Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:AFD/T
Purge

If the latest nominations appear to be missing from this page, please purge the cache.

Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait five days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:

• Kept
• Deleted per the deletion policy
• Sent to Cleanup
• Merged and/or redirected to an existing article
• Transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or Wiktionary)

More information.

Things to consider:

• It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page.
• Use the "what links here" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia.
• Please familiarize yourself with some frequently cited guidelines, in particular WP:BIO, WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI.

AfD etiquette:

• Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.
• Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~.
• If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
• Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
• Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.

You can add each AFD subpage day to your watchlist by clicking this link: Add today's AFD to watchlist

See also

Guide to deletion | Alternative outlets | Undeletion policy | Deletion guidelines for admins | Deletion process Archived delete debates | Speedy deletion policy | Category:Pages for deletion

Add new AfD section

Purge server cache

Contents 1 The Works (Band) 2 Mary Hanley (Edmonton) 3 Andy Carlson 4 Mae-Wan Ho 5 Anti-knot 6 Breakout (album) 7 Turaga (Bionicle) 8 Dickipedia 9 Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks 10 TaskMaker 11 Comet (song) 12 Howard Steven Brown 13 Allegations of Israeli apartheid 14 The Mixtape About Nothing 15 N-Tyce 16 3g iphone 17 XMPlay 18 IDance 19 The International Scope Review 20 The Social Capital Foundation 21 Cubans of Brazil 22 Brad Chalk 23 Patrick Hunout 24 Virtle Rock 25 What's New Happening on Disney Channel India 26 Baxall 27 Identifying spiders 28 Naturopathic doctor 29 UFO Phil 30 AfD footer

[edit] The Works (Band)

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

non notable band, prod removed because "has references that show notability". Only reference that works is for an announcement of a gig in a major newspaper, trivial coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Hanley (Edmonton)

Mary Hanley (Edmonton) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has nothing other then an infobox with an image and some information which isn't sourced and fails to state anything that would make this school notable. Bidgee (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Carlson

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

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment doesn't appear to be a nominator listed but, I'd say Delete as non-notable musician with no reliable 3rd party sourcing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Additional Comment I've had a look and it seems that User:Randy333 nominated it with "05:34, 30 May 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Carlson‎ (←Created page with 'Insufficient background information--more information needed for complete and accurate entry') (top) " this edit summary. I'm still learning towards delete but, feel for clarities sake that the fact of the AfD nom being this persons first contrib may need looking into. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, the stub only cites one source, and I don't think it passes WP:RS. I don't think the stub passes WP:BIO either. The stub might be an autobiography. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, found a couple other sources, [1],[2], the article also might want to reference the ISBN of his book [3] and his self published CD [4]. As well as finding the New York times article that the other sources reference. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Needs work but notable: two-time state champion, state grand champion, Mel Bay author, recorded with famous bands. — eitch 07:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 05:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:BIO --Wiendietry (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mae-Wan Ho

Mae-Wan Ho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a living person has sat since February 2006 without any reliable third party sources. Given her highly controversial opinions, that are argueabley pseudoscience, it's essential an article like this have substantial third party sourcing. Otherwise, it can only alternate between a hatchet job or a promo piece. --Rob (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I vote for deletion and agree that this article can never amount to anything because the only stuff written about this person is either from herself or from non-reliable sources such as purveyors of alternative medicine or anti-GM activist publications. Mainstream science essentially ignores her pseudoscientific views. Ttguy (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: as not having established notability through reliable third-party sources. This lack of reliable third-party sources means that the article has, at times, devolved into edit-wars over whether her CV substantiates fields of expertise claimed in her 'biographical sketch' (both sourced from the subject). There just isn't enough here for a solid article, let alone one that needs to carefully navigate a controversial subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Zero evidence of notability, and nothing significant appears from a quick gsearch. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-knot

