Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 6

< August 5 August 7 >

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 delete. Wizardman 00:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post trial lawsuits against Michael Jackson

Post trial lawsuits against Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

DELETE. First of all, let me remind editors that controversies involving Mr. Jackson are already documented extensively at wikipedia on the following articles: Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson's health and appearance, 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and People v. Jackson. The article that I have nominated basically allows any legal controversy involving Jackson (after June 2005) to be documented. Thus we could document every legal issue for the next 25 years. This article is a COATRACK of negative information, much of the allegations documented thus far never amount to anything and are outright lies. I expect this will probably continue, with the odd truth every 5 years. It's quite simple really, if any allegation against Jackson amouts to anything truthful it will be documented at Michael Jackson, if the event becomes huge then it will get it's own page. The article I have nominated basically allows a paragraph for every allegation made against Jackson, true or not, until the day he dies. It's tabloid titillation at it's best. — Realist2 18:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge sourced infomation to People v. Jackson. Dalejenkins | 19:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the info has nothing to do with his 2005 trial that sounds absolutely silly, sorry I just have to be honest. That makes no sense at all to me. — Realist2 19:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything notable and sourced to the main biographical article. I don't agree with merging with People v. Jackson as these cases don't appear to be related. Any information not sourced needs to be removed ASAP from this article per WP:BLP, especially when you're talking about legal cases, which could leave Wikipedia open to libel issues if it's not sourced or worded properly. If kept, the article will need to be policed constantly for WP:BLP and WP:NPOV] issues. 23skidoo (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The info that is there at the moment really doesn't seem notable for the main article (which just passed an FA review). None of the present cases in that article amounted to anything noteworthy. Since the main article is 112 KB I would strongly be inclined not to included it in the main Jackson article. — Realist2 19:02, 7 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, Wizardman 03:06, 13 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, Jamie☆S93 00:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COATRACK. Nom said it best. Leonard(Bloom) 02:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because no ones gonna save you from the beast about to strike Testmasterflex (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin:This editor has made approximately 20 edits to wikipedia at the point of this keep vote. With the reasoning given for his keep vote it might be worth disregarding unless expanded upon. Singing a Michael Jackson song is not a legitimate reason to keep this article and I suggest a talk page warning. — Realist2 03:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have MJ problems well covered, and don't need this article, which is an unclear scope to me. --Rob (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Entirely unsearchable (so merge & redirect is a loss), nebulous, with no coherent idea to tie the items together. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete If any of this is new or novel, merge it with the other articles if it's properly sourced, else trash it BMW(drive) 11:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Michael jackson. This may be too little content.--Freewayguy What's up? 23:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of it is really notable for the Jackson article and it's all pov unsourced BLP violations. — Realist2 01:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Lady Galaxy 22:05, 27 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. AfD is not the place to request speedy deletion, and the tag has been reasonably disputed multiple times at the article. lifebaka++ 15:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Hugo Chávez

AfDs for this article:
Criticism of Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10 - BLP that is entirely negative in tone where there is no neutral version to revert to. There is no neutral version as the page itself inherently violates NPOV. Sceptre (talk) 14:31, 6 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 00:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Karplus

Kevin Karplus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not known to me whether this passes WP:N, but it's unsourced, and definitely a violation of WP:COI, as it's a single author whose name is nearly identical to the subject of the article KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 383 hits at google scholar; 128 hits at google books; gnews hits; ghits. Seems to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Sourcing and WP:COI issues can be solved by editing.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Fabrictramp: GoogleScholar results show high citability of his work[1] with top citation hits of 404, 387, 201, 177, 156, 120. Appears to pass WP:PROF as the author of highly cited works. Nsk92 (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Fabrictramp and Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nsk92 demonstrably influential, highly cited. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if improved - as it's unsourced and therefore unverified, but he may, in fact be notable. We just don't know it yet. - Toon05 21:11, 8 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) 17:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renesmee

Renesmee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by IP without comment. No evidence of independent notability for this character, no sources. BencherliteTalk 23:46, 6 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) 17:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canyon Prince

Canyon Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed Prod for a non-notable actor/film maker. This person fails WP:BIO with minor acting and production roles credited. No evidence of notability from WP:RS found. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is non-notable; his IMDB profile shows no major roles; fails WP:ENTERTAINER. RayAYang (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, non-verifiable... same goes for Romantic Foibles of Esteban, The which should probably be added to this nom or nominated separately. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. A review of credits on IMDB do not indicate any likelihood that sources could be found. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 11 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 00:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PostMormon Community

PostMormon Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is simply an advertisment for the postmormon website. There is only one news article about Ex-Mormon billboards, all other references about the group are from their own website. This should be deleted or at best merged with Ex-Mormon. Bytebear (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While a lot of the fluff needs to be removed (again), there is more than enough significant coverage in reliable sources. There's the one you mentioned that is in the references section (Fox News AZ). Then there is plenty of notability assertion in the External Links section - Utah Statesman, New York Times, Dixie Sun... I think maybe the nominator didn't look at the EL section. Tan ǀ 39 23:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep - article needs rewriting to be less of an advertisement for the bulletin board/website, and needs better references (external links aren't references and shouldn't be used as such). The difference between a Postmormon and an Ex-Mormon should be pointed out in the introduction section of the article to help alleviate confusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you know that a need for rewriting and better referencing is not any sort of reason to delete. Any reason why your vote is "very weak"? Tan ǀ 39 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware that rewriting isn't a reason for deleting an article, that's why I said keep at all. The reasons for the very weak is the fact I agree with the nominator that the article is basically a promotion for the website, that I can't find a real reason for the article not to be merged in someway with ex-mormon, or an appropriate article about ex-mormons, that I can't establish fully to my own satisfaction that even in some of the references that "postmormon" isn't just being used as another word for ex-mormon. My personal feeling is that the subject of a "post mormon/ex-mormon community" may be notable and maybe even properly verifiable but the article that results needs to be alot better than the one we are currently discussing. Oh and for transparentcy sake I'm what you'd call either postmormon or ex-mormon (in case it actually matters to the debate at hand).Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the New York Times article I link to above, three-fourths of the article is specifically about PostMormon.org. Same with some of those other external links I posted. Believe you me, I'm usually on the deletionist side of the fence for things like this, and I have no inherent interest in any of this subject. However, I think it's pretty clear that notability exists in a big way. Tan ǀ 39 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? We've both said keep. I agreed that the subject is probably notable and even that it needs to be covered so I'm not sure what the "argument" is about. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose part of it is the article is titled and preports to be about the postmormon community yet claims that the website postmormon.org is the "main support", etc and goes on about that. I think I WANT an article about the postmormon/exmormon community and although I don't object to mentioning of the website in an article on that subject they shouldn't be as muddled as they are in this particular article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I frustrated you; I was not attempting to "argue" with you (or even to change your !vote, actually). I was merely trying to understand the rationale behind it; the "very weak" didn't match the rest of your statements. I'll bow out now. Tan ǀ 39 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its okay. Somedays it seems like everythings an argument on here. I'm not always great at putting my thoughts across IRL much less when it is typed and the frustration comes more from not understanding the best way to put my thought processes down in order for other people to understand them more than from anything else. I suppose the best example I can give is the recent stuff about Wicca Rock and the associated articles. There was one I can't remember the name of that was titled in a way that led you (read me) to believe the article was about a new type of music and it turned out to be about a band/their business/ and a number of other things all at once and it made trying to discuss the policy and guideline side of things harder, which I think is the way this particular article comes across to me.Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I am not clear how large this organisation is, except that it is multi-national. A main section is well-referneced. I have no doubt that the existence of the organisation is offensive to members of LDS church, but that is no reason to remove it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs to be dramatically rewritten, with more of an emphasis on the nonprofit group pushing the PostMormon concept. But there is no reason to smite it with deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:57, 7 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 --JForget 23:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kegabyte

Kegabyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article subject is either a WP:HOAX or not notable. While my specialism lies in this area i have never heard of a "Kegabyte", and not does altavista which return 46 results Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete par being the nominator Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no iPods that can hold a kegabyte, so they do not exist. Stijndon (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is this how members of a fraternity measure RAM? No, seriously, there are no reliable sources; WP:NEO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Why was this nonsense not simply speedied?? --Crusio (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. This reeks of WP:BOLLOCKS. Cliff smith talk 23:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons already given. It's also my specialism and a term I've never heard of. Dpmuk (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:RS --  Darth Mike  (Talk • Contribs) 01:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Kisholi (talk) 01:09, 7 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 --JForget 23:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain of ecstasy

Fountain of ecstasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research discussion of a novel, with no claim of meeting WP:Notability for the book. Gsearch not coming up with notability for the book; hasn't made the NY Times best seller list; amazon sales rank > 1,000,000. Contested prod. Author has no article, so nothing to redirect to. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 6 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) 17:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amerikis Street

Amerikis Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Antheias Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aretha Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ermou Street (Patras) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Riga Fereou Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Afstralias Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a street, don't see anything special here. Punkmorten (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. No assertion of notability. Dpmuk (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:N --Kisholi (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - these do not seem WP:50k notable to me. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all no evidence or assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a road or travel guide and there's no encyclopedic content here. TravellingCari 02:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At the risk of pile-on...fails WP:N. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ermou Street, delete all others Ermou Street seems to have some possible notability, and the article has the potential to be improved in the future. All the remainder sound like run-of-the-mill residential streets, and have nothing mentioned about them that makes them noteworthy, just rudimentary information. Sebwite (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and I would add most other streets in List of streets in Patras. If any have some worthwhile content (and I think most do not), it should be merged into Patras or an appropriate suburb. We do not have articles on bus routes or American Shopping Malls, so I do not see why we need them on Greek streets, unless clearly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do have some articles on all that you mentioned - bus routes, shopping malls, and even some urban streets. But street articles, in most cases, are limited to the main streets within a city, not residential side streets unless there is something really unusual about them that stands out beyond the immediate region. See WP:NTRAN for details. Sebwite (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REply -- I agree that some street and malls are notable - main shopping streets, major radial roads, for example - but most are not. We certainly deleted a lot of articles on individual bus routes some months back, but that is not an issue here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 10 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) 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

737 Flight Simulator

737 Flight Simulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable video game that has no reliable sources. (EDIT) I would also allow a redirect ot Flight simulator. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 15:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people would probably be looking for the real 737 sim... as in multimillion dollar 6dF cockpit 70.55.203.50 (talk) 05:49, 7 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) 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadguru Appaiah Swami

Sadguru Appaiah Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bio of a non notable religious leader. Also, there are no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:17, 6 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 07:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beamz (music device)

Beamz (music device) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete non notable musical instrument. Referenced only from a blog post Mayalld (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The device is notable, as it has been covered by USA Today and by the Phoenix Business Journal. I have added references to both of those sources on the article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwbeam (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign my comment. Jwbeam (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - notable and sourced. i've edited the article to improve the referencing. Jessi1989 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple reliable sources have covered the device. in addition to coverage already identified, there is this ABC news article. Also suggest that if kept, the article be move to Beamz as there is no need for disambiguation -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 11 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, defaults to keep. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Podbharti

Podbharti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable... no credible references...ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 14:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 21:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. The only reference I could find was this article in a publication I've never heard of. Pburka (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Pburka (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, Fails notability .--SkyWalker (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Iam changing the vote to keep. As there is enough of reference in article to prove the article is notable. Here are more source to prove it [3], [4], [5]. I will search for more. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Simply because Google News doesn't list a website shouldn't mean its not notable. The website is from India, is in Hindi, and its natural that foreign publications won't talk about it. The page already cites noted website reviews/links. IMHO, the fact that its the first Hindi podzine from the subcontinent alone should make it notable enough.--Debashishc (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to have third party references now.--Boffob (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reaffirm delete has someone noticed that this site is down as of now? Also please note one of the references is to agencyfaqs.com which says that one of the authors of this blog is Debashish Chakrabarty. The same gentlemen who pitched to several people to change their vote. A gaping case of Conflict of Interest perhaps? ChiragPatnaik (talk) 15:27, 11 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) 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dese'Rae Stage

AfDs for this article:
Dese'Rae Stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, methinks. Chris (talk) 20:56, 6 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 07:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Audriena Danner-Russell

Hayley Audriena Danner-Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Strains to show any notability WP:ENTERTAINER and poor references. Possibly COI as the editor claims to own a professional photograph of the actress. triwbe (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BIO. May become notable down the line of course, but as it is, only few of the given references mention her, and I have a hard time finding others [7]. --AmaltheaTalk 14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - till become notable--Puttyschool (talk) 18:27, 11 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. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeks Island Pigeon

Cheeks Island Pigeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obvious hoax. The text is a cut an paste of a genuine species (as you can see if you follow the IUCN link) with the name and location changed, no species for Imperial Pigeon (Ducula ) occurs in Britain or Europe. I'd speedy it but apparently that is against the rules. *sigh* Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 6 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 00:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Compton

Molly Compton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This character is an "In-universe" article (see WP:WAF) about a non-notable fictional character on the show Coronation Street. Although this character has had nearly three years to become notable. The article neither cites any references or sources.

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) 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passion hifi

Passion hifi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Assertion of notability is that he has produced "one of the most dowloaded UK Hip Hop mixtapes in history", but there's no source to verify the claim. AmaltheaTalk 20:30, 6 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. Hiding T 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Lane (Sittin' in da Park)

Memory Lane (Sittin' in da Park) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable song. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Some of the sources listed are search engine searches. No proof that this is even a single. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:25, 6 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 Boldly redirected to Joystick. I can't imagine the result having been anything else, given that Flight Stick is already a redirect to joystick. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flightstick

Flightstick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod that was improperly blanked and moved to 123123. AfD for 123123 was closed (non-admin closure) in order to revert the move and properly nominate the article for AfD as Flightstick.

Non-notable neologism; nothing more than a search term. MuZemike (talk) 20:02, 6 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 (G3) by MCB. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taboo Curran

Taboo Curran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

User:Roxineous has a history of adding stupid terms such as Scarefy and Togglator, both of which were deleted as nonsense. This term has absolutely no hits on the web, nothing in Google books or scholar. The dictionary link provided as a reference does not support the term. There is no evidence that the book listed even exists, nor can I find any evidence of the publisher listed. Speedy was denied, citing these supposed references. Dmol (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as made up. No evidence of book reference existing. The dictionary link is for taboo not taboo curran. Some action should also be taken against the article creator. DCEdwards1966 20:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • <<post ev>>I rejected the speedy not knowing the creator's history and giving the benefit of the doubt on the source-- books 100 years old are hard to find copies of on the internet. I also suggested that the creator needed to work on sourcing. A 100 year old source is hard to verify. The publisher nay have gone extinct. In any event, I find no trace of that Roger Garrisson, though there is a contemporary writer who gets Google hits. As I also mentioned, consideration should be given as to whether or not this is more than a dicdef. Even if this were a real phrase, the creator has not done a creditable job of providing evidence of Encyclopedic significance-- no notability supported by verifable sources. I feel the creator of the article made a fool of me with a plausible sounding argument to not delete the thing. In view of that, this edit, and the information provided by the nom-- delete. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Actually, I deleted, had second thoughts after reading the passionate pleas on the talk page, and undeleted. Also, I freaked when I could not find "obvious hoax" among the CSD tempaltes. Dlohcierekim 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. WorldCat shows no evidence of cited reference or its author. If it existed, it would be in a library somewhere. Deor (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • G3 Nonsense/hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear hoax as checking any dictionary will show. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Please read discussion Talk:Taboo Curran as well. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:40, 7 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 - seems ironic to record this as WP:SNOW under the circumstances... Grutness...wha? 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Bae

Rolf Bae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't mean to be disrespectful to this person who unfortunately perished in the recent K2 accident, but I'm afraid that dying in this event does not make a person notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I nominate this article for deletion - or actually, that it be redirected to the K2 disaster article, unless someone actually establishes notability. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Likewise, sympathies to the family and friends, but unfortunately this does not make him notable for an encyclopaedia. Perhaps he was notable before this incident, but there is no mention of it in the article. Several people died in that incident. Delete, unless evidence of other notability is provided.--Dmol (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or keep and expand Yes an unfortunate event. However I doubt he qualifies for a full biographical article. Anything there is to say could quite easily be put in the disaster article. His wife Cecilie Skog has had a full article for some time, I wonder whether his article could be expanded. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Bae is a very well reputated Norwegian mountaineer and explorer. He is still holding the world record of the longest cross country skiing crossing the Antarctica with Eirik Sønneland in 2001, and very recently repeating the Norwegian Route at Greate Trango Towers in Karakoram Pakistan. --Anarkistix (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We cannot expand an article by decree from a deletion discussion... __meco (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bae is mentioned in the Encyclopedia of the Antarctic from 2007, which shows that he was known before the K2 accident. There are other pre-2008 mentions at Google News. Zagalejo^^^ 22:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly, if the article gets furnished with reliable sources documenting notability, I'll change my opinion. __meco (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been expanded sufficiently. __meco (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand I dunno, looks to me like there's enough notable material aside from the K2 disaster. Just need to elaborate on it further. General Epitaph (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Editor(s) is/are doing a fine job of establishing notability as well as making an interesting wikipedia article. I'm interested. Want to know more about this person. Not spam. Not advertising. This one's legit people. --Quartermaster (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While dying on K2 is not notable, making the world's longest ski journey and being part of the first group to ascend Great Trango Tower by that route and surivive the return indicates notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and suggest early closure per WP:SNOW. The page has been expanded considerably since the version prompting this AFD, and several new references establishing notability independent of the accident have been added. The article was AFDed for placing undue weight solely on Bae's death; this is now clearly no longer the case, and I doubt anyone can dispute that Bae was independently recognized as notable in his field. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 00:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just confirming what Edward321 stated, he did (until recently) hold the record for the world's longest cross-country ski journey. He also climbed the south face of the Great Trango Tower, a route described modestly as the most difficult, hazardous and arduous high-altitude vertical rock climbing in the world, and attempted only thrice in history. The first team died to the last man. His team was the third, and only the second to do it and survive. It hasn't been done since. Most climbers regard it as a death-trap, even for elite vertical rock-wall climbers. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 00:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am sorry I removed the AFD, I guess I am too inexperienced here to really know the rules of the game, and should have behaved as the novice that I am. But I understood it as if there was consensus on keeping the article after it had been expanded. Thommra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thommra (talk • contribs) 00:34, 7 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 deleted. Non admin closure. Undeath (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Sandek

Kyle Sandek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Test page maybe. But user removed speedy tag and keeps vandalising. Please rid this and block him/her. Burningjoker (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
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 00:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Lulling

AfDs for this article:
    Jerome Lulling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    procedural nomination as another user added the article to the AfD list without tagging the article itself. My assumption is deletion based on notability issues. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for "tagging" the article. I only found out how to do this about a second ago when I saw you've already done it. I nominated the article because it looks like self-promotion. Facts:

    • Lonk list of weblinks to sites (seemingly owned by that person) that do not add any considerable value to the article.
    • Publishing videoclips on youtube is generally not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.

