Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 12

< August 11	August 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Merge and redirect (non-admin closure)...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 15:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilizing ferroelectric materials

When you take out the information about Ferroelectric RAM, all that's left is a good but unremarkable scientific paper and its press releases. I propose deletion on notability grounds. (Note: I just now nominated the talk page instead of the article, by accident. Sorry about my confusion.) Steve (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is definitely noteworthy as working around the issue of depolarization when ferroelectrics are deposited on semiconductors for memory applications is somewhat of a holy grail in the field. However, the current state of the article is severely limited. There is a wide variety of literature, both experimental and theoretical, on this issue. If the problem of sourcing to a single paper discussing only a minute aspect of the field is not fixed, it should be redirected to ferroelectricity in the meantime. --Polaron | Talk 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--please specify some examples of this wide variety of literature? --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this and this for starters. I'll check later to see if there are books and review papers on the subject when I get to work. --Polaron | Talk 13:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect—for now, anyway. It seems like the most practical application of this would be for Ferroelectric RAM, so until this topic is expanded, the information can go there. What I don't understand is if the paper cited in this article was actually published in a peer-reviewed journal. If not, then the whole thing looks like WP:OR. The redirect will preserve the name and history, such that should the article be expanded to the point where inclusion in Ferroelectric RAM is no longer appropriate, it can be forked off again. Livitup (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paper was indeed published (J.E. Spanier et al., "Ferroelectric phase transition in individual single-crystalline BaTiO3 nanowires", Nano Letters 6, 735-739 (2006)) but it is only one small aspect of the entire field of depolarization phenomena in ferroelectric materials, which include size effects, electrode effects, screening, and charge leakage through defects. It is actually one of the better papers in the field (among the hundreds of published journal articles). The paper, however, is extremely limited in scope and probably merits a sentence in a more comprehensive article. Nanowires are not even the current preferred architecture for FeRAM and FeFETs. --Polaron | Talk 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a merge and redirect to FeRAM is sensible. --Steve (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to FeRAM. That article currently heavily favors the engineering over the physics. This and related papers would be a great boon. No objections to recreation if we need a spin-out or to cover material not relevant to FeRAM. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus? Seems to me like there's a consensus for merge and redirect. I even already went ahead and put the relevant information onto FeRAM. Here's the edit in which I did so. If I left anything out, please add it. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbyrnes321 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-14T22:23:04

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

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

The result was speedy close - on talk not article. Bduke (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Stabilizing ferroelectric materials

When you take out the information about Ferroelectric RAM, all that's left is a good but unremarkable scientific paper and its press releases. I propose deletion on notability grounds. Steve (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, this was supposed to be the article, not the talk page. Could someone close this? Sorry. --Steve (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sport utility coupe

Relisted after procedural close. Contested PROD. Article is original research and has no references.swa q 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is completely original and includes speculation (see descriptions for S-10 Blazer, Dodge Ramcharger, and this former description of the K5 Blazer which I removed).--Flash176 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator's assessment, but think that OR and no refs go hand in hand. ThuranX (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom and SALT ukexpat (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR Who decides what is a 'sport utility coupe'? Artene50 (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as OR. I did find some manufacturer mentions of the term, but for now it's more neologism and marketing-babble than an actual, defined term. When IIHS or even Car&Driver/R&T/Autoweek start using the term to define a class of cars then this article can be revisited. Livitup (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some 2-door SUVs are interesting to know about. --Roadstaa (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems though, there is no reliable support that these are widely called Sport utility coupes. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no widespread info suggesting that it is a "sport utility coupe"; then maybe a redirect to the sport utility vehicle article would be recommended. Or maybe make a more major article to encompass this concept without using this term. --Roadstaa (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than per …., is it looks like a car that can be in an encyclopedia--Puttyschool (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous North Melbourne Supporters

Unreferenced and possibly unreferencable trivia. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As per nom. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Utter trivia --Lester 00:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, non-notable, listcruft. WWGB (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Totally unnecessary and trivial. Beemer69 ^chitchat 02:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unreferenced listcruft. - Longhair\^talk 04:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unreferenced and unnecessary. - MOOOOOPS^talk 05:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Merge if any of this were referenced, but as its not, I'll say Delete instead. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I say let it stay. The page is completely factual, I have seen most of those people at games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NimChief (talk • contribs) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete not refrenced, hardly worthy of its own page- a pathetic excuse for an article. Next...--203.208.103.135 (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When, will I, will I be famous... Orderinchaos 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like original research! No references or in-line citations. Loads of fun for North Melbourne supporters but doesn't warrant a place in Wikipedia. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrón Pong

Non-notable variation of beer pong. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT. - Icewedge (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia's not for things made up one day after work while with some old college friends and a giant 200 liter keg of Miller Lite on a leisurely night while watching Saturday Night Live. Or... However someone conceived a game as ridiculous as this. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: fails WP:N; also lacks sources. Cliff smith ^talk 00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb college kids doing dumb college things. JuJube (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. (WP:SNOW?) Does not even warrant a cheap redirect. JBsupreme (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have of this variation of Pong being played at Duke, Stanford and Harvard. This is becoming a popular game in popular culture and deserves a page in the encyclopedia. Iav (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This variation is also played at least three Southern California schools as well to further the popular culture point. The evolution of drinking games, something that this page clearly adds to, is not only functional for people looking to play them but also is an interesting example of the evolution / viral spread of alcohol focused college games. Iav (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonkevin (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment: That's an interesting point about the "evolution / viral spread of alcohol focused college games," and it's one reason I'm opting for a merge-then-delete rather than an outright delete...anyway, I have an unrelated question. Why is Iav's signature in your statement if you're not Iav? Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JuJube, but first merge verifiable content with beer pong. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sortsind

Band has 3 self-released albums and one from a minor label. I looked and the only references were user submitted (Encyclopaedia Metallum, forums, myspace ), not even a trivial mention by a RS. Article is being actively worked on by an active editor. There are album pages which I'll prod if this goes through. Pirate^Argh!!1! 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to establish WP:N notability, I was not able to find any sources through Google News archives, or in a library database of newspaper articles. Granted, the database does not contain Danish newspapers. But the Danish Wikipedia does not even have a page about this band. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion, as they do not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria otherwise. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—As much as I hate to kill an article that an editor is working in good faith on, this one seems to miss every mark of WP:MUSIC. Unless some sources can be drudged up to verify that they are "pioneers of the modern DSBM sound" (and assuming 'DSBM' is a "notable style") it's got to go. Livitup (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (Non admin closure - I'll request speedy deletion). ...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 15:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phelyx

Advert by a magician-cum-artist with an unbelievable slab of linkspam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Phelyx the non notable subject of an article! Seriously, this ought to disappear... Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the pencil. JuJube (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—When I first opened the article, I was prepared to engage in saving what I thought was a victim of poor writing on a possibly notable person. The article makes enough claims that surely one of them ought to make him notable, right? But unless he has made his coverage in reliable sources disappear, there's nothing on this guy. Seriously, if there was even one review of his art or performance then that would be something, but there isn't. Livitup (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Though this entry could use some formatting and editing, this entry does, verifiably, cite HGTV, The Rocky Mountain News, The Denver Post, The Walla Walla Union Bulletin, and Lifestyles magazine. It also cites the subject's work for the very notable estate of Hunter S. Thompson. I agree that the over-generous links, referencing the artwork, should be paired down, a LOT. These do reference a work that currently holds 400,000 unique web hits, in just one of the many Internet locations.QuincyRose (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah, but did you actually read any of those articles? They're all brief mentions in "what's happening around town" columns, and one where he gives 5 tips for watching a magic show. Hardly significant coverage. Livitup (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: HGTV (Home and Gardens Television) does feature Phelyx and his work, in their first season. The verso side of the (hard-copy) program for the 1st Annual Hunter S. Thompson Symposium thanks phelyx for his contributions of art and magic, to the estate. The book, "Stencil Nation" does include his work. The Lifestyles magazine article touts Phelyx's poster work as "the love child of a 1901 Houdini poster and a 1960s Jefferson Airplane rock poster".

Additionally, a Google search of the word bleach coupled with the name, "Phelyx" nets enough direct hits to merit significant coverage (at one glance, today, well over 60 unique websites have directly referenced this work). The admin at Stencilrevolution.com will attest to the fact that his tutorial has had 400,000 views. Overspray magazine, an international publication has published his work.QuincyRose (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Seewar

Non notable model. DimaG (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources covering this model, although there appears to be pictures and forum posts. -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No news coverage, nothing outside of forums and model databases. Appears non-notable. Livitup (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 11:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of the United States in Kolkata

Delete non-notable building, no multiple independent reliable sources of information found per WP:Notability_(Buildings,_structures,_and_landmarks) Aaronw (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, this article covers a diplomatic mission, of which many sources exist. riffic (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok, a counteroffer. Is this article supposed to be about the actual *structure* that the consulate general is in/has been in, or is it about the US interactions with Calcutta as carried out by the Consulate there? I can *sort* of understand a useful article about the interactions by the US through that Consulate, but that would be part of Indo-American_relations, maybe as a section 'American presence in Calcutta'. I also looked through 15 of those books and could not find a single useful thing. Most of them are of the form of 'this table provided by the Consulate in Calcutta and all the other ones I could are just signature lines. Aaronw (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The primary American diplomatic mission in one of the world's most populous and currently economically important cities, not to mention the historic target of animosity towards the US in that part of the world. According to the New York Times and Pulitzer Prize winner John F. Burns, it's "one of the most beleaguered American diplomatic posts anywhere." [1] --Oakshade (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for finding this reference. I was unable to find it with my searching. However, the only reference in that entire article to the Consulate itself is the first two paragraphs, and they seem to be more of a 'situation' setting device than any subject matter relevant to the consulate itself. In fact, it appears to be more reforms of Calcutta than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronw (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - historically and at present important consulate of USA. The article is more about the consulate than the structure/building (which is probably not notable). So, the article should be kept. Indeed, the information provided by Oakshade should be included in the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major consular posts--and all diplomatic posts--are notable. Anyway, this one has sufficient references in any event to demonstrate it. as supplied above, and that should settle the question. DGG (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded the content and added another reference. Axl (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J Johnson

Appears to be a non-notable singer. A single CD, not signed-up to any label, no significant coverage by reliable sources that I could find and nothing else to show satisfying WP:MUSIC. Nsk92 (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - note that the article is mostly copied from his myspace page. -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Could probably be speedied as copy-vio per Whpq, but for the sake of argument, unsigned artists fail WP:MUSIC. Unnotable. Livitup (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar (Shortland Street)

Unnotable fictional café that lacks reliable sources. The source listed does nothing to mention the café, so it fails WP:FICTION. Tavix (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, fails WP:FICTION. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable fictional location -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferndale High School (Shortland Street)

Unnotable fictional school that lacks reliable sources. The source listed does nothing to mention the school and so it fails WP:FICTION. Tavix (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N, apparently, as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, fails WP:FICTION. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 7 ghits consisting of a few fansites, a fan wiki, and passing mention in an tv episode summary. Obviously non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable fictional school -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wait

No sources proving anything but the release date, no official track list, no cover art Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to main article until such time as it is released, and more references are supplied. Go The Hammer. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kristy Lee Cook and merge sourced content from here until the track list has been confirmed, per WP:MUSIC. Cliff smith ^talk 05:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I'm going to go out on a limb here, but WP:MUSIC is so close to being met, that it seems wonky to delete or redirect this right now. The label has confirmed the title, release date, and a partial track listing. Add in that one single from the album has already been released, and has charted, and I think it's sutable for an article. Livitup (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the album is released and has more sources as stated above, their is no need for this article. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ^ I agree, theres only a few confirmed tracks and almost no info CloversMallRat (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ^ Crystal ballism --Mhking (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why wait? Because we don't know what tracks will be on this album, or who will produce it. WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 18:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lathander

No evidence of real-world notability, has been tagged as such since January. An article about a Dungeons & Dragons character that is composed entirely of plot summary/character description, with no sources other than D&D campaign books - primary sources from the game manufacturer. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, important character within the Forgotten Realms campaign setting. I'll be working on adding a publication history momentarily. If the discussion does not rule as a Keep, I'll recommend retaining the edit history and redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities#Greater deities. BOZ (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Le Grand's comment below[2] pretty well sums up my feeling on the subject. And even if the local consensus on this AFD is not to keep this article as a separate article, I see nothing wrong with maintaining the edit history as a redirect. BOZ (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Any claim that notability is not disputed when it clearly is is dishonest. But that doesn't matter as the article passes the general notability guideline anyway. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others so far. Rray (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no secondary sources. wp:nor says "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." as the nominator says, all the listed sources are primary sources from the game (lost) manufacturer. Jessi1989 (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the thing to do is do a search with Lathander and review or preview or interview to find the out of universe secondary source material. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - if you find some reliable, published and, most importantly, secondary sources and add them to the article then i will happily reconsider my vote. at the moment there are none and as such i am surprised to see so many keep votes here. Jessi1989 (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I find the hits that show up here as reliable published sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - i emphasised the word secondary for a reason. yes those are published sources, but they are published by wizards of the coast so they are primary sources, not secondary. the first book is from a different publisher, but it gives the following description "This book is a compilation of stories from the online world Cerea Island. The stories were written by individual players involved in the adventures. Thus what you find inside are many people telling of their adventures in the world." i would hardly count this as a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as described in wp:rs (reliable sources). if you find any suitable sources you should add them to the article and rewrite the article to be based on the sourced information, only then will this article be suitable for wikipedia. thanks and please let me know if you'd like me to clarify anything i have said :) Jessi1989 (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In my opinion, the article and sources provided are suitable enough as is, although more would certainly help. When I see a secondary source titled "Praise Lathander: Ten More Years Of Atari D&D" it suggests to me that the term is somehow notable enough to be chosen of all the possible D&D deities as the one to use in the title of the article on a reliable independent site. Such things coupled with the published primary sources just add up. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major deity in Forgotten Realms settings. This god has had a role in several novels and game modules. Recurring elements of fiction within a setting are generally notable. --Polaron | Talk 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable/important plot element across several genres within the diverse D&D portfolio. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities#Greater deities, as was done in the past already. As of the moment I write this, there are no references independent of TSR or Wizards of the Coast to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional elements in a prominent game are only notable when they themselves have received significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. Where the content of the article consists entirely of game guide material or in-universe fiction, and where any references to the subject which are dug up are also game guides or source material, there's no established notability per WP:N. That's the case here. Nothing recoverable in the article which would really warrant keeping the edit history. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Entirely"? I just added a section that is neither game guide material nor in-universe fiction. That's got to be a start in the right direction, at least. BOZ (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conceded. However, a self-generated timeline is still reliant entirely on the primary sources themselves. Even secondary source which provided this timeline would be indication enough that the subject of Lathander has received secondary coverage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs researched, but not deleted. Covered in various novels and third-party sources as well (such as Arthaus' Ravenloft 3.x core books). Web Warlock (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Something many arguing here fail to realize is that a "novel" or "game guide" is not a reliable, third-party source. Any interpretation of such works is original research and should not be included in a Wikipedia article. What the article should be based on is third-party examination of primary sources such as game guides. If a D&D periodical had written an article "The Importance of Lathander" or something, then that would qualify as a source. As it is, this article contains no such outside confirmation of notability, and those in favor of keeping it have made no assertions that such sources exist. Livitup (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is still a reliable primary source. And since notability is disputed and subjective, we're best relying on verifiability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been indicated above, reliable sources have been used to assert notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - More accurately, seven different primary sources (all published by the manufacturer of D&D, including the magazine) have been provided which demonstrate verifiability, which I never really thought was in question to start with. I've got to say I don't personally buy it that all that is required is a torrent of primary-source game guide material to make a fictional character notable. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do, as appearances in multiple such guides is a measure of notability (not all characters make so many appearances) and after all sometimes the primary sources are actually more reliable than the secondary sources. As far as notability goes, editors can't even agree how to label WP:FICT so because we have no real consensus on what constitutes fictional notability, it's hard to really base arguments on it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact that WP:FICT has repeatedly failed to gain precise consensus as to its status is not in dispute, which is the main reason I've made no particular reference to it. The general notability guideline, however, does seem to still hold the approval of the community in general and despite its overall subjectivity in places, it does clearly call for "coverage in sources independent of the subject". Reliable or not this article doesn't seem to demonstrate any of those at all and, in all fairness, it was tagged as such for six months before I started this AfD with no visible improvement. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Notability as a concept seems disputed all over the place. Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability/Essay, Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, User:Hiding/What notability is not, a category of editors, etc. Thus, in that regard I have to go with "ignore all rules" and apply a common sense concept of notability, i.e. if it appears in mutiple published sources, which is does then that seems reasonable enough for a paperless encyclopedia in that editors and readers clearly find value in the topic and so if we keep it, they can continue improving it, and we are that much more comprehensive of a reference guide, whereas I see nothing gained from deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And that second part is fair enough, it's an opinion I can respect - I don't agree with it as I'm personally rather happier to trim and remove our unfettered articles about in-universe fictional characters. But we're definitely disagreeing here based on differing personal philosophies rather than misunderstanding, so I doubt we're going to get anywhere in this particular line. I'll see how the consensus of others pans out. :) ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, take care! :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        wikipedia policies:

wp:v: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

wp:nor: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

wikipedia guidelines:

wp:rs: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

there are currently no reliable, third-party, published sources. for this article to be kept, someone needs to find some and re-wrtie the article based on them. sorry but that's the way wikipedia works. Jessi1989 (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets those policies and guideline which is why it will be kept. Any character covered in nearly fifty published books is notable for Wikipedia per any reasonable policy or guideline. Surely there's D&D magazines or other relevant publications that don't necessarily have online archive that also review these books and in that capacity mention this deity. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails the WP:GNG. Asserting that notability is "disputed" in order to avoid the deletion of this article on the grounds of failing WP:N is borderline disruptive. As long as the tag on top of WP:N says "guideline" it isn't disputed enough. IF editors want to argue that this article should be that 'common sense' exception to WP:N, I'm all ears. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it is better than most of the articles on the list. LA @ 04:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Article has been improving since nomination. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An originally composed timeline of primary sources covering the subject may have been a useful apprendix to a notable subject, but it's not in itself an establishment of notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different solution to the whole deity character problem for this entire franchise. I am just trying to figure out where to put the proposal. I am considering putting it as a sub-page to the main list. LA @ 04:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give this a read and tell me what you think. LA @ 06:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like it may be a reasonable goal. BOZ (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even that hierarchy is still reliant on secondary sources to be found to establish why the deities are notable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA's link above has been moved to Talk:List of Forgotten Realms deities/Merge proposal to remove it from the article space. Pagra shtak 14:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been moved again to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Deity article merge proposal. LA @ 15:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A cleanup template was added to this article in Janauary 2008 indicating that it has no reliable secondary sources, and none have been added since then. The only sources added to date are trivial and originate from primary sources or publications controlled by Wizards of the Coast, the owners of Dungeons & Dragons. The article itself if riddle with original research and weasel words such as "Lathander favours those who dispel the undead and aid others. He blesses those who plant new life." Overall, this article fails WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT and has in universe problems which make it fail WP:WAF. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no apparent reason to delete. Merge is fine too. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment still nothing but primary sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 - just read WP:MUSIC's album section more thoroughly... Sorry for the hassle. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloc Party's untitled third studio album

Per WP:HAMMER. Doesn't seem enough for a page yet, despite the sources, which are more related to the single. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources (NME) to prove that the album is definitely to be released. Just because there is no name is not a reason to delete an otherwise good article. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, information seems a little thin but what we do know is well-sourced. Not really a violation of WP:CRYSTAL as there's no unverifiable speculation here, although hopefully more information will come up in the near future to flesh it out. This could conceivably be merged to a section in Bloc Party for now, but I don't see it as necessary. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC: title, track list and release date must all be confirmed by artist or label before an album can have its own article. Sourced content on this page should be merged with Bloc Party, also per WP:MUSIC. Cliff smith ^talk 22:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silkroad Online

Tagged {{db-spam}} and I agree that the article is laudatory and entirely lacking in balance, but it's the work of multiple editors so is more likely a fan POV issue than outright spam. That said, the article is almost entirely self-sourced and contains no evidence of notability established from independent reliable sources. I believe it needs a Heyman standard rewrite, in its present form it fails WP:NPOV, WP:RS and probably WP:N. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is too long and reads more like a strategy guide than an encyclopedia article. Beemer69 ^chitchat 21:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable secondary sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—A lack of third-party coverage of this game leads me to conclude it is not notable. Livitup (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) The NPOV dispute dated March 2008 is a concern that the article is too critical of the game. 2) It's true that English language sources are lacking, but this is a Korean video game, and a Korean language Google search turned up plenty of independent sources, such as Gamespot Korea's coverage of the game. 3) I agree the how-to-play stuff is taking up way too much space; I added a {{Copy to gaming wiki}} template as a heads up. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I have little to comment on as I think others hit on it very well with the NPOV/RS issues which are flagrant throughout the entire article. Copperwire (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wizardman 00:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Güreli

Non-notable and unsourced. No English-language hits on Google. Beemer69 ^chitchat 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.
Keep. I added some references. His latest film has generated some media coverage, and the multiple albums are another argument for notability. --Eastmain (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—While I am sympathetic to the world view, and don't discriminate against foreign-language sources, I can't find any indication of notability to English-language encyclopedia readers. No news hits, no coverage of the compositions he has made, nothing that asserts notability. Thus, for now, it's delete. Livitup (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is English-language notability important? If someone or something is notable anywhere in any language, does it not pass WP:N? And doesn't avoiding topics whose sources are in other languages prevent us from learning about these topics, keeping us secure in the knowledge that We Know Everything Worth Knowing when that patently isn't true? --NellieBly (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I honestly don't know the answer to those questions. We're here because someone doubts the notability of this person. The only news coverage that I can understand seems to back up the assertion that he isn't very notable. He participated in a Turkish National Film Festival. OK, I just looked at Filmfest DC and of the 7 winners this year, the only ones that have WP articles have won Academy Awards, Oscars, or Golden Globes. With the absence of English language sources to back up notability, we're basically left with people who can read Turkish saying "Trust me he's notable." I honestly don't know where we go from here. Livitup (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable enough, also some english coverage, [3], [4]. --Soman (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Jeffrey

Young footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he's never actually played in a fully professional competition. Deprodded on the basis that the Belgian season starts soon and that he might play. To me this is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. The article can be restored if/when he actually plays a match. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indeed appears to fail that inclusive guideline WP:ATHLETE - no substantial coverage to otherwise justify inclusion under WP:N, and the article fails WP:V at the moment too. - Toon⁰⁵ 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate if and when he mades his debut in a fully-pro competition. --Jimbo^[online] 23:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am tired of all these AFD nominations of players who don't technically meet WP:ATHLETE but may meet it in a few days time. Wouldn't it make sense to simply sit on these until after the season starts in, uh, good grief, only 60 hours for this one, to see what's really going on?? In the meantime, does this player really have shirt number 3? Does that have any significance for this club? Nfitz (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD won't close for another 4 days, so if he makes an appearance he will qualify for WP:ATHLETE. - Toon⁰⁵ 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way these AfDs are going, he could be named as a sub, not get in the game, and we'd still have someone trying to delete the article, because he won't be notable for another week or two. Heck, we had one AfD where the coach had made comments that a new player had been pulled from the line-up at the last minute because of immigration issues; that it had really messed up his line-up; but that the issues would be resolved in a couple of days, and we STILL had people trying to delete the article. Lots of WP:BURO issues. Nfitz (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are all tired of these AfDs, but it is you who is forcing them by continuously removing prods from articles which clearly fails the WP:ATHLETE critieria, e.g. Nathaniel Wedderburn who you seemed to think would be a first team player,[5] but hasn't even got a squad number (a lesson on the vagaries of British pre-season friendlies needs learning here). Perhaps if you would wait until he actually plays to deprod (the prod wouldn't have expired until Sunday), we wouldn't have to go through all this... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which didn't come out until the AfD process. We've had other AfDs for other prods I've removed where people hae complained they couldn't just be speedied, and it's turned out they had significant profesional experience. Given the number of poor prods, and prods of players that may be about to play, the AfDs are necessary. Better we do 100 AfDs and delete, than remove a player using prod without thinking about it in detail (though we are closer to 3:1 than 100:1 in these lately).

