions in Latin, or is simply trying to perpetrate a hoax. Tagging as an obvious hoax. Celarnor Talk to me 05:30, 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. This was a bad discussion: the !votes that Lecotech, Smooth0707 and Buc originally stated don't hold weight. Jakew raises a valid point, though, and the reference added by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles does not appear to be WP:RS. So it goes. Punkmorten (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doomed (film)

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable film. All of the actors, directors and producers are red links, which is a big red flag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Even the IMDB listing is pretty anemic LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable film, only reference is to the the IMDB, film went strait to DVD. Its wikipedia article should be doomed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It is given an anemic rating at IMDB of 3 out of 10 which is a pretty poor showing. This is not a show that is even near The China Syndrome reputation or notability standards at all. Shouldn't merit a specific spot on Wikipedia. Artene50 (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The fact it's a bad film is not a reason to delete it. Buc (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 08:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even the running time is redlinked! Clarityfiend (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A lot of red links it not a reason to delete. Buc (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep personally I think you guys are idiots, excuse my trolling but its true. Wikipedia is supposed to be a LARGE source of knowledge...why would you propose deleting something that isn't offensive, isn't random, verifiable? Completely wrong. There are so many pages that do not belong on wikipedia as far as i'm concerned. Taking away from Wikipedia is not improving it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooth0707 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's on Internet Movie Database so it's clearly notable. Buc (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Just FYI, I believe that the IMDB is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia because anyone can add anything and there is no real fact checking. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's also on RT [22]. Buc (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. All but two sentences (the first and last) are plot summary, and there's no evidence of significant coverage in multiple third-party sources as required by WP:N. Jakew (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If I could find one review, I would think others can find other reviews. What about magazines like Fangoria? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Deleting this article would be silly...some people need to read thissmooth0707 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marina Verenikina

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

Procedural nomination; nomination was broken and stuck at the top of the page. Reason given was: "youtube indicates average of only 500 hits per video, ranked 300,000 on Amazon sales, not notable, bio states: seeking record label = self-promotion, advertisement, obscure awards." Celarnor Talk to me 04:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. While the reasons given for the nomination are extremely bad ones, the artist isn't a particularly notable one. Judging by the content of the article, the subject hasn't signed with any notable labels. However, she has receieved coverage. Celarnor Talk to me 04:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 08:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 08:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I was able to find and include several references that indicate notability. While not individually compelling, the accumualtion of significant mentions in independent sources leads me that she is being noticed, with evidence of international performances. This is far from self promotion. There is lots of information available from the added references to build a much stronger article. For now I'm off to bed. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invincible Pictures US

Invincible Pictures US (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reads like an advertisement - while some of the projects listed *might* be notable (and award winning), the company itself doesn't seem notable. Article creator's sole contributions have been to this article or to insert mentions of this company. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 08:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as above Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe this company is notabale as i work in the industry and know that many of the great films this company is releasing would never have been distribution were it not for this company. I just started this article and plan to continue expanding on this company's accomplishments, As well as some of the films released by them. I don't consider this blatant advertising as the comany does not recieve any direct benefit from this article.Ash1028 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)ash1028
  • Speedy Delete per CSD#G11. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This company is responsible for award winning works with many notable and Wikipedia referenced articles. There is no more blatant advertising in this article than any other article of a company similar in nature.Ash1028 (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)ash1028


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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christy Canyon

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

Procedural nomination; nomination was broken and stuck at the top of the page. Reason given was: "obscure porno actress, NOT notable even within world of porno, NPOV, self-promotion, advertisement,." Celarnor Talk to me 04:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. With the numerous awards, I think there's enough to assert the notability of the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 04:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, one of the biggest names of her era. A number of the key notability claims are sourced (although as with many articles it could use improvement). Likely a bad faith nomination based on the wording. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on this and this (the nominator's only edits other than the one to the AFD log page), this seems to be a new user's severe misunderstanding of WP:N. There may be just a tinge of WP:POINT in the edits, though, but it's hard to prove. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This is probably the most ridiculous AfD I've ever seen, and I've seen plenty of doozies. Notability is not disputed here, only the lack of references -- which is a reason to improve the article, not delete it. Strong pointiness suspected. Xihr (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The only reason I hesitate is that the nom was so mal-formed. I'd expect someone who just went through a contrary AFD to have a better idea how to set it up or to make more effort to get it started right. --Dhartung | Talk 07:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:N. Google News and Google Books searches indicate plenty of sustained non-trivial WP:RS coverage to meet general notability. She also passes WP:PORNBIO with the references already present as a member of both major U.S. porn Halls of Fame and winner of well-known awards. Whatever notability issues provoked this nom appear to be fixable. • Gene93k (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. One of the most notable porn stars. Sources, AVN Hall of Fame, etc. Epbr123 (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. In the AVN hall of fame, Lots of sources to use for article expansion, Still active in the industry even though not in a performing sense through Playboy Radio, many TV appearances and relation to mainstream. Easily a keep in my view. Steve355 (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and Close This actress is definitely notable according to all our policies and guidelines on the subject. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fsix Corporation