    --217.86.18.197 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why do you want to delete an article about somebody who is mentioned in other wikipedia articles, just check the

    luxembourgish language article. Mister Lulling is probably not known in England, but his achievements for the luxembourgish language are indeed undeniable. This article has to stay, imho.

    Interesting also that you talk about the youtube clips 'being not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia' .... highly interesting, since there are so many links to youtube clips inside wikipedia articles, but, maybe you only consider them 'worthy', if they are about popstars like timbaland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleya (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Promotional, no real assertion of notability. The "keep" arguments above use poor logic... youtube links are NOT endorsed on Wiki, and are typically reverted by a bot. Tan ǀ 39 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I just rewrote the text, adding proper references and new information regarding Lulling's published works. I also corrected the title of the article to reflect the correct spelling of Lulling's first name. Admittedly, Lulling is unknown in the Anglophonic world. But his contributions to preserving and enhancing his nation's language is extremely notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm getting used to you editing behind me and frequently opposing my opinions, I just reviewed all the references.. and I don't think any of them constitute the required "significant, reliable coverage" needed. In fact, most of them aren't coverage at all, just mentions on websites. Tan ǀ 39 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should point out that I am not upset about Eco's editing behind me here, his opinions are valid and typically very well-reasoned, and I just happen to disagree with his !vote on this AfD. In no way was I trying to be snarky or bitter. Tan ǀ 39 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fear not, I am not offended. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Article seems fairly new and I do like to give editors the benefit of the doubt when they are actively making efforts to improve articles and believe they have value here. As it doesn't appear to be a hoax, I'd like to see how it can be improved further, which I think it should, i.e. it should have section headings, for example. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, just a comment - I have no special interest in deleting this article - but the guideline you cite states, "a week should be enough". This article has been around three times that long. Tan ǀ 39 18:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's not in such a bad state as to be hopeless. --Forego (talk) 18:58, 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, lifebaka++ 19:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As per Le Grand Roi's comments. Director33 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Mr. Lulling has his own 2 TV shows about Luxembourgish language on www.dok.lu (the open channel), his book Luxdico is among the best selling books of all time here in luxembourg (accordin' to an interview with 'em, it sold approx. 9.000 units, which is incredible for a language that is spoken merely by 270.000 people) yet, all his efforts seem to come too late, in luxembourg city only 40% still speak luxembourgish. and for the record, in the last 30 years there have only been 3-5 phd dissertations about luxembourgish, Mr Lulling is the author of one of them. And, accordin' to the luxembourgish wikipedia,he is also the author of the first luxembourgish computergame comboling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleya (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 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 02:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carl Stephenson (producer)

    Carl Stephenson (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article claims notability for the subject as being a well-known platinum album producer, yet i cannot find a single article to back this up. Also, the fact that the only links refer to myspace, and that none artists mentioned in the article has an own wikipedia page, i presume this is a WP:HOAX Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not a hoax. He claims to have coproduced and cowritten Loser (Beck song), and a quick search supports it. He's even mentioned at our own Mellow Gold article. He has an entry in numerous music databases (Allmusic, music.msn.com). There's a number of gnews [8] [9] which just led me to coverage in the Los Angeles Times, e.g. [10]. Most of them are pay per view, so I can only see abstracts, put I think there's enough coverage about *him* to be significant.
      Keep, but it needs a serious rewrite. --AmaltheaTalk 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. non-notable and poor refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to WP:MUSIC he *is* notable, being a member of the notable musical group Forest for the Trees. There is enough material there to warrant an article of his own, especially with his contributions to many different groups (again, in accordance with WP:MUSIC). References have been improved a little, but there's much more out there (if not for free, look at the google news search)
        Furthermore, "poor refs" are not a reason for deletion - non-existant references are.
        AmaltheaTalk 09:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Amalthea. Hiding T 21:06, 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) 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Beautiful Mess

    Beautiful Mess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable EP, no reliable sources found. Self-released, no cover art. Propose a delete and/or rewrite to be about the Diamond Rio song of the same name (which, being a Number One hit, is probably very notable). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:25, 6 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) 17:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling Cat 22

    Calling Cat 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not sure what to say here that shouldn't be obvious: no refs and no verification leaves the whole article entirely based on original research. Beyond that, this is basically a 5 minute short which randomly airs during normal programming slots on Cartoon Network. Some quick searches did turn up three refs, so I'll mention them for the sake of it: is a casual mention by another animator, the original animator's own blog and a fan forum, which is generally considered unsuitable for referencing. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:15, 6 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 00:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Isaac Mao

    AfDs for this article:
    Isaac Mao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unsourced WP:BLP article which does not provide reliable evidence of substantial notability. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Keep - external links include two good quality RS on him from New Scientist [11] and The Economist [12], that's without actually bothering to search Google News for him [13] -Hunting dog (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewrite but still keep. The article needs a lot of work (and has needed said work for what appears to be 2 years now) but this can be fixed through editing I should hope. RFerreira (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the New Scientist and Economist links satisfy multiple non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources. That said they BARELY satisfy it this article would benefit from additional sources. -Markeer 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - there was previous Afd on this which is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Mao (2006), technically that should be shown here as first Afd and this as second - but I've no idea how to fix that! -Hunting dog (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Luckily someone else did - now appears fixed -Hunting dog (talk) 18:38, 7 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 07:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sunni The Origin of the name Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jama't

    AfDs for this article:
    Sunni The Origin of the name Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jama't (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not sure about this article. Although information in this may be valid, it doesn't show any source and it is written as an essay. If not deleted, it needs to be re-written and renamed. Beagel (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. This seems to me to be original research about the etymology of the name of Sunni Islam. Some portion of the information might be carefully merged into the main article. There may be enough for a separate article at some time, but this is not it; and any such article ought to appear under a title that would occur to English speakers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This is not an original research about the etymology of the name of Sunni Islam, It looks like someone trying to show his own point of view, or his group point of view, it is difficult for me to trace the supplied references, at the same time the user does not have a user page to discuss with him. The article Sunni Islam covers all details about the subject with historical proven references, and all information in Sunni Islam it is well known to Muslims. But I don’t know what this article want to tell us. at the same time, I don't know how to reach the supplied references like this one (Source: Tarikh Islam, vol. 2, page 673) and other. The name of the article "Sunni The Origin of the name Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jama't" Seems like someone will explain how the name comes, but the contents are about history, for me it is the first time to hear about this history.
      About what he calls "Allamah Ahmad Ameen of Egypt and taking him as an Islamic Reference. I tried to validate this from Ahmed Amin original book but I failed, at least he must show how we can find this in the original books, not a translated books.
      By the way “Allamah” in some area of the Middle East means someone with huge knowledge about Islam, and can be an Islamic Reference, but Ahmad Ameen (1886-1945) he was a teacher in Cairo University faculty of Arts, (even not a teacher in Al-Azhar University Which is the main reference for Islamic studies), and his three books about Islam does not represent any Islamic reference, they are books for the causual reader, I can write similar books if I want and my books will not be an Islamic reference as well. Also Ahmad Ameen was interested with politics any science, not an Islamic specialized writer, This is what Egypt knows about Ahmed Ameen, from Egypt State Information Service, maybe the author knows him more than us.
    • Another Comment Nothing of the information can be merged into Sunni Islam.--Puttyschool (talk) 20:25, 11 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. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    UnrealIRCd

    AfDs for this article:
    UnrealIRCd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Based on WP:RS, SearchIRC does not constitute a reliable source, it's content is based on spiders probing IRC Networks, and may be sent false information or manipulated, also, a large number of the references just links directly to the developers comments / news articles. Although "Securing IM and P2P Applications for the Enterprise." does make a reference to UnrealIRCd, it's just that, a comment made in passing and has no real notability (WP:Notability). And to finish off, Reference number 5 (Dalnet History) appears to make no actual reference to UnrealIRCd.

    This article has been deleted before due to it's general lack of Notability, and has been brought back with the claim that it is in fact notable, with 17 references, none of which appear to fall into the Wikipedia guidelines or can be classed as valid sources. FrostyCoolSlug (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong delete. I agree that UnrealIRCd does not meet notability requirements for Wikipedia. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 18:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless multiple independent reliable sources can be found providing non-trivial coverage of the subject. In other words, per WP:N. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: As above and references 11 thru 15 are not related to the page in any way but refer to other ircds Braindigitalis (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep because (God forbid!) the article already lists multiple independent reliable sources. —Giggy 09:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment How many of these sources are notable as per wikipedia guidelines? Brain Digitalis (Talk) (Edits) 10:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Please re-read the reason for deletion, 7 of the sources listed are NOT independent, 7 others are NOT reliable sources (Under WP:RS), 2 of the sources are NOT relevant to the subject at hand (2 pages on OTHER IRCds), and the final source is NOT notable (Reference made in passing). All these non-relevant and non-notable sources have been added since the articles original original deletion to make it LOOK notable. 90.193.254.237 (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, and I beg to differ about SearchIRC. Spidering is a reliable way to get data. It is just as reliable, perhaps more so, than if a team of reporters/scientists/whoever decided to find out and publish which IRCd was used the most. I would also like to take the time to point out that Braindigitalis and Nenolod have a POV when it comes to this for a few reasons:
      1. They both worked on another IRCd, InspIRCd, at one time or another.
      2. Their IRCd's article was deleted.
    • No where in WP:RS, as stated in the nomination, did I find anything about sources that use spidering being inherently unreliable because they do spider. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 20:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Please. I've basically worked on every IRCd there is. My working on InspIRCd does not give me any particular POV. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 22:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are more references there than only SearchIRC (which, is probably the most reliable place to document a lot of the statistics). Just because the article isn't perfect source-wise is not a reason to delete it. SQLQuery me! 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why is my opinion worth any less than any other wikipedians, just because i am an expert in this field? Not to mention, the sources used by unrealircd here are the same sources used by the InspIRCd article, which was successfully deleted. Not to point out the obvious here, but if these sources were not acceptable for that article (please read its AFD page) then they are not acceptable here, either. It is plainly obvious to me that none of these ircd pages or services pages have any place on wikipedia, as none are WP:Notable. Brain Digitalis (Talk) (Edits) 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I see reliable sources, although they may not be the best. Deleting it won't make it any better. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stwalkerster, if this is the case then i recommend different sources than searchirc. As stated here in the guides for notability (1) use of statistical data should be considered a primary source and avoided, can anyone recommend any good secondary sources such as books? Brain Digitalis (Talk) (Edits) 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you suggest any sources other than SearchIRC for that statistical data which are going to be as reliable, without original research? I think there will be problems in gathering that. Therefore SearchIRC is likely to be the best source of that available, and so is unavoidable. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree ;-) One book source already exists for this page, although only a passing mention if one exists others may too? In my humble opinion, book sources and notable news sources far outweigh searchirc (which often is broken, and was perpetually broken as far as ircd version statistics go) for very long periods of time, and there must be other book sources out there. Such sources would definitely change my vote to a keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindigitalis (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • So be it:
              • Mutton, Paul (2004). IRC Hacks: 100 Industrial-Strength Tips & Tools. O'Reilly. p. 360. ISBN 059600687X. Retrieved 2008-08-07. One of the most popular and full-featured ircds is Unreal.
            • -- Cobi(t|c|b) 22:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment: I don't really think one sentence in one book meets notability requirements for Wikipedia. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 22:40, 8 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, bad faith nom by now-blocked sockpuppet. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I Want to Work for Diddy

    I Want to Work for Diddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    insignificant television show, has no bearing on society or culture.AndreaTrue77 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep It just debuted two days ago. Give it a chance. I did find this which looks like a decent source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep No bearing on society or culture? Whether or not I like his music or clothing, a reality contest show on VH1 about winning a job with a musical icon? I think that is what our society and culture is all about these days...  :) But that notwithstanding, this VH1 listing and these mass Google News hits from the likes of Washington Post, ABC News and Los Angeles Times scream both verified and notable.
    • Keep: TV show on a major US cable channel starring one of the biggest (why?) music artists is definitely notable. Society and culture will just have to look out for themselves. DCEdwards1966 19:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The article needs major work, however. DCEdwards1966 20:00, 6 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 --JForget 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Highlander Timelines

    Highlander Timelines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Basically a dab page (or set index article) that was created two years ago, but still has only one blue link. At the same time, it's doubtful that any of the redlinked characters are notable enough for their own fictional timeline articles (and even Duncan is pushing it a lot under WP:NOT#PLOT, but that's for another discussion). I would have prodded this dab page, but the deletion of fiction pages always seems to be controversial. – sgeureka t•c 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Quite unnecessary. These articles clearly aren't going to be written anytime soon, nor should we encourage people to do so. PC78 (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. In-universe information. I created three of the Duncan MacLeod timeline pages when I was a newbie, but now I understand the matter. Rosenknospe (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non notable. Schmidt (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as unnecessary index. It would be better to use templates and categories and link to articles that have real-world context about the franchise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:52, 8 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) 17:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Factor X (Film)

    Factor X (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is far too early, there's just not enough info on this yet. Ged UK (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Pleanty of reliable sources - [14][15][16]. Not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Dalejenkins | 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Explicity fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the notability guidelines for future films since it is not in production. This project was first announced in October 2006 and has not made serious leeway since. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep (sorry, ignore this and see below, can someone tell me the markup for scoring through text?) it has reliable sources which suggest sufficient notability, such as its mention by the hollywood reporter. i've added some more info from the sources and referenced it better. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just put the answer on your talk page. Schmidt (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete just read wp:nff and the sources do not show that "principal photography" has begun. not sure why this rule applies as the film does appear to be sourced an notable, but according to that policy i must vote delete. sorry for the mix-up. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is a textbook case of speculation. WP:NFF explicitly says that films that have not commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. And IMDB is not a reliable source. Cliff smith talk 23:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. May pass CRYSTAL but fails NFF. The article is way premature. Perhaps move the 5 sentences to article on Gregory Allen Howard or New Line Cinema? Schmidt (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non notable. Schmidt (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Psst... you !voted twice. :) Don't get your AFDs mixed up, now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Was not intentional. Struck second vote. Schmidt (talk) 22:51, 8 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 --JForget 23:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proalius

    Proalius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Probably hoax. Un-sourced, no search hits Beagel (talk) 18:52, 6 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) 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter "The Killer" Abbandante

    Peter "The Killer" Abbandante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    NN gangster... Appears to fail WP:N, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ONEEVENT... He was a gangster, he grew up with Henry Hill, he "reportedly assisted" in a murder, and there is no information about him after said murder... Zero G-news hits for Peter Abbandante, and only a couple hits for Peter Abbondante (none of which have anything to do with a gangster)... Article has no in-line sources, and only one reference, which is an offline book... Adolphus79 (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Per nom. One source is not enough to write a fair and balanced article on any individual, particularly such a controversial one, and no other sources seem to turn up in a good faith search. And while I'm not going to move it while it's in the middle of an AfD, naming conventions would suggest that this page should be renamed "Peter Abbandante", as nicknames are generally not included in articles titles. A similar (although perhaps more passionate) sentiment was recently added to the talk page. In any case, if the article isn't deleted, it should at least be renamed. Cheers, CP 20:30, 6 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 22:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of joint school societies in Hong Kong

    List of joint school societies in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    List of previously deleted redlinks. All non-notable student organizations. Mikeblas (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Useful? I think not. Ian¹³/t 18:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read WP:USELESS, and consider expanding upon your reasoning. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:08, 7 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 00:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    William R. Corliss

    William R. Corliss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I don't think this particular physicist has actually become "known" for his interests. Being featured in one article in New Scientist and in the fringe Journal of Scientific Exploration does not, to me, indicate a passing of WP:BIO or WP:PROF. I'll also note that none of his books seem notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep One article in New Scientist is a pretty good step towards proving notability. If there were concerns about his notability then you could have started by flagging the need for more references on the article, jumping to an AfD seems premature. (Emperor (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • New Scientist of late has been writing articles on increasingly sensationalized things. It's become the National Enquirer of science journalism. In other words, not a good source for establishing notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that the article was written in 1977. Zagalejo^^^ 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • True. Not that the reputation of this magazine was ever very high. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you have a cite for that assertion? Zagalejo^^^ 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It appears that his book Science Frontiers was reviewed by USA Today in 1994 and Current Science in 1995. (I can't access the whole articles, but there are abstracts available at ProQuest. I can give the full citations, if anyone wants to track them down.) Corliss is fairly well known in the Fortean community. Most decent librarires will contain at least one of his books. Zagalejo^^^ 19:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well known in the "Fortean community" is not good enough to qualify for WP:BIO unless you can give us an independent source that establishes this. There are gamers that are well-known in their respective communities which have had their articles deleted in spite of similar objections. Also singular book reviews as you point to do nothing to establish the notability of an author. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1)Jerome Clark's Unexplained has an eight-paragraph entry on the Sourcebook Project. I'm sure you think Clark is a blithering idiot, but the entry should be enough to show that Corliss is considered important in that field. 2) Multiple book reviews have always been good enough to establish notability for a writer. Zagalejo^^^ 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no "field" to speak of, unless you mean fringe community. The point is notability within a marginal group is not notability enough for Wikipedia. Thus, until this guy receives some recognition outside of the community of tightly-nit tinfoil-hat-wearing crowd we must should not have an article on him. I note that Jerome Clark in contrast does have outside recognition both on television serials and by being a mainstream songwriter. This guy is just some physicist who happens to like forteana. Nothing notable about him. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • In truth, Corliss is mostly interested in geological, astronomical, and meteorological anomalies, rather than the typical UFO conspiracy stuff, so he's not quite as bad as the "tinfoil-hat wearers". But I digress. What would demonstrate notability for you? Here are a bunch of reviews from the journal Icarus. Is there something wrong with Icarus? Enlightenment me. Zagalejo^^^ 22:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not saying that Corliss himself is a woo-woo; I'm saying that you are trying to establish notability of this guy through his fame at woo-woo conventions. Secondly, that Corliss publishes is rather unremarkable. Physicists publish, that's what they do. To determine whether a publishing physicist is notable, we use WP:PROF guidelines, which, I already pointed out, this guy fails. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, your original argument was that he is not "known". I was just trying to show that he is known to a certain sizeable community. I'm not sure if he fails WP:PROF. I think the case could be made that he passes point #4. Here's an interesting quote from the New York Times (William J. Broad. "The science corps wants a few more good heretics". New York Times. October 16, 1983. A18.):
    "Among the more diligent is William R. Corliss, a trained physicist who worked as a science writer for the Federal Government and now directs The Sourcebook Project in Glen Arm, Md. For more than a decade, Mr. Corliss has searched out and catalogued the inexplicable. His volumes, which should number 25 when the project is completed, have attracted more than the curious. For instance, thermonuclear fusion experts, who confine atoms at high temperatures in a quest for a source of nearly limitless energy, have looked for inspiration to the phenomenon of ball lightning, which Mr. Corliss's books document in detail.
    "It's intriguing stuff that serves a useful purpose," said Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard paleontologist and science commentator. "Funding today tends to go to things that are tried and true. I'm glad these other guys are out there." Zagalejo^^^ 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Stephen Jay Gould quote is your classic red herring association... he's talking about fringe science not about Corliss in particular. That Broad wrote an article that mentioned Corliss in three sentences on page A18 of the New York Times some 25 years ago is probably a good one event indicator. You're consistently striking out here or alternatively grasping at ever-thinning straws. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What "one event"? The article is clearly talking about a trend. Zagalejo^^^ 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me just summarize what I have found:
      • 1) A review of Corliss' book from USA Today (Cullen Murphy. "Marvelling at nature's freak surprises". USA Today. April 14, 1994. D4.)
      • 2)Multiple reviews of Corliss' work in scholarly journals [18].
      • 3)A New York Times article saying that Corliss' work has attracted legitimate scientists.
      • 4) An eight paragraph profile of Corliss' Sourcebook Project in Jerome Clark's Unexplained (which, though it might not be enough by itself, clearly establishes that Corliss is well-known to Forteans.)
      • 5) Impressive WorldCat results (Strange Phenomena; A Sourcebook of Unusual Natural Phenomena is in at least 582 libraries; Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenonmena is in at least 959 libraries)
      • 6) A mention of his book Man and Atom in Britannica [19].
      • 7) Mentions in books like this and [20]. ***What more do you want? Zagalejo^^^ 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also I just found out that the guy has a profile in Contemporary Authors [21], part of the Gale Literary Databases. Zagalejo^^^ 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. May be a crank, but Zagalejo has established that he's a notable one. Pburka (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:32, 7 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David Catterall

