Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Central Asia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania


 Points of interest related to Asia on Wikipedia 
Basic list - Portal - Category - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Asia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Asia}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Asia.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page
Purge page cache

This list also includes sublists of deletion debates involving articles related to specific Asian countries.

Contents

[edit] Asia

[edit] Afghanistan

[edit] Proposed deletions

[edit] Resolved


[edit] Armenia

[edit] Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

  • 22 February 2008 - expires 27 February 2008
Category:Armenian Genocide deniers (Discussion) Result - Keep
  • 26 September 2007 - expires 1 October
List of Armenian footballers (via WP:PROD)
  • 9 January 2008
Armenian_Forgeries (via WP:PROD)


[edit] Azerbaijan

[edit] Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time


[edit] Bangladesh

[edit] Bangladesh Proposed deletions


[edit] Brunei

[edit] Cambodia

[edit] China

[edit] China Proposed deletions



[edit] Georgia

[edit] 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis

2008 Georgia-Russia crisis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is nothing in the article that signifies that a crisis is or has occurred. Basically 2008 is really not that different from 2004-2007 in terms of Georgian-Russian relations. The article just basically has things that happened in 2008.

  • Keep. There are numerous publications about this notable subject, as anyone can see from the list of references provided in the article. The crisis is a matter of fact.Biophys (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Independent articles for previous military incidents already exist. As these recent incidents resulted in a military buildup in Abkhazia and talk of war on both sides I hardly see how this does not qualify as a crisis and a significant event deserving of its own article. Also it should be considered that these events together with the enhanced ties are sizable, significant, and ultimately if all accommodated under the article on Georgia-Russia relations would most likely result in a split anyway. The lifting of sanctions, followed by the establishment of legal ties with Abkhazia, is a major development in the situation and preceded these heightened tensions and ultimately are part of the reason for heightened tensions. As such all the information present is relevant to the article and all of it is significant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Not really, Russia unofficially had sanctions lifted long ago. Now it's just official. Also, you can't really call it a military build up when Russia is going to increase the number of peacekeepers from 2000 to 3000 (within treaty limits). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Nope. There are other troops which operate beyong peacekeeping mandate, such as railway force in the north of Abkhazia and special forces unit stationed in the region's south. Furthermore, the UN mission confirmed unsunctioned flights of Russian jets which engage in fighting with unmanned and unarmed Georgian drones. Anyway, Russia and Georgia were at the verge of war early in May, something that definitely makes the article notable. --KoberTalk 05:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This topic has been in the news headlines of all media. I'd say few weeks ago "world" was speaking about these crisis. How this article could be nominated for deletion? This article is not based on announcements, sports or tabloid journalism that would be against WP:NOT#NEWS. Gülməmməd Talk 02:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- Per WP:NOT#NEWS DonaldDuck (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable topic which appeared in the international media headlines and led to serious international involvement. Pocopocopocopoco, a long-time combatant on Russia-Georgia issues, wants the article to be deleted because the international response was unusually harsh toward Russia. The article's narrative may need some more cohesion, but there is no valid reason to eliminate it at all. --KoberTalk 05:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how this article is pro-Russian or pro-Georgian. It is simply unencyclopedic. I suggest you refactor your bad faith assumptions above. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously notable, very important events. It's preposterous that we've now got people citing "NOTNEWS" to justify deleting articles on major world events. If it's in the news, these people say, Wikipedia shouldn't have anything to do with it! I had to laugh at "the article just basically has things that happened in 2008." Everyking (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If you don't like NOTNEWS then how about Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. That is exactly what this article is, an indiscriminate collection of information. If you look at the timeline of Georgia-Russia relations, there is no difference with what is happening now vs what has been happening in the last 4 years. Having an article 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis is like having an article 2008 Iraq-US crisis. Why does 2008 get special treatment? This article suffers from presentism. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • What you're describing would not be an indiscriminate collection of information. Of course, we should have a broad article on the difficulties in Russian-Georgian relations over the last several years, in addition to articles such as this covering events within a more restricted span of time. The existence of this article is in no way incompatible with an article on the broader situation. Until you can find someone who will argue that this article should be kept but articles on previous problems of a similar magnitude should be deleted, it is preposterous to argue about "presentism" and "special treatment". Everyking (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Plentiful coverage in reliable sources of the present troubles in relations between Georgia and Russia as there has been for other incidents between them for which we quite rightly have articles. Cannot see how this ever meets the 'Routine news coverage' of WP:NOT#NEWS. Davewild (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see a lot of reliable sources, and it seems to be clearly notable. Soxred 93 14:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep another attempt (out of many) by Proco (who has specific POV against Georgian articles in general). Iberieli (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep A well written article with lots of reliable independent sources like the BBC. Georgia and Russia have indeed been feuding in 2008. Artene50 (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. From what I have understood by reading the newspapers on this, the crisis level of 2008 is such that war is a serious danger. That is far more serious than a mere news story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per all of the above. —Nightstallion 22:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hong Kong