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

Not Notable, Unsourced Lemmey talk 03:38, 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 delete. Singularity 01:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vortex life form

Vortex life form (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is an in-universe repetition of the plot of the Ecco the Dolphin article. As such, it is duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:27, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serpent Rider

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of small sections of the plot of the Heretic and Hexen games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:26, 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. Singularity 01:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romania in International Rankings

Romania in International Rankings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A rather trivial list, plucking a few random rankings and purporting to create an encyclopedic article out of them. Fails WP:IINFO. Biruitorul (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Several poor reasons to keep or delete were given on either side.  Sandstein  21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ExxonMobil in Indonesia

ExxonMobil in Indonesia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This may warrant merging into the ExxonMobil article, but I am not certain it is notable enough to warrant its own WP article Ecoleetage (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I don't think every multinational company's operations in every country are notable, ExxonMobil's operations in Indonesia, particularly Aceh, have received significant attention to where this is a notable subtopic. Yes, this is a controversial topic, and it is not just ExxonMobil that has been implicated, but the cases shown do relate to the company and have received coverage. The article may need a WP:NPOV cleanup, but bias is not by itself a reason for deletion. It certainly does not fall under the category of coatrack, although it may violate undue weight. A retitle could fix that more easily than a rewrite to be a business gazetteer profile, but both alternatives may be considered. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Will require an urgent clean up.--Rockybiggs (talk) 15:01, 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 --JForget 01:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of zombie-themed songs and bands

List of zombie-themed songs and bands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This page is essentially a directory of any song or band which has the word "zombie" (or similar) in the title. However, by itself, that is not necessarily an indication that the song or band is "zombie-themed" (incidentally, how can a band be "zombie-themed"?); it may just be that the band members or song writers thought that having the word "zombie" in the title of their band or song, respectively, would be cool. A substantive treatment of the topic of "zombie-themed songs and bands" belongs in Zombies in popular culture, and not as a list of entries without context. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure the current title is really a likely search term (just "List of zombie-themed songs" would be different), but I don't really have any object to redirection. –Black Falcon (Talk) 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I search for lists like that all the time. Although yeah, the "and bands" thing kind of ruins it. Celarnor Talk to me 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I just dont think it belongs in wikipedia, a list of songs or bands with a zombie theme isnt encyclopedic to me. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no asserted significance in the connection between the items on the list. It's just too random and indiscriminate.--Kubigula (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of these are not notable, and lists generally do not belong in WP. 216.183.234.7 (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, indiscriminate list. JIP | Talk 06:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In your heeead, Delete Delete-*bleat*-ete-*bleat*-ete-*bleat*-ete-*bleat*-oh. In all seriousness, yeah, per everyone. JuJube (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Ooo what a lovely list of red links. WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 07:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please delete that as an indiscriminate list of red links. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. The contents are essentially unsourced, causing the article to fail WP:V and WP:NOR. The "keep" comments do not address this crucial issue. Merging is not appropriate because the problem is with the content itself, not its editorial presentation.  Sandstein  21:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Döner kebab around the world