Anti-knot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Other editors and I discussed the problems with this article long ago, but none of us got around to AFD'ing it the first time. In summary, 1) the term "anti-knot" appears to be a neologism, not used in any of the references, and I couldn't find a suitable reference using Google Scholar. 2) the content appears to be partly bogus, partly vague/speculative. The first proof assumes what it is trying to prove. The second uses a magical "knot energy" that does exactly what is needed. It's fair to say that the property needed of this knot energy is nontrivial and most likely an open problem. The "proof" given seems to be OR synthesized from the three references. 3) the purpose of this page is to explain that "anti-knots" in fact do not exist. This is in fact a well-known basic result (as explained in knot sum), so there isn't anything more to be said about the topic. C S (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect/Merge to knot theory, or a more suitable page? A brief mention of the result should be sufficient. For a ref., perhaps: Cromwell, Peter R. (2004). Knots and Links. Cambridge University Press, p. 90. ISBN 0521548314.  Theorem 4.6.1. Given a non-trivial knot K there is no 'anti-knot' K^-1 such that the product K # K^-1 is the trivial knot.—RJH (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could have just redirected to knot sum where the information is already there, as I said. The only problem I have with that is that "anti-knot" is a neologism. It is in Cromwell, true (the very last hit on Google Scholar, which I overlooked), but his use of it is not meant to indicate it is a standard term. So I would not want to propagate a neologism by mentioning the term in knot sum. --C S (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redir per RJH. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to connected sum. I think the amount of text needed to be added to complete the merge would be very small, on the order of adding "That is, no knot can have an anti-knot that is its inverse element in the connected sum monoid." after the existing sentence "In three dimensions, the unknot cannot be written as the sum of two non-trivial knots." This is an important fact about knots that is already covered in connected sum and does not need a separate article but that could stand to be made a little more prominent there. The two supposed "proofs" in the anti-knot article, though, look worthless and should not be merged. If not merged, it should be deleted; it does not stand alone as a separate article in its current state. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've seen this non-existence of "anti-knots" mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia before. Maybe this should redirect to that. But at the moment I don't know where that is. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • PS: I don't see how the first proof works. It seems to be circular (pun not entirely intended). Michael Hardy (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing in here worth saving. Connected sum does a much better job of explaining the non-existence of "anti-knots", and the "application" to string theory is entirely bogus (because the "strings" in string theory exist in spaces with more dimensions and much more complex toplogy than 3D Euclidean space). Gandalf61 (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Connected sum asserts that anti-knots do exist in higher dimensions; that makes the polemic against knot physics largely fallacious as well as inappropriate. Take it out. If we need to link this somewhere, <span id> now permits redirects to arbitrary points in text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect? One place where I find a valid proof of the non-existence of anti-knots is Eilenberg–Mazur swindle. Since this is a valid concept, but perhaps of interest only for proving the non-existence result, it should get redirected if it's deleted. I'm not sure where. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Michael, I'm starting to get very puzzled by your comments. You don't appear to have read any of the remarks above. For example, you commented on R.E.B.'s talk page that you would have had no idea to look at Mazur swindle for a proof of the theorem. But several people (including me in my nomination) have already pointed out that the valid content is in knot sum/ connected sum, which states that the Mazur swindle gives a proof. It is also stated that knot genus gives a proof, although the details are not included. You commented about the "valid concept" of anti-knot, but I have no idea what this means. There is a theorem that no "anti-knots" exist, but nobody except Cromwell states it that way. The concept of "anti-knot" is about as "valid" a concept as the concept of natural numbers without a prime decomposition. There is, of course, a theorem that every natural number has a prime (even unique) decomposition. Nonetheless I would find it strange that if one author were to state that theorem as "No 'unbreakable' natural numbers, i.e. not having a prime decomposition, exist" , and then people were to start calling "unbreakable natural numbers" a valid concept. --C S (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It has to be a valid concept if there's a theorem saying it can't exist. Certainly the concept of natural number without a prime decomposition is a valid concept. Otherwise there could be no theorem saying no such thing exists. If the concept were not valid, the theorem would have no content. The difference between that and the concept of anti-knot is that the existence of prime factorizations can be stated without introducing a concept such as the one you propose. On the other hand, the theorem saying there is no anti-knot is essentially negative: you can't state it without the concept. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure you can: every sum of nontrivial knots is itself nontrivial. No mention of antiknots. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 05:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Breakout (album)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. All I'm finding are lyrics and forums and rumors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – There appears to be some coverage, including in Billboard, in checking Google News. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - seems to be a real album according to above mentioned link (Direct Link to Billboard Article Here). The Tracklisting seems fake though, considering it contains 27 songs and the most a CD can hold is 21. CRocka05 (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - There are sufficient reliable sources to give title, cover art, release date and about 3 of the tracks listed. Not all of the sources are in the article but they do exist. Notable artist and notability has been established.--NrDg 04:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turaga (Bionicle)