[edit] Hong Kong Proposed deletions

[edit] India

[edit] Grihasree

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

Seems to have been an effort at advertising. Website is dead. No notability proven. --Thetrick (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B.P. Road

B.P. Road (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable street SGGH speak! 13:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per lack of information why this street is notable.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral though there is lack of information about this road, this is a notable road in major parts of india and has several major business establishments. The article if improved within the stipulated time can have its place on Wikipedia else there is no other choice but to delete this until there is proper citations and information regarding the road. Kalivd (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Rama Yogi

Sri Rama Yogi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability of this person provided. No sources listed. You could make the argument that being a "spiritual giant" is a claim of notability, so I'm not going to try to speedy delete it. Anon editors have repeatedly made this article a travesty of NPOV. Failed PROD. eaolson (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed the copyvio/advert text from the article. No opinion (yet) on deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • delete you shouldn't have as it is obviously an advertisement, it is patent original research highly bias, not verified, not notable, doesn't even claim notability, horribly formatted, its junk.Myheartinchile (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's written like an advertisement, its claims of notability are questionable at best, and it has no sources. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:SPAM If ever there was a article which is spam this is it. It even gives a phone number to contact the subject. Artene50 (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I've removed personal information that shouldn't have been in the article in the first place. It is an advertisement and/or non-notable bio and should be deleted. Whomever included the personal information needs to be made aware that it is against policy/guidelines as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satwant Kaur Dogra

Satwant Kaur Dogra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly autobiographical article on a non-notable politician. I was unable to find any sources on the subject apart from a single story in a local paper. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable local politician. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable local politician.--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 20:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable, as above. Created by User:Satwantkaurdogra so quite possibly a vanity article. Rehevkor (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless referenced Looks like non notable. OK if referenced properly with reliable and verifiable sources -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 02:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Week Keep in the event of references add. The article needs a cleanup,wikify and more material -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Can your provide us with possible references ? Googling apparently gave Nil results -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 10:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Non notable, unsourced. Bidgee (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep. Article needs more work on sources and cleaned up as per WP:BIO. Bidgee (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Week keep. I think the references I've put in the article just about do the job by giving coverage of the subject and confirming the positions held by her. These are not local papers as claimed by the nominator. They are newspapers that cover a state with a population of 10 million. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I meant "local" as opposed to "national"; I couldn't even find circulation figures in the paper's website. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see an article improved than deleted any day—otherwise I would have PRODded it or brought it to AfD sooner—but I am still not convinced that this constitutes "significant coverage". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Some cleanup done by me... (Diff) I leave the article to 'fate' ;) -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shahnaz Husain

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

Wording reads like a public relations puff piece and primarily deals with a companies products and marketing, not a bibliography. The cut-and-pasting of the web page [1] that until recently appeared in the article has been deleted.