    AfDs for this article:
    David Catterall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    IMPORTANT - THIS ARTICLE IS DIFFERENT TO A PREVIOUS ARTICLE LISTED BELOW, SAME NAME BUT FOR A DIFFERENT PERSON. Blatant advertising and self promotion. Not notable enough to get an article in an encyclopaedia. Most edits are by one named account and 2 prominent anon account who only work on this article and others linked to it. Note that edit history of all three contributors are almost identical. Anons are suspected sockpuppets or others having conflict of interest. Added speedy delete on 10th June, but this was removed minutes later without reason given by another user. Dmol (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Delete just running hotels and/or being in a cover band doesn't confer notability. References all appear to be primary source, trivial, or press releases. So he fails both WP:N and WP:VJasynnash2 (talk) 16:23, 30 July 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++ 18:38, 6 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. Not much particpation, but more than enough time has passed. Yiğido means "heroes" and is the nickname of Sivasspor. No link to any style of playing could be found though. Fram (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yiğido

    Yiğido (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

    This article lacks reliable third person sources to justify notability and seems to consist of original research. It has no reliable info and fails many criteria i.e. WP:BURDEN Dwanyewest (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:50, 30 July 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++ 18:36, 6 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 02:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stoneware webOS

    Stoneware webOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Speedied as A7. Recreated 5 days later. I'm not sure that it's notable. And going round-and-round with speedies isn't really helping. Bringing to AfD for consensus. -- Swerdnaneb 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It needs at least one other independent reliable source with significant coverage to pass notability guidelines, in my opinion. It would be better if the article actually made a claim of notability and was written a bit less like an advertisement/list of features. swaq 22:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added additional independent notability article, cleaned up article language to improve subjective nature David Kushner (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source you added only seems to mention it in addition to MokaFive. I'm not sure I'd call that significant coverage. I was also turned off when I got sent to an advertisement page before being redirected to the actual article. swaq 16:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the same thing... until I got to page 2. -- Swerdnaneb 16:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read the second page. It still seemed like a rather short blurb, but it is borderline. Are there any more independent sources? swaq 16:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 02:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete. No evidence of notability. Laudak (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - coverage in technology press indicates notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:02, 31 July 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++ 18:33, 6 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. Fram (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamie parmar

    Jamie parmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Nonnotable 14-year-old who is running through Death Valley for charity. Mentioned in one local news article, not enough to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - admirable that he is doing charity work, but there are no reliable sources to establish notability for him. -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - while his work and goal is certainly noble, it's not notable. --Alinnisawest(talk)
    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), article has been moved back to Flightstick; this article will be recommended for speedy deletion per G1 (patent nonsense). MuZemike (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

    123123

    123123 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable neologism. The original article, Flightstick, was prodded (see diff 1). Shortly after, the article was blanked by its creator (see diff 2). Then, the article was moved to 123123 (see diff 3). Then another user (in good faith, I'm sure) reverted the article, but the article was reprodded in the process, which is a violation of policy (see diff 4). To be consistent with policy, we have no choice but to assume a contested prod, and this article must go through AfD.

    I further recommend speedy deletion of this article per WP:CSD#G1 (patent nonsense) and that action be taken on said creator for trying to circumvent the deletion process. MuZemike (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yikes, this is a weird one. Move back to Flightstick then redirect or merge to joystick then delete the redirect at 123123. Even if it's a neologism, flightstick (or flight stick) strikes me as a likely search term. There are some products labeled flight stick [22] and the term is used by Joystiq [23] and IGN [24], although with a space. Since Flight Stick is a redirect to joystick, the non-space version should redirect there as well. Pagrashtak 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to flightstick, merge to joystick, then delete. Flightstick might be a search term, but 123123 is a ridiculous name for an article about a joystick. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 19:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move first, having an Afd on an article title which is only in use because of an inappropriate move seems counter productive. Move back to Flightstick and either keep or merge and redirect from there. Move was clearly foolish but I can see why editor got fed up, original content when at Flightstick name should have been easily understood to be describing a common product type but was given an attempted db-nonsense tag [25] before rest of tagging saga ensued -Hunting dog (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's quick, simple and gets the job done. All this talk about moving and merging seems to be overlooking the fact that there's no encyclopaedic content in the article. There are no sources nor any demonstration of notability. I also noted that it was blanked by its original author without any other significant contributions. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note — Move to 123123 has been reverted. I will tag 123123 for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G1. I will also close this AfD debate (non-admin closure) and re-open it under Filghtstick. MuZemike (talk) 19:52, 6 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 g4, no different from article deleted 2 weeks ago after AFD. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Neidermeyer's mind

    AfDs for this article:
    Neidermeyer's mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This page is a re-creation of the already-deleted article Neidermeyer's Mind. The previous deletion discussion can be found here. = ∫tc 5th Eye 18:07, 6 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 02:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Derrick MacThomas

    Derrick MacThomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable; (Intended to be) Promotional; no reliable sources Tom Harrison Talk 18:02, 6 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, default to keep. lifebaka++ 13:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Sunny Era

    The Sunny Era (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable music ensemble that fails WP:MUSIC. Also, WP:COI concerns given the creators name. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper ǀ 76 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep Creator might have a conflict of interest, but the article does not show it, it is written NPOV imho. Has a full length album with some reviews [26] (albeit not good) and was featured for Barrack Obama's fundraising events[27]. I think that's notable enough for Wikipedia. So#Why 18:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per SoWhy Guyanakoolaid (talk) 00:36, 1 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++ 17:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. One album and a local fundraising gig, with no charts or awards or tours, does not meet WP:MUSIC. 20 unique Ghits for their label isn't a good sign either. Shawisland (talk) 23:08, 9 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 --JForget 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Xscape (song)

    Xscape (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    DELETE: Not notable, never charted, no music video, not official single. — Realist2 17:55, 6 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 00:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Feodor Vassilyev

    Feodor Vassilyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    First, the article is clearly incorrect as written. Feodor is a common Russian male name so it is a he, not a she and he could not have given birth to any children. I did a bit of google searching and found some (non-WP:RS) references, such as these[28][29] claiming that it was Feodor Vassiliev's wife who had given birth to 69 children. I was not able to find any reliable sources (by searching googlebooks, googlescholar, etc) that actually confirm this claim. Even if the claim can be verified, it does not conform notability on Feodor Vassiliev but rather, possibly (and even then, debatable) on his unnamed wife. So the article about him should be deleted anyway, both on WP:V and WP:N grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Keep, with rewrite to specify "the wife of Feodor Vassilyev". She is apparently referenced in Guinness Book of Records - does that count as RS?. Fanx (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much doubt that she is in Guinness since it did not exist in the 18th century. Guinness has fairly strict rules about only listing records that they themselves have verified. Even if the info re Vassiliev's wife is confirmed and verified in accordance with WP:V (which, at the moment, is very much in question), there is not enough here for a biographical article and no possibility of expanding the article beyong a couple of sentences. We don't even know the name of the woman or the dates of her birth and death and know nothing else about her life. If verified, the info about her may merit a mention in another article on a larger topic but not a separate article. Nsk92 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This google books search preview gets several editions of guinness supporting the claim, although none of them have more than snippet view.John Z (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. I still say that this does not merit a separate biographical article, but rather, perhaps, a mention somewhere else. We do not know anything else about this person, such as her name, dates of birth and death or any other details of her life. As I said, there is no possibility of ever expanding the article beyond a couple of sentences that it is now. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably right. If memory serves, there was another Russian woman cited as having given birth to a great number of children a bit later. IIRC some editions had photographs of her with many of her progeny. Someone with a name and more that one could build an article around. If we have an article on her, this meager information could be merged into it.John Z (talk) 18:23, 31 July 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++ 17:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as an article on the woman, although if we don't have her name that is awkward. I have a copy of The Guinness Book of Records from 1993 and I can verify that she is listed as holding the record for giving birth to the most children, and the facts given correspond to what is stated in the article. If we decide the keep the article, I could add a few more details. Everyking (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can certainly remember reading, in the 70s editions of the Guinness BOWR, a mention of a Russian peasant, name of Feodor Vasiliyev, whose wife gave birth to a cartload of kids (including multiple multiples) and was presented at the court of the Tsar. Its worth at least a Smerge to the relevant Multiple Births page if not already mentioned, although Gospodina Vasiliyeva seems as close as we'll get to her name. Plutonium27 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Childbirth seems like a better destination for the merge since Multiple births relates to multiple births within a single pregnancy, such as twins, triplets, etc. Regarding Gospodina, the correct Russian word is actually "Gospozha" (Госпожа), which is the Russian feminine form for "Gospodin" (Господин). Although, being Russian myself, I must confess that I don't know what the correct English conventions regarding such issues are, maybe "Gospodina" is also OK. However, as a historical term, its usage here may be a bit problematic as it indicates a different socio-economic status from that of a peasant. Feodor Vassilyev and his wife were Russian peasants living in the 18th century. Almost all peasants in Russia at that time were serfs (a form of slavery that existed in Russia until 1861). It is almost certain that the Vassilievs were serfs as well. The term "gospodin", which translates from Russian roughly as "lord" or "master") at that time was a kind of a honorific that was reserved specifically for the free gentry and indicated at least some form of nobility and the usage of that term indicated belonging to gentry. (I do not think even free peasants or cossaks would have been called "gospodin" at that time, although I am not sure). Nsk92 (talk) 13:47, 9 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 Article has been speedily deleted. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 02:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Liquid Ions

    Liquid Ions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article is mostly an advert for a product from Atrium Innovation. I can't see why this product is notable and parent company does not appear to be notable either. TN‑X-Man 17:52, 6 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 02:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Two Seas Records

    Two Seas Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    DELETE: Not notable, it's only notable aspect was the inclusion of Jackson. However in the end it never occurred, thus the article is very unlikely to grow beyond the stub it is now. It will probably dissolve entirely before long, we won't hear of it again I imagine. — Realist2 17:48, 6 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 g3, nonsense/hoax, zero on Google or IMDB. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Petz Party

    Petz Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable (maybe fake?) television series. - Sorfane 17:29, 6 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). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Geoffrey Simmons

    Geoffrey Simmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable. A minor creationist writter. I googled his name and only creationist and anti-creationist websites mentioned him. No reliable secondary sources cited in article. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: minor creationist who has neither made any significant contribution to, nor achieved any notoriety in, the creation-evolution controversy‎, and does not rate even a passing mention in the major books on this topic. HrafnTalkStalk 17:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It seems that the (albeit essentially self-published) books make him a public figure, and therefore subject to informational inquiries. Doctor + published creationist + creationist nuisance establish notability. Immediately prior to afd this article was larger, and I've restored it to that state. Weak keep if people below this vote disagree. –MT 19:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Here is a source for a review of his book:
      • Traynor, Lee. "What Evolution Isn't: Creationism's Straw Men." Skeptic 12, no. 1 (September 2005): 91-94 Abstract: The article reviews several books on evolution including "What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution," by Geoffrey Simmons and M.D. Eugene, "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Towards God," by Lee Strobel, "Origin of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off," by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, and "The Design Revolution: Answering Questions about Intelligent Design," by William A. Dembski.
    • Keep seems to have a following and mentions in creationist/intelligent design circles. We66er (talk) 16:06, 10 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 02:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Greenfluencer

    Greenfluencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article about a neologism coined by a marketing firm, Porter Novelli. The author very properly declares in the edit summary that he is an employee and so has a COI. Of the four references, the second does not mention the term, and the other three mention it only in the context of Porter Novelli coining it and doing a survey. This is not enough to establish notability per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms: "Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet." In this case there is no evidence of any use except in the context of Porter Novelli's survey. Also, "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term" applies here. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom without prejudice. Cliff smith talk 18:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    :: From author, Matthew Snodgrass ... Thank you for this consideration. I have the upmost respect for your policies and do not intend to post this as any sort of vanity term. According the truest terms of the COI, my posting of this does not represent a conflict of interest, as I'm not being paid specifically to create this article. With regards to the use of the neologism, the term, greenfluencer, has had extensive coverage beyond the cited articles listed, both in referencing Porter Novelli's study and in passing use of the term, "greenfluencer":

    • http://www.foxbusiness.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=2139444&referralPlaylistId=search%7Cgreen%20influence
    • http://adage.com/greenmarketing08/article?article_id=127546&search_phrase=Porter+Novelli
    • http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2008/06/25/overwhelmed-by-green-marketing
    • http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2008/06/why-your-busine.html
    • http://ecotumble.com/post/39902187/are-you-a-greenfluencer-no-impact-man
    • http://ecotechdaily.com/
    • http://technorati.com/blogs/noimpactman.typepad.com/blog
    • http://friendfeed.com/e/39ef2c36-9964-fbab-34c2-7664a9a0aa4a?service=blog
    • http://www.lohas.com/articles/101385.html
    • http://arduousblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/yesterday-there-was-bit-of.htmlJune 30, 2008
    • http://vegncookingandotherrandommusings.blogspot.com/2008/06/im-green-registered-trademark-and.html
    • http://inthegreenbag.blogspot.com/2008/06/conscientious-doesnt-mean-inflexible.html
    • http://davistudio.blogspot.com/2008/06/greenfluencers.html
    • http://www.csreurope.org/news.php?&page=4
    • http://www.christopherhaase.com/blog/2008_06_01_archive.html#2627502315422182313
    • http://ecoburban.blogspot.com/2008/07/greenfluencer-or-just-green.htm
    • http://bluemarblemedia.blogspot.com/
    • http://allgreeninfo.com/index.php?s=Greenfluencer
    • http://www.prweekus.com/Porter-Novelli-Profile-Greenfluencers/article/112057/
    • http://www.vegansoapbox.com/your-voice-is-powerful-2/
    • http://greenbeandreams.blogspot.com/
    • http://www.hotcards.com/blog/5/242.html
    • http://www.cfo.com/whitepapers/index.cfm/displaywhitepaper/11703040
    • http://blog.brighterplanet.com/2008/07/09/ask-us-about-our-pants/
    • http://biodieselnow.com/forums/t/22115.aspx
    • http://greenzoneonline.com/?p=313
    • PR News, July 14, 2008
    • http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/07/15/greenfluencers-are-small-but-powerful-group-of-consumers/
    • http://ecotumble.com/post/42350095/greenfluencers-are-small-but-powerful-group-of
    • http://inthegreenbag.blogspot.com/2008/07/good-packaging-and-bad-packaging.html
    • http://greenzoneonline.com/2008/07/15/women-as-greenfluencers-part-ii-sustainable-agriculture/
    • http://www.vivagreen.com/feed/items/%E2%80%98greenfluencers%E2%80%99-are-small-but-powerful-group-of-consumers
    • CSR Newswire, July 16, 2008
    • http://greenzoneonline.com/2008/07/16/women-as-greenfluencers-part-iii-weddings/
    • http://blog.jungle8.com/2008/07/16/green_hunting/
    • http://blog.howyoueco.com/2008/07/todays-eco-reads/
    • http://greenbeandreams.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-for-apple.html
    • http://www.iconocast.com/00001/T6/News8.htm
    • http://sustainablefutures.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/are-you-an-eco-connector-greenfluencers-hold-unusually-strong-influence-over-public-opinion/
    • http://www.iema.net/news?aid=18318
    • http://www.imarketinglabs.com/3278/not-your-mothers-environmentalists-porter-novelli-identifies-a-new-forbes/
    • http://mothers-day.nuggetfind.com/not-your-mothers-environmentalists-porter-novelli-identifies-a-marketwatch-8/
    • http://www.csrinfo.org/en/artyku-y/ekologiczni-trendsetterzy-nowe-pokolenie.html
    • http://fathom3.blogspot.com/2008/07/who-are-greenfluencers.html
    • http://ecopreneurist.com/2008/07/18/eco-warriors-young-green-and-influential/
    • http://www.csrinfo.org/en/artyku-y/ekologiczni-trendsetterzy-nowe-pokolenie.html
    • http://greenoptions.com/tag/eco-influencers
    • http://www.corporateresponsibility.net/2008/07/22/research-concludes-that-greenfluencers-are-a-small-but-powerful-group-of-consumers/
    • http://www.socialbridges.org/2008/07/22/greenfluencers-making-waves-in-ethical-consumerism/
    • http://www.icscseed.org/news/%E2%80%98greenfluencing%E2%80%99-their-peers
    • http://internetcommunications.tmcnet.com/news/2008/07/24/3566473.htm
    • http://earthkeeper.com/blog/about-2/
      • Again, I wish to post this with the greatest respect to the Wikipedia environment and am willing to heed any advice. As I mentioned, I had consulted a Wikipedia editor prior to posting this article. Mattsnod (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - the views of individual editors vary, which is why we work by consensus. As for the links you have listed, the blogs can be discounted as blogs are not reliable sources. Sources that just repeat the findings of the survey are not that additive, and sources that require a subscription to access are problematic. – ukexpat (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't want to labour the point, because you declared your interest, but "not being paid specifically to create this article" is splitting hairs a bit - you are creating it as part of the job for which you are paid, so you certainly come under the terms of "receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization" in WP:COI. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Not to belabor this point, but my last thought on this is that the term, greenfluencer, is making its way into the lexicon of environmental discussions. If someone desired to find out what this term meant, my first thought would be to check on Wikipedia. Again, I now, as always, heed the expertise of the wikiepedia editors with all respect, but I think this is a valid entry. Mattsnod (talk) 01:26, 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 02:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lentzis Dimitris

