User:Matthew Yeager/AFD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User page	Talk Page	To Do List	AWB Contributions	INFO	AFD	Control Panel

History

Purge server cache

Contents 1 Canton of Grand-Bourg 2 Beach Touch 3 Ainkawa Social Youth Club 4 Doomsday devices in popular culture 5 Chris Payne 6 Celeste Colmenares 7 Enrico Rocce Verilano 8 Swedish auction 9 Arushi Talwar 10 Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism 11 Capital Services Group 12 Chief Youngblood 13 Kdetoys 14 Prosti Za Lyubov' (Yulia Savicheva album) 15 Wiemux 16 Kevin Koekemoer 17 Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Ajeetpura 18 Galaxy (Super Mario Galaxy) 19 Greatest Hits (RBD album) 20 Kylie Maria Jenner 21 Lil Chuckie 22 EeLin Modeling Agency 23 Agoda 24 Wrightsoft 25 Marco A. Diaz 26 The Fling (band) 27 Anti-Pakistani sentiment 28 Jillian "Cowgirl" Pearlman 29 Toys, Other Baby Items to Soothe A Fussy Baby 30 '47 31 Susan Miller Rag 32 Love Thy Neighbor: The Tory Diary of Prudence Emerson 33 Redead 34 East Bay Hardcore 35 Tumour initiation factors 36 Viking metal 37 Oak Bay Police Department 38 A wig wom for a goose's bridle 39 Alex Laurier 40 The Libertarian Program 41 Faster is Better : English

[edit] Canton of Grand-Bourg

Canton of Grand-Bourg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

To short, non notable, nonsense Hellboy2hell (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - its a stub - so too short isn't a good argument. It's not nonsense its the way electoral areas are designated in France (and its overseas departments) and I think places / government areas are meant to have some sort of inherent notability in policy terms. There's also an awful lot more of them Category:Cantons of France btw. -Hunting dog (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beach Touch

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

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and likewise, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MADEUP & WP:OR.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 11:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MADEUP at the shore one day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ainkawa Social Youth Club

Ainkawa Social Youth Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy, however appears to fail WP:CORP nonetheless. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doomsday devices in popular culture

Doomsday devices in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is simply a trivial dumping ground for any doomsday device reference in popular culture. RobJ1981 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or weak partial merge There are so many films with doomsday as its main theme (see Doomsday film), and even more with a doomsday device, that this list becomes filled with indiscriminate plot summaries (WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#PLOT). A thorough discussion of doomsday devices can take place at Doomsday device, which is still rather stubbish. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Payne

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

Contested prod (by IP, no explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he's never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete As per Number 57 indicated lacks notability.Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 09:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice. Clearly fails notability at this moment in time. --Jimbo^[online] 12:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ATHLETE. —97198 talk 12:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celeste Colmenares

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

Might be me, but can't seem to find any RS backing any of this up - searching on Celeste Colmenares produces very few ghits, can't seem to see any that match this bio. Minkythecat (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - possibly made up - remarkable lack of ghits (even non reliable ones) for names in this including the agent and parents.-Hunting dog (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Possible hoax; no secondary source coverage even if not. —97198 talk 12:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enrico Rocce Verilano

Enrico Rocce Verilano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication that this person actually exists. The small number of Google hits outside of Wikipedia are probably just copied unchecked from here. Another article of the same author is currently up for deletion for the same reasons. --Latebird (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I agree, the little amount of Google hits does look like it's a nonexistant person, unless we can get some confirmable references. Arienh4^(Talk) 10:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Latebird (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This appears to confirm the stats listed in the article, but I have no idea of its reliability. No other Ghits that I can find for things like "Equinho Caen", which seems unusual for a supposed professional player..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish auction

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

This page was tagged for speedy deletion under CSD:G4 by User:Ulner. I am taking the discussion here, because with respect to the previous AFD, there was very low participation there and the content of this page is somewhat different to that of the deleted page. I recommend delete as notability is not established and referencing is poor. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The topic generates multiple hits in Google Scholar. That, and the references in the article suggest to me that this is a valid and notable topic in auction theory. The article needs improvement, but that's no reason for deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A legitimate form of auction that is eminently notable. The article, however, could do with a massive rewrite, even if only to fix the spelling mistakes. Ugh. Still, it's only a couple of weeks old so give it time, per WP:DEMOLISH. Debate 木 10:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arushi Talwar

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

the article has no relevance here.It is a sensalization and media hype.Thousands of people die in india by murders est 30,000.that doesnt mean that we should have all the murders listed.

Also accoridng to news there were many double murders after and before the arushi murder.Why dont you list them.

• According to :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline

"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.

http://news.google.com/news?&rls=en&q=arushi%20talwar&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn

1) What you get is around 1,732 news stories on this subject.

2) Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati (And one of the biggest Political leader of India) has done a press conference on the Arushi Talwar Murder case.

3) Seniors most police officers handling this case have been demoted / transferred.

4) Women and Child Development Minister Renuka Choudhry have announced that ministry will file defamatory case against the Noida police and transferred officers.

5) There is already an ongoing debate over Media trial / Media Harassment seen in this case.

6) India's premier investigating agency CBI have taken over the case.

7) Similar cases are found to be notable enough, even though thousands of people have been murdered in similar way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBenet_Ramsey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jessica_Lall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulshan_Kumar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitish_Katara http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Dubey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priyadarshini_Mattoo

8) And Time magazine has found this case notable enough to do a story on it. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1810162,00.html

9) Notable movie director Mahesh Bhatt and TV production house Balaji Telefilms have shown intent to make movie / tv serial on this case.

Millions of people have died around the world, but people / police / media / politicians have reacted differently to this case. And that is why it is listed on wikipedia. Anmol.2k4 (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As you said that a movie and a tv serial is being planned.YOu must realise that the victims mother has gone to the court to seek restraint from making any movie,serial and what if she realizes that her daughters murder story is on a encyclopedia?.wikipeida is not a news website,its a encyclopedia. One more thing why dont you have the servants murder on a separate page also.Why the bias? I vote to delete this page as it don not conform to wikipedia standards. manchurian candidate 04:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many article similar to this category in wikipedia. One of them is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBenet_Ramsey , which follows the wiki standards!!! This article may need edition to remove "Presumed".

I vote AGAINST DELETION.

Sumeetsahu (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Move to the event per WP:ONEEVENT: "Cover the event, not the person".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I vote against deletion, because of its similarity to JonBenet Ramsey article. Anmol.2k4 (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism

Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete:blatant POV fork, discussion is covered in NPOV form elsewhere (notably Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki)Jw2034 (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Blatant PoV fork, sourced or not it seems pretty much impossible for an article with this title to ever be neutral. This information can be, and is, covered in other articles on the topic. ~ mazca ^talk 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Article titles don't need to be neutral; see Wikipedia:POVFORK#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV -- Kendrick7^talk 19:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's hardly what that link says. Particularly, the phrase "state terrorism" is so loaded with negative connotations that I don't think it's very defensible for the title of a neutral article. ~ mazca ^talk 06:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A minority thesis is not an appropriate topic for an article; breaking the article out in this way fundamentally misleading since it frames this topic as part of the debate about how to characterize the atomic bomb, when this is a vanishingly small aspect of that debate. The useful content is already in the history of the appropriate article (US/allegations of state terrorism). Christopher Parham (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Incorrect, per WP:UNDUE, which says "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia." -- Kendrick7^talk 19:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • This article isn't about a minority view, it is about a particular thesis associated with a minority view. The minority view is covered in the allegations of state terrorism article; this page is about a particular argument made by those who make those allegations, and its primary purpose is to advance that argument. On the other hand, within the scholarship about the bomb, this view is vanishingly insignificant. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • No, I think it is a minority view, and that you are incorrect that the multiple views in the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States are monolithic. There's no reason that the same person who thinks the U.S. support for the Contras was a form of state terrorism is going to think the exact same thing about the use of the atomic bomb on Japan. The merge discussion is heading that direction though; in the meantime trying to hijack that via an AfD is misguided. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• speedy keep claims of POV violation were reviewed and found unsubstantiated by the closing admin in the original AfD [1] which was completed less than 2 weeks ago. The closing admin's decision was upheld at Deletion review only a few days ago. Bringing a deletion nomination on the same basis so soon has as its only basis WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Such POV tactics (pov fork) dont have a place here. A someone above noted, this POV material is already covered in other articles and the last thing we need to do is replicate it yet again.Dman727 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: while I remain undecided on this AFD, I would note that the material comprising this article was mostly split out of two other articles, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. If it was acceptable in those articles, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be acceptable as an article in its own right. I have concerns about the title and focus on this topic, however, so this should not be taken as a 'vote to keep'. Terraxos (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep We went thru this less than two weeks ago, and yet people continue to misconstrue the WP:CFORK and WP:SS guidelines, which in fact say this article is perfectly fine. That closure was endorsed in DRV. I'm happy to merge this back into one of the two articles it was split from whenever consensus forms as to which one it is; otherwise, I fail to see how making the exact same argument over again will change anything. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sourced and notable. Not POV, but an article on a POV, and not an obscure one either. And even if it were POV, it wouldn't be difficult to rewrite as an NPOV presentation of the opinion. Dekkappai (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge back into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it's an unnecessary fork of that article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's absolutely shouldn't be merged into that article as this view is not a significant part of the scholarship on the atomic bomb. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's your opinion. Based on some of the references, it appears that at least some scholars disagree with you, too. It would work perfectly well as part of that article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Saying this is a POV fork of the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article is misleading. Actually it’s a spin-off of the Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States. It is undue weight to have too much of this minority view over at the Debate Article about the bombings. Hence, due to WP:UNDUE it is sensible to support the split, per the WP:EP policy. As WP:UNDUE even says: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them." It was getting a little large (as of now, and as it expands) for the Allegations article; here it is able to grow fully, although there should be a section of this material (shorter) kept on the allegations article as well, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Also, per WP:PRESERVE.