Now back to the question. What does shirt number 3 mean on this team? For some teams, that's highly significant. Nfitz (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE right now, but perhaps he will at a later date. JBsupreme (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy somewhere Almost certainly will pass WP:ATHLETE within the next month or two, so should be moved into a volunteer's user space pending this. Brilliantine (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. No reason given for deletion. AndyJones points out the proper procedure for a merge. Synergy 11:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Williams (character)

Fails WP:N and WP:FICT. Should probably be merged with Henry V. Leonard^(Bloom) 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close. You're nominating to merge, no need for a deletion discussion. Put up a merge template, or just be bold and do it. AndyJones (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled seventh studio album

Another "forthcoming album" article (we should have a speedy category for them). The source quoted is Billboard com: "Jack has said the duo has already started working on its seventh studio album." No track list, no release date, not even a name. WP:MUSIC#Albums: "a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article." We don't even have title or song speculation. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL,... Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and the title and content are unencyclopedic. I don't like these "upcoming album" pages, because they're borne from little more than people vying to be the first to post an article about it that usually consists of non-notable information. Beemer69 ^chitchat 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I like to save as many of those future album for deletion articles, in this case there is nothing about it at all. There is simply no content specific about this album and thus there is nothing to have an article about. So Why ^{review me!} 21:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • wish me a happy wikiversary! • contribs 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. I'm also going to cite the unofficial WP:HAMMER as well - if there's no title available, 9 times out of 10 it's crystal balling. If this article is kept, it must be renamed something less generic, such as White Stripes seventh studio album or something. 23skidoo (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not WP:CRYSTAL exactly, there's no 'unverifiable speculation' - mostly because there's not much of anything at all. Nothing is known about this album to write an encyclopedia article on at the moment, I honestly can't see the point of having a page with no real content at all. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and thus WP:CRYSTAL: title, track list and release date must all be confirmed by artist or label. Cliff smith ^talk 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Go the Hammer. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk"
Delete a case of crystal hammer, a Seven Nation Army couldn't hold me back from that decision (I made a funny. Hah). The only instances this article uses for the album's existance is the surprise appearance of Meg White at a show by Jack's other band, The Raconteurs and a few statements from Jack. Come back to me when they have a release date and/or a title and/or some reliable sources. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can have this back when we at least can offer the album's name. We can take the few kilobytes the deletion would save us and, I dunno, rent them out to pay for server costs or something. Maybe use them to host a .gif of an adorable breakdancing rodent. - Vianello (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I said it once before but it bears repeating. Delete JuJube (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the WP:SNOW has fallen. Egad. No. JBsupreme (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD G7: The author has requested deletion on my talk page. - Icewedge (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

André Merlot

He appears to have been an every day normal solder, nothing really special about him. The only source cited is a list of members of his regiment and I could find no others more in depth. I am not sure how well the fact "he is the ancestor of all people bearing the name Marleau in Quebec" counts for notability but I would think not much. - Icewedge (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than failing WP:V, he also does not seem notable. Just having lived a long time ago does not qualify as notable. Being "first Merlot in Canada" also does not impress me much. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wizardman 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Emily Dickinson poems

I previously prodded this article, but DGG removed the prod, reasoning that Dickinson "is a sufifciently major author that every one of these poems can probably be the subject of an article." Although I of course do not deny that Dickinson is notable, this particular list serves no purpose and violates WP:NOT. Since its creation, the only article dedicated to one of her more than 1,700 poems has been "Because I could not stop for Death", which is currently a very poor stub. Other articles have seemingly been created, but now exist only as redirects. All of Dickinson's poems, with full text, are available at Wikisource; why should this laundry list of poem titles be kept? María (habla conmigo) 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I was going to say transwiki, but evidently the material is already available. RayAYang (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure which way to go on this. The fact is we have plenty of bibliographical lists -- and of notable enough authors that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS really isn't appropriate. In some respects, prohibiting Dickinson from being the subject of a bibliographical list of this nature violates WP:NPOV because it's biased against a genre of writing that, by its very nature, is more prolific than that of novelists. On the other hand, as stated above, it is little more than a laundry list as it presently exists. At the very least it needs to be split up as format-wise it's pretty useless right now. 23skidoo (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I can't say I'm familiar with a systematic bias against poet bibliographies. Can you point to previous AFDs like this (just out of curiosity)? I'm less concerned with Dickinson's prolific poetry, however, and more concerned with the lack of encyclopedic value. An article dedicated to the different collections of Dickinson's poetry might have some encyclopedic value because her published poetry has evolved over time from editor to editor, it's still not known exactly how she intended her poetry to appear, etc, etc. But a list of merely titles? For now I think a link to Wikisource from the main article is sufficient. María (habla conmigo) 21:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. -- Nom says "this ... list serves no purpose and violates WP:NOT" but I disagree; I think Emily Dickinson's poems are notable. And if they're notable individually, then a list of them is potentially useful, notable, and highly encyclopaedic. -- The other arguments are all grounds for editing but not deletion. I'd also draw your attention to WP:DEMOLISH.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the poems are notable; that's why the Dickinson article spends so much bloody time discussing them, right? :) However, how is this article useful when it points nowhere? How does it serve any kind of encyclopedic purpose? The ED article doesn't even link to it because it's unnecessary. This article is a laundry list of titles. Were it an article about the poems, I would agree with you, but that certainly isn't the case. María (habla conmigo) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list is not encyclopedia material but rather, effectively, a table of contents. It does nothing to help to inform readers about Dickinson, and runs afoul of the basic principle that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is also surely false that each of Dickinson's poems is worthy of an article of its own (even in principle, disregarding the unlikeliness that anyone will write all those articles) -- this idea, if put into practice, would run far afoul of WP:NOR, as the great majority of the poems (beyond the few most famous ones) do not have enough of an existing critical history for anything much non-OR to be said about them. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This may well be a highly useful page. However, only some, not all, of Emily Dickinson's poems are ever going to have encyclopedia articles; my understanding is that she wrote almost 2000 of them. An index of her poems would appear to be Wikisource material rather than for here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ideally it should be merged into the main Emily Dickinson article, but it doesn't take more than a quick glance to see that it's far too long for that, so the only real choice is to keep it in its own seperate list article. I don't see anything in WP:NOT that applies to the article in question; if you're going to point to a long policy list like that as your only deletion justification, I'd prefer that you actually bother to explain what part of the policy the article violates. The article could be better utilized, true, but that's not nearly enough to justify deletion. Gelmax (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I've pointed in part to WP:LAUNDRY as a reason for deletion, but really I would say that this article violates WP:IINFO in that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 90% of the poems listed also violate WP:N in that they are not notable by themselves and have not received scholarly attention. In truth, a majority of Dickinson's poetry is notable as a whole, not separately. As lists are typically used for index purposes, I still fail to see how this article in particular serves that purpose when nothing links to it or will likely ever link to it in its current form. And please, gods of AFD, don't merge this into ED's article! María (habla conmigo) 19:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expandThis is one of the authors where every individual poem is probably notable enough for an article--there is certainly published criticism on every one of them. There are far too many for them to be discussed in one general article, and, unlike, almost all equally important poets, she did not publish them in conveniently packaged portions--she wrote them all separately, and they were almost all of them published together for the first time after her death. It's just a matter of interested people doing the work. This article should be seen not as a finished work, but as a stand in until they've been written, after which it will serve as a navigational device. The article is in process of leading somewhere. Let's not destroy the framework. DGG (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The framework" has been in place for more than three years now and little has been done to improve it. Rather than detailing how this article can be improved, what you are suggesting is the creation of hundreds of stubs dedicated to individual poems, most of which have not received scholarly study btw, in order to justify the presence of one bloated and unnecessary laundry list of titles and an archaic numbering format. Do you volunteer for the job? :) María (habla conmigo) 19:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To me, this appears to be WP:COPYVIO, copied straight from an index of a book by Thomas H. Johnson (the article about Ms. Dickinson, calling him "Johnston"). Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't believe that lists that could be compiled mechanically from public domain information can be subjects of copyright, at least not under US law; the telephone book doctrine, described in a US Supreme Court case I could look up, sees to that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Johnson's edition, the one the listed versions appear to be taken from, based on punctuation (and like Franklin's, one of only two editions of Dickinson with any claim to completeness) is not in the public domain; it is a copyrighted work. The list may well be a copyvio, unless we think it's fair use. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable, encyclopaedic, and able to be improved. Just because the individual poems might not be notable together, they are notable as a group. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no one has explained how a mere list of titles connected to an archaic numeral system from more than fifty years ago is encyclopedic. This article serves no purpose; it's not even a proper summary of the magnitude Dickinson's work. I don't think it's capable of doing so. I dislike repeating myself, but I don't see how this list can possibly be improved. Only about twenty-or-so of Dickinson's poems are notable enough to possibly warrant articles. María (habla conmigo) 19:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meg: NightStalkers

Article has no context whatsoever and is based purely on unsourced speculation. Beemer69 ^chitchat 20:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gunnar; no context, no sources either. Cliff smith ^talk 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Meg: NightStalkers" probably describes a Deleted. JuJube (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If nothing else, this is a clear violation of CRYSTAL, "possibly due to be released somewhere around 2009 or 2010". Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pink's fifth studio album

Contested PROD. Though the album has a release date, there is still no title and only little information on the track list. It hence fails WP:MUSIC and WP:HAMMER. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and thus WP:CRYSTAL: title, track list and release date must all be confirmed by artist or label. Cliff smith ^talk 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Go The WP:HAMMER. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, fails WP:MUSIC and the crystal ballisms. JBsupreme (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No title, no release date == no need for article.Kww (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First single has already been released, more information will rapidly follow. --Cameron * 15:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have expanded the article and we now have a confirmed release date. Please take the time to take another look. :) --Cameron * 16:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The release date never was a point - except for some IP user who kept deleting it (see the edit war going on in the history) thinking it was not reliably sourced (it's on her homepage!). The problem is it still has no title and no confirmed tracklist. It thus fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar Hendrich (talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar's right, it still fails WP:MUSIC. Cliff smith ^talk 17:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep now that multiple sources have been found. Wizardman 00:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solium Infernum

Prodded article. Although not explicitly contested, the number of edits made by the creator after prodding counts as an implicit contestation. Those edits, however, failed to address the issue mentioned in the prod notice. This article is about a video game that will be released next year by a minor developper. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Delete without prejudice against recreation after the game's release. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit of a waste to delete the article only to recreate it once the game has been released. Cryptic Comet's last game, Armageddon Empires, has been deemed notable, and while CC is only an indie developer (a one man band, I think) it's still created a notable game. I don't know why SI would be any different?Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is standard practice. The article will have to be rewritten from scratch anyway after release, and if the company fails to release the game, we won't have an orphaned article taking up some disk space with no one looking at it. If it were a widely advertized future release (as was the case with Grand Theft Auto IV), that would be a different story. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that's a bit POV. There should be more behind our consideration than what budget the game has, how much advertising it received, or the size of the company releasing it. Armageddon Empires didn't get much advertising (I never saw any), and was made by the same company, but it's notable. Or did it only become notable after release?Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes, it became notable only some time after release, when sales proved to be good. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is not the Harry Potter of video games. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I actually do not see how it would be a "waste" to delete the article. The AfD meanwhile has more content than the one on the subject. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Someoneanother's research. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rock Paper Shotgun preview by Kieron Gillen, Fidgit response, mentioned at the tail end of this interview. The point at which WP:CRYSTAL is successfully invoked has been shifting, articles on future games have been popping up and evolving as more information becomes available. In terms of notability and it being a minor developer, though coverage of indie games, MMOs and other more niche-market stuff is still a long way from broad and consistent, it has improved to the point that when multiple reliable sources are jumping all over a game at this point of development, it is very likely that it's already notable and will become more so as it progresses, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cortex command. Someone another 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that creating articles at this point of development was a waste of time, but after witnessing several AFDs which resulted in keep I've come to the conclusion that the AFDs themselves make more work than just citing and writing, the article is inevitably recreated shortly after and sticks because sources are cited. If the article is started with the usual headings then it's possible to keep adding to them as more information becomes available, keeping rewriting to a minimum. Previews can always be replaced with reviews when it comes to the gameplay section, if something brought up in previews turns out to not be featured in the finished game then that information becomes development info rather than gameplay, cut, paste and trim. Someone another 20:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Someoneanother, who has found sources to demonstrate notability. This isn't WP:CRYSTAL to the extent that we're covering the development of a notable game, which is no more WP:CRYSTAL than covering the US Presidential Election before we know who wins (although I won't say which one is more important to the fate of the world). Randomran (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Devotion Bidwell

Article is mainly genealogical and offers very little real substance on the individual in question. It certainly doesn't assert notability. A google search returns just one hit that isn't Wikipedia. Also included is the article for his mother, for the same reason. role^player 20:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. I declined the speedy as this guy looks potentially notable but at the moment there's nothing to say. – iride scent 20:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NOT. Straight genealogy associated with a historic place. I might consider merging Bidwell to Rev. Adonijah Bidwell House if WP:V could be satisfied. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: as above. The speedy on this should never have been declined; upon what basis are these people "potentially" notable beyond that they lived in the 19th century? There's no reason to infer anything of the sort. RGTraynor 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I declined the speedy on an extremely tenuous hope that the "one of the three original selectmen" could be fleshed out into something. While I wholeheartedly agree that as it stands it's deletable, its neither spam, vanity nor an attack page, and I see no harm in leaving it for five days to see if someone can expand it. 18th & 19th century records aren't archived on Google, and we have enough Massachusetts historians that if it's expandable, someone could hopefully expand it. – iride scent 22:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Mmm ... except that WP:POLITICIAN explicitly holds that members of a local council are "likely" to be notable if that council is of a "major metropolitan city." A selectman of a town that's never in its history broken 1200 people is leagues below that. RGTraynor 03:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but he was one of the original 3 selectmen, which puts him in the class of a town founder. This is probably a good deal more notable. We have accepted articles from first settlers of towns. I'm not sure that this one really counts as such to the same extent as early colonial settlements. 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

* And when such things are written into WP:BIO, that'll be another matter. Right now, it isn't. RGTraynor 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is we here who have the interpretation of interpreting guidelines, and since you seem to agree with m that it should be interpreted that way, say so. Decisions here are how the rules get interpreted at Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep John Devotion Bidwell, he held an important government position in his hometown. Delete Milliscent Dench, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Important government position"? It's a town of 350 residents! You need to read your WP:POLITICIAN more closely... -- role^player 19:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Mackle

Sean Mackle has played at a semi-professional level, but has never played at a fully professional level and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 23:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check - Does anyone have detailed Hearts lineups for this most recent season? I believe he may have made a league appearance before going out on loan. Also played for Scotland U19 I think, though not sure whether that is relevant. Brilliantine (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. He doesn't have a squad number for Hearts.

2. He wasn't in the 18 for their opening match against Motherwell.

3. Playing at under-19 level internationally wouldn't qualify him.

4. London Hearts shows that he has played in pre-season friendlies for Hearts, but not in a competitive match.

Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then. Brilliantine (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of rain affected Formula One Grands Prix

After a discussion at WT:F1, the consensus is that the article violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as wet races occur quite often in Formula One motor racing. D.M.N. (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate. There are no reliable sources to confirm or deny any of these races and there is nothing to determine how a race would be included in any list like this. Would it have to be postponed or can it sprinkle for 15 seconds and still be affected? Tavix (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. Wet races are far too common, and the sourcing is clearly going to be a problem, particularly with regard to exactly how rain has been a factor in any given race result. It's impossible to prove that a result was changed by rain. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Too common an occurrence, lacks WP:RS, no explanation of how rain affected the results of a race (if at all). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indescriminate list, and original research. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no clear cut way to define "rain-affected". Unless the FIA itself releases such a list, this is simply original research. --Polaron | Talk 01:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure original research. What is a "rain-affected" race? The best scenario for some skilled racers? The worst strategy in the worst moment? Or simply rain, absolute normal rain? Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like the rain is turning to WP:SNOW. Potentially (?) useful information packaged in the most useless way possible. Although an article about how rain affected a particular race might be interesting, this list does little more then tell me that it rained at least 15 times in Belgium during the last 56 years. Mandsford (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think WP:INDISCRIMINATE is quite the point here: whether a race is wet or not can make a very significant difference to its outcome (see 1993 European Grand Prix or 1999 European Grand Prix for example). However, to the best of my knowledge, there's no reliable source that can be used to conclusively say which races are 'rain affected', which could be anything from light drizzle in qualifying that affects the starting order of the race, to a race-long torrential downpour. Without such a source, this is WP:OR. 4u1e (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. The inclusion criteria isn't clear. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eabhai

An unreferenced article on a single sound in the Irish language. I am tagging this for deletion as non-notable because I don't think we need a separate article on every variation of sounds in every language. I suggest a merge to Irish orthography but I would like to see what others think first. Here is a list of related articles that I am also nominating:

Comment. Historically, Irish pirates raided the coasts of Wales, and made off with all of their vowels. After this redistribution, they found themselves with a surfeit of vowels in Ireland, and began using them purely for ornament.

That said, I'd take note of all of the articles listed in Template:Digraphs. The nominated articles seem only to be the latest in a long series of articles covering various aspects of the use of the Latin alphabet to write various languages. Whatever happens here, I suggest that all of these articles perhaps ought to share a common fate.- Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree 100% here and so that is why I just nominated the hexagraphs. If there is a consensus to delete these here, I will go ahead and nominate the rest. Its too big of a task to nominate all of them just to have them kept, so thats why I just nominated these. Tavix (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Pending greater input from somewhere else. Ihcoyc's point about {{Digraphs}} is exactly what I was going to say. However, I'll take it one step further, and state that since there is more than one person working on these, and some are quite well developed (see Ough (combination)) that they all ought to stay. I don't think wide enough consensus will be reached here to delete 300-ish articles, so if anyone feels strongly enough about it to take it to Village Pump or something, go for it. Livitup (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ough is an exception because it can represent so many different sounds. Other than that, your "keep" statement is just a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Tavix (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I realize that, and OSE is usually something I rail against at XfD. But in this case, you've got a very large group of aritcles that were all created in good faith, and edited by multiple people, and I don't think the consensus of the few people who will vote here is enough to begin a mass deletion campaign on them all. I'm just lobbying for a wider audience before any action is taken. Livitup (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Pending greater input from others. It becomes difficult if we delete this and not the others. I think all of them should be kept. InFairness (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multigraphs are quite common in languages using the Latin alphabet, and their rendering varies from one language to another. While hexagraphs might not be common, their existence nevertheless warrants an article which could be mentioned in the main articles about the languages that use them. People who consult WP:LRC could also make good use of these articles. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of geeky thing that is difficult to find if you're interested, so I don't think the info should simply be deleted. I could see merging them with the hexagraph article, since they only occur in one language. The same goes for the pentagraphs. However, many of the shorter multigraphs have the potential to be expanded substantially. While many only list one language at present, most are found in many more, and often for very different sounds, which could be awkward to merge into a single article. Multigraphs using the apostrophe for ejective consonants, and click letters ʘ ǀ ǃ ǂ ǁ have been omitted, but Irish is of more interest to many English speakers. kwami (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permanence and foster care

Contested prod. Coatrack article that is actually a mission statement for the California Permanency for Youth Project. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also see the creator's username. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • wish me a happy wikiversary! • contribs 21:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also, creator appears to have a COI, as noted by Reywas. Cliff smith ^talk 00:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Andrew (footballer)

Contested prod. He has played football for a semi-professional club, but fails WP:ATHLETE because he has not participated in a fully professional match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. FA cup and League Cup appearances between football clubs at the national level = notable. – iride scent 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of those games are at a semi-professional level. Please read WP:ATHLETE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply to football & cricket, per very very lengthy discussions. Please read the football notability guidelines which differ from WP:ATHLETE. "Have played in a competitive fixture between two "FPNL clubs" (in the FA Cup or League Cup, non-English equivalent, Continental or Intercontinental club competition)" equals notable for WP purposes. – iride scent 20:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"FPNL" means Fully Professional National Level. Alloa Athletic are not fully professional. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus of course WP:FOOTYN was roundly rejected by the overall community and therefore is in no way binding anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply to football & cricket, per very very lengthy discussions" - can you expand on that? Why wouldn't it apply? Nfitz (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Though the notability guidelines for this are ambiguous when cups are taken into account. Brilliantine (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines in that area are equally clear. A cup game has to be between two fully professional clubs. He has played against fully professional clubs in cup ties, but not for one. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He played in senior football in Scotland in 2007/08. Andrew himself was part time with Alloa but all his appearances were in "fully professional" matches in the SFL. For whats it worth several games were against full-time opposition. If playing in Divisions 2 and 3 is grounds for deletion you have a lot of work to do. Andrew is now back in the junior ranks with Arthurlie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domhnall1979 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above, the matches were by definition not fully professional because Alloa are a semi-professional club. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecodestrian

Contested prod. Yet another protologism that somebody is trying to spread through Wikipedia. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEOs are one thing, but they have to work harder than this article to have a chance of surviving. References! Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gets 2 ghits. Let's call it, "wasting other people's time and resources to promote yourself and your own ideas", or "Wastaggrandizement". Brianyoumans (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unverified, unsourced protologism. Cliff smith ^talk 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is pure madeup, unverifiable original research with not even a hint of notability or any reliable sources that discuss it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:BOLLOCKS.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. Environment-friendly junk, but junk all the same. JuJube (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:BALLS this is made up nonsense. JBsupreme (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that the Ecodestrian Events are going on at the Olympics right now!! Mandsford (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thozharkal

First movie produced by a non-notable production company adn not notable itself. I was gonna prod, but had already been de-prodded. Find no verifiable sourcing, but bearing in mind that transcultural notability/verifiability can be tricky, and I know nothing about Tamil movie production. . Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not getting anything for this film [6], so I'm dubious as to whether or not it actually exists. PC78 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This search seems to return mostly blogs. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not assert notability and it is unsourced... and sourcing looks to be a big obstacle here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 00:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 05:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John M. "Jack" Sharp, Jr.