    Lentzis Dimitris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Another one from the backlog. Ghits aren't promising, they're predominantly wiki mirrors and face book, though one link appears to confirm his existence. Neither book nor scholar show evidence of his published works and there's no evidence he's a notable painter/writer. No interwiki links and I don't know enough Greek to search and see if he has an article on the Greek wiki. Was created by Special:Contributions/Bsasmatzi_Vasiliki an SPA. TravellingCari 16:50, 6 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 obvious keep after rewrite. DS (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy Nulman

    Andy Nulman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article is not notable - the company Andy Nulman is President and CMO of doesn't have an article, so why should he? Callumm (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Appears to be a vanity page. lk (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Accomplishments = vanity? Gobbon
    Comment Gobbon has just vandalized my user page, which leads me to believe that he is not a good NPV source of information about this subject.
    Oops, I think I know what happened. My 'leave me a message' link on my user page was misdirected to my user page instead of my talk page. I've fixed it now. Sorry for the misunderstanding. lk (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I did not "vandalize," I left a comment. Please excuse me if I did so in the wrong place. I am truly and sincerely sorry Gobbon

    Comment P.S. He's the President and CMO, not CEO. And his company is listed in the article about Deloitte's fastest growing companies. The company he WAS CEO of (Just For Laughs) has an article. And he is listed in the Business and Philanthropy section of the List of Canadian Jews article. Gobbon
    Delete Sorry for the error in his title (it has now been changed). I note the company is in Deloitte Fast 500, but 1 out of the 15 companies mentioned has articles. I don't think this makes him, or his company notable. List of Canadian Jews also doesn't make him notable - there's loads of Canadian Jews. Andy Nulman's article does not satisfy WP:BIO, and his company, which doesn't even have an article, doesn't satisfy WP:ORG. In addition, Andy Nulman isn't mentioned in Just for Laughs, so I doubt his significance to the company/festival. Callumm (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Callum, you seem to have made this into a personal vendetta. There are indeed loads of Canadian Jews, but the ones listed in List of Canadian Jews are, to quote the article, "prominent Canadian Jews (Jewish Canadians)" and include the likes of eBay's Jeff Skoll, Samuel Bronfman, Lorne Michaels, Ivan Reitman, William Shatner, Geddy Lee of Rush, Saul Bellow, and Leonard Cohen. Maybe they should be deleted, too.

    As for his significance to Just For Laughs, there wouldn't be one without him. From an article in Variety which talked about his resignation: "Under Nulman's tenure, the festival grew from a minor comedy event to one of the key comedy festivals internationally. Nulman was also active in the TV sphere, creating and executive producing over 150 Just For Laughs TV shows in a variety of languages around the globe." The Wikipedia article on Just For Laughs doesn't even mention Gilbert Rozon, who founded the event. Add to this his speaking, authorship of books, TV show production, etc. There are thousands of people with Wikipedia pages with far fewer accomplishments who deserve the attention of your eagle eye. Gobbon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.103.138 (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong delete to the point I'm tempted to speedy this under WP:CSD#G11. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:20, 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) 17:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Haakonian Order

    Haakonian Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an stubbish, in universe repetition of the plot of several episodes of Star Trek: Voyager. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Only sourced by "in universe" and fan sources. Too bad more time is not spent on real topics rather than fictional ones. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete One of many non-notable fan-created trek-related trivia. lk (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Minor fictional faction which has not received substantial coverage from sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- not much more I can add to the arguments already presented, except to say I agree entirely. This is nothing but a plot summary stub, there are no references to demonstrate significant coverage by independent sources. Reyk YO! 22:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in some capacity due to encyclopedic and out of universe information included in this notable article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that does not present a suitable amount or type of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We obviously disagree, but I think it does. I would like to see if the bit about "Dune" can be sourced as that strikes me as relevant out of universe information. I wonder if it would be possibile to ask the person who added that information? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I would normally be inclined to keep an article based on some significant coverage in the star trek encyclopedia, but snippets provided in google books indicate that even the coverage there is trivial. Apart from that bit of coverage, there is not significant coverage from independent, reliable sources in order to meet the WP:GNG. Even if sources, the aside about Haakonian being inspired by House Harkonnen is exceedingly trivial. It might merit a mention in the House Harkonnen article...maybe. Protonk (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 7 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). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank Kaufmann

    Frank Kaufmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable head of one of the myriad non-notable organisations within the Unification Movement. Only vestigial reliable third party coverage. The article is simply a credulous regurgitation of his blog biography, to which ludicrously tenuous citations have recently been added (when these claims were challenged & deleted). A substantial minority of these citations are to Kaufmann's own writings, and a vast majority are to sources associated with him (particularly through the Unification Movement). They frequently either do not even mention Kaufmann himself, and/or do not mention the activity he is claimed to have engaged in/people he is claimed to have "worked with", let alone actually connecting him with them in any meaningful way. HrafnTalkStalk 16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have included a brief history of the article and a response to some of the criticisms on this AfD's talkpage. I do not intend to further respond to these criticisms here on the AfD itself. HrafnTalkStalk 09:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As nominator, and after user-talk discussions with S.D.Jameson, I'm changing my vote to Delete/Grudging Merge, but with the following three strong caveats:
    1. I do not accept Jameson's "germ of notability" thesis. WP:NOTE (and its derivative guidelines) do not accept a topics's own writings as evidence of notability, absent reliable third-party opinion that these writings are themselves notable. Further, the UPI-UC connection renders the former's editorial choice in selecting, what are in any case mere op-ed pieces, potentially partial. However, WP:NOTE does not apply to merged material, so a pragmatic approach may (optionally) be taken without violating guidelines.
    2. My preference is still for deletion. As I stated above, this article for most of its life has been a poorly-sourced fleshing out of a WP:COPYVIO skeleton. A fresh start would therefore be preferable.
    3. Should the article be restarted without "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as defined in WP:NOTE), I reserve the right to "aggressively" seek a rectification of the issue -- up to and including renomination for deletion.
    HrafnTalkStalk 17:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The discussion on the talk page continues to raise issues recommending the biography is notable. There is an ongoing dialogue that disputes the characterization of the references described above. This list provided in the initial recommendation to delete, has been modified steadily and consistently in respectful response to the corrections of Mr. Hrafn. The conversation continues on the talk page.96.224.169.155 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heat generating commentary hidden

    The most recent section of the talk page conversation is reproduced here:

    ===Sick to death of tendentious arguments=== I am sick of this anonymous editor:

    1. Ubiquitously misrepresenting obscure sources, organisations and individuals as "major", "very elite", "preeminent", "major religious leaders", "a major Christian thinker and writer", "a significant international organization", "an important organization". Such ludicrous unsubstantiated hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.
    2. Making arguments that are ludicrous WP:SYNTH based on speculation so wild as to make conspiracy theories look like a WP:RS.
    3. A 'Humpty Dumpty' 'words mean whatever I want them to' interpretation of 'peace activist', 'work with', etc.
    4. A completely ludicrous claim that "Only one reference was "written by Kaufmann" -- when these stand as obvious contradiction [30][31][32], as well as the following references which are simply links to/sales-blurbs of/abstracts of material written by Kaufmann: [33][34][35][36]
      • And this is doesn't include the throng of other sources that Kaufmann has close associations with.

    I am heartily tired of this and will WP:AFD this article. HrafnTalkStalk 16:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought the rule of Wikipedia was not to make personal attacks WP:NPA, assume good faith WP:AGF, work with civility, and not to communicate in a way that consists of personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress WP:CIVIL. Is it permitted to declare oneself "sick of" someone who is in dialogue in good faith.
    The writer is responding in sincere dialogue and making changes. Is it permitted to denigrate a fellow Wikipedian, resort to name calling, declare oneself sick of people who differ and are in respectful dialogue?
    Your list of notes "written by Kaufmann" are not accurate:
    Footnote 1, lists Kaufmann's position by the World Media Association. This entry (on Kaufmann's work) was not written by Kaufmann.
    Footnote 2, Shows a website concerned with issues of war and peace using Kaufmann's work. The use of Kaufmann's work was the decision of the site editors, it was not "written by Kaufmann."
    Footnote 3, yes Hrafn is correct. I didn't notice those articles were written Kaufmann, my mistake. This must be deleted as a reference.
    Footnote 4, a news aggregate of contemporary published news and opinion is not "written by Kaufmann." It lists his published writing as a function of that site's mission.
    Footnote 5, The Common Ground News Service uses Kaufmann's published writing, Common Ground News Service is not "written by Kaufmann"
    Footnote 6, The website of the educational organization Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies uses Kaufmann's published writing as one of its resources. It is not "written by Kaufmann"
    Footnote 7 is from the website of an scholarly publisher. The listing of Kaufmann's book, that shows the academic fields that Kaufmann teaches, was not "written by Kaufmann" it was written by the Peter Lang Verlagsgruppe
    It seems belittling and mocking to compare a discussion of peace activism with Humpty Dumpty. That is not a respectful way to make a point. It seems uncivil to describe a sincere effort to dialogue as tendentious. It seems uncivil to describe the efforts of a dialogue partner as ludicrous hyperbole, to say that efforts to comply "add nothing to the discussion could also be seen as hyperbole. The belittling of sincere efforts to provide referencing, mocking it by comparing it to conspiracy theory, also seems in violation of several of Wikipedia standards and regulations, and efforts of the leadership to create a collegial and welcoming atmosphere for contributors.
    If there is a rush to delete the article for some reason, a Wikipedia administrator certainly can manage to do so easily, I imagine. But why the rush? Clear evidence has been provided to indicate that that is a notable biography. Together with a seeming rush to delete this article, there has now emerged for some reason a string of offense, insult, belittling and mocking.
    I do not know the rules of how articles are deleted. If administrators are free to do this unilaterally, then of course it is clear from the outset, and all throughout the conversation that this has been the direction of Mr. Hrafn conversation with a writer who is trying to comply.
    If however Wikipedia is organized so that Wikipedia administrators are not free to personally delete articles unilaterally and without peer oversight, if it is the case that some form of a committee has to review such decisions as a way to protect the integrity of Wikipedia from the possibility of bias in a single administrator, then it should be clear to other reviewers that valid points have been made by both sides. The conversation continues. The seniority and authority of the administrator has been respected throughout (following initial instruction and apology), and in fact for some reason, late in the conversation the newbie suddenly has come under personal attack, mockery, and belittlement, for doing nothing other than offering differing opinions.
    If there is a committee involved in decisions to delete articles, there is clear evidence that the biography of Kaufmann is notable, or at least possibly so, and there should arise some question as to why there is so great a rush to delete this particular article while sincere discussion and efforts to comply and modify the article continues? 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. The "conversation" does not 'continue'. I brought it to an end because of your repeated bad-faith misrepresentations of sources, and particularly of the degree to which the article relies upon material by Kaufmann himself (to the extent of your even claiming that a piece that explicitly states that it is "by Frank Kaufmann" was not written by him). And I have just had to nowiki-tag the section break that you inserted with the hidden material -- as it was disrupting ability to edit this AfD. HrafnTalkStalk 05:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The rampant tagging of the page makes it difficult to ascertain where its essential defects, if any, lie, so it should be kept until cleaned up sufficiently that the issues, assuming any remain, are apparent. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    Heat-generating commentary hidden

    • Comment: so the fact that the sources to which the article is cited ubiquitously fail to verify the material cited to them, and are frequently unreliable (and therefore have been tagged for such), is reason to keep the article? Interesting reasoning. I think, given that the reliable independent coverage of this topic approaches very close to zero, that we can safely say that 'issues remain' and are already "apparent". HrafnTalkStalk 05:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having personal experience with the way in which articles can acquire excessive tags, I'd say the current state of the article is prima facie evidence of the appropriateness of keeping it in Wikipedia. That is, an editor who was properly WP:DGAFing would simply tag it and leave it. The presence of a plethora of tags suggests that some editor has taken an excessive, perhaps unhealthy, interest in the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: given Jclemens desperate measures (both here and on other articles) to 'rescue' non-notable material lacking significant independent & reliable coverage, his invocation of WP:DGAF is hilarious. He quite clearly does "give a f_ck" about these articles. Whether he 'gives a f_ck' about WP:V (the core wikipedia policy at issue here) is a rather different question. HrafnTalkStalk 06:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then, feel free to include some AfD links so other editors can review past contributions. I think they will find that recently, your evaluation is a good barometer of an AfD outcome: the community seems to fairly consistently disagree with your position. At our first encounter, I took your vehement opposition more seriously, until I realized that yours is just one differing, non-normative opinion about how to apply Wikipedia policies. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahhh yes, an AfD where the closing admin accepted your misrepresentations of a bunch of pseudoreviews as evidence of WP:NOTE, an AfD where I accepted addition of material made after my original comment as raising the article (barely) to notability, a highly contentiuous one which resulted in a close of "The result was keep in the sense of 'not delete'. There is no immediately apparent consensus as to whether or not the article should be merged to one of a number of proposed other articles" (when my final vote was to merge), an AfD when even one of the proponents admitted that "it was indeed a quote farm from her books but the books were references when there wasn't much else", and one where half the article was WP:COPYVIO. If this is the best that you can cherry-pick (they are neither the most recent AfDs I've participated in, nor ones that I've initiated), then your accusation of "one differing, non-normative opinion" is clearly baseless. HrafnTalkStalk 07:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: 96.224.169.155 & Jclemens have spent an inordinate amount of space in ad hominem attacks on myself in an apparent attempt to distract attention from the complete lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I have started a section on: Talk:Frank Kaufmann#Reliable independent coverage of Frank Kaufmann to highlight what coverage there may be. Rather than attacking me further, why don't they demonstrate that this article is worthy of keeping by finding some non-trivial independent and reliable coverage and add it there. HrafnTalkStalk 12:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be happy to, on one condition--from now, until the close of the AfD, you do not edit the artice. If you're willing to raise objections in the article's talk page and let other editors fix them without constantly disrupting the visual flow of the article with tags, I'm fine with that. Feel free to keep a running list on talk, we'll leave the articleissues header as is, and then you can reinsert appropriate tags in the article assuming it survives AfD. As is, the repeated inline tagging actively discourages improvement. Since you've nominated the article for deletion, this also gives you a bit of separation from the cleanup work, such that nothing you put on the talk page could be construed as actively interfering with the repair work. How's that sound? Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given our anon-friend's habitual tendency to misrepresent the reliability (most obvious example is the Eden Project -- but numerous other sub-par sources have been represented in superlative terms), content (the Dalai Lama video, claims for working with Muftis, Hindus, etc, etc), and authorship (particularly Kaufmann's own authorship) of sources, why on earth would I want to give him a free hand to do so unchecked? And to be honest, given my previous experience with you, I don't trust you much more. So no deal. WP:NOTE requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- so I see no reason I should bargain away my right to highlight poor sourcing for something that wikipedia officially demands anyway. HrafnTalkStalk 16:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Week keep - Poorly written article, but no problem with notability. --Dezidor (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there rules for arbitrarily adding or deleting article content with the specific result to diminish the notability of a biography? (See here and here) Thank you 68.160.253.64 (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heat-generating commentary hidden

    • In hundreds of AfD's I've particpated in or reviewed, Hrafn is the only editor I've seen remove content inserted by other editors that they maintain improves notability. He should probably respond to this query. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will WP:AGF and assume that Jclemens is not lying about "only editor I've seen" -- just has a very poor memory -- as he himself (in one of the AfDs he links to above, in his previous ad hominem attack) made a similar accusation against DJ Clayworth, who had removed some of the trivia that Jclemens was attempting to insert into that article in an (ultimately successful) attempt to spoof notability. I will not engage this further attempt to distract attention, but will repeat my earlier question: where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? HrafnTalkStalk 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yeah, him. Haven't seen him in that article since the AfD, unlike you. Allow me to amplify my statement: In hundreds of AfD's I've particpated in or reviewed, Hrafn is the only editor I've seen remove content inserted by other editors that they maintain improves notability, while repeatedly inserting excessive tags and challenging cleanup work in progress. Better? Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - perhaps strong delete. This article reads like a padded and glorified CV. The positions (director, editor, scholar, collaborator, nominee) sound notable, but they are unverified, the organizations/awards aren't notable enough to make him notable, and the listed accomplishments (oversight of monographs, responsibility to talk to religious leaders) don't merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. I also urge the editors to discontinue arguments on this AFD page, as it clutters things up and discourages others from voting. A link might draw interested parties to whatever talk pages are relevant. –MT 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Conditional keep, remove all dubious refs - any that seem affiliated with the subject. The entire article should be three or four properly-cited sentences. Exactly what was done needs to be stated - not "in the areas of". If "he has published X, and did this this and that in these countries" doesn't sound notable, then it should be deleted from the article. A slightly notable article does not permit the injection of non-notable facts. –MT 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heat-generating commentary hidden