As was previously explained by the closing admin just about two weeks ago, the core issue is whether the article is a POV fork (bad) or a summary style spinout (good) of Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Here's the relevant part of the WP:POVFORK guideline:

Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. But this is not the case here.

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View, which it does.

Notice that it is neither apparent nor clearly explained what this is supposed to be a POV fork of, and how. It is linked to from the parent articles through WP:SS-style, brief summary paragraphs that are neutral. Furthermore, it is prima facie unclear what POV the article would be pushing. It both neutral and notable in that it cites several scholars with a variety of viewpoints.

Even assuming arguendo that the article is a POV fork, this does not explain (and it is also not obvious) why this means we must delete it, instead of editing it to make it into a neutral WP:SS spinout, or merging it back. Looking at the sources, we see they are leading authorities on the subject, and it seems to do a decent job at representing an intelligent and NPOV presentation of this notable, academic, social discourse on the subject. Here is a partial list:

• Richard Falk, professor of International Law at Princeton, current U.N. Special Rapporteur

• Arno Mayer, professor of History, Princeton

• Mark Selden, phd Yale, professor of history and sociology,

• Michael Walzer, professor of philosophy, Princeton (Japan)

• Michael Stohl Professor and Chair, Department of Communication University of California, Santa Barbara. Formerly he was Dean of International Programs (from 1992) and Professor of Political Science at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, where he had taught since 1972. He has published 13 books and numerous articles on terrorism, political violence and international relations. His book “The Politics of Terrorism” is in its 3rd edition. (general, El Salvador, Japan)

• Michael Mann, phd Oxford, professor of sociology UCLA

• J. Patrice McSherry, professor of political science, Long Island University

• Douglas Lackey, professor of Philosophy, City University, NY

• Jorge I. Dominguez, professor of history, Harvard. Presently the Vice Provost for International Affairs, the Antonio Madero Professor of Politics and Economics, Chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, and Senior Advisor for International Studies to the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University.

• Howard Zinn, professor of history, University of Boston

• C.A.J. (Tony) Coady head of the Australian Research Council Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), Melbourne University

• Igor Primoratz, professor of philosophy, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

• Alvin Y. So head department of social sciences, Hong Kong University

• George A. Lopez is a founding faculty of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame

• Joseph Gerson - Director of Programs and Director of the Peace and Economic Security Program for the American Friends and Services Committee.

http://www.afsc.org/newengland/Hiroshima-Speech2005.pdfGiovanni33 (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork. Covered in a number of articles with the proper weight and tone. This article is set up as an advertisement for fringe views from the title to the sources. --DHeyward (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Factually incorrect: The material in this article is currently not found in any other article. There is some merge debate going on, and I think most of it should be placed back into a section in the Allegations article, but you are wrong when you say the material here is covered in other articles. Flat out false. Also, I'll point out that even if we assume your false statement is true, it does not logically follow that we must delete this article; even if its agreed to merge, merge=delete is a faulty line of reasoning, per policy.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per The Red Pen of Doom. Much too soon to reopen the case. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 08:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – this is not a fork, as it's not covered in full elsewhere; the sections in Debate and Allegations are merely summaries. If it is NPOV, the remedy is in editing, not deleting. There is no consensus as to where to merge it, if it were to be merged, hence, as we want this material in full in a single article only, an article of its own is currently the best option. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as this is an abuse of process. I voted to delete this article a couple of weeks ago, but as it survived that AfD and a subsequent DRV this nomination should be closed as a waste of time. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 11:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capital Services Group

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

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital Services Group This page does not have enough information and perhaps violated copywrite laws. It should be deleted until the author has the chance to update the information fully. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ropponguy (talk • contribs) 2008/06/11 08:20:10

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Youngblood

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

chief youngblood real person baseball player keep with attention --Baseketballer (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This article does not have references. Could someone please try to verify the claims in it? --Eastmain (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Done --Baseketballer (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have cleanup up the article. Keep since this article is about a real baseball player notable. -- RyRy5 (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Reply- Just because the article is about a "real baseball player" does not mean it needs to be included. It still has to have reliable sources, the subject needs to be notable, and it has to be verifiable. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 09:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC).
• Keep. Every player in the history of Major League Baseball has, or is eventually expected to have, an entry in Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kdetoys