  • Comment Added missing afd notification to article Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator has only given reasons for editing, not for deletion. The article is sourced and, as I said when I removed the prod tag, there are loads more sources at Google News and Google Books that show clear notability. The very first book hit has a section entitled Shahnaz Husain: World's Greatest Woman Entrepreneur.[2] Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Shahnaz is a well know woman entrpreneur and her products and boutiques do quite well. Not some small town shop owner. Besides she is a Padma Shri recipient. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Well known person in India -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 04:53, 12 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)

[edit] Automatic delete candidates

(PROD-tagged) pages, culled from Category:Proposed deletion
  • Moujiya Encounter: BKI against Indian Armed Forces (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-30)
  • Rataul Encounter: BTOFK against Indian Armed Forces (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-27)

for occasional archiving

[edit] Category discussion debates

[edit] Template discussion debates

</noinclude>


[edit] Indonesia

[edit] Kerokan

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

Microstub, no information, no references. Creator is a banned sockpuppet. Garyseven (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - It could use some work, but with the laziest of googling I have found minor notability and references. It has been up long enough (since 12/07) that the sock-puppet aspect is moot. JohnnyMrNinja 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - regardless of google - the practice of kerokan is a long standing practice by dukuns and other traditional health workers in Java in Indonesia - and it is a classic practice for curing afflcitcions such as a 'masuk angin' which although alien to non javanese - was and possiby still is a culturally bound syndrome - as for whether it was created by jimbo wales or a sock puppet - it is a notable cultural practice which could stand up to WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS without much trouble if the afd doesnt go through SatuSuro 14:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —JohnnyMrNinja 04:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —JohnnyMrNinja 04:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or, less ideally, merge into Gua Sha if appropriate. Notable practice, sources for expansion shouldn't be hard to find. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable quack cure - one of many. Can't see what could possibly be added. Perhaps could be mentioned in Dukun or other relevant articles. Davidelit (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - prepared for merge with dukun - could be a good compromise - as to the the nature of the practice - have taken the issue up at the Indonesian Project noticeboard SatuSuro 02:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesia Proposed deletions

See also: Anime and manga-related deletions


[edit] Japan

[edit] Sendai Habitat

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

This article is about a charity initiative that lacks reliable sources. A search for coverage on this iniative shows no news coverage and a web search finds many wiki mirrors but no sources. The content of article is essentially an organisation web site and not an encyclopedia article. Removal of the image galleries and whatnot would leave an unverifiable stub with no notability. Whpq (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism Articles for deletion/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (2nd nomination)
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 -- Kendrick7talk 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)
changed to Neutral - my opinion on the article pretty much remains the same, but per WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED it seems pretty silly to delete it only a few weeks after the last contentious vote. ~ mazca talk 13:03, 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." -- Kendrick7talk 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. -- Kendrick7talk 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 [3] 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. -- Kendrick7talk 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
  • Mark Selden, phd Yale, professor of history and sociology,
  • 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)
  • 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 Dheyward's statement about it already being covered elsewhere is false -- and his argument rests on the claim that the material in this article is already found in other articles, and is repeated here to push a POV. This is totally false. I happen to think that most of it should be placed back into a section in the Allegations article, where it was spun-out of, but to claim that the material is already there is incorrect. Moreover it's even more false because since that time the section has grown even more as it's own article, and done so in an even more nuetral NPOV manner. So claims of a POV fork are invented out of whole cloth: its unsubstantiated and false. Lastly, it does not logically follow that we must delete this article even if his premise were correct, i.e. even if it's better to merge, merge is never a valid reason to delete an article per WP policies; so this is simply faulty reasoning or indicative of a failure to properly understand policy (in addition to getting the basic facts of the situation wrong).Giovanni33 (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You are still mistaken. See Talk. Your vote of speedy keep underscores your lack of knowledge about policy and process where article keep/deletion debates occur. --DHeyward (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Before you throw around accusations of lack of knowledge of policy/guidelines, you should probably actually read Wikipedia:Speedy keep 2) iii) "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected" -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:23, 12 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)
  • Procedureal keep - I do not feel that two weeks is a sufficient period between nominations, especially on the heels of a DRV. If I were to opine on the merits of the nomination, I would merge to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States as this material could best be placed in a proper context in that article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per very recent Afd. DCEdwards1966 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep Very recent AFD and Deletion review make another listing this soon inappropriate. Davewild (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Much too soon after previous AFD and DRV. MrPrada (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Looking through this article it is at least a good-faith attempt at an NPOV treatment of a relatively controversial topic. My first instinct for whether or not to delete would be to ask whether it is possible to come to an NPOV consensus on the topic. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment It might make sense to move this article to a less inflammatory name? Would "Analysis of the atomic bombings of japan in the context of state terrorism" be a more sensible title? HatlessAtless (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Ah, but there is a reason it can't: WP:UNDUE. To give this minority view this much detail in main Debate article would violate undue weight. To put all of this (and growing) in the Allegations article, would bloat the section. It does play nicely with the other Allegations of State Terrorism by the US sections, in that article, but here the view can be somewhat expanded, in greater details. So playing nicely with other view points and having its own article are not mutually exclusive.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually WP:UNDUE is the exact reason I am arguing for deletion. Obviously I also suggest cutting it down to size a bit --T-rex 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. POV fork. Ostap 00:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep It *just* went through a AfD. Is this going to be nominated non-stop until those who want it deleted get their way (KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED)? There is a widely held view that the atomic bombings of Japan are a form of state terrorism/war crime outside of the US. Seems well-sourced by several academics.--Berkunt (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The content of the article is not covered elsewhere and the article itself looks like an attempt to cover all angles of the subject. I think deleting the article without merging would be POV as it wouldn't be showing all angles of the controversial topic. Also previous AfD was recent.  Orfen  T • C 02:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments in the first AFD. The paint's barely even dry from the last debate... Debate 木 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Nothing new appears to have been brought to this AfD. WP:UNDUE still disallows a complete merge into a mainstream articlea and still recommends the existence of this kind of article provided it makes due reference to the mainstream POV. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tomorrow is the Another Day