Biography of a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who isn't that notable. Only sources is from the school and there are no other reliable sources to back up the rest of the article. Tavix (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Tavix (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable with no third-party sources. Beemer69 ^chitchat 20:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple named chairs at a major research university; editor of a journal for seven years; seems like a clear pass of WP:PROF and even more clearly of the proposed replacement version of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:PROF: 280 papers, former editor of Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, named chair at a top research university, and the 2008-9 president of the Geological Society of America. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 01:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and RJC. Several named chair appointments at a top research university is already sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF. Also, his CV[7] lists a number of significant awards. He has been the President of the Geological Society of America (see here [8]). Nsk92 (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the article the info and a reference[9] regarding two awards he received from the American Institute of Hydrology. Nsk92 (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is kept, the nickname should be removed from the title. Beemer69 ^chitchat 02:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Tavix (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep Clearly notable as per publication record, academic honors, etc. When I have a moment, I'll have a look at his citation record and add that to the article --Crusio (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I tried, but that is not very easy. There are several people with the same name and initials and after weeding out those that are not him, I am left with only 17 or so publications. Seems like WoS is not the place to look for citations for geoscientists. --Crusio (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what seems to be a pretty clean Google scholar search. The citation numbers are nothing special but that may mean merely that Google scholar doesn't cover his field very well. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I admit not having any idea about what decent citation rates are in this particular field... In any case, the awards/president/named chair etc are enough for establishing notability. --Crusio (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Hanson

Not notable. Article is only sourced by a book that attacked her. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Later on she might become notable but there is not enough information about her now, nor does she have a chance to refute the charges against her -- some of which seem really out there. Redddogg (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijob

Previous AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikijob, closed early as delete. This result was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 5. I've decided, just to keep things clear, to start over with a new AfD rather than simply reupping the old one. Please read the deletion review for more information. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous AfD.
Use of wiki techniques to run a jobs board. Interesting as an innovation in technology application. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, self-promotion and a deliberate end-run around the April endorsement of the deletion of precisely this text. The creator is the site owner and has spent most of a year spamming his site on Wikipedia, it's been deleted by five different admins at three different titles and until it's rewritten by someone else we should nuke it, ban him and move on. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a comment on the article, or on the editor? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the site owner. I'd like to declare that there is some kind of personality clash between myself and Guy (above). This moderator seems to have taken a personal dislike to me - please take his points with caution!86.0.221.59 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, promotional article with uncited claims, weasel words and in passing references that appear to be just links to the site and not much else. Also COI concerns given the contents of User_Talk:Redsuperted who was asked to stop creating the article and appears to have created it yet again. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep has multiple reliable sources. could do with a wp:npov rewrite though. Jessi1989 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to be enough reliable sources to support notability, but ideally I'd like to see more. Silverfish (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I looked at the quotes, they're all in passing as in "this is available". They're sources, but I don't think they prove notability in any way. *shrug* --Blowdart | ^talk 21:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Prospects reference, American Chronicle reference and Ri5 reference (needs registration to access) don't seem to be just in passing, they are more substantial articles. I tend to agree about the other sources, although I think the references from Accoutancy Age, and The Guardian confer a bit of notability. Silverfish (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silverfish - there are more sources. I'm not going to add to the wiki itself(!) but see these - http://thecareersgroupconferences.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/final-2-speakers-confirmed/ (conference) - http://www.le.ac.uk/ssds/careers/bulletin.html (university of leicester - half way down page) - http://www.talentsmoothie.com/blog/category/generation-y/ (search for wikijob, kind of hard to find, but an article none the less). http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/careers/resources/onlineresources/weblinks/researchjobs/typesofjobs/finance 86.0.221.59 (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs aren't generally acceptable sources, and your leeds link is an in-passing mention again. Also you would do well to declare your conflict of interest here, it looks like bad faith otherwise. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Blowdart - but if you look above, you'll see I did already point out that I am the editor. Sorry again that you don't like the links - I was responding to Silverfish' request to see them. 86.0.221.59 (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean as the editor, but as you being Redsuperted and being requested not to recreate it before; but instead using an IP address now. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this has anything to do with anything. I just haven't signed in. You all know I'm Redsuperted anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.221.59 (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that, and it illustrates massive bad faith in recreating an article deleted numerous times for spam reasons and one you were requested to let someone else create. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can think what you like, frankly. And P.S. Mr, the article was deleted twice. This was the second time. Numerous, is ridiculous. 86.0.221.59 (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject of this article appears to satisfy WP:V and WP:N via the citation of multiple, reliable sources. The current article definitely needs a good overhaul though to make it read more neutral and encyclopedic. Wiw8 (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Guy, Blowdart. One of the most persistant examples of linkspam on Wikipedia with no notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are sufficient for notability of the site. That it may have been spammed elsewhere on wiki, can be dealt with seartately. I vcan not see that there is any present linkspan. DGG (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four of the references sources are just mentions-in-passing, but [10][11][12][13] seem to meet the general notability standards of WP:NOTE. Needs its tone cleaned up, though. --Stormie (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had a stab at removing the "in passing" references, the opinion and unverifiable claims. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. After reading through this discussion I think that the consensus was clearly to delete, and the argument that this is an indiscriminate collection of information grouped in a way that is not used in the literature was compelling. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology

AfDs for this article:

This orphaned article is a list of certain selected diseases based on a new editor's personal idea about their etiology being related, which is clearly forbidden by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The author -- who hasn't edited on Wikipedia since March -- admitted, in the course of various discussions, that his goal was to use the article as a place to collect information about certain diseases of interest to him, so that he would eventually be able to see a pattern and perhaps come up with new ideas about causes and treatments for these diseases. Various attempts to get him to clarify exactly which articles belonged in his list, what he meant by "unknown etiology", and so forth, all failed.

No articles link to this one, and I can't imagine why any would.

The previous AfD failed as being premature for an article that was under construction (WP:HEY + WP:AGF). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a readable encyclopedia article. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my opinion. although the motives of the author are wonderful and I wish him well in his research. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with his research? It's a Wikipedia article? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WhatamIdoing's well reasoned nomination, my views from the first AfD remain unchanged, this article exists as a tool for a personal project against the spirit of WP:SYNTH. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom RogueNinja_talk 23:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly soapboxing of a viewpoint and essay writing (if you look back to the original versions of the page, before it was partially fixed by other editors, the POV-pushing intent of the originating editor is clear). A similar page called List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies was deleted a few months ago, and this one should be too. ► RATEL ◄ 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Cliff smith ^talk 00:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Postnom changes to the article in consideration, I am now neutral. Cliff smith ^talk 20:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to help with this, but I've given up. I don't think its useful, or is likely to be with any reasonable effort. DGG (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTH in its purest form. JFW | T@lk 09:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was asked to clarify my vote. There are numerous inflammatory diseases, and many are of unknown etiology, but that doesn't mean that there is a scientific entity by this name. Many of the diseases are known to be immunologically completely unrelated to the other, and to suggest that they are linked just because their exact etiology is unclear is WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and has large WP:V problems. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing a an idiopathic inflammatory disease? Surely you are not claiming such a thing. Whether or not there is a category of things called idiopathic inflammatory diseases that is and should be up to debate, and the merits of this argument should determine the outcome of this nomination. Regardless of what was intended by the originator, an article that discusses idiopathic inflammatory diseases and groups them together by this nomenclature is no more out of order than any other arbitrary method of categorizing: by system, organ or infective agent. If medical schools/medical school textbook authors decide to categorize things by organ, as they most often do, categorization by other means is not wrong, it's just unconventional by medical school textbook standards -- but this is not a medical school textbook. There is no suggestion in this article that these diseases are immunologically related. To suggest that they are linked -- by name, and nothing else, really -- is not at all original research, synthesis by an editor or nearly unverifiable. Your problem, as you stated above, is that these are unrelated. White sponge nevus and lichen planus are unrelated, and just because they can both present as white patches on the buccal mucosa doesn't mean they should be grouped together -- but they are, because that's the arbitrary method that is used to classify these manifestations (leukoplakias). Please specify exactly what the problem with this article is, rather than throw accusations that are only loosely applicable, if not unrelated altogether. Thanks :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article tries to unify things that cannot and need not be unified. It serves no purpose other than that. My opinion stands, I'm affraid. JFW | T@lk 13:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is based on a poor understanding of the article, then -- the purpose of the article is merely to classify and categorize, not to unify. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- it appears as though the vast majority of votes are based on the supposition that, because this article was generated in violation of a policy, it may not be allowed to remain, even though it meets all the criteria for an article. It is sourced, it is notable, and it is verifiable. Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology is a prominant collection of diseases that appears in every medical and pathology textbook. While the initial editor may be censured for his attempts at using Wikipedia as a clearinghouse, information collection system or whatever, the fact remains that this article possesses merit to exist because it meets, and perhaps even exceeds, all of the criteria necessary. The interesting fact that most of the voted for 'delete' merely reiterate "per nomination" is an indication that these editors probably do not understand medicine or pathology and are merely jumping on a bandwagon they don't even understand. The initial editor, as indicated, is not interested in Wikipedia and is not putting up an argument for the retention of this article because he's disinterested in it at this point. While the article may not be readable because the initial section is small and the subsequent entries are similary terse and concise, these issues do not produce anything counter to the retention policy of Wikipedia. The aforementioned votes should be striken unless the voters reiterate and restate their decisions -- 20 votes compounding a misunderstood point should not be taken as 20 votes. I will contact each voter for elaboration. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you actually provide a reference to any textbook that groups diseases like this?

I can't. I find many textbooks that group inflammatory diseases together. I find a relatively small number that group selected diseases in general by their cause. I find no textbooks that group specific inflammatory diseases together because their etiology is unknown. If you can produce a reliable source, then I will certainly consider withdrawing the nomination. But in the absence of a single example -- and I assure you that several physicians and researchers here have searched for exactly that, and every one of us has come up empty-handed -- then I suggest that you re-phrase your statement to say what you actually believe, which is that it seems plausible to you that someone might choose to organize a textbook that way.

Mere speculation that a reliable source might exist, or that it would not be unreasonable for someone to create such a reliable source, is not actually sufficient proof of notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To begin -- I did not state that medical textbooks produce chapters entitled "Idiopathic inflammatory diseases" -- they don't do this because inflammatory diseases of the bowel should not be grouped with inflammatory diseases of the eye or skin. Idiopathic diseases, those whose etiology, or cause, remain unknown, are grouped together by system or organ, and even if they aren't, that doesn't preclude a Wikipedia article from incuding them, because textbooks are interested in laying out information in a way that is conducive to school learning, while a Wikipedia could lay it out in a different format. It would not be a violation of WP:OR to group them together, if in fact they are all idiopathic, just because one cannot find a textbook that groups all of them together. That said, my systemic pathology coursebook from New Jersey Dental School lists, at the end of the chapter on Diseases of the Gastrointestinal Tract, a section on Idiopathic Inflammatory Bowel Diseases that includes Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. What exactly is the basis for recommending this article for deletion -- it's like deleting an article on Tom Hanks just because the original editor admits to writing it because she is in love with him and collects things about him and is the president of her self-run Tom Hanks Fan Club. The fact that Tom Hanks is extremely notable gives the article merit to exist assuming all of the proper rules are kept in writing and maintaining the article. So too here -- if there is nothing wrong except soapboxing -- it should be overlooked because it not only meets but exceeds every other criteria, like Tom Hanks' biggest fan soapboxing over him. Let me know if I answered your question or missed your point, thanx. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a few diseases here and there, because etiology is sometimes helpful. It's helpful to know, for example, whether the inflammation is caused by an immune response or by physical trauma. But a wide range of unrelated diseases like this? Never. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (who suggests that you chat up Kiron Das in your gastroenterology department to find out the etiology of ulcerative colitis, BTW.)[reply]

OK -- Unit 1 of the New Jersey Dental School Oral Pathology course binder is about oral lesions, including those of viral, bacterial and fungal origin. There is then a chapter entitled Other Oral Mucosal Inflammatory Diseases, authored by Joseph Rinaggio, DMD (currently the course director of Histology and seconday lecturer of Oral Pathology). It covers inflammatory diseases that affect the oral mucosa that are not bacterial, viral or fungal in origin and include:

Recurrent aphthous stomatitis
Behcet's syndrome
Psoriasiform lesions
Non-infectious granulomatous diseases
Sarcoidosis

This chapter also includes pathosis due to foreign body or trauma or environmental causes, such as frictional keratosis and submucosal hemorrahage, as well as to various drugs and agents, such as nicotine stomatitis, hairy tongue and angioedema, heavy metal intoxication and graft vs. host disease. The purpose of this article is not to group these together in order to propose they are related -- they are grouped together because they are excluded from known etiological means. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see no reason to change my vote after this discussion. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I too see no reason to change my vote after the above discussion. ► RATEL ◄ 23:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRosenbach, if your textbook dumps things together under the heading of "miscellaneous other stuff", do you really think that Wikipedia needs an article on "miscellaneous other stuff"? This is not a coherent scientific or medical concept. We should not pretend that it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm new on the scene. By convention, that is how it has been done, historically: bacterial, viral, fungal and unknown, the latter by exclusion. Chapter 9 in Neville's Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, 2nd Edition published in 2002 ISBN 0721690033 is entitled Allergic and Immunological Diseases, yet veers into indiopathics almost immediately. It begins with aphthous stomatitis (canker sores), indicating that there may be caused by many things but appears to be "different things in different people." If allergies cause it in one population and infectious agents in another and stress in yet another, it is deemed idiopathic. There is no prodecure for diagnosis -- it is merely a diagnosis of exclusion. Behcet's syndrome is next, and no clea causation has been established. Sarcoidosis is next, and it is of "unknown cause." The next group of diseases mentioned by Neville is orofacial granulomatosis, including Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome and cheilitis granulomatosa are said to be analogous to aphthous stomatitis in that they are idiopathic but appear to represent an abnormal immune reaction. This is followed by Wegener's granulomatosis, of "unknown cause." It is after these 5 diseases -- specifically grouped together by an independant, third-party, highly reputable, medical school-grade oral pathology textbook --- that allergic mucosal reactions to systemic drugs are then introduced. So it appears that there is a category, whether formal or informal, of idiopathic diseases, by exclusion of etiology. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRosenbach, your concerns are already partially address by the Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. ► RATEL ◄ 02:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the same thing -- except that a category only categorizes and doesn't do any explaining. The mere presence of a category doesn't educate the reader as to the concept of classification by exclusion and doesn't inform what has been excluded. It does not indicate anything about the diseases other than their lack of known etiology. Why is there a necessary drive to eliminate this information in the form of an article? Perhaps the article should be boiled down to a mere paragraph to explain what I just stated, followed by a list (not an itemized categorization, with insights and quotes) of those which are currently classified as idiopathic inflammatory diseases. What I'm saying is that the rationale for deletion must be an issue of policy, not one of flippant action against something that mighthave been started by someone who did so for the wrong reasons, but which now can exist on its own merit. It seems that each position I argue against is replaced by another position, until I argue that one down as well -- the moving targets appears to manifest as an idiopathic desire to trash this article. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no reason to change my vote either RogueNinja_talk 03:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Diagnosis of exclusion is clearly a notable topic. That article already exists. (You are welcome to expand it, of course.) Furthermore, several of the diseases in this list do not fall into that category -- Multiple sclerosis, for example.

I further agree that Etiology is clearly a notable topic. That article, too, already exists, and this article is not it.

This article is really Selected inflammatory diseases whose etiology is not widely agreed upon, which is rather different. Fundamentally, you need to explain why a list of certain (inflammatory) diseases of unknown etiology, selected according to a secret scheme by the original author, are notable -- not why the concept of an unknown etiology itself is notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intents of the original author are no longer of any concern -- the issue of there not being enough diseases included is an issue of expansion, not of deletion. As it stands, the article has nothing to do with an OR theory that these specific diseases of idiopathic inflammation are tied together -- the article is merely a collection of all diseases of inflammation that do not possess a known etiology. There is a good chance that expansion is being hindered by the current overwhelming misunderstanding that is eliciting 'delete' voted from all the editors who cannot or will not formulate a rationale for expressing their thoughts -- as though it is a foregone conclusion that this article simply must be deleted. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I also see no reason to change my opinion expressed above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sorry. just too heterogeneous to be a coherent article. Not only are there odd groups of articles, but many of them vary widely in their degree of 'unknownness'. Anyone who knows me knows I ususally keep most things but this amounts to misinformation. sorry. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above reasons —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. The content is relevant, reliably sourced, and encyclopedic, but the intersection of subjects is none of these. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Synthesis. I find the article mildly interesting, but it is not up to us to create new categorizations of diseases that are not used elsewhere. If 'unknown etiology' was a widely-recognized and documented feature of diseases that different textbooks agreed upon, we could certainly make a list or category of such diseases. But from the above discussion I'm not perceiving that such is the case. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this could become a good article some day, but the current one is a mess. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This does seem to be quite promising although OR concerns should be addressed which is regular editing. IMHO, this could easily be refocussed in the lede to show how inflamatory diseases have been considered in the past and show research to illustrate how this has changed. Hard to believe with the mountain of health-related publications available, doctors -love- to write after all, that some encyclopedic approach couldn't be achieved either showing that connections are inconclusive or here are some initial findings. OR flags are all well and good and are blunted with sourcing and better writing. We need more folks with medical training to see if this is workable - also has Immune mediated inflammatory diseases been mentioned? Banjeboi 23:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The delete votes are like a Who's Who listing from WP:MED. All the physicians and other biomedical people who have responded favor deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP does not lead, it follows. Point to just one reputable source that groups diseases in this way before it can be considered non-OR. Secondly, inflammation is a feature, even if subtly, in virtually every disease in the already-existing Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. ► RATEL ◄ 01:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did -- Neville's 2nd Edition Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology (as cited above, if you would take a look) puts all of the diseases affecting the oral cavity with no known etiolgy into one chapter - because that's what idiopathology is -- it's a catch all. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstand me. You are referring to a dental textbook that groups all diseases of unknown etiology affecting a specific part of the body. I was asking you to cite a medical textbook that groups inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology. Since the concept of inflammation is evolving and complex, I do not believe such a listing exists anywhere, which makes this article an attempt at an original synthesis, notwithstanding your apparent approval and championing thereof.► RATEL ◄ 14:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we dial it down a bit please? I made a comment not a decree. I'm not familiar with the "Who's Who listing from WP:MED" not do I claim to be an authority on medical research. Just because no source has been introduced to satisfy concerns doesn't mean they don't exist, just that they aren't here to satisfy concerns raised. And I apologize if you feel I was advocating that we lead in some way, I was observing that citing research in this area can be handled encyclopedicly. Whether someone takes the effort to find sources that deal with this is another issue altogether. Banjeboi 02:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) sorry, I do appreciate the work gone into it..I am trying to think of a good analogy..but I can't. Anyway, the examples are so diverse that any common linkage is misleading. We have diseases of exclusion for which psychosomatic causes have been proposed (IBD), generela terms for non-diseases (gastroenteritis), etc. Inflammation is a very general reaction, and there are more differences than similarities for most of the conditions mentioned. I am trying to clarify so does that make sense? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is beyond me why people are arguing that this article doesn't unify its members well -- that is not its purpose. The article is merely focusing on a symptom and classifying a number of diseases which manifest that symptom. The focus, however, is on diseases that manifest this symptom with no known cause. How can lack of similarity between different diseases be a topic of discussion that disables the merit of this article when it is not asserted that Behcet's is at all tied to Wegener's granulomatosis -- they are merely two of many idiopathic inflammatory diseases. Of course there are more differences that similarities -- the article merely addresses the similarity that they are all idiopathic. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it is too broad and misses the point - yes there is/are inflammatory processes at work, but inflammation is really common, in everything from wound healing, to degenerative, to infective to neoplastic to autoimmune diseases. It is a bit like having a list of all roads made of ashphalt or famous people with two eyes. In this list you have some autoimmune diseases, degenerative, (possibly) psychosomatic, all of which have a lot more not in common than the tenusous and near-ubiquitous inflammatory process. You have discrete syndromes, diagnoses by exclusion, and vague ones like gastroenteritis which are descriptors for symptoms more often than not. Inflammation is certainly not a symptom in many either, but a small part of a larger pathway, and is so nonspecific as to be meaningless, and misleading as it diverts attention away form some of the fascinating research into many of these conditions. Sorry. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the fairly compelling arguments above. It would be redundant to add too much, but what is especially compelling is the notion that this article seeks to combine a broad set of symptoms, factors and diseases into one categorization absent some secondary source doing the same. Protonk (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blissford voice