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

Bringing this here for discussion because there seem to be a lot of similar articles (see the info box in this one). KDE is notable, but I don't find evidence the individual programs are. Ghits abound but they're forums and installation information, nothing that establishes notability and there's no RS coverage. I hate to do a large bundle, but I think some consensus on this would be beneficial. Thoughts? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prosti Za Lyubov' (Yulia Savicheva album)

Prosti_Za_Lyubov'_(Yulia_Savicheva_album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

According to singer's official web site (http://www.savicheva.ru/main.html), there's no such album in her discography. Moreover, she have never recorded any duet albums. This looks like a hoax. Probably, a pirate release that has nothing to do with official discography. Netrat_msk (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netrat (talk • contribs) 2008/06/10 15:10:39

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 11:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Ajeetpura

Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Ajeetpura (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, unsourced Ged UK (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galaxy (Super Mario Galaxy)

Galaxy (Super Mario Galaxy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is basically a half list of levels in Super Mario Galaxies, with some extra game guide info that doesn't really belong on wikipedia. DurinsBane87 (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It is an inapprapriate article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Well, I'm gonna finish the thing. It's not like I'll just leave half of it forever. Plus, Wikipedia needs every single bit of info possible. Linkandsonicx (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Pure gameguide (WP:NOT#GUIDE). Even if the levels were mention-worthy, they could nicely fit in Super Mario Galaxy. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kylie Maria Jenner

Kylie Maria Jenner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Related to notable people, but not notable in her own right, notability is not inherited. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I don't think the issue here is whether or not notability is inherited, since she is one of the main characters on Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Nonetheless, I still think she fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:REALITY unless someone can establish some kind of cult following... Debate 木 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Just being one of the main character on a reality show doesn't suffice for WP:ENTERTAINER . --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lil Chuckie

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

Claims widespread appearances, which would make him notable, but no cites for any of them or info about why he was selected. Not sure they give him lasting enough notability vs 15-minutes-of-fame--is he notable, or did they find him as man-on-the-street. I see some places where he is an example of a Katrina victim, but that doesn't make him notable (he isn't the spokeperson or used as the prime poster-child for this disaster, etc). One would-be-viable claim is having an album, but its page says it isn't released, and even the cite for it coming soon doesn't appear to mention it. Therefore album is also nominated as too-speculative crystal-balling. DMacks (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete Hellboy2hell (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

:Bundling the album into this AfD:

Child's Play (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete)

DMacks (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bundling the album into this AfD (moved page to its correct namespace...reverted Child's Play to its previous viable content):

Child's Play (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete)

DMacks (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Album not even out yet, which the article admits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EeLin Modeling Agency

EeLin Modeling Agency (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability. No mention in any sources other than company's website Gront (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete Pretty strong claim of notability ("Eelin today manages hundreds of models & celebrities, making it one of the biggest modeling agencies in Taiwan") and if anyone can verify that statement this would be a slam-dunk keep. But I find it telling that they seem to be elusive as to who these supposed famous clients actually are (the one name in the article is a redlink). Again, though, I'll happily change my vote if reliable sourcing shows up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agoda

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

Contested speedy. No references, no assertion of notabily. Blatent WP:ADVERT from single-use account. Thetrick (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. Probably speedy candidate as well per Wikipedia:CSD#G11. The original editor can't simply remove the tag (they need to add {{hangon}} instead) so try re-adding it. I note, however, my concern that the nom. might have been a little too eager on patrol per Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers since it was speedied only 7 minutes after creation. Start at the bottom of the patrol list, which is currently backlogged to 12 May 2008, and work up per Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Patrolling new pages... Debate 木 08:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrightsoft

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

Fails notability I sense, only 24 employees. Complicated article and company 23 years old, which made me pause and ask AfD not CSD. SGGH ^speak! 12:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep article doesn't currently have reliable, third party references, they're all from the company's website, but they exist. Here are some I found: [3] [4].--Serviam (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Both the above "reliable, third party references" are directories confirming the company exists. Existence does not equal notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: a software development firm for the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) community is serving a small, non consumer niche market. No case is made in the article itself for general notability outside the HVAC trade, and as such the article fails the business notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Found some specific sources on this company in some of the HVAC trade journals (via EBSCO, library database), they seen notable within their industry
  • Wrightsoft Is 20 Years Old. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 11/6/2006, Vol. 229 Issue 10, p6-6; From abstract: The article focuses on the accomplishments of the Wrightsoft Corp., which has celebrated its 20th anniversary, to contribute to the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) industry with many software programs.
  • Wrightsoft wins design award. Contractor Magazine, Aug2007, Vol. 54 Issue 8, p26-26; From abstract: This article announces that Wrightsoft was given the 2007 Dealer Design Awards.
  • Innovation Awards 2004 Winners Selected. ASHRAE Journal, Jan2004, Vol. 46 Issue 1, pS14-S15, 2p; From abstract: Lists products that won the 2004 AHR Expo Innovation Awards. York UPG's Sunline MagnaDRY; Ice Energy's Ice Bear-50; Vulcain Alarm 301 IRF refrigerant monitor; Wrightsoft's the Right-Suite Residential;
  • BITS & BYTES. Engineered Systems, Jan2007, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p122-122, 1/2p; (AN 23835654) From abstract:The independent panel of 45 contractors chooses the Wrightsoft Corp., in partnership with Uponor to win a gold medal award for its innovative design of the Uponor System Design software.
  • HR Expo 2005 Innovation Award Winners. Supply House Times, Feb2005, Vol. 47 Issue 12, p28-28 From Abstract: The article announces the winners of the Air-Conditioning Heating Refrigeration Expo 2005 award. The winners of the award are Wrightsoft Corp. and Danfoss AS.
  • HVAC-City: A home on the Net. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 10/13/97, Vol. 202 Issue 7, p19 From Abstract:Reports on the Air Conditioning Contractors of America and Wrightsoft Corp.'s development of the HVAC-City, a full service Internet site.
  • Software Products That Boost Profits Win Raves From The Contractor-Judges. By: Skaer, Mark. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/19/2004, Vol. 222 Issue 12, p32-34, 2p From abstract: Highlights the winners in the contractor services and software category of the 2004 Dealer Design Awards for the U.S. heating and ventilation industry. Right Proposal Plus Module from Wrightsoft Corp.; Luxaire Business Analyzer from York Unitary Products Group.
  • Winners Have the Right Stuff. By: Preville, Cherie. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/17/2006, Vol. 228 Issue 12, p52-53, 2p; From abstract: The article announces awards given to outstanding heating & ventilation products in the contractor services and software category in the U.S. The company Wrightsoft Corp. has won the gold award for its Uponor System Design Software.
  • Software Winners Selected. By: Preville, Cherie. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/16/2007, Vol. 231 Issue 11, p46-46, 1p; From abstract: The article announces that Jonas Software has won gold, Wrightsoft Corp. has won silver and FastEST Inc. has won bronze award at the 2007 Dealer Design Awards ceremony in the contractor services and software category. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as the references provided by Captain-tucker indicate sufficient coverage of Wrightsoft in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline, which provides in relevant part that:

  If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

  John254 00:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Citations in industry trade journals are just about meaningless. They publish anything and everything about companies because they desperate for advertising dollars. Ever try to read one? --Thetrick (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete An industry trade journal, in this case "Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News", is not a reliable source as these are essentially advertising vehicles and not devoted to independent coverage. Debate 木 08:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. And, there are no reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marco A. Diaz

Marco A. Diaz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

After a discussion with wimt, I believe that a few minor appearances at iMDB does not satisfy notability guidelines. The article was also created and has been edited almost entirely by a user with a username very similar to the article title (Marcodiaz13 (talk · contribs) vs Marco A. Diaz) leading me to believe this is a possible COI/self promotion.

I originally Prodded the article, but the notice was removed with no explanation as to why in the edit summary or on the talk page. During this removal, my {{biography}} and {{coi}} tags were also removed (diff). ChaoticReality 05:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from article creator: I have created this page to try to illustrate the success and hard work of my cousin. I did not know that wikipedia discouraged the creation of pages for people at a early stage of success in their career. I have created the page with no ill intentions of hurting anyone, so If my edition and contribution is not welcome I will gladly delete and persist in my efforts. I apologize for trying to create the page, and did not know that only strangers may create a page for someone. Thank you for your advice and lesson.Marcodiaz13 (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Marcodiaz13

and for Blaxthos i would like to see you get some IMDb credits, see how tribal and simple it is.