Tomorrow is the Another Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability per WP:MUSIC. Fleetflame 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Section ten of WP:MUSIC reads, "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article." Yes, the band's other two albums have articles, but they haven't been around long and shouldn't be here--they probably just got overlooked. I would put any information relevant to this album in No Regret Life. Fleetflame 04:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In the case that the separate articles on the other two albums are to be questioned as well, then I would agree on the deletion. The only reason I created the article in the first place was because of the existence of the other articles, so if you say that they shouldn't exist in the first place I see no reason for my article to remain as is. I would be more than willing to incorporate the content in the separate articles on the main one. - Aurum Auriga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurum auriga (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've merged the other two album articles into No Regret Life. Fleetflame 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ningen

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

Speculation on the existence of a legendary creature. Only one reference that does not appear to be reliable. TN‑X-Man 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Very strong keep It's an article about a Cryptid, we have many such articles, and is not speculation on its existence. It's just documenting what the cryptid is supposed to look like, the legends about it etc. The User who created this said in his edit summary that it is work in progress, and that means there will be more edits to it. You didn't even leave him 10 minutes to expand, you could have at least waited a few hours and see what would happen. If that's now biting nothing is. Articles don't spring fully formed from nowhere...--Phoenix-wiki 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Remilo (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless stronger sources can be found. Right now all that's there are some "artists' impressions", and if that's all that can be gotten, this cryptid isn't going anywhere.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be found. --Snigbrook (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I plan on continuing the article, and I have other reliable sources for future paragraphs. Remilo (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The above keep arguements have convinced me that an article on this can exist, but the current one is pretty bad. It needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone and could use some better references. I'd like to give the author and others more than just five days for these improvements, so a keep here shouldn't preclude later AfDs if problems cannot be solved. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence this is widely noted in independent, reliable sources (WP:NOTNESSIE). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The article has had a lot of information added to it since the deletion tag was first put up. More information will also be added in the next few days. Remilo (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Delete - article is pure nonsense. References are a joke. All google results appear to be anime related --T-rex 03:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Article is not nonsense. There are several popular manga and movies that contain the word Ningen, because it translates to human, which is a wildly used word.Remilo (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Stronger-than-any-of-the-people-above delete, at least till credible sources are provided. Ningen is indeed the standard Japanese word for human. It's used a little more broadly, for some applications where English would use person and the like. It's normally written 人間, not ニンゲン; but as ニンゲン is katakana it's acceptable (as is にんげん). Japanese Wikipedia redirects ニンゲン to 人間, explained as human; it also has a disambiguation page for 人間, which doesn't mention this. The sources given for this article are underwhelming. (Actually they're not sources in the normal sense: at least one of them is translated to form this article, which thus might, strictly speaking, violate copyright.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey hey ningen sucker, ah ningen ningen Delete (If you want a reason, I've read the article, and I can't believe people are taking it seriously for a moment. It's nonsense.) JuJube (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep This article was marked for deletion when it was only one paragraph long, and had only one source. Since the article has been expanded and had a lot more information and sources in it I think it should no longer be subject for deletion. When writing the article I made sure to say that it might exist, and that they were alleged photos. Phrases that keep the story neutral, true and correct under the Wikipedia:five pillars. Also the article is not "speculation" as Tnxman307 said.Remilo (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: I've stricken out the duplicate !votes by User:Remilo. You get only one, Remilo. Deor (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Changed so they are no longer votes. Remilo (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:V unless some actual reliable sources are found. Discussion-board posts (and copy/pastes of same on other Web sites) don't cut the mustard. Deor (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Do not delete for a week than come back and review.If reliable sources are not found then delete.Basically, delay postpone deletion for now until article has had time to improve.Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm keeping my vote as a delete. The sources that are currently cited (blogs and forum posts), are not reliable sources no matter how much you stretch it. So far this is just a vague rumor going around some forums. Not wide-spread enough to meet the inclusion criteria.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shojo