Contested prod. Utterly unnotable newspaper (that is, if we take the article's own circulaton data). Even the locality it serves is a redlink. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Started with circulation of 1, then worked up to claimed circulation of 30. No evidence it is more than a hobby. Fails notability.Edison (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, although it sounds like the editor is having lots of fun. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable, hobby. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole of the village and surrounding areas? Delete. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Utterly NN, with an apparetn circulation of 30 in a village that has no article (which is now unusual). It makes me wonder if it is not a complete Hoax! Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly non-notable even by my generous standards. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Wizardman 19:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Offensive Song Ever

A song that has not had coverage by a significant reliable source. I can't find any sources that aren't either lyrics or trying to sell you something. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 17:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mr. Hankey's Christmas Classics. Song has no independant notability. PC78 (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Mr. Hankey's Christmas Classics. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Incidentally, it is the name of a song, and not necessarily the most offensive song ever. I think some of us have seen/heard/sung songs that are more offensive. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mr. Hankey's Christmas Classics per nom and PC78: lacks independent notability. Cliff smith ^talk 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niles Harris

I don't think that Purple Heart recipients are inherently notable. Besides that, this guy's only claim is that Big & Rich wrote a song about him. I can't find any sources about him that are unrelated to the song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question- Would a redirect to the song in question be fitting here? Or, if there's no article, possibly to the album? I guess what I'm asking is, is this a likely enough search term to warrant a redirect? Umbralcorax (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The Wikiproject military history guidelines recommendations for notability only grant notability from decorations to a country's highest military honor. RayAYang (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, or Delete, then create redir, to 8th of November. Article will hardly ever stand on it's own; (same) content exist in the song but at a first glance to their edit histories it seems there was no merge. - Nabla (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Hooper

Not notable beyond being the author of one book. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One book - notable only for attracting refutation - does not equal notability. See the recent afd for David Percy. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's co-written a couple other books which received reviews (The Three-Pound Universe [14] and Would the Buddha Wear a Walkman [15]) and has a profile in Gale's Contemporary Authors. Zagalejo^^^ 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Zagalejo shows that other books by her have been reviewed and that it is not just Of moths and men. Additionally the comparison to David Percy is not appropriate; there was apparently no significant coverage of his theories, when this is clearly not the the case for Judith Hooper. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina League rosters

This is a fairly empty article consisting of several templates. Four of the 8 templates are red links. Of the 4 that do exist, there are a total of ~~5 bluelinked players~~ (after I wrote that, I checked the links, 1 is to a redirect, 1 was to an article of another person with that name, and 3 are actually articles on the subjects in the template) and 9 bluelinked coaches. As there is no real content here, this should be deleted. Metros (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article on the league should provide an external link to the league's website where this information could be found. WP is supposed to be about articles, not lists of people's names. Besides that, baseball teams are constantly changing their players and coaches. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. This song may or may not meet the standards of WP:MUSIC, since they aren't specific as to how high a song must rank before it 'charts'. Since the guideline is not specific, we should follow the wishes of the AfD voters, who lean toward Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start All Over

Non-notable song, poorly referenced, didn't chart very well

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A footnote song, but given MC's massive popularity and the video made for it, seems notable to me. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to patent album Insuficient information to has a separated article, not referenced informations and didn't chart very well...It not seems notable to me. Voices4ever 14:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect the song isn't notable CloversMallRat (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#Songs. It charted and it's referenced. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The record did not chart on Mediabase, BDS, or R&R charts, which are the standards for the phrase "charting". --Winger84 (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I direct you to WP:CHART. The Australian ARIA chart is one of the ones mentioned. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the standards set forth by WP:CHART. However, as provided in the article, the record did not even "chart" on that chart, as it is generally accepted in the industry that for a record to officially "chart," it must reach 40 or higher. As provided in the article, this record peaked at 41 on ARIA. --Winger84 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a wikipedia reference for that "must reach 40 or higher" bit, just so I can update my music cheat sheet links on my user page. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 (#68, Billboard - Miley Cyrus artist chart history). Though this may be a low position, the Billboard Hot 100 is a notable chart. Holiday56 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to be an official single and has charted in the US and Australia, hence it is notable. --Lakeyboy (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Tony

Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:MUSIC. There is no source given for the charting of "Keep Jukin'", and I couldn't find one in a Google search. Donald Albury 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete.--Esprit15d • wish me a happy wikiversary! • contribs 21:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind disclosing a reason to why you !voted 'Speedy delete'? Thanks, RyRy (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only claim to fame seems to be his prison sentence and the only link for that is in the blog pages of the St Petersburg Times. Agathoclea (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G7. The author had already requested deletion before this AfD began, actually. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Holmes

Delete nn in-universe biography of fictional character Mayalld (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author has blanked the page. Townlake (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed. Other articles were added to this AfD by another editor without discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sport utility coupe

Contested PROD. Article is original research and has no references. swa q 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD also comprises of Sport utility convertible, sport utility truck, sport utility sedan and sport utility wagon. --Roadstaa (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. This expansion attempt was made well after the initial opinions on the AfD were entered, and is malformatted here. The late attempt to bundle is out of process and inappropriate. Townlake (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some evidence turns up that this term is actually used in the industry. Friday (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources out there - this is Google, this is Google News. Obviously some of the sources are blogs and msg boards, but many aren't. Townlake (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close without prejudice. I'm sure Roadstaa's attempt to bundle was made in good faith, but given that the manner it was pursued makes this AfD confusing, it's probably best to close this and reopen the AfD reflecting a proper bundling. Townlake (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Friday. In any case, if it was used (as the post above suggests it occasionally is), it wouldn't merit anything more than a brief paragraph in Sports Utility Vehicle. -Brilliantine (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems a little strange, to me anyway, to lump all SUVs that happen to have only two doors together in one group. But it seems to be a recognized category in the industry. The article needs some references and some editing however. Borock (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Yes, "Googling" the term brings up many hits, but that does not tell the whole story. Besides counting numerous foreign language sites, those that are in English include articles about new cars from reliable sources that describe the following: ... [b]ut calling it a "sport-utility coupe" would make it an SUC and, obviously for marketing reasons, that simply will not do... (See: Niel, Dan. "EX35, in control" The Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2008, retrieved on August 12, 2008.) In other words, the term may be found, but not as part of an actual reference to an established automobile design type. Moreover, marketers attempt to differentiate their models with a unique descriptor making it is part of their BS (Boastful Superlatives). Thus, encyclopedia entries for promotional terms used by automobile design (such as those used by BMW), have to be tempered! The BMW "X" series of models is an example of pure promotional BS by calling them "SUV/crossover/sport utility coupe". What will be added next: a progressive activity sedan or PAS (See: "BMW Trademark Filings: M10, 555, Progressive Activity Sedan," Left lane News, September 25, retrieved on August 12, 2008.) that will make all the current or "traditional" sports sedans as obsolete, un-progressive, and lethargic? I think automakers should realize that their marketing hype and hyperbole backfires (See: "Marketing: Too Much Hype Backfires" ScienceDaily, March 28, 2007, retrieved on August 12, 2008.) and Wikipedia should not be part of their advertising with new separate articles such as this sport utility coupe. — CZmarlin (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The SUV specification is fairly old, and it consists of different shapes of vehicle body besides a station wagon style. And articles for different types of SUVs are there to tell us that the SUV specification is somewhat vague. --Roadstaa (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alongside, the articles for different SUV types with a certain bodytype increases awareness of the vagueness of the SUV specification. I think of SUV as more of a generic term for a subset of automobiles than a specific type of automobiles which is why we have crossover SUVs and the aforementioned articles about a truck, convertible, sedan and wagon that falls into SUV classification. For instance, the Jeep Wrangler is an SUV which happens to be a convertible and there are plenty more convertibles in the form of an SUV which is why its article was created in the first place. Also, the big three had sport utility coupes such as the Dodge Ramcharger, Ford Bronco, and Chevrolet K5 Blazer; all those names came from names of flagship sports cars of their times in that they came from the Dodge Charger (name), the Ford Mustang (horse) and Pontiac Firebird (fire) respectively; and the words in parenthesis tell the theme of the naming trend of their time. And the fact that names similar to the companies' flagship sports cars of the time were used on modified utility vehicles that were discontinued at about the time the term "sport utility vehicle" was coined may have something to do with how the term was coined. A sports car and a utility vehicle (truck) being used in the same marketing of the big three may have lead to the term coinage; that explains how Wikipedians are underestimating the importance of the article for sport utility coupes. They also had versions in the form of shortbed pickup trucks; which is why sport utility truck was made into an article; also, they had convertible versions so the companies would copy the convertible SUV Jeep made decades ago. --Roadstaa (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sport Utility Truck, delete the others. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 18:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is completely original and includes speculation (see descriptions for S-10 Blazer, Dodge Ramcharger, and this former description of the K5 Blazer which I removed.--Flash176 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --— Typ932^{T | C} 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote, please provide a well-formed reason for your opinion Zun aid ©® 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect or Merge into SUV if appropriate. My reasoning is two-fold: a) NOTABILITY: This is nothing more than a marketing term until such time as a unique vehicle segment "sport utility coupe" is entrenched in the industry. There is no evidence to show that this has become a new vehicle segment rather than just a marketing gimmick to differentiate manufacturers' products from the crowd b) EDITORIALLY: even so, the over-arching article for most vehicles in this segment would be SUV, as these are all variations on the theme. This would fit nicely into a sub-section of the main SUV article, which could have sections on different niches within the broader vehicle segment. As editors we should always look to place the information in the place that gives it the best context, I feel SUV is that context. Zun aid ©® 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:RS Tavix (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but SUT - the term has some currency as a marketing moniker (as if SUV wasn't a marketing moniker anyway). Rest is all 100% OR at its worst - i.e. trying to establish something by giving it a WP article. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close. POINT-y muddying of waters causes problems in dealing with it as one article, not a bundle. ZBundle should be nom'd separately. THis really messes up the AfD. ThuranX (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Master Sgt. Gerald J. Stryzak Award

Delete non-notable award Mayalld (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources included listed dozens of such minor awards. Not much more than 'Employee of the Month'. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable award and lack of legitimate third-party sources; no hits on Google outside of .mil websites. Beemer69 ^chitchat 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franck_Martin

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Franck Martin

fails notability

Weak Keep Martin's activities are verifiable through reliable sources, and dude seems to have accomplished quite a lot in his life. I'm comfortable with his notability, at least his notability in his business sector. That said, there are obvious COI issues at play with this article, and the sources in the article are of varying quality... but solution is to improve, not delete, and no effort to improve has been made for some time. Townlake (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than having worked in an unusual location, he's a sysadmin. I don't think just being a Trustee of the Internet Society does it, and I don't really see anything else notable here. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage needed to show notability. Edison (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison above, does not have the reliable third party sources needed to substantiate this article. JBsupreme (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Townlake, improved references and overall but would I qualify as Internet Pioneer for some Pacific Islands Countries? (ISP, ccTLDs) Franck 12:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.45.184 (talk)
Delete Per Edison. The conflict of interest here doesn't help much either. Cheers, CP 19:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThaiMex

Like Bennie Herron, another article up for AfD, this guy is one of the Taco Shop Poets. The latter's notability is somewhat questionable, but it does seem to be there; the indivudual members, on the other hand, are not, and this is written in the same peacocky style as Bennie Herron's article. That something like this has been around for so long is remarkably sad. Delete as a non-notable individual. JuJube (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googling turned up very little. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bologna sandwhich

~~The result was Procedural close per WP:BOLD as this is now a redirect. Non-Admin close. Brilliantine (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]

The result is speedy deletion as unlikely redirect. Dlohcierekim 16: 34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I hate to give arguments like unencyclopedic, but this clearly is. It definitely doesn't need to belong in an encyclopedia. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Maybe this is a joke?Wikigonish (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - Please note the spelling. Bologna sandwich is an untagged article; Bologna sandwhich is the tagged article (redirect page). --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~::*wut??? Brilliantine (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)~~ Ok, makes sense with the right spelling :P :) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wrong forum you want RFD, not AFD. Either that, or tag the article itself. 68.101.31.157 (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can make out of the history, it was nominated and changed to a redirect within a minute, so the confusion is unsurprising. But I am going to close this as a matter of process. Brilliantine (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged already. Synergy 11:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limbic Rage

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Asenine 14:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not require a page to itself; then add the fact that the band's page is up for deletion as well...Wikigonish (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Amoebic Ensemble, per WP:MUSIC#Albums; "articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have merged article with Amoebic Ensemble and made Limbic Rage redirect to that page --JuPitEer 18:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged already. Synergy 11:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amoebiasis (album)

~~No assertion of notability whatsoever.~~ Asserted, WP:MUSIC says pages with little more than a track listing could be more appropriately merged into the band's main article. This doesn't even have that much. Asenine 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not require a page to itself; then add the fact that the band's page is up for deletion as well...Wikigonish (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Beemer69 ^chitchat 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. I couldn't even find a track listing to give it something to merge back into the main article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have merged article with Amoebic Ensemble and made Amoebiasis (album) redirect to that page --JuPitEer 18:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amoebic Ensemble

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Asenine 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable.Wikigonish (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even with the new refs, I don't think it meets notability standards. The refs include only 2 newspaper articles, and the articles appear to be relatively minor reports on the existence of the group. Nothing notable there.Wikigonish (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • wish me a happy wikiversary! • contribs 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I've added three references and there are more to come. It does not qualify as a speedy candidate. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my mind it is still a non-notable band, so it is a speedy deletion candidate. The albums didn't chart, and the band only has notability in an incredibly small state.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, now I have expanded the article, with six newspaper articles as sources. Not all are entirely about Amoebic Ensemble, but all are non-trivial mentions. The one by Andy Smith was also reprinted in The Buffalo News. There's enough there for WP:N or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - No need for anything to continue now that it satisfies C1. Asenine 22:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – To Wikigonish: It's six separate newspaper articles, all of which are non-trivial references, one of which addresses the subject exclusively, spanning over a decade. To Esprit15d: The newspapers are from Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York, not just a single state. Furthermore, if the subject meets the general notability guideline (a.k.a. WP:MUSIC criterion #1), then there is no need to address the other aspects of WP:MUSIC such as charting albums and so on. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 19:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic

Contested prod. This article was written solely to promote the college - the author openly admits it on the Talk page. Fails WP:SOAP by miles. There's also no evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjsmith (talk • contribs)

Keep. While the sources are patchy, I don't think there's any doubt this college exists; given that we work on the assumption that high schools are notable-unless-proven-otherwise, I'd certainly say the same should apply to higher education colleges. Since when is "conflict of interest" a deletion reason? – iride scent 15:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying COI is a deletion reason. I'm saying that this article was unquestionably written as a soapbox article, which is completely contrary to WP policy. The author admits it. Nor am I saying the college doesn't exist! andy (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Iridescent's cogent comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Iridescent. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody fancy addressing the issue of WP:SOAP? The keep votes are because (a) it exists and (b) higher education colleges are usually notable. But the primary reason for nomination was (c) it smells strongly of soap, which is a WP policy. andy (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll address it... absoloutely right! This is clearly a violation of WP:SOAP. However, I'd prefer to hold off on deletion until the end of the AfD to see if the article gets cleaned up and wikified. It is a notable topic and can be a good article. Yes, the author did start it for advertising--but if the author is a newbie, who cares? Give the author a chance to say "Oh, that's how we do things here" and let other editors jump in to see if it can be saved. But if that doesn't happen by the end of the AFD discussion, then Delete it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very notable institution. I have done a bit of cleanup and citation of the article. - Icewedge (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see danger

Nothing on IMDB, or anywhere else. StaticGull Talk 14:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This might have even qualified for a speedy delete. Don't be afraid to use those tags. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if notability is not verified using reliable sources. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear on Google, nor do the names of those listed as creators of the short. Does not appear to have any notability whatsoever. And what is an ECM Award??Wikigonish (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! (see below) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either a hoax or stunningly non-notable. Nothing outside Wikipedia [16][17]. PC78 (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to notability not being established. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I also suspect possible hoax. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be provided to establish notability and verify the facts stated. Wiw8 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article asserts notability, but with the article totally unsourced, it in no way supports the claim. There is an ECM Record Label. But many different companies at many different locations have many different ECM Awards: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], etc., but none seem to have an award so named that could be given to a horror short film. This all comes back to we don't have any idea what this ECM means. IMHO opinion, this is likely a student film and the filmaker is proud of her award... but even were the award to be proven, there is nothing else anywhere that proves a notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Evb-wiki: WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 22:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see deletion. JBsupreme (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. GlassCobra 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare I

Someone's school project. StaticGull Talk 14:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the everything test. JuJube (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Asenine 14:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable; it didn't even win an ECM Award!Wikigonish (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MOVIE, WP:V, WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xious sonenberg

Geogre's law. Hasn't done anything notable. StaticGull Talk 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per A7 NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure this is a speedy candidate; the article I read did attempt to include references. But those seemed to be to a blog/review site, not obviously a reliable source since they seem to have originated with the subject of the article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can include more references, like some of the TV shows this guy apparently wrote.Wikigonish (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Geogre's law confirmed once more. --Crusio (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Hardly even asserts notability, it's pushing an A7 speedy in my view. No particular evidence that this guy's done anything at all worthy of inclusion. If the film and TV scripts he's written were actually used in notable shows, then he could also be notable - but it doesn't sound like it and I can't find any mention of him in relation to any. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 18:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: fails WP:BIO and lacks reliable sources. Cliff smith ^talk 18:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some additional references to the stub. I'm trying to find more for some of the other details. I don't really know what WP requires to be "noteworthy", but FYI, I read a lot of his stuff on Treocentral, and it isn't a blog site. It *used* to be a very cool on-line magazine, although it went downhill after they downsized their staff. -Raymand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atariusa (talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 04:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wright (radio)

This article is about somebody who has risen to be a radio traffic reporter. I don't see this as being sufficiently notable. Grahame (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable traffic reporter. Article unsupported by referencing, his own website contains three words! WWGB (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The only reference is to the guy's personal website, which says nothing more than: "website coming soon." Definitely non-notable!Wikigonish (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I recommend this CV gets deleted, and the author can repost it on one of the job seeker websites.--Lester 01:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to establish notability in accordance with any appropriate criterion such as WP:BIO. Unsourced information - no references or in-line citations. An article of this kind could be written about every career radio announcer in the world. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep There is a clear consensus for keeping here, given the article's vast improvement. Several sources now exist to assert notability. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Orchards

No evidence of notability for this farm - it's just a large-ish commercial fruit grower like tens of thousands of others and this is just a promotional article. It claims to be the largest apple producer in the state but there's no independent evidence of that, and anyway it's not enough to make it worth an encyclopedia article of its own. Fails WP:N, WP:VER andy (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Doesn't fail WP:V, not sure where the nominator is getting this - article clearly states that the claim is in fact a claim, which is how it is stated in the reference given. Anyways, weak notability gives this my weak keep status - it HAS been covered in significant, third-party sources, but not very heavily and possibly not for notability in its own right. Tan ǀ 39 13:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yes, I am the author of the article. And the article details an agricultural operation that will be celebrating its 200th anniversary next year (which is pretty notable, by any measurement). Passes WP:RS without problem (New York Times coverage, hello?). The claim that this is "just a promotional article" is fairly silly since the article was intentionally written to avoid blatant marketing verbiage. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the NYT coverage wasn't specifically featuring this orchard; it was merely mentioned. I agree the article is not promotional at all, however. Tan ǀ 39 14:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back The Times' article cites Mr. Rogers as the head of the operation and as the president of a state trade association relating to agriculture. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. As applied to your RS statement, you are correct. I am trying to apply it to the WP:N concerns, which I think are the only concerns this article has (and remember, I voted to keep). WP:N states, "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Well, the NYT article doesn't really address this orchard in detail, I think that's clear. It might tag the last sentence of being "more than trivial", though. Let's gather some more opinions :-) Tan ǀ 39 14:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 200 may be notable in farming terms in the USA (I come from England where there are still a few farmers in remote areas using field patterns laid down in the late Iron Age) but this farm is not 200 yet. That's not a quibble - if 199=200 then why not 198, 197 etc? An anniversary is an anniversary. So it's perhaps the largest farm for miles and is not yet 200 - and there's no real evidence of either claim apart from one remark about its size quoted in one newspaper article. Not even the company website claims it's the biggest. There are 110 other fruit growers in the state, and lots of other states where fruit is grown, so I just don't see what's so special about this one that it needs a whole article just to itself. It's worth a paragraph at best.