• Delete - Seems to fail WP:N, as there are no reliable references beyond tivial listings at imdb. COI aside (cough), come back when career has been more sufficiently covered. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Fling (band)

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

Procedural nomination. The previous AfD was closed as "delete," but the subsequent deletion review demands a relist. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Still seems to lack sufficient sourcing to establis notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I said this before but got no response. One of the criteria for meeting notability standards was that a member of the group was a part of another notable band. One of the members was in Letter Kills. They have a wikipedia page with a link to The Fling. Also The Fling has been mentioned in multiple third party sources. With two on the page already and more to come. Blue Gillian (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Pakistani sentiment

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

This article has been nominated before but in my opinion the narrators have failed to present the proper reasons. The article is completely filled with information about the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent during the 1200s. Pakistan was not even created until 1947. The other information are personal opinions, which is aganist Wikipedia:NOR and the article also lacks WP:N

Sources 2,3,4 and 5 are falsely cited in the article. They have no relation to the sentences in which they have been cited with. Leaving only 2 source, one of which is a lengthy quote meant to take up space. None of the sources also use the term "anti-Pakistan sentiment" The rest of the article is filled with Indian resentment of Pakistan which is also against WP:COAT.

Might I also mention that the term "Indophobia" can also apply to Pakistan since "Indophobia refers to hostility towards Indians and Indian culture and prejudices against South Asian peoples, including Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans". --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Moved here from second nom; it works now. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I appreciate the nom's effort to distinguish this from previous deletion debates, which is rare, appreciated and entirely appropriate. Nonetheless, there does seem to be significant scope to expand this article and consequently it is, in my view, worth keeping. There is no doubt that there is resentment in India against Pakistan (also, arguably, in other countries including the West), for some legitimate reasons but also arguably for some less legitimate reasons. Regardless, while I note the reference to WP:COAT I don't think that this concern is sufficient to justify deleting the article which in this instance which can be improved per WP:BOLD. There are a range of cross-cultural tensions on the sub-continent that are worthy of encyclopedic coverage, although I agree that this particular example is inadequately treated by the current text of this article. Debate 木 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jillian "Cowgirl" Pearlman

Jillian "Cowgirl" Pearlman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:INUNIVERSE article about a fictional character in Green Lantern. Unverifiable and unsourced. Google pulls up about 1,000 hits, but not many reliable sources for this article. Mizu onna sango15 Public (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 04:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Unsuitable as an encyclopaedic topic. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Masterpiece2000's reasons. Artene50 (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] '47

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

Article does not state notability. It says it is a publication owned by hundresds of the best writers and artists of the day yet does not have any sources to back it up. tabor-^{drop me a line} 02:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the concept of a magazine "owned" by its contributors in the form of stock is fairly unique, and sources aren't hard to find: Washington post, NY Times. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - References mentioned above only seem to be "announcements" of upcoming magazine... long term notability isn't established. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep if sources can be found to satisfy WP:CORP and WP:V; redirect to 1947 if they cannot. B.Wind (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced and fails to assert what the notability was - uniqueness of ownership may be interesting but what was the significance? Thetrick (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Blaxthos, above. Debate 木 09:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If it was a notable magazine why did it last only 1 year before being terminated? Secondly, there isn't any sources for it's existence Artene50 (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Miller Rag

Susan Miller Rag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is a non-notable B-side that does not meet WP:Notability (music)#Songs. TN‑X-Man 02:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Already redirected. Close Thetrick (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Close - as moot/completed. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Love Thy Neighbor: The Tory Diary of Prudence Emerson

Love Thy Neighbor: The Tory Diary of Prudence Emerson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books): No sources which give more than a simple plot summary; no awards; not adapted for theatre or film; not a subject of instruction at any schools; author not historically significant. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Dear America. Notable series, but each individual one of the 40 or so volumes doesn't individually pass WP:BK. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redead

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

This is an article solely on a fictional enemy from The Legend of Zelda. This article cannot stand alone as it fails WP:FICT, and Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series covers it more than enough. It also has no sources. Artichoker^[talk] 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Fails the general notability guideline. Nothing makes this particular enemy worth its own article. Note, however, that if there's a list of Zelda enemies with info missing about the Redead, a merge may be more appropriate. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - it is not missing information, this link contains all the information on ReDeads that is needed. Artichoker^[talk] 01:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and revert to the redirect from 2007. Not substantive enough for its own article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect. Andre (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect I must say the first time one of these things shrieked and latched onto me was a memorable moment for sure, but like most minor video-game enemies it's better merged than on its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect - not notable enough on it's own --T-rex 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect - I worked really hard on this article! Plus, I remember when this monster had a very large article, I promise that I will expand it and give a second chance...Who said to delete this anyway? -- User:linkandsonicx-11:53, 10 June 2008
• Redirect, not notable on its own. JIP | Talk 04:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect - *update* I expanded the article big time! And in two days, I can upload photos, so please give it a chance, and check it out - ReDead. Talk 2:04, 11 June 2008
• Redirect - Ok, these are my last words. Please, please give the article a chance...it once did have an article, but I think I deleted it...So, please, give it a chance. Linkandsonicx (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Talk