    • Let us review the facts so far:
    1. Hrafn has a recent history of assertive AfD lobbying against keeping Unification church articles.
    2. Hrafn has engaged in a pattern of continuing disparagement against such articles once they have been kept.
    3. Hrafn has engaged in a pattern of tagging the article in question after submitting it to AfD.
    4. In at least one instance in the past, Hrafn has deleted material requested by one of his tags.
    Given all that active lobbying by the nominator, are you sure you really want to argue for deletion? Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not accept that Jclemens characterisation of these events is in any way accurate. However as these ad hominem accusations (the latest in a series of such tirades that he has launched into on this AfD) are completely irrelevant to the question of Kauffman's notability, and the lack of reliable third party coverage, I will not respond in detail. I attempted to hide Jclemens & the anon-editors' earlier attacks & my responses in keeping with M's request to keep this off the AfD. Jclemens reverted, as he explicitly wants this AfD to be about my alleged "conduct" rather than the underlying facts. HrafnTalkStalk 05:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Talk:Frank Kaufmann#Complete lack of corroboration of "Collaboration with religious leaders" contains corroboration of the point M makes on Kaufmann's "accomplishments" being "unverified". HrafnTalkStalk 06:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the interest of full disclosure, I was contacted at my talkpage regarding this AfD.Comment. Let me begin by saying that this AfD has become something of a disgrace. The flinging around of various charges, needs to stop. It has become exceedingly difficult to see past all the heat generated between the two parties central to the discussion. This is unacceptable, and I would propose that both users (Hrafn and Jclemens) not respond again on this page, so that others more dispassionate about the subject can calmly discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of keeping or deleting this article. I will cross-post this request to both editors' talkpages, and then post my recommendation (keep, delete, merge, or redirect) here shortly. S.D.Jameson 11:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inasmuch as I was contacted by a party with an interest in keeping this article, I don't think that person will agree with the conclusion I draw. I have looked over the article, the references, and the cogent arguments put forward in this AfD. While I find that there may be the tiniest germ of notability to the subject of this article, most of the references cited do not help the case for keeping the article at all:
    1. Some fail to even mention Kaufmann by name.
    2. Others are from unreliable sources (basically Unification Church sources).
    3. Still others are simple lists of names of people who happened to participate in a particular event, conference, or other Unification activity.
    So the fact that there are 22 13 inline citations for this article doesn't bear on a keep/delete decision at all. Yet, as I said before, there does appear to be the slightest germ of notability here, as Kaufmann has, it seems, had one or more of his writing picked up by UPI as an "outside perspective." Because of this "germ of notability", I can not argue for a straight delete. Therefore, I propose a Solomonic solution that may not please either party, but may be the best way forward. I propose that we:
    merge and redirect the page to the Unification Church article.
    This would allow Jclemens to search for reliable, third party sources that corroborate Kaufmann's notability. At such time as true notability is established, the article could be recreated, with all of the current history intact. If more than the slightest notability that is now present is never attained, it would stay as a redirect, for those interested in Unification theology, who might possibly type Kaufmann's name into a search. S.D.Jameson 12:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete due to lack of an independent reliable source verifying notability. If an independent sources establishes that he's notable enough for a mention in the UC article, his name can be shown there and a search will lead to that article. . . dave souza, talk 20:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Wouldn't a "merge and redirect" accomplish the same thing, while keeping the history intact on the off chance he'll become more notable in the future. S.D.Jameson 20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      A "merge and redirect" needs a mention of the name on the target page of the redirect, and such a mention needs verification of notability. The fact that he's a minor author of some UP articles does not seem notable in itself, so some better verification is needed to justify him being in the article. Otherwise the redirect gets very confusing for anyone who comes across it when searching for another more notable Frank Kaufmann. . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Point taken. Maybe a move to Frank Kaufmann (Unitarian) or Frank Kaufmann (theologian) or some other appropriate title would be in order. I mention below, in my response to Todd, the need for some mention in the main UC article, if he's truly notable, so I agree with your point there. S.D.Jameson 20:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: While the article is particularly poorly written, the subject seems to be notable enough. I believe these refer to the subject (please excuse the amazon links, they're not here for spammage):
    • Sourcebook of the World's Religions: An Interfaith Guide to Religion and Spirituality (Sourcebook of the World's Religions) where he wrote a section
    • Christianity & Western Thought, Volume 2: Faith & Reason in the 19th Century (Hardcover) where he is cited
    • Church and State in the Modern World: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Religious Studies) James E. Wood where he is cited in the bibliography for another book
    This is enough for me. However, the article needs to be thoroughly cleaned up.Toddst1 (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you don't mind my indenting your last line for readability purposes. If so, please revert.
    I rather agree with Todd here, and would support keeping the article, cleaning it up, removing unsourced (and poorly sourced) statements, as an alternative to deletion. As more sources are (hopefully) found, it can be expanded further. My above option regarding merging and redirecting might be applicable, as we could allow the interested parties to work it up in userspace, and have it moved and merged to replace the redirect when the rewritten text was ready. Also, if this man is truly notable, perhaps a short mention in the Unification Church article would be appropriate as well. S.D.Jameson 20:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the cleanup. I'm new at this. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I am an ex-member of the church, and a critic of the organization I have rejected. But I have to agree with most of the editors above - "no problem with notability" as Dezidor put it. I'd say Kaufmann easily passes notability in either of two areas by themselves, even without combining them:
    • his work as a "religion and peace" activist hosting conferences for several decades, work in religious conflict hot spots, advising governments, etc., for which he was nominated for the Guru Nanak Interfaith Award.
    • his work as an academic, particularly as editor of Dialogue and Alliance, a "major religion and theology journal" according to the American Theological Library Association, an eminently reliable source of opinion on such matters. This key point of notability should certainly go in the lead, as with similar comments in many bios of academics on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Hrafn deleted the the quotation yesterday and moved the trimmed sentence out of the lead, to the very bottom of the "Activities" section. Here is a version of the page before Hrafn's deletions. Btw, I've made no comment above, including in the "Heat" sections, which I nevertheless think are revealing. -Exucmember (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per 96.224.169.155, Toddst1 and Exucmember. Improve article and clarify what he's done and written, activism, etc. Banjeboi 21:48, 11 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) 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Preface (album)

    This is an unsourced article about a non-notable album which has yet to be released. Fails WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) 16:11, 6 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 02:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hayvenhurst

    Hayvenhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    DELETE and REDIRECT: Not notable, this is not Neverland Ranch. It should be redirected to Jackson family where a paragraph could be added. — Realist2 15:57, 6 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 Denise Spellberg; Merge/Redirect Sherry Jones (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Denise Spellberg

    Denise Spellberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Sherry Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The author BatYisrael (talk · contribs) has posted three essentially identical articles about a current news event, titled for the book concerned, The Jewel of Medina, and the two people involved. It is debatable whether per WP:NOTNEWS the book article should be here rather than in Wikinews, but per WP:BLP1E "Cover the event, not the person" these two people should not have articles, or even redirects. Author reacted to one of the PRODs with a {{hangon}}, which I take to mean it is contested. Delete both. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect Both to The Jewel of Medina. My feeling is that the story itself is notable enough for a wikipedia article and as such both of these names seem to be likely search terms and as such should be redirects. Dpmuk (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Denise Spellberg is probably notable even without this incident. She teaches at a major university. has one book out and one in press (with Random House) and is widely cited (try her in JSOR or google books. Just because she didn't have a page until she made headlines doesn't mean she was not notable before this brouhahha erupted.BatYisrael (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael[reply]
    Valid point and if someone updates the Denise Spellberg page with such information I'll change my redirect vote but as things stand there's nothing worth keeping on the page. Dpmuk (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I see no problem with keeping this article as a stub until it is improved. Subject is notable.lk (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Indeed it is notable! Deleting it sounds craven, as if Wiki had no more courage than Random House. I think it's particularly notable, even without the additional information suggested above, since Spellberg is a university professor and lent herself to dissing this book. Remember when universities were defenders of unpopular speech instead of collaborating to suppress it? Oldpilot (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't suggest deleting the Jewel of Medina article on the incident; but we don't need three articles on it, all basically the same. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep These articles relate to an important issue: should Islam be protected from all possible criticism when other religions (to which Islam is frequently hostile) don't enjoy such privileges. I would even suggest expanding the articles by referring to the publication of "The Satanic Verses," the Danish cartoons, and the "Fitna" film. "Oldpilot" has got it right--Wiki should have more guts than Random House! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobengula (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all three articles Jones is now an author at the center of a notable media storm. the novel is notable because of that media frenzy. and Spellberg is a professor who is sufficiently notable even without this incident.BatYisrael (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect Both to The Jewel of Medina as per Dpmuk. The foregoing votes nothwithstanding, there's no evidence of notability of these two persons outside of this single event. Mentioning them in the The Jewel of Medina article should be enough. Talking about having more or less guts than Random House really does not enter into this discussion. Notability is the important criterium here and neither of the two articles' subjects has any notability demonstrated. --Crusio (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge Denise Spellberg & Sherry Jones into The Jewel of Medina (and redirect) per JohnCD & Dpmuk. Event is notable, WP:BLP1E suggests the protagonists aren't. Google scholar turns up four cited publications for Denise Spellberg, cited 28,4,2 & 1 time each which doesn't suggest to me that she passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But google books turns up about 100. some mere footnotes, but many citing her work in some detail as an authoratative source on sundry questions re: women's status in Islam.BatYisrael (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael[reply]
    The standard required by WP:PROF#Criteria is pretty high. JohnCD (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.72.247 (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect both to The Jewel of Medina. A rename to The Jewel of Medina controversy might be appropriate since the book has yet to be published and its notability comes from the controversy that is created instead of from the actual book. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The second, third, and fourth !voters at this afd seem to have come out of the woodwork and neither of them have any previous afd experience. I'm just saying........--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Sherry Jones who is a largely unknown small-town journalist, but Keep Denise Spellberg per BatYisrael's comment.Kitrus (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Delete All three articles taken together seem to run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. There really may not be a controversy over this book. No doubt such a spectacle would aid sales and provide notability. But until the spectacle has come to pass, these articles's contents need to merge somehow or just delete for now. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please try to separate these issues. Spellberg is notable because of her widely-cited work on women in Islam.BatYisrael (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael[reply]
    Comment "widely cited", see Pete Hurd's analysis above. "Barely cited" is a better description of those numbers. --Crusio (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't usually use google scholar, but google books has over 100 citations and JSTOR has 27.BatYisrael (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael[reply]
    Response Even if we were to assume that every hit you mention is a real citation and that GB and JSTOR give independent hits, that just makes for a grand total of 127. That still falls under "barely cited", I'm afraid. --Crusio (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEPKEEPThe issue of this book being censored by Random House has been featured on Drudge Report.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrkester (talk • contribs) 00:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC) — Rrkester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment no one doubts that this incident is in the news. This discussion is about whether an encyclopedia needs to have three articles about it. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • the Pakistan Times is quoting Spellberg, Reuters has a story up, its on television in India. As I said at the top of this page, give it a few days and see what another news cycle or two brings.BatYisrael (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael[reply]
    • take a look at news google. You can watch that Reuters story being picked up in a chain moving east from the date line. Multiple papers in New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, Pakistin, India, South Africa. the International Herald Tribune. The thing to do will be to keep the articles upt to date. The author's agent says she is about to announce publication n more coutries. Probably unwise to take down the author's page with that announcement pending. Especially when she's been interviewed by Reuters.BatYisrael (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael[reply]
    • comment that it's in the news doesn't sway my opinion from merge. The book may be notable (assuming the article doesn't fail WP:NOT#NEWS) but the protagonists are still seem WP:BLP1E to me, no matter how loud the news coverage gets for the event. Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP This is an important story and people will turn to Wikipedia to find out more about it and the participants. We owe it to readers to provide a full context for them. Nickpullar (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think anybody here disagrees with you about that. The question is, does this merit three different articles all about the same single event?? Of course not! --Crusio (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep the novel and novelist have suddenly become the next Salman Rushdie. The professor probably was semi-notable before this, but Random House needs to learn not to turn to her for a cover quote next time. :) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for the moment - might be worth re-nominating in 3 months time once furore/publicity that she is involved in has died down and the case can be viewed more rationally - for the moment she is notable and receiving a lot of quoting and commenting upon - on that basis of notability, Wikipedia should have an article on her - for the moment. A longer term judgement on how persistent her notability is can be taken later. SFC9394 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Denise Spellberg, who clearly passes WP:PROF on her own merits even beyond the current controversy. Neutral on Sherry Jones, leaning towards redirecting to The Jewel of Medina for now, as it appears that her sole claim to notability is this unpublished novel. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep because recent news stories have greatly increased interest in this person making her quite notable. I would like people to be able to come to Wikipedia and get detailed information about her. 01:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeyugnlB (talk • contribs)
    • Delete What she did is not notable. It's about the same as the wiki edit wars that go on all the time right here. With a Phd she's got a bit more mojo that most, so I'd say her behavior is on the par with the bullying we get from wiki editors. So I recommend deletion. She's in the business of making sure only one specific safe speech is heard, and so are we, here at teh wiki wars. We don't want to give her publicity, or that might cast a shadow on our own behavior here. 70.1.162.89 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    — 70.1.162.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crusio (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • IP, you may wish to write less obscurely. In particular, the bullying we get from wiki editors: Who are "we", and which "wiki editors"? -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, well the bully is Admin Raul654. Amongst the usual wiki lawyering he does, he is also on some lifetime vendetta against one douchebag named scibaby. To keep scibaby from eiditing the wiki, he has massive IP blocks set up against Spring Broadband. So his blocks hit thousands of square miles and hundreds of thousands of users, and his bans aren't even effective: to get around his ban, you just drop your connection and dial back in. But you have to know to do that. They guy, Raul654, is a real prick, and won't explain why he involves himself in such an ineffective but highly annoying ban. 70.1.50.38 (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So a "real prick" can "suck donkey balls" (your edit summary)? This is getting too confusing for me. The relevance of Raul654 to any of this eludes me, as he has neither commented here nor otherwise been mentioned. I'm sure he'll be happy to hear of any more effective countermeasure(s) that you can suggest against a "douchebag", but it's probably better to present your grimoire somewhere other than here. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC) .... PS do try not to call people pricks, douchebags or similar, and try not to speculate about their sexual activities or proclivities. It runs afoul of various WP policies and may get you banned. As for the annoyance of the IP block, simply get a user ID. This is extraordinarily simple. -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that The Jewel of Medina is encyclopedic. However, it might become so later; and anyway the article is here and I take it as axiomatic that it is going to stay. ¶ There's no sign that Jones has any notability aside from the book, so anything about her should be summarized and merged into the book article, and the article on Jones should become a redirect to it. (If she later writes more books and has them published and written up, she may deserve and get an article.) ¶ The role of Spellberg in the non-publication of the book seems to be very clear in the minds of some people (or puppets), but I'd like to see it written up other than in a Murdoch newspaper, the blogosphere, etc, before taking it all that seriously. The charges about her may be (carefully) mentioned in the article about the (non-) book, but the material about her should not be summarized and merged there. Whether Spellberg merits her own article is something I haven't yet decided. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into the article on The Jewel of Medina. The book may be notable as a subject of controversy; I doubt the professor passes WP:PROF, which is a high standard -- more notable than the average professor, which an associate professor 20 years after PhD, specializing in a narrow historical figure with , is not. RayAYang (talk) 21:42, 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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE, having never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Julio Santa Cruz

    Julio Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. bneidror (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Julio Santa Cruz is a player at a premier league club in England and is needed to keep people informed about premier league players —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.7.17 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Julio Santa Cruz is a player at a premier league club in England and is needed to keep people informed about premier league players even if he is in the reserve squad, stop with non-sense. —Preceding Omargy comment added by 86.155.7.17 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omargy (talk • contribs) [reply]


    • Keep Have created the page as he has joined and didnt have a page...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombo1984 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This website lists Cerro Porteno's line-ups for every first team game over the last few years. I can find no mention of Julio Santa Cruz playing for the club's first-team. Unless someone provides evidence that he actually played in the Paraguayan Primera Division, then I must assume that this article doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. The fact that he has a famous older brother doesn't make him any more notable than any other youth-team player at Blackburn. The article can be restored should he ever play in a fully professional league. Rje (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:FOOTYN also. -- Alexf42 22:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can find no evidence that he has ever played for the Cerro Porteño first team, unless it can be shown that he has, the article should be deleted until he does play at professional level. EP 23:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE as he didn't play a game for Cerro Porteno as far as I can see, can be re-created if/when he makes an appearances for Blackburn. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – Fails all notability criteria currently. –  LATICS  talk  23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. – PeeJay 08:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 12:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 13:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - if someone can confirm he hasn't played at his previous club then I will change my vote to delete.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'm Paraguayan and I can confirm that he has not played a single game for the first team of Cerro Porteño. See: [37] and [38] (in Spanish). Bruno18 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - No proof he hasn't played top flight football. Jonesy702 (talk) 19:53, 10 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) 17:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Internet slang abbreviations

    List of Internet slang abbreviations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Borderline recreation of a similar list deleted here, but I'll give this the benefit of a doubt and give it it's own new AFD. Still should be deleted though, IMHO. WP is not a dictionary, nor is it a slang guide. This article is a dictionary list of terms. This all belongs on Wiktionary, not here on Wikipedia. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:43, 6 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.