BTW, "promotional" isn't the same as "blatant spam". The article lists products for sale and has a link to the company website. If the subject of the article is not notable then the article inevitably serves no other purpose, whether intentionally or not. andy (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back I am sorry, but these comments display weak logic and potential bad faith. You cannot write an article about an agricultural concern without citing the crops that are grown - complaining about the inclusion of these facts is odd. All articles relating to a corporate entity have the corporate web site as an external link - pointing that fact out negatively here is odd. The nominator's residency in the UK and the state of British agriculture has no relevancy to this discussion - raising these points is odd. The article is actually a stub that was intentionally kept at stub length because anything longer would look like spam. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pick holes in my arguments by all means but please do not accuse an editor of bad faith unless you mean it and can support it. Anyway, what's "potential" bad faith? You've been watching Minority Report, haven't you? andy (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the notability references are not about the farms. With every one it seems to be "quick, we're doing an article to do with farming and need a soundbite!". From what I can read 2 of the 4 articles seem to be about some kind of farming subsidy; none of them are about the operation itself. Yes, the head of the farm is president of a state trade association, but that would be considered valid in an article about him; it doesn't then lend its notability to everything else the man is associated with. Despite this, I get the gut feeling that this would be a useful and valid article to have, although I appreciate gut feelings aren't considered a valid part of WP:N. Ironho lds 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep continuously operated since 1809. If it were a department store (or any other US business), there'd be no question.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete Appears to marginally fail WP:CORP as the sources do not offer substantial coverage of the business itself. Brilliantine (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Changing to Neutral per extra sources. Still though, by these standards, a ludicrous number of farms around the world could be added. Local press covers a load of things that aren't necessary encyclopedic. Brilliantine (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be an advertisement for the farm. References do not confirm notability to any great at all.Wikigonish (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Though coverage has been sparse, coverage has happened from reliable, third-party sources. The Times article is the weakest of these sources however, as it speaks more to the potential notability of the man interviewed than to the orchard itself. The other sources are local papers, and however large or small they are, the Southington Citizen and the Bristol Press are reliable sources. One issue I have that the reference after the "founded in 1809" claim doesn't support that factoid. In fact, it's simply a link to a photograph of the owners with Gov. Rell, which is a problem, as not even the caption of the photograph supports the assertion. In defense of this article, though, I must say that I find absolutely no support for some of the opposers claims that it is promotional in any way. I've seen promotional articles many times on new page patrol. This just isn't one, in any way. ^S.D.Jameson 16:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, forget the whole promotional thing, alright? Sorry I mentioned it. The reason for the nomination is notability which even the supporters seem to think is a bit tricky. The question is: why does this farm deserve a whole encyclopedia article of its own? Why this farm and not the one next door? andy (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe those farms should be included. I don't necessarily think so; I'm just trying to keep you neutral to the whole thing. This discussion was definitely needed, so don't take our "keep" votes as some sort of invalidation of your work and opinions. I've nominated plenty of articles for deletion and have been shouted down, some rightfully so, some not (IMO). Don't worry about the promotional thing, either. None of this is personal :-) Tan ǀ 39 16:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're on the same wavelength (but maybe different phases). The thing is, in the absence of a more subject-specific decision-making tool, WP policy on notability is pretty clear - multiple, independent, reliable sources. IMHO if there's a hoo-ha in all the major local papers next year about how amazing it is that a farm has reached 200, that's notability. I don't know if it's amazing - it doesn't amaze me - so we should wait until people start shouting about it. Maybe 250 is amazing and 200 is just so-what. Farms tend to last longer than High Street businesses. Anyway, in the meantime it's simply not 200 and there doesn't seem to be any other basis of notability. It's, well, just a fruit farm! andy (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is just a fruit farm! If that is your argument for deletion, may I remind you that WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTCARE is NOT policy? In view of your last statement and your repeatedly shifting arguments (It is promotional...oh, it's not promotional...oh, its age isn't notable...oh, its age can be notable if we wait a year), I respectfully request the withdrawal of this nomination. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with that Tan temper, Eco. It takes a lot of practice to use it effectively ;-) I don't see anything but good faith from this user. He didn't say he didn't like the fruit farm, he's implying that it's not notable enough for inclusion, which is the same argument that all the opposition is boiling down to. I don't think this should be withdrawn; there's clearly some delete opinions. Tan ǀ 39 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eco - I respectfully request that you actually read the comments you are criticising - "WP policy on notability is pretty clear - multiple, independent, reliable sources" is mentioned by Andy above, which is policy. This is what matters. The sourcing is not enough to justify the article. Brilliantine (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As it happens I'm a vegetarian. I like fruit and fruit farms. But nobody has yet convinced me that this one is not run-of-the-mill. andy (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete only covered in one reliable source (the bristol press) (see below). the first reference is not an article and the ny times is just a mention, it is not the subject of the article. wp:rs requires coverage in multiple reliable sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No, WP:N requires multiple sources. WP:RS is a discussion on determining the reliability of any one source. Tan ǀ 39 16:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, sorry, what i actually meant was wp:v, which also requires multiple sources. i deem this as more significant as wp:v is a policy compared with wp:n which is a guideline. thanks for pointing out my mistake though :) Jessi1989 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, WP:V doesn't "require" two sources, it is the policy that dictates that all facts must be sourced, period. WP:N is honestly the guideline you are fishing for. Tan ǀ 39 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wp:v says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources", i read that as requiring more than one source. which this article now has so i've changed my vote. ;) Jessi1989 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has two reliable sources, including the Southington Citizen, just for the record. ^S.D.Jameson 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the southington citizen link seems to be just a photo... i think you need an article covering the subject. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep sorry for the change but multiple reliable sources have now been found. Jessi1989 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct Jessi is correct - as luck would have it, the online copy changed on me and it is just the photo and not the actual article. There is a full article that is in the hard copy, of which I still have a copy (the article that inspired this entry). I updated the reference to cite the hard copy edition of this newspaper (Vol. 5, Number 32, page 1) that has the text relating to Rogers Orchards. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep it's a valid stub with room to grow. I see coverage in more than the Bristol Press here and here and I think it's nearly 200 year history means there's more to be found. TravellingCari 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep The orchards were described as a popular family farm. In the week of August 14, 2006, it was named New England Orchard-of-the-Week. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So presumably there were 51 other top New England orchards that year, and a further 104 since then? Come on, it's an industry promotion not a national award! andy (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, your points were made (and remade, in a couple of cases). Why don't we both just step back and let the other people in the community offer their opinions? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's a debate. We talk. :) andy (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes, open conversation and dialogue is always welcome in AFD. However, see WP:WABBITSEASON for a discussion on "repeated arguments"--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New References Oh, a new references added: "Food Lovers' Guide to Connecticut," by Patricia Brooks, Lester Brooks, Google Books and one from the Hartford Courant. The Southington Citizen referene was also fixed, since the online edition is now photo-only (the hard copy is cited). Ecoleetage (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Article greatly improved since this nomination with a number of new and reliable references. Copyedited by me just recently and ready to go. --Poeticbent talk 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple references from indepependent and reliable sources have substantial coverage of this orchard, satisfying WP:N. Peel away any spam, cut away any bad spots, and there is a tart and aromatic article here right to the core. (You can tell I've been reading about the Paula Red apples they grow). Edison (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Some of the sources' correlation with facts (as said above) seem questionable, but I feel this article passes WP:N. Leonard^(Bloom) 20:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple reliable sources. Wiw8 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The points on the article sources are well-taken, but the rush to delete this stub is a mistake. 98.216.59.172 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep this ones a no brainer as the article is shaped at the moment, it is well referenced and the company is obviously notable, if i bought something from them i'd like to be able to look them up here, let this one sprout who knows it might a featured article someday, more sources and content are the only consequence here.^MY♥_INchile 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting fact. It looks like there's a growing consensus that this fruit farm is notable because it's so big and so old. Well, two minutes on Google produced Lyman Orchards - also a Connecticut fruit farm but four times the size and dating from 1742, nearly three generations older. Somebody should write an article about it... assuming it's notable... andy (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. Your edits here are becoming pointy, and completely unhelpful. If you feel that Orchard deserves an article, write it. Otherwise, mention of it doesn't belong here. ^S.D.Jameson 00:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness Paradox

Seconded PROD contested by author ... totally unsourced, violates WP:NOR. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and very likely speedy delete as an obvious hoax: original research that seems likely to be either the original author's self-promotion or an elaborate joke at somebody's expense:

Consciousness #47 is realized first in Isaac Newton in mid-1600s and then is unsupported in 1726, his death. It is later realized then again in Albert Einstein's baby body, effectively being A.E. and living out his entire life doing the intellectually incredible things he did, before being unsupported by his death in 1955. However, Consciousness #47 being realized right now in a particular Paul O'Brien Hunter, however, said person has seemingly no way of knowing his past experiences.

Who assigns the numbers? Note also that the text includes the name of someone you've never heard of, but who apparently is heir to the minds of both Newton and Einstein. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that the author has recently edited the page of the article Consciousness to add the words that the nature of consciousness "invokes a particular paradox", not long after creating this article. This is "original research" at its worst, with no evidence from any source that anyone has ever recognized a paradox. If the author can quote from a published source that discusses this so-called paradox, I'd be interested in seeing it. I've looked this over a few times, and I'm not sure what the "paradox" would be; arguing over the logic is a moot point, however. Mandsford (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The author of this "theory" has also inserted references to it in other instances, such as in reference to reincarnation in the Afterlife article. Obviously this is self-serving, and has no notability.Wikigonish (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Dlohcierekim 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedi is an encyclopedia. If one wishes to publish a "thought experiment," one should use a webhost. If one wishes to publish one's thoughts on "self-verifiable" truths, one should use a webhost. Dlohcierekim 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, and a fringe theory. Edison (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Swift and harsh delete. If original research were a CSD, this would have been gone long ago. I'd almost venture putting it up for deletion as a hoax or promotion, but I don't think personal metaphysical/psuedo-philosophical screeds qualify quite as either. But neither belongs here. The author's removal of the dated PROD template before its expiration was merely a blatant attempt to delay the inevitable rather than confront the article's shortcomings. - Vianello (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use: Merge or Keep You're at least possibly partially right about the OR claim. This is original research, but I didn't think that was important since it was easily self-verifiable. It wouldn't of taken long to see if this was a valid paradox or not, just a simple thought experimnent. Otherwise, if it wasn't an easily self-verifiable article then sure, it wouldn't have a place on a storage medium for holding valid information. This topic, like other un-conntingent truths about the world, doesn't rely on excess experimentation. If I posted a new math conjecture and articulated it well enough for anyone of requirement-meeting standing to understand, I think that this Wikipedia should welcome it's creation. Logic, Mathematics, and Consciousness among potentially other concepts, is easily self-verifiable. Therefore, I don't think sources should be a requirement for this type of page. So Smart s0 Dumb (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article creator Dlohcierekim 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Just what part of "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought" do you not understand? — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Counter-Comment: I'll take that implicit insult to my intellect as your bipolar disorder acting up and ignore it. I just thought that an exception could be made since this seems like an important concept that I had not fully elaborated on that was easily self-verifiable. I apologize for the inconvenience if this has wasted your time and / or caused you some slight suffering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by So Smart s0 Dumb (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment A new mathematical conjecture would be original research as well. The goal of an encyclopedia is to bring together primary and secondary sources to create a tertiary source. It is out of Wikipedia's scope to publish new primary sources. You can easily get a blog or a website to expand on your own research, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a webhost. --Phirazo (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research according to author, who doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia cannot be the primary source for articles. A ni Mate 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unsourced. it did make me lose the game though... :( Jessi1989 (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. But I'm concerned about the level of sarcasm I'm reading in this AFD debate and I feel a less disrespectful tone would be appropriate.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, and also not notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with added snow as only author shows any signs of objecting. Obvious WP:OR -Hunting dog (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconding WP:SNOW. Um... nothing I can really add to that. - Vianello (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Phirazo (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research that should have been speedied. Edward321 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like it's going to be deleted, although the record of this discussion will be saved. For thee record, the author's statement was that "if the premise that consciousness can and indeed does, 'restart', is assumed... the consciousness one is experiencing now is almost surely not the original one." The premise adds that if one "agrees that consciousness can be 'restarted', the consciousness one is living now could hardly be assumed to be the first one even though all of one's instincts might incline one to think otherwise." The logical response is that if someone believes in reincarnation (such as George S. Patton or Shirley MacLaine), then they tend to have no problem in believing that they had a prior consciousness (or "past life"). If someone doesn't believe in reincarnation, they tend to take for granted that their consciousness is the original one, if they even ponder such things as all. In any event, it takes a certain belief system to make statements like "could hardly be assumed" or "almost surely not". A different type of paradox would be, if you believe in prior consciousness, why didn't any of the estimated 40 billion homo sapiens who have lived and died over the eons make the realization that you've described before 2008? Nevertheless, if it hasn't been published before, this isn't the place to unveil it for the first time. Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay. Mandsford (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. While I don't want to take things too far off topic here, I think the whole thing is most easily shot down by the simple fact that one can conceive of a nearly infinite number of permutations of reincarnative systems in which one could be assured a current life is the first one. This theory seems to argue that is impossible, which is pretty readily disproven. - Vianello (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to complete lack of sources/verifiability. Wiw8 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 100% original research. Reminds me of Doomsday argument, but is rather banal in comparison. GregorB (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Office for Emergency Relief and Refugees

Article is improperly written. No references either, appears to violate NPOV. However, a notable subject, so I suggest deletion and re-write. --Meld shal 13:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not sure what improprieties are claimed to exist in the article. The subject seems fairly obviously notable and potentially referenceable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Though the article needs much more meat and more references to assert notability.Wikigonish (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs enhancing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as there are no sources provided at all. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment this might be a potential source, not sure how reliable it is though... this just seems to be a brief mention of someone affiliated with the office... that's all i can find so i'm sticking with my delete vote for now. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there are problems with style or with content of the article, they could be removed after editing or expansion. The subject is notable enough. The article belongs to List of non-governmental organizations in Thailand.Ans-mo (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment i must say that i'm rather surpised to be the only delete voter here. the wikipedia policy wp:nor (no original research) says ""Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." other wikipedia policies such as wp:v (verifiabilty) and guidelines such as wp:n (notability) effectively say the same thing. regarding the current references, the first (disaster resource network) is not a reliable, published secondary source but rather a list of disaster resources. the second only briefly mentions the coerr, the coerr is not the subject of the article, and even if it was i'm not certain this counts as a reliable, published secondary source either. the third (committee for coordination of services to displaced persons in thailand) only mentions the coerr by name and doesn't say anything about it. unless multiple, published secondary sources can be found this article should not exist. keep voters are making no reference to wikipedia policies, which isn't surprising as no policy supports the current article. you'll need to find some real sources if you want this article kept. sorry :( Jessi1989 (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you insert the name of the article into search engine, there will be a plenty of different sources. Many times COERR is mentioned in pdf documents (for example, of UNICEF - is that reliable?), which are not convenient for providing direct links. One of the references (in the message of Pope John Paul II) I have added to the article.Ans-mo (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what you have added is just a mention of the office, not an article covering it. for wikipedia to have an article about something it must have reliable, published secondary sources. these means that more than one major media organisation must have dedicated an entire story/article to this subject. that's what you need to be looking for. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the article says, in 1986 the Pope chose this Catholic charity to give an International prize to. There are many articles on impressive-sounding charities on Wikipedia that are actually two part time people in a dusty office somewhere. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Barry

Currently a mix of unsourced crystal ballery and minor flirtations with the edge of almost being notable. It's possible that some sourcing will show she is notable; more likely that she is not yet notable - and maybe never will be. Happy to be persuaded either way. Dweller (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

working on sourcing, just not very good with using wikipedia yet, feel free to delete it- i'm merely attempting to become someone who can use wikipedia at present — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greencordial (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Article is a promotion for this unnotable person who is only known by youtube/myspace sites. This search here shows only 6 hits--none from reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The AfD tag was removed for about a day. I've replaced it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: suggests sourcing without the 'elouise'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greencordial (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have added sources found on internet. Well established in Edinborough (the fringe)- Won best nudity performance there five years ago. Online news paper reviews. Rvg2000 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no edits prior. Dlohcierekim 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that 1) Anything on the Edinburgh fringe these days is 99.9% likely to be non-notable as a matter of course, and 2) that given the birth date, it is possible if not likely that this is a different Clare Barry. Brilliantine (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 13:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any coverage found at all in the references is even less than trivial. Some of the sources are worthless in any case. Appears to be ~~WP:VANITY~~WP:COI to me, as I can find no non-trivial coverage. Even I am more notable than this... Brilliantine (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minor actor, yes, but she has references on IMDB, which is good enough for me.Wikigonish (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can get on IMDB. Appearing as an extra or a walk-on in a soap is in no way notable. IMDB is not substantial coverage in any case, and this person fails WP:ENTERTAINER in every way. This seems to possibly be motivated by vanity. Brilliantine (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasoning. Details after I have lunch. Having a reference on IMDB is not notability. Dlohcierekim 15:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB shows non-significant roles. Minor parts do not meet Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER. The "small television roles" are too small to meet notability. Filmography does not list roles meeting notability. TV appearances do not.

Being published is not sufficient to encyclopedic notability. Amazon listing for the book collaboration referenced in the article says, "Gray-Haired Grins & Giggles: Guess What - Grammy & Grandy Have a Sense of Humor, Too! by Susie Abrams, Bet Ancrum, Clare Barry, and Margaret Bates (Paperback - Oct 1995)". This is quite remarkable. If she was born in 1991, she was four when undertaking this endeavor. This is apparently a collection of funny stories from people of, shall we say, significant maturity. "Grins and Giggles" does appear in a wide range of libraries, but even if she managed to contribute at age 4, this would not be enough. Worldcat lists one book by a Clare Barry. It is a dissertation published 12 years before she was born.

Orlando weekly does not show significant role. Youtube is not a verifiable, reliable source. One source is just a Yahoo search page. One source makes no mention of the subject.

A review of Google hits finds a researcher for BBC, a review for a butcher, and a North Carolina Episcopalian deacon. The butcher and the deacon appear to have more significant coverage. Clare Barry +actor does not reveal significant coverage on the web. no helpful google news hits for clare barry +actor or +actress. Dlohcierekim 16:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - It just doesn't quite meet the gut check. I can't imagine that the role of "clerk" was very big. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Of marginal notability, but barely passes WP:BIO. And how come Dlohcierekim didn't ask any of us to join him ;for lunch? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:BIO how exactly, may I enquire? Brilliantine (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC) After doing more research, I fail to see how anyone at all could credibly vote keep. The theatre actress mentioned in the Orlando Weekly is certainly a different person. Brilliantine (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no reliable third-party published sources as required by wp:v. potentially the channel 4 one is but the site is down right now, even so it requires multiple sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The channel 4 one provides nothing useful. I have done my own check on the cast and crew for the made-for-tv film in question and no-one of this name appears. Brilliantine (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing verifiability. It looks to me like there references provided aren't event he same Clare Barry. Born in 1991 and winning best nude performance at the Fringe in 1997? Co-authoring a book at age 4? The IMDB roles show a role of "clerk" which fails WP:ENTERTAINER by a long mile. But the key issue is failing verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article currently lacks reliable sources to verify the facts and establish notibility as per policy. Wiw8 (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep/delete. Keep TV IV, delete the Awards. Wizardman 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The TV IV

Nonnotable website, cites no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also included:

IVy Awards
1st Annual IVy Awards

As above. --Afed (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into TV Tome. I'm looking for RS's, but haven't found any yet. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that per WP:NNC I prefer that if the TV IV article is kept, but the IVy awards are not, that the relevant content be merged back into the TV IV article. Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep main article but delete (or merge) the awards articles. The main site is notable enough the awards aren't at all. Found an independent source here not the most scholarly but it is independent and somewhat expert. For notability a page is referenced here as a main topic of an entry in a major media blog (USA Today), and it is also listed in the link list on Variety's TV blog as one of only a handful of reference sites listed, most of the 40 or so links are major media blogs (link list is halfway down the right sidebar). Definitely don't merge as their is no affiliation so that would just be confusing. The article definitely needs to be expanded which I can do if deletion is decided against. Not going to waste the effort if it's just going to be deleted.--Jamaicam (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 12:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete - I cannot find any good non-trivial sourcing, but this is a difficult search term. Most of the coverage that can be found is non-RS blogging. I am open to revise this if anyone can bring forth some better coverage. Brilliantine (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to WP:HEY-influenced Very Weak Keep per new PBS reference. (Of course, delete the awards) Brilliantine (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on TV IV - was mentioned on Slashdot [28] and per Jamaicam. Delete the awards articles, no indepedent sources to demonstrate notability.--Phirazo (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that the sourcing provided shows that: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", which is the relevant part of WP:WEB. Brilliantine (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already voted above but just adding that I've updated the article including all the sources I've been able to uncover including a couple more not already listed here notably a mention in a definitely non-trivial PBS.org blog entry on wikis in which all the other mentioned wikis either have articles or have since died/merged. [29] --Jamaicam (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the PBS one is a bit better Brilliantine (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Rowse

Nothing about this blogger appears special or notable Grahame (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Darren Rowse is one of the most notable bloggers there is. He has a book published; I'd say that is notable enough for Wikipedia. JamminBen (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to be the subject of coverage in reliable secondary sources (eg. The Melbourne Age, Sydney Morning Herald) which are already noted in the article. Murtoa (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage in reliable sources (major Australian dailies) -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails to establish adequate notability to justify an entry in any encyclopedia, including Wikipedia. It is apparently true that Rowse has co-authored a book, but that alone does not qualify for an entry in Wikipedia. WP:BIO and WP:PROFESSOR show clearly that authoring a book is not sufficient to demonstrate notability in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria. Similarly there is nothing in Wikipedia to suggest starting a blog constitutes notability. The article is written in a style that looks like advertising for the purpose of commercial promotion. The grammar and syntax are not of encyclopedic quality. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Grammar and syntax issues are not valid reasons for deletion. What is at stake is his notability. Certainly, writing a blog in itself doesn't confer notability, but he has clearly attracted attention from many independent sources - six news sources in the last month alone, as well as Forbes, New York Times, The Australian, and at least six times in The Melbourne Age over the past three years. Murtoa (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quite a vast array of news articles about him, interviewed on Australian Channel 10 in May 2008, and what looks like significant commentary on him in 3 books. Appears easily notable enough for a quality, referenced article - Peripitus (Talk) 12:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as an apparently non-notable song. --jonny-m t 14:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Lovers/I Feel Love