[edit] East Bay Hardcore

East Bay Hardcore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete neologism, without any indication that this purported subgenre is recognized by any authorities or what its characteristics are, why its notable, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Carlossuarez46 Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NEO, WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Zero references or notability as of June 2008. Artene50 (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viking metal

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

This page contains a grand total of three sources, one which does not work, another is not in english and as far as I can tell, states nothing on the subject of the article. Finally, the last source is a fansite which cannot be defined as reliable. And this to the fact that a majority of bands in the list of bands are also folk metal bands, I suggest that page be deleted and merged into the folk metal article.I am also nominating the following related page:

List of Viking metal bands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect I'd considered merging it with a more general genre if any sources can be found. --neon white talk 01:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There is overlap of "Folk Metal" here, just as there is overlap of "Heavy metal music" here. This article's subject is sufficiently distinct to have a separate article, and this article is rated as a high-importance article under WikiProject Metal. A lack of reliable sources alone is not sufficient reason to delete if reliable sources can be found. At a minimum, I would ask for this deletion to be put on hold for a sufficient time to allow a serious cleanup effort. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep Lack of sources is not an acceptable reason for nominating an article for deletion. It is a reason to improve the article. The folk metal article originally featured zero sources until I came around and improved it to the high standard it has today. As the person who pretty much rewrote the folk metal article in its entirety, I can also state with certainty that Viking metal is not the same thing as folk metal and to merge the two article would be as ridiculous as merging heavy metal music with hard rock. Yes, there are many Viking metal bands that are also folk metal bands but there are also many that are not, including almost all the early pioneers of Viking metal like Bathory, Enslaved and Einherjer. Viking metal is a well-known and established subgenre of heavy metal music, one that is recognized by even mainstream sources like allmusic and in books like this and this. I've long had the intention of improving this Viking metal article but I've been busy elsewhere improving other articles. --Bardin (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Per WP:V... without reliable sources, we don't know if this is a NEO, or something someone made up, or what. Until we can demonstrate reliable sources that verify the details, I don't see how we can keep this. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Viking metal is regarded as a distinct style by numerous sources. With some time, I believe this article can be greatly improved. ___Superfopp (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge - Merge with Folk Metal, musically a band like Tyr and later Bathory is not that much different from Eluveitie or In Extremo. Joe Capricorn (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oak Bay Police Department