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

Relisting per DRV: AFD 2 nom: This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a regurgitation of the plot of the various Bionicle stories from the novel and video game articles. As such, it is repetitive of that content with no out of universe information and should be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dickipedia

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

Non-notable, advertising, re-creation of deleted content. Probably speedy anyway. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Maybe merge any useful content into 23/6 and redirect? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like an ad. CRocka05 (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks

Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deleted as CSD A7, in DRV some editors may have felt the text's mention of wealth was an assertion of significance or importance. Fails WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If your going to say an article fails WP:BIO, please make an effort to cite a line of WP:BIO, so we all can know what your thinking. You can't tell someone its in the Bible without citing a chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked, WP:BIO was a much quicker read than the Bible :) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, as the references provided in the article indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of her notability pursuant to our general notability guideline. John254 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: notable. This isn't a vote... or at least it isn't supposed to be. --Rividian (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Hetty Green (her mother) who was certainly notable. The coverage of the daughter is an insignificant amount that does not meet the general notability guideline. The references about the daughter can be moved to the mother's article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The combination of the $95 million in 1951 & the lawsuit, with the article in Time (which refers to an earlier article as well) , is sufficient. There is undoubtedly more documentation on the lawsuit to be found. Two feature articles in that magazine is sufficient, even without the LATimes DGG (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The woman is every bit as notorious in her own right as mommy dearest, well, almost. Sad little article (in length only, content's fine), needs some work, but there's no reason to delete this just because everyone on the web hasn't heard of her yet. --Blechnic (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as creator, meets the standard of Wikipedia notability since the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." An interesting part of Americana, that was sent down the memory hole, and now back. It was speedy deleted because Gwen Gale stated "wealth [is not] an assertion of significance", despite the obituaries in the LA Times and multiple Time magazine articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TaskMaker

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

Non-notable game which I've played the hell out of in my life. Only sources are a stubby All Game Guide review and a primary source. No other third party reviews or sources found. Has been tagged for merging with Storm Impact for ages, but nothing's come of the merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - There are certainly mentions and reviews in the contemporary computer press which could be obtained (searches found the references but no full-text of those articles so far for me). Seems to have been a game of at least some interest at the time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Could you show me some of these sources that you found please? I didn't find anything substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I found references to reviews in Apple-related magazines of the time, but no full-text of those magazines is available to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and Merge with Storm Impact. It seems to be a notable part of their history being their first game and all. CRocka05 (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Steven Brown