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

I don't see any good reason for this article to be in Wikipedia. It is all about descriptions on the Japanese term for 'virgin' unlike Shōjo. Appletrees (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. They are not even the same word. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Commment I already acknowledge that these two words are not even the same word and have different Chinese characters. However, what else the shojo has in the article? Virgin? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Appletrees (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The article actually goes into more detail than a simple dicdef. And I changed my mind based on the Japanese article: I recommend redirecting this article to Virginity, which is where the interwiki link on the Japanese article goes. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Answer me this: does wikipedia have articles such as this one for any other language? TomorrowTime (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think so, which is why I recommended redirecting it. Another possible redirect (which may be even better than my first suggested target) is to Shōjo (disambiguation), and place an entry on the list of possibilities. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That could be a win-win solution, yes. Get rid of the article about a Japanese word that never even entered the English language, and keep some of the information. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Shōjo and tag it with {{R from title without diacritics}}. As shojo (virginity) is not a English term, adding it to {{wiktionarypar}} in Shōjo (disambiguation) is probably enough. --Kusunose 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I noticed these two articles a few weeks ago and was a little confused. Mainly because when someone uses the romanized term shojo in the English language, they are always referring to a young girl but not necessarily a virgin. So are shojo (処女) and shojo (少女) pronounced differently? If not, then shojo (処女) should probably be included as a footnote to shojo (少女). --Farix (Talk) 13:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect (Addendum) While looking at the articles that link to Shojo, all of them are referring to the term for "young girl" or the shōjo demographic, but it is not being used to refer to a "virgin girl". So restoring the redirect to Shōjo would be perfectly fine while including the above footnote. --Farix (Talk) 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Transfer to Wiktionary the obvious solution for a dictionary definition. As for incoming links that have the wrong meaning, they should be corrected to go to the right article. The words shojo and shōjo have very different meanings and, to a Japanese speaker, distinctly different pronunciations, and it is good to get the links to go directly to the right article. In addition to transferring to Wiktionary, put an entry on "Shōjo (disambiguation)" as Nihonjoe suggested. Fg2 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Shōjo, as that's what wiktionary indicates, and since people can't type weird diacritics anyways, it should be redirected. 70.51.10.156 (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Dan Kokoro Hikareteku