Oak Bay Police Department (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local police department with no evidence of notability and ghits that just confirm its existence. Prod/Prod2 removed on the grounds that, essentially, "other crap exists and more will exist soon." Still not a reason to keep this, no evidence it meets WP:ORG just like the other police/fire/ambulance companies. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as first prodder. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete — as non-notable article. macy^talk 00:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep: I believe the police department is notable. There are hundreds of article about emergency services on here. Why this one has been singled out Suddenly I don't know. The article has exsisted for over a year without any problems. It appears the nominator has an issue with these types of articles in general. It is a valid point that other, less notable, articles are widely accepted here and therefore an article such as this should be allowed. I have looked up many police departments on here for information and know many otheres do the same, that in itself makes these topics notable.EMT1871 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment It isn't suddenly and there is precedent here.Some Fire departments/ambulance/police services have been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton City Fire Protection District,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Farms Volunteer Fire Department, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flatlands Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floral Park Police Department, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Police Department, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockland Paramedic Services; two were merged: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheeling Police Department and another had no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bargo Rural Fire Brigade. That's not an exhaustive sample. it's what was on my watchlist but it's a good sampling. Just because it has existed for a year (or even ten...) doesn't mean it should be kept if it isn't [[WP:N}notable]]. I don't have a problem with this article, I have a problem with all articles that don't meet the guidelines. Other poor articles aren't a reason to keep this one. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep it - maybe: First up I admit that I am new to this. Sorry if I have stomped on any wikiprotocols. As a relatively new wikipedian I am starting to get somewhat confused by what appears to be a split personality in the approach to articles like this within the Wikipedia community. One half wants an article for everything, the other half wants only notable articles. I deproded this article in good faith and upgraded it to be a stub. BUT other than trying to understand where the line is drawn in the sand by the Wikipedia community, I am not fussed about this particular article either way. Peet Ern (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • On relfection - should be kept: To me key social entities such as social fabric maintenance entities like police/fire/ambulance are inherently notable, because they have such a key impact on the societies they serve. Not withstanding all the crap elsewhere, the vast number of never heard of by 99.9999999% of the population articles on horse jockeys, note even one hit wonder musicians, almost zero production recordings, who where they sports people, etc., all of fleeting if any relevance, the 100 years of the Oak Bay Police Depertment is vastly more notable. If anything we need articles like Oak Bay Police Department to stop Wikipedia turing into the worlds buggest fan site for trivia ? Peet Ern (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Neither the existence nor the deletion of similar articles should govern this¹. This municipal² police force has existed more than 100 years,³ it is frequently referred to in local⁴ and sometimes in national news sources⁵, has had to deal with some serious crime⁶ in a usually low crime municipality recently⁷ and is central to the question in Vancouver Island politics about whether various municpalities, like it, surrounding the provincial capital of Victoria should be merged together⁸. It doesn't claim to be NYPD, but it does warrant a separate article. --KenWalker | Talk 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment Sources for those claims, please? I found one. Definitely nothing that passes WP:ORG. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Question: Which claims (1-8) would you like sources for? --KenWalker | Talk 05:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment it is frequently referred to in local4 and sometimes in national news sources will suffice. That might establish notability, the others don't. I'm not questioning its existence. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to British Columbia Provincial Police. The BCPP is notable, but one department of it, without any special achievements and without sources which attest to its notability? There is nothing in the article, or in the defenses above, which suggests that it is passes WP:ORG. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment BCPP is a former province wide police force that has not existed for decades. The Oak Bay Police Department has no connection with it. A redirect would not make sense. --KenWalker | Talk 05:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - facts wrong here ? Definitely do NOT redirect to BCPP. The BCPP has been defunct since 1950? If someone can advise on the relationship, or not, between RCMP "E" Division and Oak Bay Police Department, then there might better way forward? Oak Bay Police Department might actually be notable because it is one of a small minority of municipal police forces in Canada NOT subcontracted to the RCMP? Peet Ern (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Apologies for that blooper. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect into Oak Bay, British Columbia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. As far as I'm concerned police departments/forces are inherently notable, however small they may be. Precedent on AfD is not really an issue - some of us have better things to do on Wikipedia than monitor AfD all the time, actually prefer to create articles than get articles deleted, and don't have the time to add every article in our field of interest to our watchlist, so we're likely to miss the nominations of some articles that should be kept. Some people making comments here also seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that only modern online sources are valid for notability purposes - print sources (like newspapers), historical or modern, are perfectly valid as well, if anyone in Canada could take a look. Also, try searching for Oak Bay Police (or here) on Google instead of "Oak Bay Police Department"! No hits? I think not! Trying some fairly basic lateral thinking on Google searches works wonders - the official name is not always (or even most often) the name used in articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Oak Bay, British Columbia it does contain information that can be used in that article. 21 officers for 17,000 people? Is that even correct? Regardless, merge and redirect is the way to go I feel. SGGH ^speak! 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A wig wom for a goose's bridle

A wig wom for a goose's bridle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, and the way it was done, I thought it was a request for deletion but it isn't. This is an old Australian saying, but the article is unreferenced and no more than a dicdef. No notability is asserted, except for the fact the saying is less popular today than it used to be. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Dicdef. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and Trans to Wiktionary, if not already there. It is not much more than a dicdef, and is unencyclopaedic. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Trans to Wiktionary. Not just an Aussie saying either. But of course the only WP:RS I had was my Grandfather who has long passed.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - belongs in wiktionary --T-rex 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I've heard the phrase before too. But I'm pretty sure it should be "wigwam", not "wig wom". That might help dig up reliable sources, if there were reliable sources to be found to give this some content, though I doubt they exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Laurier

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

Not notable. The article has personal attacks in it and there are libellous statements on the talk page and the article's history. Trendruns (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Attack page, also hardly notable.Shoombooly (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Also, as stated above, there are attack-like statements. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as an attack page. Of course, you could always G10 an attack page, but no harm done in bringing it to AFD, either, I suppose. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as an attack page that had libelous information that cannot be removed without oversight intervention. Also, the subject is non-notable. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 01:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete per IMDb page; if kept, needs to be edited. JJL (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete Appears to be barely notable: IMBD lists minor credits, 181 unique Ghits of low quality. This type of article's attractiveness to trolls and vandals strongly suggests to me that it should be deleted when the subject is so borderline. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Very little notability on this person. Artene50 (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Libertarian Program

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

This article was created in 2005 by an anonymous IP. While there was in the long ago a Libertarian Party program, and may even have been some linkage between some LP members and Libertarian International Organization (which itself doesn't have an article), this program is most definitively defunct. There are two main external links - The Libertarian Program (This is defunct) Libertarian Party web site (This has newest and relatively shorter platform) So basically its an old advertisement for a defunct project. Reason}} Carol Moore 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete spam. WillOakland (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wow, IP-created articles seem so weird to me. The way it's written it could be a potential G11. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Just tagged it for speedy deletion as an advertisement. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, basically an advert. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete for an article which has been denied db-spam, it sure has a large bunch of WP:LINKSPAM. There are no independent sources which attest to its notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)