Döner kebab around the world (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I added this page to my watchlist in November 2007, when I tagged it for being unreferenced. Over six months later, the tag still stands, the article remains a collection of (interesting) original research and unverifiable claims, and I am convinced that it can never go beyond this point. Since it was originally created as a split from Döner kebab (see the relevant comments on the source article's talk page), I'd like to suggest <edit>as an alternative remedy</edit> that it be trimmed down to the bare, verifiable necessities and then re-merged to the parent article. jonny-mt 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge – I agree! Not a bad article. Well written – informative – and interesting. However, should be part of the main article and not separate. Let’s do justice to both and merge into one. ShoesssS Talk 02:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as an improperly filed nomination. An AfD is not the right place to make a merge proposal. Nsk92 (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment – No I disagree! The nominator made the right choice here. Let it stand and get consensus. ShoesssS Talk 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not improperly filed; it is, however, in the wrong place. Merge proposals are better handled with {{merge}} tags, instead of adding to the AfD workload. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly what I meant. I do not question the merits of the proposal, but there is a standard proper procedure for proposing and discussing merges, see WP:MERGE. AfDs are for discussing proposed deletions. This AfD is simply not the right place for discussing a merge and content revision proposal. Nsk92 (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) You raise a good point, but I opted for AfD over merge discussions because deletion is a viable outcome here--I was merely preemptively suggesting an alternate option that often arises in the natural course of the discussion. Naturally, the question of whether or not there is anything worth saving takes priority over whether or not anything should be merged.
At any rate, I should have been clearer in my initial nomination, and for that I consider myself whacked. --jonny-mt 03:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Procedural close - not a deletion request. 70.51.10.113 (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems to me that it is nominated for deletion and that the nominator is saying IF there is something that can be salvaged than those could be merged. I think we look at the article on its merits. The only "workload" involved seems to be our willingness to participate in the discussion. With that in mind I'm nipping away to look at the article itself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Article sits as both OR and non-verifiable to reliable 3rd party sources. Although a section should be maintained within the main article this isn't it. Noting regional variations is fine but, that again should be in the main article and be sourced. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Döner kebab, after cutting back to that which is verifiable (and please, title the section "regional variations" or something, this makes it sound like a kebab is on a sailing trip!). Jakew (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Döner kebab. Not a bad article at all, and is pretty interesting, but would be much better if it merged. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 22:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A sourced section on regional variations should be added to the main article. Mabisa (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful information worth separate article--Kyknos (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and do not merge, because of length concerns. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not merge. It can be kept or deleted, I prefer that it gets cleaned up and kept. There is also some confusion about doner-gyros-shwarma. If kept, only the variants that are still called döner, or something similar (donner, donair, doner, etc.) should be kept, unless we merge döner kebab, gyros, and shwarma (such a merger request might get a lot of objections, not from me though). The article is too large (WP:Size issues), it is still virtually unsourced, it won't add much to the main article, Döner kebab; I don't see merits of merging them, unless after cleanup this article becomes very small. When/if merged, I suspect that the main article will become an OR magnet. We need to keep an eye. DenizTC 15:39, 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 01:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Forbes (footballer)

Stephen Forbes (footballer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prodded as "Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as has not played in a fully professional league." by User:Yatesy1988. Prod removed by myself because it appears he does play in a pro league. Yatesy1988 attempted to nominate it for deletion, I am procedurally completing the nomination on his behalf. UsaSatsui (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep per my reasoning above. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • He has never played in a pro league. While he is under contract with Rangers, who do play in a pro league, he has never actually played a match for them. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepAbstain. If the player has played in a professional league, then that would mean he passes ATHLETE. Celarnor Talk to me 02:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • He has never played in a pro league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - eh, ATHLETE is merely a guideline, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that merely kicking a football doesn't entitle one to a berth in an encyclopedia - that some further notability should be asserted. And, even if he does meet the criteria, not every article that can be created should be created; enough "X is a player on Y team" micro-stubs already befoul Wikipedia, so one less won't be missed. Biruitorul (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Microstubs, eh? Punkmorten (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • There's a notion of inherent notability, but its application should be limited. For instance each of these guys is notable for having been a head of state, even if many of them have one-line biographies. With footballers the claim is far more tenuous. As for the communes: first, again, yes, the idea is that all cities, towns and communes possess inherent notability and have at least some expansion potential. The more important purpose for which I set about creating those, however, is precisely to forestall the creation of "articles" on villages - commune subdivisions - which are so small as to lack notability. So yes, I'll swallow 2800 microstubs with expansion potential if that helps keep 13000 of them without out of here. Biruitorul (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - We get loads of these when teenage footballers get their first junior contracts with clubs. He may be signed to a team that plays in a pro league, but he's never actually stepped foot on the pitch in a pro game, and therefore actually fails WP:BIO for athletes. The infobox states this clearly, "0 games". Black Kite 05:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So we have to wait until he does his first footballing or whatever with his team before he's considered notable? I mean, I know absolutely nothing about the sport, but I don't see a big difference between being on the team and having played a game with the team. Celarnor Talk to me 06:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes - it may seem odd, but the system in the UK means that with major teams, the vast majority of young players who get junior contracts end up never playing a game. Of course, some of those go on to play for other pro teams, but many never play a pro game at all. Black Kite 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if he actually plays a match in a pro league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
But he's in a pro team, isn't he? He's been signed to Rangers F.C., which would mean that he'll be playing with them at the begenning of the next season...? Celarnor Talk to me 08:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's crystal balling and in no way guaranteed. Plenty of young players have signed to big clubs but wound up being "let go" without ever playing a match...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I figured that once you were signed then you were automatically going to be playing with the team when they start playing the next season. Doesn't really make sense to pay someone to not play football, but whatever... Celarnor Talk to me 08:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ATHLETE. No professional appearances, no notability. --Angelo (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently getting signed to a team doesn't mean the person in question is going to be playing on the team. Doesn't really make sense, but if that's the way it works, then he fails ATHLETE until he plays a game. Celarnor Talk to me 08:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, naturally a team needs to have more than 11 players on their books in case of players getting injured, losing form, etc. A club of the stature of Rangers will probably have around 40 professionals on the books at any one time, and sometimes players just get overlooked for selection every time and then ultimately released from their contract. My own club, Gillingham (not a team of the stature of Rangers but still a professional team), just released a young player called Tom Bryant who had been on a professional contract for one year but was never picked to play. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I just don't know anything about sports. :P Celarnor Talk to me 08:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails notability. GiantSnowman 10:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete just being on the roster or "under contract" doesn't confer notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. He's -on- the team, isn't he? That makes it likely he will play. I really don't like the "If he plays, recreate it" argument. Isn't it just easier to delete it later on if he doesn't play? Unless soccer clubs routinely sign players to contracts they have no intention of ever using...--UsaSatsui (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no being on the team doesn't mean he will play. Ask any member of the New England Patriots practice squad -or- anyone that attended the Peterborough United Youth Academy -or- any other athlete. Just being on the team doesn't guarantee playing time. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It makes it fairly likely but by no means guaranteed. As I mentioned above, the team I follow signed a young player to a pro contract a year ago but released him a couple of weeks back without ever having used him in a match. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • And here's an example of a player who was signed to two professional clubs without ever playing for either...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete easily fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 19:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:Athlete, has not played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, with no prejudice against re-creation once he makes his first-team debut. A teenager moving through the ranks at Rangers has a good likelihood of being article-worthy sometime soon... just not yet. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 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 delete. Punkmorten (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Asterite