Howard Steven Brown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced biographical article. I have searched for sources about this person but I have been unable to find any connection between the person's name and the foundation he reportedly founded. I previously userfied this article because it was created by User:Hsbrown00 and the subject's initials would make him H. S. Brown. As it turns out, User:Hsbrown00 claims not to be the subject, asked that this article stop being deleted (two other admins have each deleted it once), and claimed that there are sources. So I am taking this to WP:AFD now for other editors' viewpoints. Please note that the User:Hsbrown00 page has not been edited since it was userfied; thus, it is not certain that the article is a conflict of interest/autobiography. Regardless, though, it looks appropriate for deletion per WP:BIO due to lack of verification and sources. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Allegations of Israeli apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Posting on behalf of another user as follows: 1)Article fails to deliver the political neutrality championed by wikipedia. That in itself should be more than enough reason to delete. 2) It is politically biased. Article is thoroughly sourced, but article is overly-dependent on biased sources (like Uri Avnery). Article fails to deliver the balance necessary to be hosted on wikipedia. 3)The article has been in clean up limbo for more than a year, but nobody has made any real attempt to do a write-up. 4)The whole concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel is flawed. The Arab minority in Israel are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. In the apartheid regime in SA, blacks could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population. The article has no room for this fact. 5)Segregation is debatable, but Allegations of an Apartheid is far too sensational. 6)Unfair voice. There is no "proponent" section. The article is one big slant and has no balance. I cannot emphasize this more. 7) Some of the original authors have been banned or disciplined for wikipedia violations, though I'm not sure how relevant that is. 8) The most recent nomination had a majority delete, though the consensus was none. Not sure how important that is, but thought I'd mention it. 9)All in all, I think it is a perfect candidate for deletion. I can't think of any other reason why it should stay other than the potential to be cleaned, which as far as I can tell won't happen any time soon. If I see some pursuit by other members to fix this article, I'll gladly drop my want to delete this article. thanks for the quick response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral – I'm remaining neutral on this issue. My only involvement is to properly post the AfD request for Wikifan12345. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Addendum: There are two Arbitration cases that are relevant here as well: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Nobody's worked on it, but that alone is no reason to delete. Neither is a PoV dispute. This article has gone through seven AfDs and was kept each time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Seven AfDs strikes me as resolving the issue for a good long while. People need to stick to working on the content of the article. Thetrick (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If it's POV, change it, it's not a valid reason to delete it. Nominator tries to explain why the allegations are invalid, but that's irrelevant to such a nomination, since the allegations have already been made, are citable, notable, and it's not up to us to decide whether they're right or wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Re: seven prior AfDs. This is a valuable article and your argument basically amounts to "it needs to be fixed, so delete it." -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Seven prior AfDs and two arbitrations. --John Nagle (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Highly notable subject. Many readers will search using the terms "Isreal" and "apartheid" to read more about this perspective. Content cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment having read the article, I'd now say that the nominator's description is completely inaccurate. The article appears very well balanced and is an appropriate discussion of a modern debate. So ignore my "content cleanup" comment, this article is not in need of cleanup. The POV tag on it is mistaken, as they so often seem to be on contraversial subjects. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • comment I disagree. The neutral tag had been on for several weeks with no prior edits. Today it was removed, and I put it back on. I've listed some very good reasons why the article is not neutral. Please give reasons for your findings. Also, I'll like to add that those who say keep, please review the reasons i listed why the article should be deleted. this isn't just a quality standard, there is something intellectually wrong with this article. plain and simple: it's biased, and blatantly. i dont see how you guys can shrug it off with "cleanup isn't a reason to delete". there is something more to this and i really wish some of you would accept that. pov isn't the only issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • PoV is not a reason for deletion. Period. --Thetrick (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Is propaganda not a reason for deletion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Are you saying the article is propaganda? FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm saying it possesses qualities that could be considered propaganda. Using Uri Avnery as a credible source is VERY alarming. But I'm guessing you guys just brush that off in the POV pile...right? I'm going through the article right now. I've already found one source that was used incorrectly.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
            • That's exactly what you should be doing instead of dragging out the debate here. --Thetrick (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Doing what? Shifting through sources?? Tell me, if this article is so reliable, so factual, so non-propaganda, why is it still rated in the start class? Clearly something is wrong here. Wikipedia is hosting a very flawed article, and nobody cares. It's loaded with fallacies, and on top of that, many of the sources don't even connect with the paraphrasing. What do we call that again? This is ultimately turning into my view verse your view, which is unfortunate considering the influence this awful article has on the internet. If only wikipedia wasn't so political, perhaps quality would top partisanship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Has anyone made protests against your edits on the article? No, so instead of complaining, go and edit it so it isn't POV anymore, that's how Wikipedia works. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Wow, way to miss the point there. Didn't you just say the article was full of reliable and well-sourced material in the talk page? Nice.Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
                    • It is, but that doesn't mean there aren't unreliable ones, That should be beyond obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Sigh. Israel's self-appointed defenders on Wikipedia have been hammering away at this article for years; the resulting edit wars, often involving newbie single-purpose-accounts, have degraded its quality. Now the degraded quality is being cited as a reason for deletion. It's very tiresome. Anybody who thinks that we can't cite a veteran Israeli journalist and commentator because he's a post-Zionist leftie ought to explain why it's totally acceptable to cite lesser-known figures who are on the other side, or partisan advocacy organizations funded by the Israel government and aligned with radical Israeli nationalists. There may be good reasons to remove advocates from both sides from the article's citation, but that's another debate entirely. This looks an awful lot like somebody just trying to get rid of opinions that he doesn't like.
• Edit conflict: See above comment of 06:04 GMT; he's actually trying to exclude entire ethnic groups that he doesn't like. Somebody speedy-close this debate, it's going nowhere. And ban the troll while you're at it, too. <eleland/talkedits> 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Good catch. --Thetrick (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Hah, racial profiling. FunkMonk (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you're talking about Eleland. I'm honestly too tired to fight this. Clearly you guys want this more than I do. This isn't about opinions. This is about deeply flawed article that shows no signs of up. Most of you seem to agree that there is a problem, but don't really care enough about it. Perhaps because it satisfies your politics, or maybe you don't want to take the time. But this article isn't going anywhere, and you have just proved that. Thank you! And btw, I don't appreciate being called a troll. If anybody is a troll, it's you. Don't bate me next time dude. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow Eleland, your user page speaks volumes. Appreciate the hate, man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Now Wikifan has resorted to personal attacks two times in a row, not much left to discuss here I'm afraid. FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • • • This is ridiculous. I'm responding to attacks against me. How am I attacking? Wait, I get it. You're doing this to distract from the problem. Bate me and then spin. Wow, you're all just full of fallacies to do now aren't you? Funkmonk, Eleland, I appreciate your political affiliation. I understand. But let's keep this discussion on-topic, ok?!