    D.S. (song)

    The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn Rodhullandemu 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    D.S. (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    DELETE and REDIRECT: The song never appeared on a chart and didn't receive airplay. It has no music video and was not a single. The song is only notable because of it's reference to the district attorney. This is already covered in the Michael Jackson article and 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson article. It should be redirected to the HIStory album to stop recreation. — Realist2 15:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC) KEEP: I withdraw the nomination, there is enough well sourced info here to keep the article, it has good potential. — Realist2 19:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • REDIRECT Agree with nom, this is a non-notable song. lk (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If the outcome is "delete without redirect", DS (disambiguation) needs to be updated. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Has coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (I've just added another to the article) so meets WP:N. The collaboration with Slash is another claim to notability. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've helped bulk the article up, but at the moment all this info can still be found at several other articles already mentioned. We need to add details about the actual music itself otherwise its just repeating info found elsewhere. — Realist2 14:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I'd done enough to establish notability with my additions on the song's lyrical content and Sneddon's reaction to it, and that it was sung outside the courtroom by fans to attack Sneddon - I've added several references - but we'll see what others think. I don't know if the extra details of Jackson's strip search was really needed; as you say, it's repeating stuff from elsewhere and it's not directly relevent to this article. We could do with more on the song's recording, I agree. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the strip search is relevant because that was the point where Jackson snapped (wouldn't you?) and seriously began to strongly dislike the attorney. The song itself is quite menacing and bitter, from a musical perspective the reader needs to fully understand why Jackson was so pissed off. He was humiliated beyond belief, imagine being one of the most famous, powerful men on earth and having some stranger on $45,000 a year video tape you naked. If we take musical articles as a literal art form, the reader needs to understand, fully how the creator felt. — Realist2 15:36, 11 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 he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Gäng

    Christopher Gäng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. bneidror (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE --T-rex 15:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per T-Rex, reads like personal commentary --Numyht (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. –  LATICS  talk  21:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all above. Also, someone might want to look at Marcel Schmelzer and Dimitrios Karatziovalis. –  LATICS  talk  21:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good call, check the article creator's edits --Numyht (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I noticed Karatziovalis yesterday while checking the short pages and, to some extent, expanded the page. Then I saw this AfD today was by the same creator. I'm not too certain on the notability of any of these players. –  LATICS  talk  21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. --Jimbo[online] 12:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 13:45, 7 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Iceman (game)

    Iceman (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Another non-notable game by a non-notable developer. Addionne (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Game looks nice, but that is no reason to keep it. All information seems centered on developers page. It is a non-notable game.D3l8 (talk) 05:59, 10 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. Tan ǀ 39 19:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Helibomber

    Helibomber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable game by non-notable developer. Addionne (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — it's pretty much a WP:SNOWball. MuZemike (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The review in the external links is an unusable reader review, very few g-hits and no reliable sources among them. Someoneanother 19:37, 11 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Thompson (game developer)

    Steve Thompson (game developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No real assertion of notability as either a game developer or musician. With only links to Last.Fm allows artists to sign-up and upload music, so that's not much of a reference. Addionne (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No assertion of notability and no usable sources given. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete None of the developers works are notable by themselves, although together it forms an interesting story. Having said that, nothing stands as a reason to keep this, although if this person continues on in a path in the future and does something that establishes notability, I would understand it coming back. For now though, my vote is delete.D3l8 (talk) 06:03, 10 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 as blatant advertising (WP:CSD#G11). PeterSymonds (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Healthcare Intelligence Network

    Healthcare Intelligence Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • Delete blatantly promotional speedy removed by IP editor Mayalld (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Primary editor is a COI, possibly attempting to use Wikipedia for advertising. Also, notability is not satisified. I have tagged it for CSD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasOwens (talk • contribs) 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete without prejudice. There's potentially a valid article to be written on this but the current version is unsalvageable. – iridescent 15:20, 6 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 10:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Airdrie Transit

    Airdrie Transit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Nothing more than a bus timetable for a non-notable company. Local interest only. Speedy was removed, sole contributor promised this was only a stub and would improve article. Nothing substantial added since. Unable to find any third party references of note. Dmol (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep looks a perfectly valid {{transport-stub}} to me. – iridescent 15:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP - This is one of eleven public transit systems in Alberta and if it is missing, like a small piece of a jigsaw puzzle, the remainder lacks context. There are many transportation articles on individual railway stations and bus routes which individually are less important but when looked at in relation to the overall system they become relevant. A stub does not require instant action but is an article to be expanded and developed cooperatively. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid excuse for AfD. This system most likely can't be expanded to more than stub status. --Seascic T/C 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Bus transit systems in significant metropolitan areas are notable. --Polaron | Talk 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is true, however, Airdrie is a very small "one-horse" city. --Seascic T/C 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, no it isn't. It has a population of more than 30,000 and is part of the Calgary Regional Partnership (i.e. Greater Calgary). Defining a city of this size as one-horse violates WP:NPOV in this instance. 23skidoo (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per User:Secondarywaltz. Transportation systems are often interlinked with each other, and the individual parts affect the workings of the whole. --Eastlaw (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Airdrie article. While this is an article about an entire system, the system is very small (it only has three routes). It is not integrated with any other transit systems in the province. Also, the commuter service to Calgary is provided by a completely different service, and is completely independent Airdrie Transit. Take all relevent information and merge it into the Airdrie article. --Seascic T/C 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect to Airdrie, Alberta#Roads and transportation. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but expand. Major city in Alberta, which in turn is also part of the Greater Calgary metropolitan region. That therefore makes it a transit system in a significant metropolitan region. Article can also be expanded to include discussions of proposed rail and bus connections to CrossIron Mills and Calgary itself. 23skidoo (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, scheduled transit systems are notable. Arsenikk (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- Just about enough to be notable, but I would be unhappy about this being expanded much: bus timetables are best maintained by the bus company. However, I would not oppose Merge to Airdrie, Alberta. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's not one single solitary thing even remotely "timetabley" about this article as written. Although I have no particularly strong feelings about it, keep if only on the basis that the nomination rationale is false. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 8 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 (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyberkid

    Cyberkid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Page seems to consist entirely of original research, no assertion of notability, possibly a neologism neon white talk 14:58, 6 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 03:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Grammy Family

    Grammy Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. Per the music notability guideline, songs do not get an article, generally MSGJ (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - non notable bullMY♥INchile 02:14, 1 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, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: Haters. They're going down for the count. 98.226.39.11 (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about?? MSGJ (talk) 21:30, 11 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 03:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Finlay and Hornswoggle

    Finlay and Hornswoggle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable wrestling "tag team" Covered in their own articles with less text Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete both subjects are sufficiently covered at the individual articles. The tag team doesn't appear to have notability supoorted by reliable 3rd party references. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect (merge and redirect?) People might search for this name, but better handled at existing separate articles. (19,000 raw googles for '"Finlay and Hornswoggle" wrestling') RJFJR (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is what article would we redirect it or merge it to. Both wrestlers have articles. --76.71.209.200 (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete leaning towards stron Finswoogle is not a proper tag team --Numyht (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If this article is kept, I will clean it up. How are they not notable? They have been together since May 2006. -- iMatthew T.C. 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - they are notable, however, they do not tag regularly and Hornswoggle just acts as Finlay's manager at most times.SRX 14:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You just said they are notable, but they are not notable. What do you mean? What is wrong with keeping the article, as I promised I would clean it up. -- iMatthew T.C. 17:01, 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 close. Deletion debate is moot now that the article has been redirected. If further debate is desired, it should take place at WP:RFD. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    First ecuadorian astronaut

    First ecuadorian astronaut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unnecessary disambig redirect page that does not follow standard Wiki practice Rillian (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's now a redirect page, which seems good to me. Keep as redirect. RJFJR (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Redirect seems sufficient though the target article has issues of its own. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - this is a redirect, not a disambig page --T-rex 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To expand on my comments, this is an unnecessary redirect page. It assumes someone will be looking for an article named "First ecuadorian astronaut". Simply entering those key words would retrieve the existing article. Is it common Wikipedia practice to create redirect articles for various possible search terms for an article? Rillian (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not a reason to delete. As long as isn't malicious then there is no reason to delete it. --T-rex 17:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think although not common practice as the creator of both articles is the same it could easily be a good faith error. Your nom calls it a dab page when in fact it was never a dab page (which I think is probably another good faith error). I don't think redirects cost anything but, other more experienced people may have more experience with whether they should exist so I'm changing to "Neutral". Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree that was a good faith edit to create the page (and that I should have said redirect, not dab), just an unnecessary page. It was my understanding that it's not common practice to take potential search terms and create redirect pages to articles, e.g. there is no redirect page for "First American astronaut". However, I certainly fine with keep the page. Rillian (talk) 17:51, 6 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Axiom (WALL-E)

    Axiom (WALL-E) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Prod and prod2 were removed by creating user without adding any further information, so bringing this to AfD. This is a very minor piece of trivia from a movie, no assertion of notability is made nor are any sources referenced. Ryanjunk (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete, there's an entry in Axiom (disambiguation) with a link to the movie. That has everything that is at this article. move along, nothing to see. RJFJR (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete as non-notable. It's a redirect candidate at best but, I think that is covered by the dab page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete. non-notable movie cruft. A redirect is not needed as the disambig covers it. Tavix (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as prod-2 placer. Non-notable minor character. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per RJFJR. Information already available and does not need its own "sentence" parading as an article. Schmidt (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to WALL-E. Tharnton345 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non-notable, zero content to merge anywhere. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – agree with nom and previous comments. Non-notable film character with no merging needed to be done, based on the lack of literal information or content. As Tavix and others said, the disambig page already covers it well enough. Jamie☆S93 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - dab page entry is just right. (Have tidied it, and removed a "Popular culture" section from Axiom, which only consisted of this same info!) PamD (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as this topic does not transcend the film itself; all information about the ship, in-universe or out-of-universe, can be conveyed at the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no further comment.it's all been said.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:00, 10 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 Early close and speedy delete per WP:SNOW -- The Anome (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Underquote

    Underquote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    nn neologism, article does not indicate it has acheived widespread use or notability, 0 ghits Jons63 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, no evidence of notability and no references. RJFJR (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, no references and extremely limited text. No justification for such an article. Lympathy Talk 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per above. Unreferenced, Google fails to find any references for anything even vaguely resembling this. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.-- The Anome (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I can't believe someone wasted 10 minutes of their life writing this. Unsalvageable. – iridescent 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wasted 10 minutes of my life viewing, researching and replying to the article. Lympathy Talk 15:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More than 10 minutes was spent in the development of the underquote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.53.213 (talk) 03:08, 31 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Douglas zanders

    Douglas zanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Seems to fails WP:N (6 sources available, non usable), WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCE Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete for lack of sources. Given that Zanders is said to have been active at least into the late 90's, he should have left a somewhat wider electronic trail. As is, the article's content is unverifiable. Huon (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I turned down the speedy request, as there is a claim of notability, but it's not a strong one and there's no verification. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all the above. Fails WP:N and WP:V Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has had three sources added since the nomination. Zanders meets verifiability criteria, however he looks marginal on notability. I'm neutral on this one.-gadfium 22:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not convinced by these sources. One does not confirm what is claimed in the article, the others provide next to no context. While they may satisfy verifiability criteria (though none of them even verify Zanders' birthday, for example), he still looks non-notable to me. Huon (talk) 23:26, 6 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 WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Synergy 15:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism of Facebook

    Criticism of Facebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Criticism articles are nearly always POV forks, and should be deleted per the relevant guideline. Sceptre (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep for WP:POINT nominator SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • Keep - WP:POVFORK specifically states that "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork.". -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This (And the other articles) are notable enough to warrant separate topics about them. I don't see these article's as PoV forks, but rather as seperate articles to cover a certain aspect about the companies in question. These articles are simply to long to include into the main article, and are therefore forked. As far as i can see, the article comply to WP:NPOV more or less, and are properly sourced. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:38, 6 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 WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Synergy 15:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism of Windows Vista

    AfDs for this article:
    Criticism of Windows Vista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Criticism articles are nearly always POV forks, and should be deleted per the relevant guideline. Sceptre (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep for WP:POINT nominator SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • Keep - WP:POVFORK specifically states that "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork.". -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This (And the other articles) are notable enough to warrant separate topics about them. I don't see these article's as PoV forks, but rather as seperate articles to cover a certain aspect about the companies in question. These articles are simply to long to include into the main article, and are therefore forked. As far as i can see, the article comply to WP:NPOV more or less, and are properly sourced. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:38, 6 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 per WP:POINT and an inevitable WP:SNOW. --jonny-mt 15:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism of Microsoft

    Criticism of Microsoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Criticism articles are nearly always POV forks, and should be deleted per the relevant guideline. Sceptre (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • What? Is there a WP:POINT to these nominations? speedy keep SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
      Nope. I just took the first twenty results on Google for "intitle:'crticism of' site:en.wikipedia.org" and nominated all of the positives for deletion. I'll get to the others laters. The fact these articles are problematic is no secret; most of them have tags which have been there for months. Sceptre (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are not going to suceed - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common criticisms of Microsoft.--Kozuch (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That was two years ago. NPOV is much more strictly followed these days. Sceptre (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Why did not you POV tag it???--Kozuch (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - WP:POVFORK specifically states that "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork.". -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This (And the other articles) are notable enough to warrant separate topics about them. I don't see these article's as PoV forks, but rather as seperate articles to cover a certain aspect about the companies in question. These articles are simply to long to include into the main article, and are therefore forked. As far as i can see, the article comply to WP:NPOV more or less, and are properly sourced. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:38, 6 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 Seedy keep WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Synergy 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism of Noam Chomsky

    Criticism of Noam Chomsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Criticism articles are nearly always POV forks, and should be deleted per the relevant guideline. Sceptre (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - WP:POVFORK specifically states that "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork.". -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep for WP:POINT nominator SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • Comment There was a discussion on the article's talk page about one month ago concerning this issue. Apparently, the content of this article was originally incorporated into the main Chomsky article but spun off due to space concerns. (Edit conflict, twice) Lazulilasher (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This (And the other articles) are notable enough to warrant separate topics about them. I don't see these article's as PoV forks, but rather as seperate articles to cover a certain aspect about the companies in question. These articles are simply to long to include into the main article, and are therefore forked. As far as i can see, the article comply to WP:NPOV more or less, and are properly sourced. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:39, 6 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 Seedy keep WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Synergy 15:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism of Google

    Criticism of Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Criticism articles are nearly always POV forks, and should be deleted per the relevant guideline. Sceptre (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep as notable, sure in almost all cases criticism articles should be deleted but this is perhaps one of the few where this is not so. Moving the title may be an option. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - WP:POVFORK specifically states that "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork.". -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep for WP:POINT nominator SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • Keep - This (And the other articles) are notable enough to warrant separate topics about them. I don't see these article's as PoV forks, but rather as seperate articles to cover a certain aspect about the companies in question. These articles are simply to long to include into the main article, and are therefore forked. As far as i can see, the article comply to WP:NPOV more or less, and are properly sourced. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:39, 6 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 Seedy keep WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Synergy 15:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism of Wikipedia

    AfDs for this article:
    Criticism of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    POV fork ("Criticism of"), synthesis problems. Sceptre (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - WP:POVFORK specifically states that "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork.". -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep for WP:POINT nominator SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • Keep - This (And the other articles) are notable enough to warrant separate topics about them. I don't see these article's as PoV forks, but rather as seperate articles to cover a certain aspect about the companies in question. These articles are simply to long to include into the main article, and are therefore forked. As far as i can see, the article comply to WP:NPOV more or less, and are properly sourced. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I don't see anything wrong with the article. It definitely seems like a pointy nomination. The article complies with NPOV as best I can tell and is properly sourced. What else could you want? -MBK004 14:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't comply with NPOV because the word "criticism" is nearly always used to mean something negative, especially on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, you could also suggest a better name for the article. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:06, 6 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 Seedy keep WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Synergy 15:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fox News Channel controversies

    Fox News Channel controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    POV fork. Sceptre (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong keep - This article exists because of the sheer volume of controversy surrounding this subject, and does not exist as a POV fork in the standard usage of the term, as this would be included in the main article if there wasn't so damn much of it. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This (And the other articles) are notable enough to warrant separate topics about them. I don't see these article's as PoV forks, but rather as seperate articles to cover a certain aspect about the companies in question. These articles are simply to long to include into the main article, and are therefore forked. As far as i can see, the article comply to WP:NPOV more or less, and are properly sourced. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep for WP:POINT nominator SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • Keep There is a difference between a POV fork and a sister/daughter/sub article. The controversies surrounding Fox News Channel are too numerous (the sub article is 64 kilobytes) to be included within the main article, so a separate article exists. Notable controversies are briefly summarized in the main article, and more in depth explanations are given on the controversies page. - auburnpilot talk 14:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      At the same time, we don't need to record every instance of people throwing up their arms and criticising FOX. Where's CNN controversies or MSNBC controversies? Sceptre (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hint* *Hint* CNN controversies is a blue link. These noms are all pointy or at the very least foolish. AfD is not for renaming discussions; those happen on article talk pages with a little help from WP:RM (when needed). - auburnpilot talk 14:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, using CNN was a bad idea, but at the same time, that article shouldn't exist either. Sceptre (talk) 15:03, 6 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 Merge/Redirect to Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy Glick (author)

    Jeremy Glick (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    WP:BLP1E. Only notable for the O'Reilly interview, and nothing else since. Sceptre (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • keep for several reasons. One- its not listed in the sources, but iirc, he (and his confrontation with Bill O) is discussed in length in one of Al Franken's books ("Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" I think). Second, even if he doesn't warrant his own page, there's still a disussion on the page for merging into its own section at the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly page. I think that it would be better to let that discussion play out before even considering this article for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A fine example of a BLP1E deletion candidate. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect to Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator)#Jeremy Glick. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/redirect as per Brewcaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.12.148 (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Kyaa. Bytebear (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge / Redirect per Brewcaster. It is the exchange between Glick and O'Reilly that is noteworthy, rather than himself. FWIW I think the fall-out of the gibber from O'Reilly, Cowter and the rest ought, IMHO (a Brit who lived in the USA 2002-5), to be viewed in perhaps a slightly less "USA-centric" manner when considering notability and inclusion. Taking it globally, whether its media, politics and current affairs, culture; they - and especially their professional outrage quota productions - aren't such a big deal. Anyway. Plutonium27 (talk) 09:59, 9 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 Seedy keep WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Synergy 15:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

    AfDs for this article:
    Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Criticism articles are inherently POV forks because a) they inherently feature a negative point of view, and b) they are always spun-out from the BLPs. Yes, O'Reilly is a bad man. But do we need 20kb talking about him and 54kb badmouthing him? No. Sceptre (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KEEP. Actually, yes we do. O'Reilly is now practically synonymous with the controversial nature of his outbursts. I think it's fair to say that most people are far more interested in these outbursts than they are in his personal / professional history. This article explores the reasons why. Labcoat (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Entire topic could be summarized in the main BOR article. This is a serious case of undue weight being given to his critics. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    KEEP. "Criticism of/Controversy about" articles are not uncommon and are necessary where the figures are controversial. Bill O'Reilly has said that he calls his show the O'Reilly "Factor" because he makes himself a factor in the stories. He injects himself and his POV into his show all of the time, courts controversy, seems to almost relish it, and, as the article documents, has said and done some things which have evoked criticism. The article should stay. Jimintheatl (talk) 14:35, 6 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, due to lack of references to establish notability. Note that COI did not factor into this close. lifebaka++ 13:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dominic Reyes (magician)

    Dominic Reyes (magician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Blatant self-promotion. Can he work his magic and persuade us to allow him an article? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • weak Keep has published and filmography section, but claim that is 'a leading' is now marked as needing citation. (Are there enough references to support claims?) RJFJR (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - I have removed 'leading' as suggested.
    • Delete "has published and filmography section" aside, there is nothing to support any of the claims in the article from reliable third party sources covering the subject in a non-trivial manner. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Have removed any claims that are not supported. Happy to add references as needed. Please advise.
    • Have taken all points raised and removed any assertions that were mentioned eg: 'leading'. Removed links to my agent and my magic shop (although that is relevent).

    Having looked at other magicians articles Rob James (magician) James Brown (magician) Iain Moran the bio article seems standard.