Dan Dan Kokoro Hikareteku (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, unnotable song. Notability of the anime series it is used as an ending theme for is not inherited. Failed PROD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Field of View. A redirect to the group or other appropriate target is the normal dispostion for songs under WP:MUSIC, and it seems likely to me that a reasonable number of those searching for this song will be doing so after discovering the anime, so mention of it is appropriate in the band's article. Actually, if this weren't at AfD I'd do a merge/redirect now. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Field of View, song fails WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - it does not fail WP:MUSIC, because it has been performed by at least 2 notable artists, namely, Field of View and the more popular Zard. Also, it appears that the nominator has not done her research - the song is used as an opening theme, not an ending theme, for one of the most popular anime series worldwide of all time - Dragon Ball (GT). This further solidifies its notability. In addition, the song has been translated to many languages; I can't give a precise figure, but I'd guess at least 20 languages. The song was also released as a single by Field of View. Moreover, even if it somehow failed WP:MUSIC, WP:MUSIC is non-binding and common sense overrides it. I think the above points are enough to assert its notability. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Another thing - this is one of those cases where the song is much more notable than the artist, so if anything, merging it into the artist's article would be a strange course of action. And by the way, although these are not indications of notability, there are 2 more arguments: one, the search "Dan dan kokoro" produced almost 30,000 hits on Google, and two, other Dragon Ball opening themes have articles which aren't being AfD'd by Collectonian, like Cha-La Head-Cha-La and We Gotta Power -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: I have notified 2 users who contributed to this article of the debate - Collectonian also notified the user Hatto, thinking he created the article (although he did not).Ynhockey (Talk) 08:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A few notes. I didn't notice, Twinkle did. That's who it read as the article creator. For the other Dragon Ball openings, I hadn't gotten to them yet as I'm on clean of GT first. Tackling the entire Dragon Ball series at once would be insane. However, since you pointed them out, I will AfD them since I am guessing by your noting them you will deprod them as you did this one (and interesting you didn't note the two other Dragon Ball themes for the series that I did put up for deletion)? Finally, it does fail WP:MUSIC. The series is a theme (and it was used as the ending for the last episode, so only partially wrong). There is no notability. 30,000 come download a copyright infringing copy of the song, or here are copyrighted lyrics, and here are a bunch of unreliable sources is not a sign of notability. Xymmax, now you see why I did the AfD route :-P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, you got me there :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • (EC) Comment: Is the song really more popular than the group? This is an honest question, I don't know the answer. I can't find any evidence that the song charted or anything, although my Japanese is weak. If it has, obviously a better case could be made for its notability. I also considered that the song had been covered by Zard (if covered is the right term since she wrote it). In the end, I just wasn't convinced that the two recording alone made it notable, especially since the second one was by the song's author. I considered the merge targets quite a bit, as Zard certainly is far more popular. In the end I suggested Field of View because they first recorded the song. I wouldn't really have any heartburn with merging to Zard, but perhaps Izumi Sakai would be even better, since she wrote the song in her individual capacity separate from her band. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What about the fact that it was translated into many languages? This is an important notability gauge for novels, so why not songs? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in WP:MUSIC gives it such an exception, and really I can't see why that would. Songs are short, so they are often translated into other languages (unlike novels). Fans translate nearly every song from anime series all the time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure where you see in Wikipedia:Notability (books) that novels that have been translated in several languages are presumed to be notable. But clearly, translation is not a factor in a songs notability. --Farix (Talk) 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to Field of View. The song clearly fails WP:MUSIC. And from my understanding, it has to be performed independently by several notable artists, bands, or groups before it can be presumed notable. The performance by Zard is neither independent nor does it constitute several. --Farix (Talk) 17:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notable single by a notable pop act used in several contexts and covered by another group. Ford MF (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)




[edit] Korea

[edit] Oh Jin Hwan

Sorry if I did this wrong but I do not believe this person meets WP:MUSIC primarily not to mention WP:BLP due to the lack of available sources about the subject. It is entirely possible that I'm missing them as I do not know how to search for this person in Korean language. JBsupreme (talk) 09:14, 1 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) 00:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletions

[edit] Malaysia

[edit] Proposed deletions

No articles proposed for deletion at this time


[edit] Mongolia

[edit] Category:Mongolian surnames

[edit] Mongolia charity rally

Mongolia charity rally (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Noteability not asserted in article. The external links do not offer any substantial information on the event, let alone confirm noteability. The first two are self-promotion, the third a blog written by participants (hosted, but not otherwise supported by The Guardian), and the fourth a short report about two other participants in a regional newspaper. Latebird (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