[edit] The Mixtape About Nothing

The Mixtape About Nothing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mixtape: Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 13:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are added to demonstrate that this is more than your "usual" mixtape. I {{prod}}ded an earlier version of this last week, and the rationale there ("Non-notable unreleased mixtape. I can't see any way this will ever be expandable to fit WP:N.") currently still stands. — iridescent 14:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep an entire article on Entertainment Weekly's website was dedicated to this mixtape. Thats more than "trivial coverage". Not to mention Julia Louis-Dreyfuss appears on this. Yes its slim, but its only been released for a week, I believe this nomination is premature.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep per the EW article, I'm sure more reliable sources exist or at least will exist given the album's newness. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete despite the EW article. We can all speculate that additional articles may exist in the future, but the time for an article is not until they actually do. I don't think one article, even in EW, is enough to cement notability for a mix tape that will supposedly be released soon. Erechtheus (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] N-Tyce

N-Tyce (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Not notable as an individual artist, redirect to Deadly Venoms. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete She is not a notable rapper. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to Deadly Venoms. Not notable on her own, but no reason to delete outright. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deadly Venoms.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3g iphone

3g iphone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Speculation about a future product with no substantial facts, and no references. Notability not asserted. Roleplayer (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unsourced. Re-create if the vapors solidify into a product. Thetrick (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete We have an iPhone article, even if this is the product it should not have a separate article but be part of the main article. Doug Weller (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Hold on. A 3G iPhone is virtually guaranteed to be announced in less than 12 hours. Once that happens, we can make an informed decision as to whether the new product(s) can be covered in the iPhone article or split off, and if the latter, what the article(s) should be named. If we feel compelled to do something in the meantime, then redirect to iPhone, I guess. --Maxamegalon2000 06:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] XMPlay

This is another software product which fails both WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE -- I am unable to locate any reliable and non-trivial third party publications about it. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IDance

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

Non-notable single, currently only on YouTube Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 02:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• iDelete as song has not been released to radio. Spell4yr (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The International Scope Review

The International Scope Review (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

article is unsourced and notability has not been established. Appears to be a "walled garden" with Patrick Hunout and The Social Capital Foundation, all three unsourced and each attempting to prop up the others. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Social Capital Foundation

The Social Capital Foundation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

no evidence of notability has been provided. The article was kept despite the lack of sources in 2006 hoping that expansion would provide sourcing and satisfiy notability requirements, however, this has not happened and the article should be looked at again and evidence of notability should be required. This article, together with Patrick Hunout and The International Scope Review appear to be a "walled garden" using each to support the other. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cubans of Brazil

Cubans of Brazil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cuban Brazilians is not a notable community in Brazil. The population is really small, the population contribution to Brazilian culture and history is nothing. This page is nothing more than an overexaggeration of Cuban Brazilians. There is hardly any Cuban Brazilians in Brazilian society. Why is there a page for an unnotalbe community? Lehoiberri (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Chalk

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

Two liner. Concerned has been expressed with a tag saying does not meet WP:NN guidelines. I concur, but move it here for more to see. Brusegadi (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Satisfies WP:ATHLETE, which I haven't looked at in awhile. That criteria has been reduced from "major" league professional to those "who have competed in a fully professional league". The Fort Wayne Wizards are a professional team, so the guideline criterion is satisfied, so long as verifiable sources are added to the article. Truthanado (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Hunout

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

there are no reliable third party sources, so notability has not been established in accordance with WP:BIO Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virtle Rock