    I am happy to reedit as much as needed to fit in with guidelines and standard of the other English magicians with articles on here. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swifthand (talk • contribs) 22:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Links to example articles corrected.
    • I have added a list of my marketed magic illusions available worldwide from independent third parties.
    • I have added reference for my interview in the mass circulated magazine 'Magicseen' www.magicseen.co.uk (available from the bookshop: Borders)
    • I have also produced and directed magic lecture DVD's of creators in the UK and United States. I have not listed them as I'm not sure on the protocol ref advertising. for example my film 'Fade' starring Titanus is currently selling in 40 countries. Am I able to list productions that I only produce and direct, but to not appear in? Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swifthand (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per what Jordan Payne said. Clear conflict of interest, and promotional and no reliable third party sources to establish notability...--Boffob (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Have now done a major edit and removed most of the article leaving only the notible items referenced and verifiable by third parties. Please advise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swifthand (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The only thing establishing notability are the 2 interviews in what appear to be trade magazines. I don't feel that this is enough to show that this person is notable per WP:BIO. Kevin (talk) 08:43, 9 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt Weisher

    Matt Weisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:07, 6 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 all (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Bosley (fictional detective)

    AfDs for this article:
      John Bosley (fictional detective) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Kelly Garrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Sabrina Duncan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Jill Munroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Tiffany Welles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Kris Munroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Julie Rogers (Charlie's Angels) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Delete all - no independent reliable sources establish any notability for any of these fictional characters. Prods removed with no explanation. Otto4711 (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Strong keep all. This is silly, and suggest withdrawing. The original Angels characters are classic archetypes, and have recieved widespread literary and scholarly review. In 15 minutes half-hearted effort on Google Scholar, I managed to find and add this to the Bosley article alone. Two minutes on Google Scholar or Google Books will show there's plenty of info out there; it just needs to be added, and if the nom had bothered to check, he would have realised this (although we all know it's far easier to destroy rather than create). AFD is not cleanup. Neıl ☄ 13:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Passing mentions in various encyclopedias of television shows does not constitute significant coverage. For example, your first source, From Abba to Zoom, contains exactly five sentences about the character John Bosley in a 560 page book, and one of those sentences is factually incorrect (Bernie Mac didn't play this character but his step-brother). These so-called sources prove that the characters exist, not that they are notable. And Tiffany Welles and Julie Rogers are "classic archetypes"? Really? Otto4711 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The attention recieved by these characters, Bosley in particular (due to being played by multiple actors), is easily sufficient to prove notability. As for Tiffany Welles - 35 books, 25 news stories, 4 literary papers, 4310 web pages. Plus 3 more books with the simple misspelling of "Tiffany Wells". And she was the "least noted" Angel. 152 books, 647 news stories and 22 papers feature Bosley. Neıl ☄ 14:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the Scholar results for Welles, we find that the typical coverage of the character runs along the lines of "So Kate left, replaced by Shelley Hack as 'Tiffany Welles,' one of my favorite angels." That's it. One sentence out of an entire paper. Another of them mentions Welles only in a photo caption. Of course there are going to be a lot of trivial mentions of these characters in various sources. Raw Google hits don't establish notability. What is required under WP:N is "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...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." And there is a footnote that further explains "significant coverage": "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian. ) is plainly trivial." The coverage of the individual Charlie's Angels characters is plainly trivial. Otto4711 (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You've cherrypicked. Neıl ☄ 14:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not quite sure what you're accusing me of here. Are you suggesting that I have some responsibility for checking 4,374 Ghits? I'm afraid not. You're the one claiming that the characters are independently notable; as Edison notes below, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that notability by pointing to the sources that you believe support it. I did the same Google searches you did and got the same results, checking a number of Ghits for each character and finding them all to be passing references before first prodding and then AFDing the articles. Otto4711 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about [39]? (search for "Boz", rather than "Bosley"). Neıl ☄ 09:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Bosley played by multiple actors? Have I missed something? I only remember 2 including Bill Murray. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • John Bosley, the subject of the article, was played by David Doyle on TV and Bill Murray in the first film. Bernie Mac played this character's step-brother, Jimmy Bosley, in the second film. A fact that the so-called reliable source gets wrong. Otto4711 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      So I was correct. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Two actors is "multiple actors". Multiple means "more than one". Neıl ☄ 14:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I didn't mean any offense. I normally read multiple as like 3, 4, 5, etc and took it that way, hence my question. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I've fixed the listing so the AfD shows up on the list. For what it's worth I'm thinking that Bosley, Garrett, Duncan, and Munroe (Jill) will have been referenced in reliable 3rd party references as well as having been covered in movies about the T.V. show so am going with a Weak Keep. The others I'm not so sure of so won't comment either way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If you want to keep any or all of these articles, instead of hand-waving and pointing to 4000 google hits, please identify, say, 3 references from reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of each of the AFD targets. It is unreasonable to expect each person coming to this AFD to do your research for you be searching several thousand claimed hits, many of which have trivial coverage or passing reference, or about a similarly named entity. That would prove notability for them, even if you did not immediately add the references to the articles. Edison (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2008
        I've further expanded the Bosley article - see [40]. How is this now? I can do the same for the others, but not in the space of four days, I have a life. Neıl ☄ 09:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still nothing but trivial mentions. Still no establishment of real-world notability. Otto4711 (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is this trivial!? As you clearly are unwilling to listen, instead insisting the mentions are "trivial" despite them being provably not, there's clearly no point in trying to discuss this with you any further. Neıl ☄ 13:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. As noted in the article, the role won Doyle two Emmys, which seems to denote notability. Plus, central characters in one of the most successful shows of the 1970's isn't notable? Please. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 17:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doyle did not win two Emmys and the article doesn't say he did. He was nominated for one Emmy and one Golden Globe. These nomination are certainly notable for Doyle but do not establish the notability of the character. The notability of the TV series is not inherited by the characters. Otto4711 (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep all. Iconic characters from an iconic TV series who have been mentioned in many magazine articles and books. If you're looking for scholarly references, you'll have to remove all but about 5 TV shows and character articles on Wikipedia. It could be argued that some of the later Angels might not be as notable as the others, but as the nom has chosen to do a blanket nomination, then I have to go with a blanket keep. 23skidoo (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh for fuck's sake, did I say there had to be "scholarly references"? No. I said there need to be reliable sources. The definition of "reliable source is reproduced elsewhere in this nomination; I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. In addition, you are in no way required to make a blanket keep because the nomination is blanket. If you believe that one or more of the articles should be deleted, say so and don't pretend like the fact they're listed together means they are all required to have the same outcome. Otto4711 (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - also note the excellent work User:Abrazame has done with Kelly Garrett (eg [41]). Neıl ☄ 15:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What "excellent work" are you referring to? How he's sourced the entire article to primary sources and completely and utterly failed to include a single word that establishes real-world notability, thus failing to address the substance of the nomination in any way? Yeah, that's some outstanding work there... Otto4711 (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep All ample sources are available to establish the real-world notability of these characters from one of the era's most successful television programs. Alansohn (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And could you name a few of these "ample sources" that discuss these characters in a non-trivial fashion? Pretty please with sugar on top? It's very easy to say that there are sources but in saying there are sources it's generally considered a good idea to provide them. Otto4711 (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep all as recognizable, because of rescue efforts, and due to inherited notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It goes to show that this whole "notability is not inherited" nonsense does not enjoy universal community support. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well no, it goes to show that consensus that notability is not inherited is broad and pervasive. Wikipedia does not operate on the principle of universal agreement. It operates on the principle of consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and there is no consensus that notability is not inherited and nor is there any to delete these articles, which meet the general notability guideline without any reasonable doubt. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clearly, there is consensus that notability is not inherited. If there were no such consensus, then articles could not be deleted using the argument. And if these articles meet WP:N "without any reasonable doubt" then finding the multiple reliable sources that cover the characters in a substantive manner should be a snap. Otto4711 (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have yet to see anything even remotely convinicng that there is any such consensus or that that argument is even valid. Articles are deleted for all kinds of illogical reasons. And this article does meet notability, which is why others above have pointed out all sorts of sources and which is why both the arguments are numbers are stronger for keeping these article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt that if God himself told you that notability was not inherited, or addressed any of the other many, many fundamental misunderstandings of Wikipedia policies and guidelines you cling to so vociferously, that it would make one whit of difference. Otto4711 (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am an atheist (I've seen and experienced too many horrible things to believe that any God could possibly have ever cared about me). If I'm the misguided one, then why are more editors arguing to keep here? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sadly, you're not the only editor who doesn't understand that trivial mentions in a variety of sources doesn't equal notability. It's a cross that those of us who understand Wiki-policy and guidelines struggle to bear. Otto4711 (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or it's the other way around as neither I nor the others think these mentions are trivial. I see no benefit to Wikipedia in not covering verifiable information that obviously interests editors and readers. If you or anyone does not like these articles, then you neither need worry about them or working on them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC) to[reply]
      • Delete all This is certainly a reliable source (assuming it is a true copy) and its coverage of the show and the actors is non-trivial. It does not, however, cover the characters in significant detail (with the possible exception of Jill Munroe). The rest of the coverage is focused on the actors or the show as well. Even if, (in the case of Bosley), an actor won an emmy for the portrayal of a character, that does not somehow make the character notable. It makes the actor notable, it he otherwise isn't, per WP:BIO, but that notability is not inherited by the character. Even one of the most iconic characters in american cinema is a redirect to citizen kane. As for the thousands of hits on google search, that number is huge. The general notability guideline provides some guidance on how to treat these articles and they don't meet it. Protonk (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep all Hey, c'mon, we're talking about one of the most notable TV shows of the 1970s! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, no we're not. The article for the TV show is not under consideration here. Your comment illustrates the error that many other editors are making in considering this nomination. They are conflating the notability of the show with the notability of the individual characters. The show is clearly notable and there is an abundance of sources to illustarte that. Where are the sources that illustrate the notability of the individual characters? Otto4711 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep this is not a case for merge--these are major characters in continuing series. Inherited notability has nothing to do with it--the notability of a major character is intrinsic and part of the notability of the work if the work is notable enough. Works are composed of plots and characters, and all we need to write individual articles in enough verifiable material. The standard of notability here is the notability of the character within the series, and the notability of the series in the first place. (I use notability in both a common sense and a technical meaning (the suitability for articles in Wikipedia.) We first decide what we want to have, and then word out guidelines so they reflect it. We can have whatever guidelines we need to make a good encyclopedia. This is an exceptional nomination--never before have such major characters in a major continuing fiction been challenged--these are not barely-seen characters in one episode, or people in background roles, but the central characters of the series. It's also an exceptional nomination because of the quality of the articles--these are not the usual overblown repetitious material in some many poorly executed articles. Such a nomination shows a determination to sharply reduce the encyclopedia's coverage of contemporary culture, and is about the worst possible direction to go in terms of relevance to the real world. DGG (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well hey, thanks for your usual assumption of good faith there DGG. I appreciate your declaring that my motives in nominating these articles must be sinister. It couldn't possibly be that I sincerely believe that the individual characters are not in themselves notable and that the lack of substantive sources backs me up on it, could it? Otto4711 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I was trying to give a fair description. You think the principal characters of major fictions not notable and consequently not appropriate for articles. You do not accept them as breakout articles (if you did, you wouldn't be trying to delete them). Since you proposed a delete not a merge, you don't think the material should be moved elsewhere, (thus losing the detailed material). Since you proposed a delete not a redirect, you think there also should not even be redirects from the character names. The consequence of what you are proposing is that the coverage of fiction will be substantially reduced. We're not forced to do it by general WP:N, for we can adopt whatever sort of N as a fiction guideline we choose. You apparently have your preference for what guideline to use, and are determined to reduce the coverage to match. Fair description, I call it. If I said you were nominating these recklessly without the awareness of what it meant, then I wouldn't be assuming good faith & you'd have a justified complaint But I do, I think you in good faith are doing what will give the obvious results. I give you full credit for knowing the consequences of your repeated deletion proposals. Until now, it was possible to think you just wanted to trim the coverage a little--a reasonable proposal, though we would disagree on the extent to which it should be done. But when it becomes characters of central importance to historic shows, it's what I hope is outside of what the consensus will consider reasonable. DGG (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per Neil and DGG. —Giggy 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. If John Bosley is notable enough for his own entry in "A Pop Culture Encyclopedia Of The Late 20th Century", he's notable enough for Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. This one just seems obvious to me. Unschool (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. There is room for improvement on these articles, but again, these are significant cultural characters. As these were popular 30 years ago, it is hard to find contemporary references, but I, for one, will work on it. Cheers-Cbradshaw (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per Neil, DGG and Cbradshaw. Banjeboi 21:40, 11 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 a7, nonnotable, only Google result is blog spam for the book. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      T. W. Barks

      T. W. Barks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
      • Delete unknown author. No GHITS for the author, and a grand total on two hits for the "novel". Mayalld (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Delete Already tagged for CSD. The page about the book was already deleted, and the authot itsself produces just two hits. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 12:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Delete per the tag and the above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as failing WP:BIO. Appears to be part of a wider spam campaign for his novel. nanzilla (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Although notability is claimed with "author of bestselling futuristic novel" there is nothing to verify this. --JD554 (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith talk 16:43, 6 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Bad Guys (professional wrestling)

      Bad Guys (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Article is a few lines, poorly worded. Team is nonexistent save for select PPV matches.--KingMorpheus (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete as non-notable as well as non-verifiable, no importance/significance indicated in article either (which to my memory says it is a speedy deletion candidate). Bad Guys (professional wrestling) should be a redirect to "Heel" anyway.Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. While an article in need of cleanup is not itself a candidate for deletion, I'm not seeing any notability here, nor can I find sources with which to document what little facts there are. My first impulse was to redirect this to Heel (professional wrestling), but that's not much of a redirect. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      On the other hand, if everyone else things a Heel redirect works, then off we go. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Delete Created again? Damn. Delete, non-notable and the name is not official. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:49, 9 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 that this article does not constitute a WP:BLP violation, and that a subject's bare dislike for an article does not, by itself, establish grounds for deletion. Only one established user apart from the nominator has supported deletion -- however, I find his argument to be unpersuasive, since the deletion of an article per WP:IAR would, if permissible at all, at the very least require a consensus to establish that the action would genuinely "[improve] or [maintain] Wikipedia". Whatever level of support would actually be required to delete an article compliant with the letter and spirit of our policies and guidelines is clearly not present here. One other established user has supported the redirection of the article; however, that is not a matter to be resolved here, in the absence of a clearly articulated consensus for the action, since it would not involve an administrative deletion. John254 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Calpernia Addams

      AfDs for this article:
      Calpernia Addams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Completing an incomplete nomination - presumably the nominator wants the article deleted for the same reasons she nominated it the first time Otto4711 (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • As I have mentioned before, I fundamentally disagree with Wikipedia as a concept and strongly dislike having an aggregation of materials about me maintained here. I'm aware that this is unimportant to Wikipedia, so I will attempt, under duress, to work within Wikipedia's own established guidelines. The biographical article about me is harmful to me emotionally and professionally, and I would like for it to be removed from Wikipedia altogether. Barring that, I would like for the article to be stripped of all but the most essential content to whatever Wikipedia considers to be my encyclopedic value. Considering that my career as a public figure up to this point has occurred within the boundaries of local theater, niche cable reality television and small film/tv roles, I assume my major notability for this site continues to be the fact that I was dating PFC Barry Winchell at the time of his murder over nine years ago, which was covered in several national news outlets at the time. If Barry Winchell had not been murdered and I actually wanted to create a page about myself as a local theater actress and reality show participant, I have no doubt that it would be removed.

      How is this article hurtful to me emotionally? This article appears in the first page of search results for my name, which elevates it to a major source of information for anyone curious about me in this current age of near constant internet connectedness. The major impression a reader is left with by this article is that I am a tragic survivor of the murder of a loved one. Nine years after the event, moving on is still a daily struggle. While I do memorialize Barry on my own personal website, which I have every right to do, the story is contextualized by all the countless things I've done up to the present day. I specifically ask writers covering my entertainment career to refrain from asking me about Barry's murder, but you will still find it mentioned in most every piece of writing, often with Wikipedia as a reference. I still get approached on the street, at events and through countless emails every month from people expressing sympathy for his murder, these nine years later. I appreciate their empathy, but I desperately long to move forward from the event, and many people cite having found me or "my story" from the Wikipedia article. What they consider "my story" is the biased view of me on Wikipedia as the victim of a tragedy, rather than the full story of me as a lifelong entertainer, comedic performer and musician. Although several magazines focused on me from a "human interest" angle due to the sensationalist value of my transsexual status, in reality I was in a different city the night Barry was murdered and barely knew the killers. This article only serves to perpetuate the perception of me as a victim, nine years after the murder took place. The real historical record should be maintained in Barry Winchell's article, with me as a footnote at best.

      How is this article hurtful to me professionally? The article's slant paints me almost entirely as a victim of tragedy who began a career in entertainment via the aftermath of the murder. As written in the article here, I appear to have struck up a mercenary interest in the spotlight ex nihlo after his death. In a grasping-at-straws move to salvage this situation, I recently attempted to add details showing that I have always been an actor and entertainer, since childhood, but this edit was immediately removed, further souring me on Wikipedia. The only way this article could contextualize my interest in the performing arts would be to include information about my lifelong history as a performer, which in itself is not notable. At this point, increasing the size and depth of my already offensive article is not desirable to me. The best course of action would be to remove the article, and redirect it to Barry Winchell.

      Wikipedia's own policies on biographies of living persons at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP encourage "Presumption in favor of privacy", and say that "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." I especially encourage you to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ONEEVENT regarding people notable for one event. While I am certainly visible in the GLBT community (which only comprises a disputable 10% of the general population), even in that community I am not a major figure and am not recognizable to many GLBT people.

      Further, much of the material in my article is sourced from a podcast called "Gay Pimpin' with Jonny McGovern". A quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP :"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." My attempt to do so was reverted three times yesterday. The vehemence with which my article is watched and preserved, despite limited relevance to much of anything other than a nine year old New York Times article and six year old cable movie, both of which would be better covered in Barry Winchell, leads me to suspect that I am being specifically singled out and harassed for some reason.

      I loved Barry very much, and I continue to be haunted by his murder and the aftermath even today. Wikipedia's maintenance of an article immortalizing me as a victim with no other context as to what I am as a person is very, very hurtful. Even this publicly available writing may be used some day to ridicule or hurt me, but I feel I have no choice other than to try.