A promotional, radio-only CD release in a small portion of the world, of what is little more than an album track, is not worthy of it's own article, even if it is by Madonna Paul75 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It seems to have gotten a lot of attention. Ilike.com BBC SoundIndex review and loads and loads of video and lyrics sites. Of course I'm not an expert on what makes notability in this area. --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Two of the websites mentioned above refer to the Future Lovers song, not the mash-up live track this article is concerned with Paul75 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it was released as a promotional single, has a music video and was used on the Confessions Tour in both the show and CD/DVD release. This makes it a worthy article. JWAD (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 12:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. All the ref's provided prove the song exists, none show why it is notable. Propose delete over redirect as the article name is a non-plausible search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-off characters from The Mighty Boosh

A listing of highly non-notable 'one-off' characters. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really no EV. --Meld shal 12:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. a list of non-notable characters...Wikigonish (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The title says it all, really. Asenine 15:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel book

Article is a 'How To' guide, and Wikipedia is not a 'How To' Guide. Also no assertion of notability, refs etc. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE (and because it's a probable copyvio). Deor (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously a how-to guide. Move to how to wiki or something like that. --Meld shal 12:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, WP is not a manual. WWGB (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without malice per WP:NOTGUIDE. As a fan of such things, I've downloaded the article for my own personal use. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How-to manual.Wikigonish (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this how-to guide; possible transwiki to wikiHow, as per Meldshal. Cliff smith ^talk 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTGUIDE is da plaec 2 bee Asenine 15:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a how-to guide which fails WP:NOTGUIDE. JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Circus

This band fails WP:MUSIC, only one album is claimed. Also note a WP:COI: The author, User:Jplanet777, claims to be the copyright holder of a publicity photo supplied by the band. The article survived a WP:PROD in February. B. Wolterding (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not really worth keeping. None of the members have links, fails WP:MUSIC. Also, no references for citation. --Meld shal 12:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as no one has given a reason to delete; I withdraw. Synergy 11:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Sized

Procedural nomination from MfD. I opt out, so no !vote. Synergy 11:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Initial contributor has been blocked indef for sockpuppetry; this matters very little, yet I'd like mention that an attempt to notify was tried. Synergy 13:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- nowhere in that MFD discussion are any valid grounds for deletion cited. There are only grounds for editing. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think a TV movie should be notable enough. The article gives too much of the plot away however, that should be changed. Borock (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- apears to have sourced citations to render it notable -- 62.25.109.196 (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Film with an IMDB page and some genuine working actors. I don't see the problem at all. bd2412 T 18:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep. I originally nominated this for deletion, apparently in the wrong place. If nobody has seen it or can clean it up, I would change to Strong Delete.mitchsurp (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 04:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parralox

Was deleted via WP:PROD a few days ago but has popped back up. The original concern was that Parralox are not yet notable and there is nothing in the current iteration of the article to suggest that this has changed. Ergo Parralox fails WP:BAND. nancy ^talk 11:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, recently deleted, no inline citations. --Meld shal 12:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fall short of WP:MUSIC. For what it's worth, so does related article The Tenth Stage. Murtoa (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Google News archives, Parralox helps Patsy cheat the signs of aging!. Nothing about the band, though, either there or in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Delete unless someone can find some sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.Gazi moff 11:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antony meola

Non-notable band manager, fails WP:BIO, and WP:RS. Asenine 11:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Author is apparently subject, not notable and no references. --Meld shal 12:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO, and WP:RS. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability per WP:BIO, lacks WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: fails WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:V; COI issue as well. Cliff smith ^talk 16:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted: Patent nonsense; hoax (therefore vandalism), take your pick or make something else up. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hippy trap

Contested prod. Fails WP:MADEUP. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Fails WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO. Asenine 11:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:MADEUP and passes WP:BOLLOCKS! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete nonsense. Could've just been prodded with {{db-nonsense}}. --Meld shal 12:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article was PRODded but had the template removed by 71.95.234.54. Interestingly both the author (User:Slinkerbell) and the IP editor have only edited this article. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {{db-nonsense}} applies to "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include... implausible theories, or hoaxes" so I don't think this article qualifies. Not that I'm contesting its deletion, of course. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep. There are valid arguments for both keeping and deleting the article (not to mention several editors who expressed a desire for a redirect), but I see no clear consensus in favor of deletion. However, anyone who wishes to propose a redirect or merge can certainly do so through the standard editing process. --jonny-m t 08:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S. R. Sidarth

WP:BIO1E concerns: The person in question is only notable for having been called a racial slur by an American politician. Hasn't actually done anything that would pass Wikipedia's notability standards. Alternatively, the article could be redirected to Virginia United States Senate election, 2006#Allen's Macaca controversy, which covers the issue in more detail.

Keep as nomination is incorrect.

Whether or not someone's done something notable isn't a criterion for deletion. (Compare, for example, Jade Goody, a woman who's never done anything notable in her whole life and yet is clearly notable.)

WP:BIO says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The article demonstrates S. R. Sidarth passes this test. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not seriously comparing Jade Goody to Mr. Sidarth, are you? She appeared on one of the United Kingdom's most popular television shows as a star! She's released a number of her own DVDs, and her name is on the tip of the tongue of almost every Brit who pays attention to popular culture. That's what makes her notable. I nominated Mr. Sidarth's biography for deletion because the person himself wasn't the subject of published secondary-source material. The politician who made the racial slur is the person who received the intense media attention, not Mr. Sidarth.

S Marshall, please do a quick review of WP:BIO1E, which is pretty clear in stating that a person known for a single event should be covered in a Wikipedia article about the event, and not generally in a separate biography article. Warren -talk- 12:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How right you are. Redirect with a self-inflicted WP:TROUT for S Marshall. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Very nice layout here. i like how everyone got along for once. Like i will ever see that again. :) --Meld shal 12:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would normally say he isn't notable for being called a racial slur, but he is notable for the following:

S. R. Sidarth was named person of the year for 2006 by online magazine Salon.com recognizing the way he "changed history with a camcorder."
He was profiled for Time's 2006 Person of the Year, "You," the controversial mirror-like cover which reflected the reader's own visage.

Which the article lists so I believe that shows notability. ScienceApe (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC) i think it should stay its intersting ands its informational —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.70.140 (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Salon articles and other reputable sources showing that he is notable as himself, and not just as an aspect of the event. (He is notable because of the event, but also beyond the event, per "Person of the Year" citations.) Minute Lake (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dart golf

This seems a non-notable variation of darts; or actually several non-notable variations of that name seem to exist independently. What I found on Google was:

a variant using dart arrows, attributed to O’Callaghan and Lee [30],
an electronic variant described in a patent [31], attributed to Martin et al., and somebody who offers this game [32],
a game played with actual golf balls, briefly mentioned (1 1/2 paragraphs and a photo) in a local newspaper from Germany [33].

However, in none of these cases I think that we have substantial coverage by independent sources, so that an article would be warranted. PROD was contested without comment. B. Wolterding (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if properly sourced to Darts#Other darts games and variants. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - i agreee with jedilofty. --Meld shal 12:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, it is largely composed of original research and I don't think merging would solve the situation. If the article can be cleaned-up however, I will support a merge.Tavix (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missalina Rei

Notability in question since May '07, fails WP:V as well. Wizardman 14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether Key Party counts as a sufficiently important indie label for them to unambiguously pass WP:MUSIC C5, but the lead singer clearly makes them pass C6. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Which of his other bands are notable? --Amalthea^Talk 15:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Delete - Text is written in list form, needs to be converted to prose. I don't see any notability for this band, either. --Meld shal 12:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They have entries in numerous music databases, but as far as I can tell they lack significant coverage, and don't pass the WP:MUSIC criteria. --Amalthea^Talk 15:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (nomination withdrawn) Wizardman 01:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Reformed Federation of America

Notability in question since May '07, fails WP:V as well. Wizardman 14:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. I tried to search for sources to improve this and came up virtually empty. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've relisted this so someone can evaluate PhilKnight's above assertion. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Philknight. Just needs a thorough touch up. --Meld shal 12:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would appear to be an improvable article on a religious denomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because even the page itself looks legit to me. Doesn't 'chartered by congress' vouch for anything anymore? ;) Stijndon (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not appear to be in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice work on User:PhilKnight's part. I stand corrected. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:PhilKnight --T-rex 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collarity

This page seems to merely mention that this company exists and provides links to pages that the company provides services for. Looks like Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Stijndon (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one of the links has what I would consider to be decent coverage in terms of notability standards - one gives a mention that it exists, and the other has nothing to do with the company even in the slightest. Even with that one good reference, that can hardly be classified as significant... Addionne (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added an additional reference with more direct focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robrustad (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe reference links are now more in line with notability standards.--Saramontrio (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I get to vote, too. The page is so empty! Stijndon (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequate coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added company history.--Robrustad (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added high-level product summary and company infobox.--Robrustad (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Being mentioned in an article in Information Week gives a slight claim to notability. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - Per Jedilofty, and this article needs inline citations. --Meld shal 12:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should Wikipedia list every company in the world? This one does not justify notability beyond that which any normal company might have. Certainly not worthy of an article, and the one that is presently up looks like a short advert for the company itself.Wikigonish (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has sufficient references, and it is for a company/product which has high public visibility - search engines. I think this is of general interest and notability. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added inline citations, additional references, and new technology focus section to better explain notability.--Robrustad (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WSJ mention is pretty trivial, but the other coverage sufficiently establishes notability. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rakta dhatu

Looks like an Indian name for blood tissue. The appropriate place for this information would be here. StaticGull Talk 12:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits clarify that it is a different topic then the MODERN and WESTERN concept of Blood disorders. Bhikshu_Nagarjuna

--Bhikshu Nagarjuna (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit to make it comprehensible to the Western reader, but keep as verifiable and probably notable. JFW | T@lk 05:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JFW. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. This is an original research thesis that constantly addresses an argument with the reader. Unintelligible, unencyclopedic drivel about how ancient obscure sanskrit texts refer to blood and blood disorders differently than modern medicine. No value or notability. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable unverified sub-aspect of a particular traditional medical practice. Truth or otherwise isn't the point - it's just not important. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per JFK, and article needs inline citations. --Meld shal 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable part of this belief system. See link and link. Article needs to be purged of any OR, but the subject itself is notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the first source you list, the sentence is merely a simple explanation of what blood is (as if explaining it to a very young child) which substitutes Indian words for heart, blood, and artieries/ veins. The second source merely describes high blood pressure, and uses this Indian word for blood with a perenthetical "(blood tissue)" after it. These sources by no means establish importance of rhaktu dhatu as a separate entity from blood itself, and the second actually helps make the point that this is really just "blood" in another language. Surely you would not advocate separate articles for everything in every known language? That's what separate language wiki's are for. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AlexTiefling RogueNinja_talk 22:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bennie Herron

Article chock full of peacock terms, but person is not notable. Google News finds a few articles about a Northridge football defensive back who is not this Bennie Herron. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N This article has been on Wikipedia for 2 years without any reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable, unreferenced article that reads like a vanity piece. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, violates NPOV guidelines. No references. --Meld shal 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disgusting vanity. JuJube (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Easy one. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: WP:NOTE, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 15:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huddersfield and District Association Football League 2006–07

Excessive level of detail for a local league which sits only at levels 14 to 17 of the English football league system. Also nominating Huddersfield and District Association Football League 2007–08 ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Non-notable league that is undeserving of individual season articles. – Pee Jay 07:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 12:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, and absolutely not notable. --Meld shal 12:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As creator. I don't know what the article hurts. I'd be willing to remove the tags on the talk pages so that aren't part of the Wikiprojects. Calebrw (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks notability. Even the creator in the discussion here is unable to provide any assistance in showing notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massena Silver and Black Raiders

written like essay without references to sources. If enough notable, it needs to be totally rewritten. Beagel (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable "semi-pro" team (how can a team be semi-pro?). The article has no references, and in need of a complete re-write, as well. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, and completely unreferenced. --Meld shal 12:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a rats nest of interrelated articles, and the same criticisms apply to many of them. The consensus to delete is very strong, and so I'm being bold, and applying the deletion rationale here to a number of articles in the NLP universe. At a first pass, these include: Strategy (NLP), Research on NLP, As-if, Persuasion uses of NLP, Neurological levels, Neurosemantics, and Well-formed outcome. I chose these articles because they are subject to the same problems raised by the commenters below: overly vague, poor or no citations, duplicative of material in the main article, and promotional in nature. Nothing in this close should be construed to indicate that the articles that weren't deleted should be kept: I'm simply being conservative and allowing some of the articles that are slightly better cited to continue on for a short while. Separate AfDs on those articles would be perfectly appropriate. Nandesuka (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming

NLP Modeling

Per Wikipedia:DEL#Reasons_for_deletion, in particular

It is advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject). The article is highly promotional (NLP is full of self-promotional terms). Please note the distinction between 'promotion', which is advertising and shouldn't be in Wikipedia, and a valid article about a scientific concept.
The article is entirely content-free. Note the phrase is "[NLP] says that know-how can be separated from the person, documented and transferred experientially, and that the ability to perform the skills can be transferred subject to the modelers own limits, which can change, and improves with practice". This is of course gibberish. You cannot 'perform a skill'. Either the NLP technique of copying a skill actually transfers the skill or ability, or it transfers the ability to copy the actions of skilled people. The first is impossible, the second is useless.
The article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms and original theories and conclusions. * The article tries underpins the pseudoscientific basis of NLP by appealing to valid scientific notions like 'model'. In NLP, modelling someone's behaviour is simply copying the behaviour of a skilled person in the attempt to transfer those skills. Thus NLP is peddled as a miraculous method that can turn you into something you are not.
The article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. There is absolutely no need for such a huge section on NLP modeling. The effect of this subpage is to turn the article in to a “how to”.

Peter Damian (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the closing admin for the very recent Afd, I am happy for this Afd to be left open for at least a day, despite my Afd closure notice which I still think is the right approach. I do think this Afd is too early and slightly inappropriate, but Peter has selected this as the most appropriate for deletion out of the previous bundle, we may as well evaluate it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't understand. The previous AfD was for the main article (NLP). This one is entirely separate, and is for the subarticles. There was some agreement on the previous one that articles like this should be eliminated. Perhaps you misread the title? Peter Damian (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dont be silly. Or should I say, "Perhaps you didnt read the AFD closure I wrote on the last AFD".
    You did nominate NLP Modeling in the AFD, which was less than 24 hours ago, and I clearly said that this matter should be taken to a central talk page, and the right solution found via discussion. I left the door open to future renominations once that had been done, but here we are again. As you have only nominated a single page this time, I have let everyone here know that I'm happy to ignore the fact that you have just said "up yours" to me/Wikipedia/The Man/whatever, and gone against what I consider to be the right solution. The approach you have taken this time is A.OK with me. I merely wish you had initiated this AFD yesterday - we live and learn.
    On the last AFD there was no concensus to do anything - a few people did opine as you suggest, very early, probably without having reviewed all of the pages concerned, and their input was probably solicited via Wikipedia Review, for good or ill. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You said "you have just said "up yours" to me/Wikipedia/The Man/whatever". He has done no such thing. Look at the discussion at Wikipedia Review and on my talk page. He asked for and received lots of advice. He followed that advice. By doing this. Your advice was not the only advice. Don't take it personal. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NOTGUIDE and by failing WP:N as a separate topic from Neuro-linguistic programming. Modeling is one aspect of that topic and is easily covered in a section of the NLP article. The spin-off page has no unique content or references and tends towards a how-to guide. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just group's original theory. Artene50 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with Jack-A-Roe there is a need for consolidation on this topic in general, some hard editing, more objectivity and fewer unsupported claims. This is one of the weaker spin offs and should go. --Snowded TALK 06:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article was just at an AFD which closed speedily and it is too soon for a renomination. Further, this AFD seems to be tainted by canvassing - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism#NLP: deletion discussion. The nomination attempts to attack the article on numerous grounds but these all seem to be spurious in that the article has sources, content and does not seem to be blatant advertising or have an instructional style. It seems that any defects can be corrected by normal editing per our editing policy and that this should be considered first per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notifying a single WikiProject can hardly be called canvassing. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not just that WikiProject that's been canvassed. I came in this morning to a message on my talk page pointing me here. I also think that this is precipitate. I also feel that at least some of the criteria suggested for deletion in the proposal are transparently false. The article is not advertising (although it could do with copyediting to make it more objective); it is not content-free (trivially true - the comments from the nominator amount to style criticisms, not a demonstration of absence of content); we could probably use moure sources, but sources are not lacking (and the misuse of scientific terms is neither here nor there; to suggest that orthodox, 'legitimate' science has an exclusive right to common words like 'model' is obvious POV pushing; the only criterion I regard as valid is the last one - is this really a sufficiently notable aspect of the fringe practice that is NLP that it deserves its own article? The nominator, who styles himself a logician, ought perhaps to review the way in which he has gone about reviewing the NLP articles. That, and also re-read WP:SPIDER. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a refined AFD, so I think it is very reasonable that Peter Damian notified a bunch of people who participated in the last AFD and the subsequent discussion at User talk:Peter Damian#Psychobabble. In addition, I notified the three projects that I quickly found in the discussion at User talk:Jayvdb#NLP : WikiProject NLP concepts and methods‎, WikiProject Psychology and WikiProject Rational Skepticism. I then notified the original contributor M.C. ArZeCh‎ (talk · contribs) who isnt very active, and all of the contributors to this article who have made significant edits, as they have an interest in the topic, and maybe also an interest in improving the article: FT2, JamesMLane, Action potential, DCDuring, PatrickMerlevede. Both Peter and I are trying to ensure we have a more productive AFD this time, and so have notified groups that can make it happen. As far as I can tell, both Peter and myself have both notified people from both sides of the debate. If the debate here doesnt lead to an obvious conclusion, the closing admin (which wont be me) will need to put a lot of thought into how these notifications affected the outcome. My apologies in advance for making their job difficult. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The previous close was procedural and without prejudice due to the difficulty of evaluating a large group of articles of varying quality in a single nomination. Thatcher 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was personally notified on my talk page about the re-nomination. I was not encouraged to participate in either side of the issue. Personally, I think it's okay to notify potentially interested parties about an AFD discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Snowded. This fails WP:N and has no significance outside of the wider topic of NLP. Reminds me of game guides and other fancrufty material that spawns an article for each minor aspect of a topic. We're here to provide an overview, not a detailed in-depth explanation of every minor topic within NLP. The article itself doesn't actually seem to say much, the majority of it seems to be a quote and a list. Hardly surprising I guess as there are no reliable sources to provide any extra information, which in itself tells me the article shouldn't exist. naerii 09:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article describes, in a pseudoscientific way, a method for apparently observing person A's behaviour and abilities, and copying them to person B. The article's use of scientific language such as model, combined with a liberal sprinkling of words that will be attractive to almost everyone, is snake oil of the worst kind. For example, the learner works on minimizing preconceptions with access to the master ... and engages in unconscious micro-muscle modeling so as to accurately reproduce the desired skill. This is patent nonsense, totally unsupported by any evidence, scientific study, or even an example. Poltair (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, and frankly unreadable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, summarising anything in the rare event that anything genuinely is useful rather than verbose, and not already mentioned, in the main NLP article. Interestingly, the NLP article is not too long so they can't say all these articles are here to stop the main articles' length being excessive. I seem to sadly know a bit about the subject lol, and 'modelling' is an important part of NLP but 'within NLP'. The concept in part already existed, they didn't invent it, it's called a role model, they just expanded upon it and added spiritual beliefs about skill being 'contagious' to it. Sticky Parkin 12:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary and poorly supported by independent evidence. The NLP walled garden needs pruning, and this branch is rotten to the core, so let's start here. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree these articles need ripping out and rewriting. They never really recovered from HeadleyDown, and I was uninclined to be part of the repair work on that topic at the time. Nonetheless the issue of whether NLP modelling is notable or not, and whether it has significant mention in reliable sources, seems well documented. The one-sided nature of HeadleyDown's POV warred viewpoint that started back in 2005 seems also well attested. You've said "poorly supported" but I'm not sure from the above, if you checked for actual cites (part documented at /Evidence). They're there, and there are a lot of them, and they're mostly non-trivial sources. (Can't guarantee 100% but I've tried to only include good quality sources). Can you review?