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of a tiny segment of the gameplay of Ecco the Dolphin. As such, it is pure duplication and should be deleted.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:16, 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 by Golbez. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Killer place

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

This would be a great article for "bizarro-wikipedia" Mblumber (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete. Should be speedied as patent nonsense. Otherwise, this is the killer place to kill Killer Place now. Qworty (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Qworty. Nsk92 (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Hoax? Certainly doesn't make any provable claims to notability. Pigman☿ 01:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as CSD A1 - tagged as such. Nk.sheridan   Talk 01:13, 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. --jonny-mt 04:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Wilde

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

promotion, copyright violation, lack of valid sources, just a mess in general Rmhermen (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as the majority of the article is a WP:COPYVIO taken from subjects publications. Also as nom said, there is a WP:NOTABLE issue. Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have no opinion on notability of the subject at the moment but I have removed the apparent copyvio material from the article. Nsk92 (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added some references, and found some other mentions of his works at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Stuart+Wilde%22+author Note that there are other people by this name, including a bus company executive. --Eastmain (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: no assertion of notability. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no question that the article needs considerable improvement and clean-up, but the subject is certainly notable. GoogleBooks alone gives 342 hits for hist name[23]. Not all are realted to him but a pretty substantial portion are. He is described there as "Stuart Wilde, known as a 'teacher of financial assertiveness and practical mysticism'"[24], "New Age guru Stuart Wilde"[25], "New Age spokesman Stuart Wilde"[26], "Stuart Wilde, a prolific and charismatic author and metaphysical teacher"[27], etc, many more examples of nontrivial coverage. There is a reasonable amount of newscoverage as well, [28]. Passes WP:BIO as a notable author and a New Age personality. Nsk92 (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Changed from "Very Weak Keep, Protected Cleanup." This is where the "Occasional Common Sense Exception" clauses come in. It doesn't look like there's really anything to write about this guy other than that he is a new age author who is widely cited by other new age authors. On the surface, Nsk92 seems to be right in that Wilde "is widely cited by [his] peers," though the references cited are dubious. The main problem is that nobody has taken any interest in genuinely improving the article since the last AfD, 3 years ago, because significant coverage of the author is virtually nonexistent (and, no, Eastmain, the local best seller list for Olympia, Washington is, IMHO, not significant). J293339 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Unless, of course, some one can come up with coverage of this guy by some real newspapers or magazinesElan26 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26

  • Delete A "local best seller in Olympia Washington" is destructive to any claim of notability. If that's the best that can be said, there is no actual importance. DGG (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:22, 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.