*Keep - very cursory search and I'm finding news hits - have added a Times Online article to external links have also found BBC News one [5] -Hunting dog (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

and ITV feature on a particpant's progress [6]-Hunting dog (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Note that there also is the Mongol Rally, (existed for many years and clearly noteable), so that any news reporting needs careful examination to check which event it's actually about. As it turns out, both of your links are about the "wrong" one. --Latebird (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry, see what you mean now! Confused by people calling the other one 'Mongolian' and 'charity' etc.. -Hunting dog (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability from WP:RS, appears to be part of a WP:COATRACK related to Go help, which is also up for AfD. --Kinu t/c 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I came here after purging the Banger Rally page of spam and advertising for non-existent and start up events. Unlike most of the (profit making) banger rally events that were on that page, a quick look at the website for this one shows it to be a genuine charity affair with maybe 100 teams and a press area that lists external news reports: [7]. The London Naadam with the Mongolians has probably had press coverage too. --Sce1313 (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chuunjigao Bunayaar

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

Can't find any confirmation outside of Wikipedia that this person actually exists. Theoretically it may be that the article just uses a weird spelling. To clear this up, the Mongolian spelling of his name would be necessary. --Latebird (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Nepal

[edit] Nepal Proposed deletions


[edit] Pakistan

[edit] Proposed deletions

for occasional archiving

  • List of Hindko language writers and experts (via WP:PROD on 2007-09-20) Deleted

[edit] Categories For Discussion


[edit] Philippines

[edit] Amaya School of Home and Industries

Amaya School of Home and Industries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability. SGGH speak! 09:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Very Special Love Movie

A Very Special Love Movie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline OnlyinTheatresThisChristmas (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: per nom. Fails to assert notability as per WP:MOVIE. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was quite prepared to register a keep, since we don't delete film articles just because they're not American or European, but the film doesn't even seem to exist yet. The link to imdb goes to an entirely different film. "A Very Special Love Movie" may be another title for the film linked at imdb, but it doesn't star Sarah Geronimo. There are too many unanswered questions here. Corvus cornixtalk 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nobody said the article would be deleted just because the film is not American or European. Victor Lopes (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • comment the movie came out on 13 February 2008 in the Philippines but under a deffent movie titleOo7565 (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And that movie doesn't star Sarah Geronimo. Corvus cornixtalk 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That's hardly a comment on the article's content. SGGH speak! 09:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Biado

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

Since they may have a lot of material published under a by-line on the web, the notability of professional writers and journalists can be tricky to understand. Most of the sources cited by this article are things written by Mr Biado himself, which does not confer him with wide notability through independent coverage by reliable sources which have published pieces in which he is the subject. There has also been odd, steady vandalism. A Philippines IP editor has tagged it as spam and as a joke, hinting something here is likely amiss. The article even quotes his Friendster profile. What's that about? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I brought this speedy up to Gwen following my own hesitations due to the vandalism mentioned above. It was tagged once as a hoax, but the person does exist as a published writer. I agree that I have not been able to find coverage of him yet, and if it isn't found it probably should be deleted (although some seem to be kept, and others deleted in AfDs). However I think the fact that he's a writer for a newspaper asserted enough notability to avoid a speedy on the grounds of A7. I plan to keep looking for coverage of him/his work during the AfD. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, despite his sage advice on socks. Socks are a "basic" consideration for any well-dressed man and attractive socks are an indispensible addition to all male wardrobes, an expert has commented. Thank you for that aperçu, Ed, sock expert; I plan to remember it and think I'll go with navy blue tomorrow. -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivial accomplishments. But none the less enough accomplishments that it wasnt a speedy. DGG (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete due to notability concerns. There are no independent and reliable source that is focused on the writer himself.--Lenticel (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN

List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable and excessive list of programs aired by a television channel in the Phillipines. Wikipedia is "not electronic program guide" and not an indiscriminate list. A list of every minor program ever broadcast by this single channel is not appropriate and does not "contribute to the state of human knowledge." Nor do THREE lists. How many lists does one channel need? Failed Prods with removal reason of "object: why only prod the list of ABS-CBN there are more than a dozen lists of programs of other networks out there?"