"POV issues" are not usually a good reason for deletion. That said, I wouldn't argue with a "delete - unfixable other than by a complete rewrite" view. My concern would be the historic POV nature of editing in the topic, which seems influenced by HeadleyDown by proxy, and an NLP proponent or two, in equal measure. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Review. I would like to, but I'm not sure I have the time or competence. NLP deserves some kind of article, but the exact content, as well as the question of how many sub-topics and forks it deserves, is complex. Ideally, such decisions would be made by editors with knowledge of the topic but no axes to grind (from either point of view). I don't know of such a person, and I doubt I can become such a person in a reasonable time frame and taking my other obligations into account. Thatcher 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there are no editors with academic background is that they have all been banned. See my comments on Flavius below. I do know Flavius' real life identity but whether he could be persuaded back after his disgraceful treatment is a good question. Peter Damian (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Accounts operated by HeadleyDown were blocked. Third parties likely to have been recruited by him or editing in conjunction with him, or with evidenced ties to him, were prevented from editing on the topic by other administrators (not myself). That was the extent of administrative action. This was after a year's POV warring, dispute resolution, arbitration, numerous chances, arbcom mentoring, and a large number of blocks (none by myself), finally leading to a site ban for the entire Hong Kong sock ring. I was not an administrator at the time of these, evidencing they were the decisions of multiple others. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what does FT2 mean by 'never recovered from Headley Down'? Peter Damian (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main article Neuro-linguistic programming seems sufficient without spewing sub articles all over the encyclopedia about less than notable subtopics. Edison (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm tempted to move the majority of this to the talk page, for the convenience of the next 4 days' worth of commentors who will have no idea what is going on beyond the fact that they are being asked to evaluate a single article. I looked at Gestalt therapy as a model, being a subject that is more notable and has more scientific backing. It has one main article with no forks describing special terminology or world views, etc. I think the best ultimate outcome here is a single article on Neuro-linguistic_programming that fairly describes the concepts and criticisms. Picking off the sub-articles one at a time is one possible strategy but probably not the best. If someone could write a decent article we could simply redirect all the forks back to the main article. NLP does have some academic credence (although not a great deal); if it originated as an academic theory and moved into the realm of pop-psych self-help, it should be fairly easy to establish both its credentials and its criticisms. Thatcher 19:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Various accusations of bad faith etc have been moved to the talk page for those that have the inclination to read it. naerii 19:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good call. relevant to the AFD, but on balanxce probably right. In which case:

Comment Evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources includes as follows (taken from /Evidence):

The nominator presented the following grounds for deletion:

"It is advertising or other spam" - Not supported by the evidence. None of the following sample cites are "advertizing or other spam"
"Entirely content free" - I'm not sure what this means. Clarification?
"The article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" - see below. It seems "possible" and indeed actual, within the context of what is considered a "reliable source" in most topics outside hard science/medicine (ie the "coverage" is not simply limited to just peer reviewed research).

It turns out that the specific topic ("NLP's modeling methodology") is widely cited across a wide range of reputable fields and sources. Specifically, NLP modelling approaches seem to be very widely referenced by independent reliable sources. I found fairly quickly and with little effort, a wide range of independent reliable sources that specifically mention or focus upon NLP's modeling methodology. (I stopped looking after page 1 of 6):

From PubMed (full papers not read, these need re-checking as I've relied upon abstracts):

PubMed NLP communication model - Lachler J. 1991 Feb;84(2):74-6. German. PMID 2005751
PubMed NLP communication model, an introduction - Schneeberger S, Rohr E. 1991 Feb;84(2):70-3. German. PMID 2005750
PubMed The art, science, and techniques of reframing in psychiatric mental health nursing - Pusut DJ, published in "Issues in mental health nursing" 1991 Jan-Mar;12(1):9-18. PMID 1988384 ("Reframing is a powerful psychotherapeutic intervention... Fundamental assumptions of the NLP model are discussed")
PubMed Neuro linguistic programming: an aid to management - Boas P, Aust Health Review, a publication of the Australian Hospital Association, 1983 Aug;6(3):38-40. PMID 10263094

From Google, a range of sources apparently published outside the "NLP world" with significant reference and/or coverage of NLP modelling:

The SAGE Handbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy p.333 [34]
Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, 7th International Conference Proceedings, 2007, p. 533 onwards [35]
Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning p.442 onwards [36]
Trends in Learning Research, preface ix and the entirety of Chapter 5 (of 7 chapters), eg p. 106 onwards. [37] [38]
The Art of the Question: A Guide to Short-Term Question-Centered Therapy p.31 (per google books snapshot image) [39]
Modelling and Simulation Methodology (thumbnail snapshots) [40]
Psychotherapy and Mental Handicap p.211 [41]
Medical Aspects of Disability p.301 [42]
Designing Authenticity Into Language Learning Materials p.8-9 [43]

Other:

Szalay et al (1993) Rediscovering free associations for use in psychotherapy American Psychological Association (APA) psychnet. Published in Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training. Special Issue: Psychotherapy for the addictions. Vol 30(2), Sum 1993, pp. 344-356 doi:10.1037/0033-3204.30.2.344 (evidence of cite)
What Makes a Good Educator? The Relevance of Meta Programmes Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, v29 n5 p515-533 Oct 2004. Covers the model from NLP known as "meta programs". Site operated by Education Resources Information Center, part of the U.S. Department of Education [44]
A Review of Alternative Approaches to the Treatment of Post Traumatic Sequelae, Traumatology journal, Volume VI, Issue 4, Article 2 (December, 2000). Discusses NLP modelling within the context of the VK/D model, and concludes "The available evidence suggests TIR, the TRI Method, and V/KD are effective treatments for posttraumatic sequelae." [45]

See also Reflections on Active Ingredients in Efficient Treatments of PTSD, Part 1 at The International Electronic Journal of Innovations in the Study of the Traumatization Process and Methods for Reducing or Eliminating Related Human Suffering, covering the same work ("V/K D is a Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) technique. NLP is a method of modeling...") [46]

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association New Researchers/Student Conference - "NLP modelling in the classroom: students modelling the good practice of other students" [47]

I stopped at this point. This much on a quick search suggests that NLP modeling is a topic that has significant coverage and interest by multiple independent sources, of a reasonable quality and credibility, outside its own field. As for the quality of the article, that may well need attention. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier (my comments seem to have been deleted) you cannot reference promotional material with other promotional material. Has anyone actually looked at the self-help books your Google search returns? They are self-help books. I don't regard these as reliable sources. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Point of order: Your comments were moved to the talk page of this page by an uninvolved admin. Thatcher 21:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Respectfully, I think it's safe to say that "self-help books" can be a reliable source. Perhaps not an academic one, but certainly How to Win Friends and Influence People could indeed have reliable contents. Certainly any editor may hold an opinion on any given source as reliable or not reliable. Let me ask: if these sources are indeed not reliable (and I'm not saying that they are), why are they not reliable? Just saying "I don't regard them as reliable" isnt' going to cut it--we need details, please.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-help books and so on represent what someone talking about a perspective on life/a belief system believes. As such, they may be a reliable source for what that person/movement believes or a related movement, but not as near to evidence-based thinking as a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The same as if a book on reiki says "reiki has been known to cure people of ADHD for life in three minutes" (to quote a sort-of NLP-style invented example) that's not necessarily objective fact without proof from third party or uninvolved peer-reviewed scientific sources. It's just evidence of what the subculture itself believes. As to FT2's mentions, none of them of course are independent of the main topic of NLP itself, of which this article should be a part. However I will say that as someone with a passing knowledge of the subject, this is a part of it that I knew of in more depth than some of the others in the prior group AfD which I suspect are far less notable. Sticky Parkin 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison of PD's characterization, and the actual titles and sources, shows a marked discrepancy.

It is hard to understand the logic in classifying 1/ an encyclopedia of language teaching, 2/ a reference book on counselling and psychotherapy, 3/ an international engineering and ergonomics conference proceeding, 4/ a summary of research in learning, and 5/ a medical guide to disability, as all being "self help books", much less Paul McDonald's point. That's the google ones. The other sample coverage includes coverage published in 6/ the APA's own journal "Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training", 7/ a paper published in an established peer-reviewed journal [48] and indexed by the Department of Education's systems, and 8/ a further paper in the probably reputable journal 'Traumatology'.

The characterization of all these as "self help books" and so on, seems at the least to be lacking evidence. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? I folllowed this Google that FT2 provided and up pops a list of the usual garishly-coloured hysterically written books that I was talking about. E.g., here "So important is the skill of modelling that it has been said that NLP is modelling". The usual breathless claims of a book that is selling 'modelling' as a way to make your business run better and make more money (mostly for the charlatans who practice this nonsense). FT2, could you also confirm that you have no COI here? I believe you claimed once that you had studied in California with these gurus and you have a Master Practitioner certificate? No problem with that but can you confirm you have no current business involvement in this? Peter Damian (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] Also can you do a bit of research and clarify which of the other 'sources' you cite are authorative. The one you mention here, sampled randomly from your selection is "The International Electronic Journal of Innovations in the Study of the Traumatization Process and Methods for Reducing or Eliminating Related Human Suffering". What is this? It looks like self-published material. And the guy who wrote it 'Fred Gallo PhD' appears to be this person. Peter Damian (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a third party webpage, commenting on a cited source. It's not a source in itself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Guy, Snowden, Naerii's arguments. The sub pages seem less than notable, and concerns about independence of the sources as detailed by others. rootology (T) 02:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what exactly leads you to feel the subject matter is not documented in multiple, independent, reliable sources? See above - discussion in a wide range of encyclopedias, APA and other reputable peer reviewed journals, and multi-discipline discussion in reputable sources unconnected with "NLP" is good evidence of meeting WP:N.

See WP:JNN - "Concerns about independence of sources" needs some kind of reasoning, not just assertion against evidence. If the article is so badly written that delete and rewrite is needed then that's reasonable (see above). But merely "delete because badly written" is not an AFD norm (WP:PROBLEM). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think delete for borderline notability as mentioned above, and also cognizant of Guy's long-proven claim that lots of people use Wikipedia to hawk all sorts of fringe pseudoscience games, conspiracy theories, and all sorts of other non-notable mischief. In more detail, for NLP Modeling specifically there are only three listed sources.[49] Plus a forum link, which is inherently not RS, and that forum appears offline as well.[50] There is a link to this page which is claimed to be NLP modeling inspired, but that page never even contains the text "NLP" so that appears to be an irrelevant external link, plus calling it NLP inspired appears to be possible OR. Jacobson, S, and his sidjacobson.com domain which is the "South Central Institute of Neuro-Linguistic Programming", is not an independent source. That leaves the first source[51], which just appears to refer to NLP modeling, but we don't have access to that book to verify, and it seems to be only used to trivially identify it in passing in the header. That leaves one source plus a bunch of guide-sounding information on what appears to be a fringe pseudoscientific discipline that doesn't have mainstream scientific acceptance, or else there would be a lot more sources from reputable mainstream science, psychology, etc. other sources to document it. It sort of looks like the article is a bit of puffery too, given that there are unsourced claims about uses name dropping Jesus, Sherlock Holmes, and Einstein. Overall, I'm satisfied with calling for a delete based on all of this. It just seems completely borderline. At best a stub (maybe, based on if community consensus decides to go that way after five days), not a detailed guide on one aspect of what based on the present article appears semi-notable discipline of likely fringe science. I hope that cleared it up, and I think thats where I'll stand based on the present article as of today. rootology (T) 04:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately all these are irrelevant, because the citations you discuss are those currently used in the article which we both agree is poorly written and badly cited. AFD is a process used to determine if a topic is notable and encyclopedic. The main test for that is whether there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If it's badly written, we rewrite. You're in effect using cites from the existing poor article, which has been POV warred by poor quality editing, as evidence the article does not have bona fide reliable sources elsewhere. Effectively your comment doesn't speak to notability at all; it only speaks to the point already agreed - that its existing style and citations are poor quality and need improving. That's not an argument for deletion by any AFD norm. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is unfortunatley flawed and totally backwards, FT2, sorry, and totally irrelevant as you are ascribing incorrectly in your reply to me what deletion policy is--I don't think you're going to save this article by trying to reverse the requirements of deletion as this argument appears to be trying to do. Sorry. You need to add sources to fix the article. Independent sources, and not just argue for their existence or that the article should be re-written. ;) The article flat out based on present sourcing does suck and from lack of acceptable sourcing is not notable. Non-notable subjects in articles, under AFD, are deleted, and the responsibility of evidence if there is a lack of sourcing is on the folks who want to Keep to demonstrate the notability of the subject with evidence and hard facts, not implied to be found in the future evidence and rewriting of the article--AGF is policy, buyt AGF does not extend to sourcing, the lack thereof, or the future availability of sourcing. If we delete the article for one week, and then you find sourcing, Wikipedia and the world will not suffer for that. We will delete it, and you can take it through the deletion review process at WP:DRV afterwards like any other user has to, in this unfortunate circumstances, after getting sources to demonstrate it's notability. Sorry... and please, don't try to reverse analyze what I wrote to change the meaning of what I wrote. I flat out said we have a single source that I trust. That's not notable. I can't put it any simpler. I also tore down the other sources, yes, but that leaves one source: not notable. Not notable = delete, and you can take it through DRV after finding sources to prove notability. Perhaps time would be better spent finding independent sources now before the close of the AFD by an uninvolved admin, rather than spending time writing improbable defenses and restatements of what others wrote. In all the time you've been replying here at length and with great verbosity, the last edit to the article was the AFD nom itself. You could have added great sourcing in that time if it existed and posted a simple, "Heres 10 sources..." note here to terminate the AFD.

The previous edit warring over content ownership between yourself and HeadlyWhomever that was blocked as a result of contesting you is irrelevant for the purposes of this AFD or any future one on articles of this subject, and is just colorful background information and historical flavor. If a history of edit warring, flagrant ownership, and POV pushing were valid factors in AFD to discount possible deletions of articles, we'd never be able to delete any contested articles, like anything to do with Daniel Brandt or Israel. When we run an AFD, we look at the article today, based on available sources, facts, and knowledge of the notability of the subject as they stand today. Today, I see one source of worth by my standards, so I call non-notable on the subject. So, contrary to your assertation above that my arguement didn't touch on notability at all, it did. Your job if you want to keep this article before the AFD closes is to go in and add independent sourcing to it to prove the notability. Failing that, the closing admin per the consensus on this page today would have to be a simple Delete and Close. rootology (T) 12:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headley's actions are irrelevant here, except that that's partly why the article is in the mess it is. I haven't enough interest in the topic to rewrite it, but I have worked on a large number of AFDs, and the main criteria is whether the topic is notable, not whether the article as it stands is well written:

Deletion policy - "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion... is preferable to deletion)... Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources... Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed [...] If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion [...]" (emphasis noted)
WP:AFD - "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion [...] If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." (emphasis in original)
Deletion guidelines for administrators - "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact ... are frequently discounted. For instance ... [i]f an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant."
WP:ATA - "Badly written: This kind of comment is based on the basis of the quality of the current article which may be poorly written, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject [...] In the Wiki model, an article that is poor now can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. In other words, the remedy for a messy article is cleanup under the Manual of Style, not deletion."

I'm not an expert, and this article needs one. That said nobody else is doing anything, and sources seem to exist, some from within the field, some outside it, and of differing standards, as normal for many subjects. Some descriptions will be from within the field, some from outside. Plus a lot of cites were dug up back in 2005-06 during the vandalism and POV warring that's dogged it. I'd be prepared to give it a brief amount of time to get rid of the worst of the OR/HOWTO aspect, but no promises, and I'd value others helping as well. I don't know what sources would be available and I wasn't planning to do more here than check and evidence that the usual AFD criteria are visibly met, with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. But it's doable, the sources clearly exist for it. Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?

Unfortunately, just one, again, and even simpler language... Add multiple independent non-trivial sources to the article to prove it's notability, or hope that a lot of non-canvassed folks show up to say "Keep" in 4 days... If the article is so important to you, perhaps cutting back on your other wiki-commitments for a day or so is advisable. Your endorsement alone is not sufficient to save it, because it doesn't trump consensus. No one user, you included, has any power to do that. :(

Also, when I keep saying that I don't feel it's a notable sub-subject based on the independent sourcing available today, why do you keep going back to article quality? I just happened to slam that as well, in addition to saying I think it's a fail for notability. Please, FT2, before replying again--go add some truly independent sources that explicitly talk about "NLP modeling" and I'll be happy to change my vote. rootology (T) 13:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1/ Canvassing wouldn't be okay in any case. 2/ It's not so much "important" or not (marginal subject, involvement ages ago), more my attention got drawn to it on my talk page, and the direction this debate's taken isn't really following deletion norms, which would center on discussing actual evidence of notability (via discussion of reliable sources) and encyclopedic quality. Either way we basically agree that good sources need adding, and inappropriate content needs removing. My belief is that this article could be well written based on sources, and I've dug up a fair range of credible, reliable, sources to evidence that writing an encyclopedic article is possible. My concern about editing it myself is that some users indicate a personal agenda, or a belief in a conspiracy that's got a personal element, so it would probably be better if someone else does the necessary remedial work, to avoid that issue spreading. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, what makes you think articles like this, constitute a reliable source? The guy who wrote it may have got published in a proper peer-reviewed journal (though actually I suspect it is no such thing), but he is the same as this person. Pure bunk. Peter Damian (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The journals referenced include the APA's own journal, and another which seems to be a highly regarded journal by a well known academic house that is peer reviewed and names its editorial panel online. The other sources - encyclopedia mentions, professional manuals from other fields, and the like, also evidence multiple significant coverage in independent reliable sources.

The journal you name also looks to be genuine but not indexed. For example, it has a dedicated editorial board that it publicly lists online [52], its website describes a formal editorial process, it is run by someone who seems to be recognized in the field and has a number of highly cited articles in other indexed journals [go to PubMed and search for Author: Figley CR]. Taken together, publications like these are "reliable sources". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, doesn't deserve unique article. Read the article three times. First time thought it was a spoof. Still think its dodgy IMMHO. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rewrite it, but I have stopped most content work due to other wiki-commitments. This would be a major topic to take up. But AFD is quick enough to comment at. The main test for deletion is WP:NOT, and the degree of coverage and mentions of the topic in reliable sources. As a topic, this easily meets site criteria, community policies, and AFD norms for "keep and cleanup", evidenced above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and use the salvageable bits in the Neuro-linguistic programming. Mostly poorly referenced, represents junk science as facts. Better to have a good paragraph in the main article than a subarticle filled with junk Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, new-age snake oil promotion. Having a separate article on this amounts to giving undue weight to fringe science. Bishonen | talk 09:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

- Comment I agree with delete, but "new-age snake-oil promotion" is not a reason to delete... it could be notable new-age snake-oil promotion... --Paul McDonald (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to comment: No, you misunderstand me. If the article was merely about new-age snake-oil promotion, you would have a point. My delete reason is that the article is new-age snake-oil promotion. See? Perfectly good reason. Bishonen | talk 12:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    - Ahhhh... so it is because the article itself is a promotion, how-to, or potential advertising!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's it. Do I get indefinitely blocked now?[53] Bishonen | talk 15:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

If the existing article is a valid topic with coverage in reliable sources, but currently it's written in a way that is basically incapable of being fixed, and needs ripping out and rewriting, then "delete and rewrite" would be appropriate. The line between that and plain "cleanup" is grey and not really an issue, same end result. As a norm we don't delete if there is good evidence of appropriate reliable sources, and cleanup and fixing problems would do the job. My main contention would be related to notability, not current quality. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Sidebar and to quote Terry Pratcett in respect of his taking even snake-oil salesmen seriously in respect of this early onset Alzheimer "I've never seen a rusty snake"

Delete - I've read all the arguments here and the one's for delete seem to me more convincing than the others. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to merge--this is just an attempt to create an additional article on the same topic. I too would have started elsewhere, but this is one of the unjustifiable articles among them. No individual specific content. All the references are general. Not even enough to support a wiktionary entry for the term. Some of the additional citations given will do very well to support an article on NLP, but not this one. It in addition is promotional in purpose, but if there were content worth an article, it could be rewritten--but I do not see that there is. DGG (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Talk about WP:UNDUE! It has its own daughter boxes, guides, templates, and then has language as thick as a whale omlette. Its lead sentence could mean anything at all, and then half of the article, as it exists currently (counting non-graphical elements as "article") is a quote. Not only does one not get an idea of what NLP is supposed to be, but one in fact comes to the conclusion that it could be anything from semiotics to gestalt. I'm sure it has ardent adherents, and I suppose some of them are Wikipedians, but there is no objective description of it so much as a believer's reiteration of holy mantras from it. To the degree that it is a division of a division of neurological theory, it can be described in full elsewhere. To split and then to lovingly overflow with words is to both distort and to maintain what is, in effect, a POV article. That is a violation of the deletion guideline. Geogre (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break 1

Keep. What is painful about this is that it seems to be the continuation of a grudge match between some folks, including the nominator, and FT2. They don't like FT2, so they make poor arguments (or no arguments, see "snake oil" above) for deletion and ignore rational arguments for keeping the article. I can't say I understand why FT2 hasn't decided to actually improve the article with the list of sources he's found, because that would certainly change the math on this AfD. Poor strategy on his part that will most likely lead to this article being deleted. Its a shame that personal antipathy between editors, developed on meta issues, has been taken into the realm of content.

Looking at the potential sources listed above - academic papers, published in various places and available through PubMed, are described along with an encyclopedia as "self help books." Inexplicably, otherwise intelligent editors follow along without checking to see if that description makes sense. Sticky Parkin seems to take it on faith that Peter Damian is accurate describing these pieces as promotional and self help, when it doesn't appear that this is at all the case. Rootology's difficultly phrased argument appears to boil down to "When I ignore all the sources but one, there is only one left! One source = delete!" along with repeated references to notability. It bears pointing out that notability is a guideline, not a policy, and if an encyclopedia article can be reasonably written and sourced on a subject of limited notability (see article 2.5M Am_(digraph)) it should stay.