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

Page does not assert notability; google turns up 181 hits (or 22, for some reason the numbers drop off on the second and third results pages). Most google results are mirrors of wikipedia. Page has been around for 2.5 years with minimal expansion or linking. ) WLU (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Physical locations are generally notable, but I think they still have to meet WP:V, and this one doesn't. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's New Happening on Disney Channel India

What's New Happening on Disney Channel India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP is not a directory or TV listing. ukexpat (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a TV directory. What the nom said. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the above rationale and also as at least arguable wikispam. Erechtheus (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Identifying spiders

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

Basically this is the same thing as a guide to eatable mushroom identification, which I'm sure there is no place for on Wikipedia. If anywhere it'd place on Wikibooks (with expansion). — Jan Hofmann (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per what wikipedia is not. Specificly, wikipedia is not a guide. Tabor (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete although the contents of this along with List of types of spiders (which should also be deleted or renamed) - could be used in something like "Classification of spiders". Shyamal (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naturopathic doctor

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

POV fork of Naturopathy, and a dangerous one: I did a websearch for "ND legal requirements naturopathy" and found this website which says "In a state without naturopathic licensure, anyone can call him or herself a ND regardless of the level of training, experience or competence." According to the NCCAM, [5], only 11 states in the United states actually do licence them. In other words, we are making claims that everyone who designates themselves an ND is a fully-certified, highly-trained professional, something that is actually only true of a minority. This article should be deleted as a POV-fork, and/or redirected to the main article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Does the degree exist? If so, could the article explain the problem of only certain states recognizing the degree? A²Kafir (and...?) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment If the degree exists, it may be pertinent information but some caveats must be given about the 11 US states that license naturaopathic doctors. If not delete. Artene50 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The ND degree exists and allows the practitioner to be a primary care provider in some (apparently 11) US states. However, in other states, either there is no regulation (anyone can call themselves an ND), or it is completely illegal. There is such thing as Naturopathic medical school, which grants the ND degree. In the article, these points should all be clearly stated in the lead. I don't think this is a POV fork, since the degree exists, and it is different from naturopathy in other countries. However, the article should be moved to the more appropriate Doctor of Naturopathy. (A history merge should be performed after this Afd.) Also, depending on the aggressiveness and boldness of this article's authors, there is a high potential for controversy, similar to what goes on between the traditional medicine and chiropractic camps. Some previous editors tried to insert naturopathic medical education information in with traditional medical education, which has repeatedly been rejected by the traditional medical community. I think having separate naturopathic medicine articles is appropriate and the best solution. --Scott Alter 06:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFO Phil

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

Fail WP:BIO.The article contains no sources and I was not able to find any reliable source coverage of the subject. The article also appears to make overstated claims, one example is the article claim that he is a "regular on the nationally syndicated radio program Coast to Coast AM with George Noory, appearing frequently as a guest and contributor." The wikipedia article on Coast to Coast AM has a section about guests which he is not mentioned, he is instead mentioned in a section about callers. BlueAzure (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Add new AfD section

[edit] AfD footer

This section describes how to list for deletion articles and their associated talk pages. See the related pages for templates, categories, redirects, stub types, pages in the Wikipedia namespace, user pages, or images and other media, or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases.

Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III.

To list a single article for deletion for the first time, follow this three-step process:

I.	Put the deletion tag on the article. Insert the {{subst:afd1}} tag at the top of the article if it's the article's first AfD nomination, if the article has been nominated for deletion before use {{subst:afdx}} instead. Please do not mark the edit as minor. Please include in the edit summary the phrase AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the AfD tag is removed by a vandal or a new user unfamiliar with deletion policy. Save the page.
II.	Create the article's deletion discussion page. The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page. Some preloaded text and some instructions will appear. Give a reason for the deletion and a category for the debate (instructions will be on the page). OR Click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the deletion-debate page. Insert this text: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion, Category with a letter indicating the category of the debate, and Reason... with the reasons you think the page should be deleted. If you used template {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.). Consider adding an appropriate deletion sorting template to the nomination. Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate. Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page.
III.	Notify users who monitor AfD discussion. Open the articles for deletion log page. At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert: {{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}} replacing PageName appropriately. Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. If you used template {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.). Save the page. Your insertion will be automatically expanded to the same form as the preceding lines in the file: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}.

To list multiple related pages for deletion see this page.

Once listed, deletion discussions can, optionally, also be transcluded into an appropriate deletion sorting category, such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or for specific countries; which helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. Please see the list of categories.