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar; redundant lists:

List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN Regional Network Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of shows previously aired by ABS-CBN (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep: List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN only... other two lists may be deleted. pikdig (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep: The current list. Merge the other two lists into the current lists. pikdig (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep for the list of current and previous programs. For the regional network group list, merge to the current list. Please take note that ABS-CBN is one of the major networks here in the Philippines. -Danngarcia (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge "sub-lists" into main list as ABS-CBN is a major network and a list of shows is key. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge everything with the main list. ABS-CBN fanboys tend to edit with wanton abandon, as I have noticed. Starczamora (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep the current list and Merge the "sub-list" to the main list. ABS-CBN is one of the major networks here in the Philippines. Dehm46 (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Singapore

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Louise Lu

Non-notable writer. Only claims of notability listed in article are her books A Little Story-Book Worm (申娜英语童话集) and The Dream-Quest, the former published in Singapore and the latter published by iUniverse, a vanity press. Only 38 Google hits (21 unique) for "Stephanie Louise Lu". Only 24 Google hits (9 unique) for "A Little Story-Book Worm" OR 申娜英语童话集 "Stephanie Louise Lu" OR "Stephanie Lu". Only 32 Google hits (19 unique) for "The Dream-Quest" "Stephanie Louise Lu" OR "Stephanie Lu". -Elmer Clark 07:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — Not notable Martinp23 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Proposed deletions


[edit] Sri Lanka

[edit] Taiwan

[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)
OK. Here you go. - http://www.cnmdb.com/company/29258 TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete non-notable and non-verifiable on the surface. If someone can find a client list and some verifiable 3rd party sourcing than maybe I'll change my mind. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Same as above. http://www.cnmdb.com/company/29258 TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is one of the biggest (If not the biggest) modeling companies in Taiwan.
Over 1,800 Google Search Results
Over 1,800 Yahoo Search Results
Over 3,000 Baidu Search Results
Even MSN Search has over 265 Search Results
It fits perfectly with WP:Company. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles for deletion archives This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Shawn Tan. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Thailand

[edit] Proposed deletions

  • Chris Coles (via WP:PROD) leading figure in the Thailand-based artistic movement known as Bangkok Noir


[edit] Vietnam

[edit] Hill 55

Hill 55 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This hill lacks notability since it has not been (and it does not appear likely that it will) be covered in 3rd party sources. The only reason this hill might even close to notable is because Carlos Hathcock once operated from there according to the article on him. However, this does not appear to make the location itself notable or likely to be covered by reliable sources. --Hydraton31 (talk) {Contributions} 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete I agree with hydraton31 above.Also the article is extremely short and would be a canidate for csd-A1.Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Buckshot06(prof) 00:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Non-notable in this form considering the lack of any information to support the short stub. The stub itself is vague and presents nothing except for geographical location. If more information was provided in support of the battle and its participants it could be elaborated on. As it stands, my DELETE recommendation is actually longer than the article. - Trippz (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This stub provides zero verifiable information on the precise location of Hill 55. Artene50 (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It appears it was a significant base of operations during the Vietnam War. [8] [9] --Oakshade (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am seeing arguments for cleanup, and not deletion. Very strange that this would be nominated when Hill 55 was just in the news this week. Google Scholar is also promising with several essays that discuss it to some degree. Google Books has two books entirely about Hill 55 in the first five search results, Heart of the Third Sector, Hill 55 by George A Hill - 2005, and Hill - 55: Just South of Danang Vietnam by David E. Adams - 2002, 1968-1970 in GoogleNews returns a dozen articles about it, and all dates includes a hundred resulsts. Personally I do not see a possible way we could delete this under any existing AFD policy, and I'm afraid the A1 speedy delete claims have not given the topic due diligence in this case. I know nothing about the subject, I'm not the person to fix the problems, but to CSD a promising stub would be a mistake. MrPrada (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Under normal military naming practices, any hill which is 55 metres high is frequently called 'Hill 55', so Google searches on this particular hill are unlikely to be effective. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
All the more reason for a disambiguation and/or a stub highlighting some of the major ones. As an aside, I believe all of the links I've provided above refer to the same Hill 55, especially the two books. MrPrada (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)