We don't delete articles that need improvement but can be improved, we improve them. Any editors commenting here should understand that Peter Damian has a long history of attacking and harassing FT2, for which he has been blocked multiple times (including again, today, indefinitely by MBisanz). Avruch^T 15:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors commenting here should in that case also understand that Avruch has a long history of creating drama[54] around anybody who has the temerity to criticise FT2's actions.[55] Bishonen | talk 15:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Come on, you can do better than that. Avruch^T 15:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Defending persecuted editors is the best use for my temerity. Peter Damian has been unblocked per WP:AN consensus, by the way. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Now that I'm less likely to be bothered by Peter Damian for not agreeing with him in a way he finds acceptable, I'm going to say we may as well Delete and merge the key elements of this article back into the main NLP page. I'm not sure NLP needs only one page, but Peter did not choose too badly in making this a target for deletion. But my word, the 'holy war' mentality on both sides! AlexTiefling (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please, FT2, could you reply to Peter Damian's question above: "FT2, could you also confirm that you have no COI here? I believe you claimed once that you had studied in California with these gurus and you have a Master Practitioner certificate? .. can you confirm you have no current business involvement in this? "[56] Apologies if you already have confirmed somewhere above that you have no COI. I'm having a bit of trouble taking in the whole of this long and complicated page. Bishonen | talk 15:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 replied to this on his talk page. naerii 16:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete load of old bollox. No one researching anything is going to understand a word of it, or want to. Get rid. Giano (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, must agree with Bishonen, Geogre and others here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weight of argument certainly drives at deletion. Hiding T 16:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Gruff

This artist fails WP:MUSIC. From what I can gather, the DJ had some sort of a dustup with the Italian-language Wikipedia, but no reliable third party publications have taken note of that incident or anything else about this person. JBsupreme (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is quite a bit of coverage of this guy. Check Google News,[57] most of it is in Italian but from what I can under stand most/all of it is about him. Also, Checking the history of the Italain Wikipedias article shows that it has been edited 100 times by around 15 different users, I admit this is not very strong but it does show that Italians are interested in him. Also, he meets WP:MUSIC criterion #5. - Icewedge (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tending towards keep on this one.Eisenhowerdd (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC) — Eisenhowerdd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darshan Singh Batra

I can find a handful of google hits that indicate this person exists, but that's all. Making important business decisions and giving to charity do not confer notability. Reyk _YO! 05:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources fail to support notability. lk (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep: I withdraw my nomination. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Gåsland

Non notable politician. Google returns the one mention only. WP:BLP1E probably applies. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My google search yielded more than the one result.[58] Some of these hits appear to be reliable sources (many of them are in Norwegian, so I'm not quite sure). Furthermore, I'm not sure that WP:BLP1E applies here. The guy is a politician who was the chairman of the Youth of the Christian People's Party, and was pressured to resign due to his sexual orientation. That looks like three separate and legitimate claims to notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nominator's rationale is simply not true. I slapped some more RS'es on it. Punkmorten (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per consensus below, CSD G11, and WP:SNOW. -- The Anome (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness

The article reads like an ad, and still has no sources to support its claims. Furthermore, it was created by the book's editor (COI). Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 05:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like an advert, and no third-party references have been provided to assert notability. Speedy delete per CSD G11. -- The Anome (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G11 -- fails WP:BK; no reliable sources cited; search engines don't seem to turn up anything notable. I note the WP:COI concern but that's not in itself grounds for deletion. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Brilliantine (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement – in fact, it reads very like the publisher's description. But allow a new article to be written based on any independent sources that may be available, such as academic reviews. EALacey (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was an apparent redirect to José Nepomuceno. I'll leave the history visible to allow for the merging of additional content or the recreation of the article once suitable sources are gathered. --jonny-m t 04:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa Acuna

I've been wavering on this one for a while... that "She was a famous leading lady in Filipino silent films" would be enough to keep. I have not, however, been able to locate any evidence that she meets this claim per WP:N in that there are not enough reliable sources to write a fair and balanced article on her. Recently, it was tagged for speedy deletion, which was [59], which I more or less agree with, since there is at least a claim to fame. I went to PROD it, and I noticed in the deletion log that it has been deleted three times - twice on a speedy, once on a PROD - so it is no longer eligible to be prodded again. So I have brought it to AfD to get a final say on whether this article should stay or go. Obviously I do believe at the moment that it should be deleted for the reasons above (I'm not just frivolously nominating something to see how the community would react), but I am open to having my mind changed on this article, particularly as there is a potential for a language/resource barrier (I only have access to the Internet and American library systems). As it stands, however, it does not appear to meet the WP:N standard (non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third party sources Cheers, CP 04:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's this, on p.64, shows she starred in Un (El) Capullo Marchito (A Wilted Rosebud) (1920), (consistent with Tagalog article except for date) referring to Manila Nueva, 17 April, 1920. I added this to the article. Surely there are more RS's on her in ancient newspaper archives. John Z (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep in mind that sources relating to the Philippines are notoriously difficult to find online; just because you can't Google it means that it doesn't exist, or it isn't notable enough. (This has caused many a great problem for some Filipino Wikipedians.) Even the Philippine newspapers don't know how to properly archive their own website's online articles >:( The best places to go would be the National Library and the National Archives of the Philippines, museums such as the Lopez Museum and Filipiniana Heritage Library (which has good collections of old, old Filipiniana such as newspaper clips...maybe I can check this out if and when I'm free) and probably the big libraries of major universities such as UP Diliman, University of Santo Tomas and Ateneo de Manila University. Thanks --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I am aware of that, hence my comment that "I am open to having my mind changed on this article, particularly as there is a potential for a language/resource barrier". Proof of notability, however, rests on the individual who adds the material, not theoretical sources – if we kept every article that could have sources, we'd never delete anything, no matter how non-notable. Cheers, CP 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to José Nepomuceno as he's the one who made her famous in the first place. I think that's the best compromise the I could think of. I already merge some text to the main article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response A bit strange, but I wouldn't object to that. Cheers, CP 06:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nor would I.John Z (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 16:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of creationist museums

This is a list of many red links, which seems to be just a list of external links to unnotable fringe "museums." For example, one that does have press mentions and is not a red link is Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land. The "museum" is a few kiddie rides behind Hovind's home and received press for the owner's refusal to purchase a $50.00 permit.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not conform to Wikipedia:Lists. There is no criteria for the list, it is poorly sourced- we don't know whats notable or someone's home, the list has no encyclopedic value, etc. We66er (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too many dubious red linksAnnette46 (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but remove red links --T-rex 04:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a dinosaur, this editor is obviously biased. --NE2 12:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there's just too much nonsense/unverifiable here to sort through; a better list would start over with independent sources and verifying existing museums before adding that redlinked mess.Ravenmasterq (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY -Hunting dog (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove red links. The list is a useful resource for those interested in creationist ideas. Compare with List of science museums in the United States, which incidentally also has a lot of red links. Plazak (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you keep the list and remove the red links. You'll have a "list of five" with only one not being a redirect to a fringe person or organization. Also its not fair to compare this list to real science. Real science museums, like the National Museum of Natural History, have notable discoveries and are major draws. All but one creationists "museums" don't and are not notable interms of press, exhibits, and historical significance. We66er (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comparing creationism with science, I'm comparing lists of museums. As far as being "fringe," that depends on the fringe of what; on the fringe of science, yes, but very much in the mainstream of popular belief. As far as being "major draws" or "notable," I've only been in a couple of creationist museums, but they both seemed to be pretty well attended, much better attended, in fact, than a number of science museums I've visited. We should be careful never to delete an article just because we disagree with the views expressed by its subject. Plazak (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very confused. I wrote: If we remove the red links, you'll have a list of 5 "museums" in which four are redirects. Hardly a need to keep such a list. Additionally I wrote, they are "not notable in terms of press, exhibits, and historical significance." Now, you claim otherwise. Let's see proof of it. As of now, some of these are operated at people's homes. What is the criteria for the list? We66er (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends upon what he meant by "remove red links". You are assuming that he meant 'remove the red-linked list members completely.' He may have simply meant 'remove the red-linking from the list members, but leave them in place.' Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. It says: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value. Seriously, most of the millions of museums in the world probably has some aspect of creationist material whether they know it or not. Its simply too broad and isn't necessary. Tavix (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "creationist museum" is too general, how can "art museum" or "science museum" be any less general? Or would you entirely eliminate all lists of museums? Plazak (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The inclusion criteria seem straight forward, it's not an unreasonable grouping, and there aren't either so many of these in the world that the list would be unmanageable, nor so few that it would be unnecessary (so it's not too general or too broad in scope). These things tend to get sufficient news coverage. I picked the first red link (Big Valley Creation Science Museum) and ran a quick Google, finding several non-trivial articles from notable sources: CTV.ca RoadsideAmerica Reuters That meets Wikipedia:Notability. I strongly suspect the others should at least be given a similar chance, one at a time. Meanwhile the list is certainly appropriate. --GRuban (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, the Seberia "museum" was deleted for not being notable (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Natural Studies) and yet it is on the list. Shouldn't the list's contents sourced? There are absolutely no WP:RS supporting this list. Without references this is a collection of WP:FRINGE groups that demonstrate no relevance.

By the way, according to your source for the Big Valley Creation Science Museum: it is "in the village Big Valley, Alberta, population 308." and "The Big Valley museum has been more low key, with a few stories in local newspapers discussing the facility."[60] An article about a fringe museum in a town of less than 400 people which has "a few stories in local newspapers." For "Big Valley Creation Science Museum" I get 1,040 google hits, including promotion on video websites and forums. This is very marginal stuff, according to your source. We66er (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, Reuters is "my source", I own it. I also own The Associated Press which also wrote a fairly long article about this museum, and both are "local newspapers". You've found me out. And the notability of a museum is directly affected by the size of the town it happens to be in, you got me there as well. Vatican Museums are in a city with a population of 800, I'll go off and nominate that article for deletion too. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your source" refers to a source you provided. Nice red herring. Also I note you ignored my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Natural Studies, which is on the list. So are you going to go through the list to demonstrate notablity? Silly comparison: Vatican City - its own country, home of a major world religion for 1500 years. Big Valley, Alberta hardly compares to that history. But if these museums are notable then will you create articles about them? We66er (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ignored your comments about the deletion of a single item on the list, since it's irrelevant. The fact that an entry in the list may be worthy of deletion is hardly an argument for deletion of the whole list, any more than justified deletion of a sentence in an article is not an argument for deletion of the whole article. I noticed you started this whole AfD sith a similar premise, that's irrelevant too. To justify deletion of the whole list, you need to show that the whole list needs to go, not just some of it. Will I create some articles about some notable members of the list? What is this, a personal challenge now? I'm not normally into the creation/evolution debate, but, sure, why not. Will you return the favor some day, and create some articles I ask you to? ("Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me...") --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, per request, I created Big Valley Creation Science Museum and Creation Evidence Museum - not FA quality, but clearly sufficient. Good references, free images and everything. It took a couple of hours, but shows it can be done. You owe me. :-) I also linked an LA Times article that basically lists creation museums, showing that the topic "List of creationist museums" is notable in itself. --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. You called Carl Baugh, "Dr." Carl Baugh who searches for living pterodactyls. You really are reaching. Baugh got a "doctorate" from an unaccredited "college" he runs. Anyway, you can't prove a negative: I can't prove things are unnotable. The onus is on the one wanting to keep the article via asserting importance. Even "Dr" Baugh would agree with that. We66er (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove excessive redlinking of non-article list-members. WP:STAND does not require all members of a list to be notable, so the large number of non-article members is not relevant. Five list members are notable enough to have their own article (as are a further two museum operators). This combined with a clearly-defined inclusion criteria would appear to make the topic notable. The list additionally is informative as to the geographic distribution of these museums and thus of creationism. Self-reporting would appear to be sufficient of a source for bare existence of these museums (per WP:SELFPUB). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cited WP:STAND, but I don't see the relevant policy in that article. There is a section on development and it discusses notablity on people in lists. If you are arguing this list is created for development, merely existing, ie having a website, doesn't seem to be convincing for development. If you are arguing we should relate it to people then notablity must be a factor as well. We66er (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination, my opinion was based upon a misreading of WP:STAND#Lead and selection criteria (I failed to note the "one" in "one exception" meant "sole exception"), so I've striken this opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G1 - patent nonsense) by User:Mikeblas Nonadmin close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steffon peters

Unverifiable. Likely hoax. Evb-wiki (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this load of bollocks. "Steffon Peters (born July 15, 1988)is a child actor who starred in such films as Bambi, The Return of Bambi, and Bambi III: Bambi kills Buzz Lightyear." I rest my case. Cliff smith ^talk 03:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant hoax. A possible CSD G3 candidate. Nsk92 (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. If I tried, I'm sure I could make a similar article about myself. And the Buzz Lightyear thing clearly gives it away. Lastly, being born in '88, it would be fairly hard to star in Bambi. The latest release of Bambi, ironically, is July 15, 1988. Calor (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Obvious hoaxWikigonish (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt - I toyed with a {{db-nonsense}} tag. Anyway, it might be snowing. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late Bloomer

Unreferenced film which does nothing to prove its notability. There are no reliable and verifiable sources to be found. Tavix (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Much of the current content is a copy of the info on this YouTube page. Cliff smith ^talk 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article is perilously thin, using THIS search parameter, there are actually a great number of sources available: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], etc. This film most definitely is notable. The article simply needs lots of work.
- signed for above: Schmidt,' ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Based on several reviews as found here [69]. That shows both New York Times and the New York Post, along with several other reliable – creditable – third party sources establishes enough coverage to be viewed as Notability by Wikipedia standards. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in actuality there's probably a decent little article possible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources provided above show that this film is plenty notable. Cleanup is the answer, not deletion. PC78 (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. The references have been included, thanks for your help in making that happen. Tavix (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete criterion G11: Blatant advertising and self promotion, conflict of interest in writing the article --Alasdair 06:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorillathrill

I could claim my pet calico cat is as internationally recognized as this, and provide exactly as much substantiation of such. Vianello (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: creator has a COI, as evident from the article's history. Cliff smith ^talk 01:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Such has been noted in the article's article issues template. Thank you for noting this. - Vianello (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not as notable as the creator believes it is, as evidenced by his need to randomly boldface stuff in this article. JuJube (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails G11. Blatant advertising made by creator of the show, as indicated on talk page. Paragon ¹²³²¹ 02:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT. Cliff smith ^talk 02:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT, possible G11, definitely not-notable. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as to WP:ADVERT as noted above and due to notability concerns; it's hard to verify outside notability of things, but in this case, the advertising of self evident tips it over the line. Ravenmasterq (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice. I've gone ahead and nominated this page for speedy deletion under g11 and other issues. - Vianello (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Schmitz

Fails WP:Athlete NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to qualify, as having played in "a fully professional league" (Index_of_Professional_Sports_teams_in_the_United_States_and_Canada#Arena_Football_League). The link verifies that claim. Why does it say semi-pro in the article? JJL (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, but that's rather weird. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A semi-pro athlete who's claim to fame is that he met Michael Jordan? Totally non-notable. Wikigonish (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Since this article is here, I've removed the prod tag on it. It should be noted, however, that (as stated in the prod rationale) someone claiming to be Brian Schmitz has requested the article's deletion at WP:Editor assistance. Deor (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The status of the Arena Football League as fully professional or semi-professional seems unclear to me. The website of the league itself does not address this issue. I did find a USA Today interview with one of the players, Remy Hamilton, where this issue is addressed[70]. The exchange there is rather interesting. Here is a full quote:"Q: The image when Arena football started was that these were part-time guys doing this on the side. Now have you seen it evolve into a fully professional league? A: Absolutely. A lot of guys have second jobs. Only a couple of guys on each team can do this year-round — a quarterback, maybe a high-paid OS (offensive specialist) or a lineman. They do odd jobs in the summer to get by. The talent has definitely gone up over the years, and so have the salaries. They do house us during the season, so we have no bills, which is huge. So you get your salary, and then you don't have any bills." Despite his "Absolutely" response, the substance of the answer appears to indicate that the league is actually semi-professional. Nsk92 (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could use more references (as most AfD articles do), but he had a long career in a professional league. The AFL is definitely a professional league. The players all get paid (something, at least), the league has been around for quite a while, and has had their TV contract for a long time. Dayewalker (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is correct, but is AFL a "fully professional league", as required by WP:ATHLETE? It does not seem so, since from the interview cited above, it is clear that whatever the athletes are paid there is not enough to make a living and most of them have second jobs because of this. As I understand it, that is exactly what "semi-professional" means. We do have an article Semi-professional where the key definition reads thus: "A semi-professional athlete is one who is paid to play and thus is not an amateur, but for whom sport is not a full-time occupation, generally because the level of pay is too low to make a reasonable living based solely upon that source, thus making the athlete not a full professional athlete." That seems to describe AFL players rather well. Nsk92 (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't deny that the man may be notable, but the article shouldn't be welcomed back before all facts are thoroughly sourced. As someone above put it, his "claim to fame is that he met Michael Jordan". Even that claim, and the one about their continuing friendship, isn't sourced. This is BLP, folks, the standards are set high for a reason. --Hordaland (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Complete wild thought but since I found another sports related Brian Schmitz while googling - are we certain that the Brian Schmitz that requested deletion is the Brian Schmitz that the article is about and not maybe another Brian Schmitz who thinks the article is about/should be about them :-?. I found and added a couple more references to the article anyway. Mfield (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have removed all the stuff with BLP issues and the OR tag that went with that, and found a few references that support the statistics and his playing for the New York Giants. I suspect this is all enough to prevent the article being deleted for anything other than notability now, something which I am not knowledgeable enough in the subject to judge. Mfield (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete marginally notable, to the point where we seem to be having trouble verifying who the guy is. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be deleted until such time as we have some non-trivial secondary sources about him. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A retired semi-professional athlete, does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Nsk92 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switchback (Celldweller song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Switchback"

Nomination for speedy was deleted by article creator--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Also, someone needs to fix the title. The quotes are making it bold, not linking it to the article. Undeath (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--Sorry, now fixed. Klayton is indisputably notable; the question I want to consider is whether this individual track merits a separate article.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The page has now been moved, and I will tag its former location {{db-redirtypo}} shortly, as I did with four more articles created by the same user. (And yes, he got a CSD notification for every one of them after he failed to heed two messages about these quotes.) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article creator cannot remove speedy tags from his/her own pages. JuJube (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. True, but the article was not eligible for speedy under the criterion cited. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We66er (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Asenine 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as a result of the sources found. Wizardman 14:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Brown (criminal)

Aside from having a career tthat spanned several yaers, there seems to be nothing notable about this criminal. In fact the crimes described in the article appear to be extremely mundane. A ni Mate 01:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is really no need to include articles for every small-time criminal there ever was. This one is completely non-notable.Wikigonish (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteabsolutely not notable.Is this how 2.5M is achieved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette46 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What next? Litterbugs and jaywalkers? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. There seem to be a few uses of her as an example of an "incorrigible" criminal, but not as a notable one (other than to various urban police departments). --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see how this is notable, unless sources can be found that are primarily devoted to her. -- The Anome (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and close per WP:SNOW - this is utterly un-notable, as far as I can see. Brilliantine (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Change to neutral till I have time to look properly at new sources. Brilliantine (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Having looked at new sources, I would suggest they convey verifiability but not notability. I would say this falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Brilliantine (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I cannot offer a sensible vote as i do not have access to all of the sources now mentioned. Brilliantine (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources still do nothing to assert her notability, other than discussing her still rather petty crimes. A ni Mate 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and speedy close - I'm shivering! Asenine 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the article, it seems that her criminal career was mentioned in several independent, published sources, which suggests that she is notable and the report of her career verifiable. Nor is she notable only in connection with a single incident: she was a notorious thief for more than fifty years. Notability by our standards does not fade with the passage of time; if she was mentioned in several books in the 1920s she's still notable now. I don't see any policy this article fails. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete - I don't have copies of any of the references in the article but many books contain biographical information about non-notable people - often so the reader gets a feel for what it was like to be an "ordinary" person. Jll (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Enough references found in enough books to convince me that she is notable! Jll (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis of Tlön -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 18:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow, what a woman! Seriously, the article passes WP:RS and WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added 2 refs from 1884 New York Times articles, One gives substantial coverage to her 50 year career as a criminal. The reported book citations are harder to track down, but unless they are mere directory listings, would in combination with the main NY Times article, satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in the nature of criminal court proceedings sections of local/regional papers to contain summaries of minor criminals and their crimes (and the policemen who arrest them), and these papers generally to contain the names of local people. For example, the policeman who arrested her in one of the reports, Thomas Adams, gets even more mentions over the years. I get five NY Times articles using Google with "detective thomas adams" site:nytimes.com, five more with "detective sergeant thomas adams" site:nytimes.com (including the unusual circumstances of the birth of his daughter), two more with "detective thomas f adams" site:nytimes.com and another one with "detective sergeant thomas f adams" site:nytimes.com. I may have by chance hit upon the most notable policeman in 19th Century New York, but I don't think so - the arresting officer in the other report gets five hits with "detective sergeant lanthier" site:nytimes.com and fourteen with "detective lanthier" site:nytimes.com. Jll (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've personally met people who are lazy enough to give up employment in exchange for a lifetime of petty theft. Nothing encyclopedic about that. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So only people you respect are notable? Heh. --Rividian (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fairly certain he's saying career petty theft doesn't equal encyclopedic content. AniMate 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Career petty thieves are not notable per se. However, those that make it into books on the subject probably are. If the citations check out, and if mention is more than a passing remark, she does pass significant coverage by third parties and is notable. And as crime has an encyclopedia article, Swik is not correct in saying it is unencyclopedic.Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in multiple reliable sources. I should note that the delete !vote immediately above mine is not a valid reason for deletion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above keeps and sources. Here's another one: Our Rival, the Rascal: A Faithful Portrayal of the Conflict Between the Criminals of this Age and the Defenders of Society, the Police Great title.John Z (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. She probably wouldn't achieve notability nowadays, but she certainly seems to have back then.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:05, 13 August 2008
Keep Historical figure of some note, as proven by the references. The most prominent petty thief in a city can be notable in her profession. 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) Dlohcierekim 16:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several of the "delete" !votes are basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT or "So and sos are inherently nonnotable", ignoring the 168 word article about her long criminal career in the 1884 NY Times and the four book references.The one JohnZ presents [71] is definitely substantial coverage, stating that her face is familiar to detectives of every large country in the U.S. I have now located a copy of the 1929 "Gangs of New York" and will check it when I get hands on it for the extent of coverage. Per Google Book Search, under her alias "Mother Hubbard" she is discussed in "The American Way of Crime" (1980) By Frank Browning and, John Gerassi," page 283 along with her criminal associate Black Lena Kleinschmidt. She is mentioned in "Women, Crime, and Justice" (1980), by Susan K. Datesman, Frank R. Scarpitti, page 193, in "The Professional Fence" (1974) by Carl B. Klockars, page 176, and in "Crime and justice: V.1" (1977) by Leon Radzinowicz and Marvin E. Wolfgang, Page 312. Edison (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- She does crop up in a lot of books! I have changed my opinion to keep. Jll (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Srong keep Notable, with enough coverage by reliable, verifiable sources. Dlohcierekim 14:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.