      So, now that I have yet again been forced to publicly play out my personal emotional and professional difficulties stemming from Wikipedia's article forever painting me as a tragic widow though abuse of their massive web penetration and juggernaut system of operation, I ask again to be removed and redirected to Barry Winchell's article, where the real story lies. While each editor bent on maintaining this negative portrayal of me may turn off his or her laptop and go have a mocchachino at the campus coffee shop, I will return to answering my endless streams of emails that begin, "I was unaware of your story until I searched your name on Wikipedia, what was that like?..." or "I was unaware of your story until I searched your name on Wikipedia, you are just trying to get famous off the murder of your boyfriend..." Calperniaaddams (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep - while the subject is distressed at having an article about herself on Wikipedia, she is clearly notable under our guidelines and the article does not impinge WP:BLP or any other policy or guideline. Nothing has changed since the last nomination. If anything, the subject has become more notable for having appeared in the reality dating series Transamerican Love Story. Additionally, the subject maintains this same material on her own promotional website. No grounds for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep There's non-trivial coverage of this person in reliable sources, particularly the NY Times. Calperniaaddams, you're getting a poor response, partly because your making overly broad complaints, and trying to blank everything. I don't see any malicious attempt by people to portray you negatively. You should go to the article talk page, and explain specifically what items you contest, and what you think is unfairly negative. I think this AFD is rather redundant and pointless, but hopefully, it draws attention, and more editors can watch this article, and have some input as to what's appropriate and what's not. --Rob (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - before the material that I added was removed, the article was split approximately 50/50 between information about Ms. Addams and PFC Winchell's relationship and his murder and information about Ms. Addams' childhood, performing career and military service. I do not see how this can reasonably be construed as an attempt to paint Ms. Addams as nothing other than a victim. I fail to see how any of the material in the article is contentious per WP:BLP or WP:RS since it is information that Ms. Addams make readily available on her personal website. Ms. Addams does not seem to understand Wikipedia's biography notability guidelines. If she were the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources based on her work in local theatre and appearing on reality TV, then she would still pass WP:BIO even in the absence of Winchell's murder. Yes, Ms. Addams is in part notable because of her association with Winchell and his death, but she is also notable as a subject of and consultant to an award-winning film based on her life with Winchell, as an advocate for LGBT rights, as the star of Transamerican Love Story, as a performer in The Vagina Monologues and as a featured subject of the documentary Beautiful Daughters. Many of these things in and of themselves would be sufficient to pass WP:BIO; combined and notability is assured.
      • It is truly horrifying that anyone would be so crass as to say that you are exploiting Winchell's death to build a career and it is unfortunate that they are doing so based on reading your Wikipedia article. However, in a Google search it is your own website that returns as the first hit; Wikipedia is third. If your Wikipedia article vanished today, there is nothing stopping those very same people from reading the very same information on your own site and make the very same comments. Otto4711 (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - Hey, you look beautiful ! How about you emphasize on your current career by changing your picture?

      This article won't go away anytime soon given the sources and media attention and you know what... take it as a chance! rather than pulling hairs about people who only see you as the victim of a crime.

      I readded the info about your career as ent and musician, as it's just fair to give you a hand (and maybe some time for sources) here. People look at you, now YOU can influence how they perceive you. I removed that one quote of yours to not let the article wallow in self-pity. It doesn't need to be there. It's enough to link it. This is all history, your time is now! I also removed the birth date as IMDb is not considered a reliable source and it should be up to you whether or not you release such data. Don't be afraid that your birth name or private medical data gets exposed (there were some really creepy comments on the discussion page). I will put this one on my watchlist. If you want the article's discussion page or history wiped, I'm sure some wiki admin will help you! You can always send in an OTRS ticket to identify yourself, should some one question your welcomed additions to the article. xo 3vil-Lyn (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC) ♫[reply]

      • Keep the existence of this article doesn't violate BLP. Subject is more than marginally notable. Claims made in the article are not defamatory and are cited by reliable sources (the discussion at RS/N about the podcast notwithstanding). Protonk (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • keep The article appears to be neutral. I think people should keep an eye on it though. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Keep, obviously. There are no WP:BLP or WP:V issues that would possibly warrant deletion, and the subject, partly as a result of her own promotional efforts, is sufficiently notable. — Satori Son 14:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep There are no WP:BLP or WP:V issues as earlier noted. If something is a notable, and it is sourced, then it is included on Wikipedia. WP:BLP is already a policy treated with extreme care, but if an article does not violate it, the article stays. Period. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 12:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutral but, isn't there an established procedure for subjects to request their articles deletion? Don't they need to verify that they are who they say they are to someone at the Foundation or something and go through those channels? I'm inclined to ask about the "one Event rule" as well as it looks to me like the subject's main source of notability is the dating thing (although if the impact of the whole thing can be shown through reliable 3rd party sources to have affected the US military on a signicant basis than I'm guessing that would override "one Event". Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (EC) Keep. I always try to the consider the opinions of the subject with respect to biographies of living persons, and I am willing to defer to them in a case of questionable notability. Ms. Addams, however, is notable in Wikipedia terms, and as mentioned above, would be notable even in the absence of the tragic circumstances of the Mr. Winchell's death. There comes a point at which a person's public notoriety is such that the article must remain even over the subject's wishes to the contrary, and I'm afraid it's my opinion that the subject is past that point. There are a number of experienced editors who have expressed interest in maintaining this article; I hope the nominator will find that it remains balanced in the future. In reference to the comment above, the nominator can see this this page if she wants to contact the office. In the absence of a clear libel/policy violation, however, I doubt they will overturn commuity consensus as evidenced by this Afd. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I was just thinking that in cases like this isn't it best if the subject contact the office (even if it is just to have proof of identity). Otherwise, anyone can be anyone and say some of the same things that have come up here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Subject is obviously notable, and I refute the suggestion that the article serves to portray her as the "tragic survivor of the murder of a loved one". On the contrary, it reads like a neutral, unbiased, factual account of events that are public knowledge, and which have received coverage in reliable sources. PC78 (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect to Barry Winchell. Without the link to the killing of Winchell, her article would be deleted as quickly as those of numerous beauty queens, local theater talents, and persons with medical conditions. At present there is only one independent and reliable reference, "An Inconvenient Woman,(2005)" from the NY Times Sunday Magazine. There is a NY Times article about the killing of Mitchell, "Killer's Trial Shows Gay Soldier's Anguish(1999but it only makes passing reference to Addams. The "Gay pimpin'" podcast and the VDAY website do not constitute "reliable and independent sources" in my view. Per WP:BLP "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement." We have deleted numerous articles about living persons with more national press coverage, who were primarily known for one thing, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke, In some cases, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney, even the deletion debate has been "hidden from view for privacy reasons" The fact that the subject of the article requests it be deleted gives additional weight to the need to delete or redirect it. WP:OTRS is another avenue by which a person may seek to have material removed from an article, or to have the article deleted. Edison (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to get all WP:WAX, but if Tiffany Pollard, who has done pretty much nothing but appear on reality dating shows, meets our notability guidelines, Calpernia Addams certainly does. While I continue to assert that the podcast and the VDAY site are reliable sources in this instance, the same information is available elsewhere. This cites Addams' appearance at the VDAY event. This and other sources (including an interview that I'm not locating at the moment verify her military service and her work as a consultant on an Oscar-nominated film, and so forth. There is plenty of information out there, much of it supplied by Addams herself, that show she has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In all honestly, the claim is made in the New York Times, which is regarded to be a reliable source on Wikipedia. Personally i also think that, even if man strips the murder away from the article, it does leave enough notability to survive an AFD. Apart from that, would removing the article on basis of a request violate WP:NOTCENSORED? If the article was removed upon the basis of "objectionable content", Im afraid that this will create consensus which will allow removal of content by anyone on the basis that they don't like what is being written. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep -- appears to easily meet WP:BIO, and not just WP:BLP1E.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete I am not in general in favor of these requests. But the obvious & I think genuine pathos expressed above convinces my to IAR. I'm not sure I ever agreed with Edison on one of these before. DGG (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      • Delete If the subject has clearly stated that the article is hurtful to her, and has given a very detailed statement as to how and why it is hurtful to her, then it IS hurtful to her, intended or not. Not understanding, and continuing to probe her as to why she should consider it hurtful, is dismissive. Preda1ien (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
        • — Preda1ien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
        • Note that you have not provided any rationale for deletion. If you want the article deleted then say why you think the article violates Wikipedia policy and why deletion is the appropriate fix for the problem. An article that meets Wikipedia policy does not need to be deleted. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 21:50, 10 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 no one besides Colonel Warden found anything which would lend notability to chair throwing as a phenomenon, and even the sources he provided were weak. There is no consensus to merge this content elsewhere. A redirect to chair may be appropriate. lifebaka++ 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Chair throwing

      Chair throwing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Delete Non encyclopedic nonsense created for no reason other than to gather together a few anecdotes about people throwing chairs. Mayalld (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Weak keep. If I throw a chair, that's NN. If Steve Balmer throws chairs, that's news. Is there a cultural tradition of throwing chairs in anger trying to escape from this article? It's the angriest thing you can do in a room short of attacking a person (which is the usual borderline for police involvement and legal redress). On that basis, is there something to document here? Any cowboy film has its bar-room brawl scene where things are truly seen to "kick off" at the point when the first chair is lifted.

      Listing anecdotes is cruft. Furniture design is an irrelevance. Sport-hurling is a footnote. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete. See Mayalld's comment. De728631 (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom. Merge and redirect --John (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC) (altered --John (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Merge to chair. I think whatever big verifiable facts there are here will fit just nicely as a section in that article. Fdp (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete neither an Olympic sport, nor encyclopaedic; more a fit of pique. Kbthompson (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge and redirect to Chair. There is nothing else here to warrant its own article, and does not seem to offer much potential for improvement, so I think the merge is appropriate. Off! (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd rather see it deleted than merged with Chair. How about hiving off that section Chair#English phrases relating to chairs and sticking them both off somewhere separate. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Seems trivial why not have pages on throwing other objects, or kicking them, or hitting them or dropping them......Bevo74 (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Pretty damn hilarious: "Chair throwing is the act of throwing a chair at someone." I can just repeat that mantra in my head until it seems like an actual topic for study, but it'll take a while. Yes, there are documented cases of chairs being thrown at others; no, these sparse incidents do not have a cultural significance or history like pieing. Unless there's a study showing a statistical prevalence of chairs being thrown over other household objects, like lamps, ottomans, or feather dusters, I doubt there's any reason to document the phenomenon (no, really, just delete it already). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep or Merge with Chair. I've considered improving the article, but I have limited time to spend on Wikipedia at the moment. Merging is not always appropriate as it can clutter the target article. Redirecting may be inappropriate as it loses content. I agree with Andy Dingley's reasoning for keeping it as a separate article. The question is whether this phenomenon is notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia, I do believe a merge could be beneficial. Officeworld (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Seems quite notable. If merged, it would better go to Tantrum or Rage. There's also the Professional wrestling attacks involving chairs to consider too... Colonel Warden (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh come on...a bunch of books that happen to have "chair" and "throwing" as consecutive words doesn't make an encyclopedic article. There's just as much support for "burger eating" or "arm biting". What's the point of covering some permutation of noun+verb if there's no indication that it's a specific encylcopedic topic? — Scientizzle 23:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • When searching, one should look at the hits, not the misses. The specific hit I saw that indicated that we had the bones of a topic here was A Handbook of Behavior Modification for the Classroom which said, "Chair Throwing Quite often chair throwing is attention-seeking behavior and should be ignored. When this behavior is directed at an object such as a wall or ...". This seems to be a reliable source which discusses the topic specifically to the extent that it has a section heading with this title. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This source merely demonstrates that it is a frequent weapon of opportunity, in one highly specialised context (where the variety of large throwable objects is likely to be limited). It hardly substantiates this as a general topic of widespread notability -- particularly as the article makes no mention of chair-throwing in schools. HrafnTalkStalk 06:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete and redirect to Chair - well the article is sourced, this topic is not notable on its own. --T-rex 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge to Chair. The fact that chairs can be (and have been) thrown is worth a mention. However no one has yet written the history of chair throwing. WP can not be the first since that would be original research. BTW the mention of chair throwing as a fundraiser is uncited and seems a little dubious to me. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Smerge to Chair or Bobby Knight. Chair throwing as an out-of control expression of anger and intimidation for adults who do not have a pacifier to spit out has 2100 news stories covering individual incidents [42], but I found no sources talking about "chair throwing" as a distinct cultural phenomenon. Out of these, 1170 mention Knight. Another good merge target would be Tantrum. (If they outlaw chairs, only outlaws will have chairs, at least until they throw them). Edison (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: any physical object can be thrown. This article does not demonstrate that the throwing of chairs is a coherent or notable topic. HrafnTalkStalk 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addendum: in response to the suggestions that it should be turned into a 'list of chair throwing incidents', the fact that a few specific incidents of this activity have received coverage is not indication that the activity in general is notable or even a cohesive topic. As I said "any physical object can be thrown", and such a list would invite similar lists on the throwing of bottles, drink-cans, rocks, eggs, pies, etc, etc -- none of which would appear to be particularly encyclopaedic, but all of which can find a comparable number of publicised incidents to chair-throwing. WP:STAND#Appropriate topics for lists & WP:NOT#Content ("Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information") would appear to apply. HrafnTalkStalk 05:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (2nd) Addendum: I was tempted to change my opinion to suggest renaming the article 'List of celebrity tantrums' (of which chair-throwing tantrums is merely a trivial subcategory) -- but decided that this raised too many WP:BLP problems -- it's quite simply tabloid journalism. The psychological aspects of this issue would far better be addressed in an article on the 'Psychology of attention-seeking behaviour'. In both cases, the fact that the tantrum/attention-seeking involves chairs (versus any other throwable object) is entirely incidental. Shall we also have a 'List of Nobel Prize winners who wore blue to the awards ceremony '? HrafnTalkStalk 05:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment The criteria/new names suggested here are Straw men and the rest is then simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The argument's fatal flaw is that wikipedia has a much broader based of inclusion than a print encyclopedia. And although wikipedia aims to cover what other encyclopedias cover, it is by no means trying to imitate them. For example, only on wikipedia can one find an article on pastafarians. An article on Chair throwing, a list of chair throwing incidents, or a list of tantrums involving thrown objects...anyone would be a signature wikipedia article, just as this article is clearly shaping up to be. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong delete It's nothing but WP:SYNTH to take three "notable" incidents in which a chair was thrown to create an article about throwing chairs. Aside from the obvious trolling involved here, there's nothing presented to support an assertion that "chair-toss events" are noteworthy & encyclopedic. I'll consider a change in my opinion if anyone provides multiple independent reliable sources that discuss these alleged fund raiser events. — Scientizzle 20:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notice I removed a myrad of WP:SPA, blocked and IP votes from the same IP range from this discussion in This revision. While these votes are almost certainly no more then troll or sockpuppet votes, i think that there must still be some notification they were removed. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 23:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep but rename to something like list of chair throwing incidents. It's reliably sourced, although it might not be the most cohesive list in the world. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      "List of XXX incidents" would be thwe worst sort of listcruft. Is there something specific to the act of throwing chairs that is notable? Does it represent some particular social boundary that is either approached or transgressed? If we can identify that, then an artcle (not this one!) might be justified. If it's just a list of how many times Balmer lost his rag, that's cruft. Of course a list of examples might still form part of such an article.
      On the whole, given the likelihood of any worthwhile article emerging from this, I'm inclining to delete. Not because it needs to be deleted, but because Wikipedia can't produce a useful article in the narrow slot of justifiable notability.Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep adjust the name to list of per Jclemens and expand along the lines of the sources demonstrated to exist per Colonel Warden. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong delete as per Hrafn. Colonel Warden's citation is countered by bottle throwing. As Hrafn said, all sorts of objects are thrown around, notability for chair throwing is not established by citing a few incidents. They belong in the articles of the chair throwers as perhaps illustrations of their poor temperament. There is no meaningful pattern to be covered by an article or list. I would however encourage the supporters of this article to create a list of attention-seeking behaviors (violent, temperamental, etc.) and then a list of famous incidents of those. –MT 18:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment –M's strong delete suggestion doesn't really address the guidlines found in WP:STAND#Appropriate topics for lists. The guidelines say that a list should not be too broad. The guidelines say that a list should not be too narrow. So in order for him or her to cite and properly follow Hrafn's train of thought, such a support debater would need to address how the list is too broad or too narrow. M's comment simply misses the mark, failing to address policy and integrate it with the train of thought set by Hfran's citation of [WP:STAND#Appropriate topics for lists]]. Unless M can address the fundamental list guideline of too narrow or too broad. His or her comment is merely an WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:AFD comment. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Non-notability implies narrowness. While I support a list of famous tantrums, a list of thrown chairs is random. It is up to supporters to "explain why this list contributes [in any way] to the state of human knowledge." –MT 18:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment So u think the list as specified is too narrow (though too broad is problematic...I agree that it might not be a notability issue in that case). So would you support a keep on the condition of move to "List of famous tanturms" ? --Firefly322 (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, though to avoid AfD I would urge someone to try to establish the notability of that list. –MT 20:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Chair throwing is a distinct behaviour often referenced by psychologists. Carol Kalish Fanclub (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have anything to back that up? Psychologists talk about any number of behaviors, it remains to be seen whether "chair throwing" has any prevalence in such discussions. There certainly hasn't been any real research on the topic. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although someone cool enough to come up with a user name of Carol Kalish Fanclub gets a certain amount street cred, without evidence or without picking up some thread of the argument by one of the other participants here, seems more like a comment than a !vote.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefly322 (talk • contribs)
      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 Gone, per the below. . TravellingCari 16:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Cytext ; Cytexting

      Cytext ; Cytexting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Just some kid's version of 1337-speak, does not seem notable at all Stijndon (talk) 11:04, 2 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 to The Wack Pack#King of All Blacks. lifebaka++ 13:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      King of All Blacks

      AfDs for this article:
      King of All Blacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Fails to assert notability, unreferenced and tagged as such since May 2007 with no action, article essentially duplicates entry for subject at The Wack Pack, subject is occasional caller to a popular radio show but notability is not transferrable. Dravecky (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Redirect to The Wack Pack#King of All Blacks as a plausible search term. Per WP:BEFORE, the nom could have done this in the first place and probably avoided AfD. DHowell (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: I certainly considered unilaterally turning it into a redirect but given that it had already survived another AfD I felt such a bold move would not be appropriate. - Dravecky (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Dravecky's choice here was a good one. Even though it takes a little extra time, use of the AFD process again is prudent given the fervor fans of this radio show are known for. This additional AFD will may prevent controversy later.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:48, 9 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 to List of waste management companies. We can't merge and delete for GFDL reasons. lifebaka++ 14:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      List of the largest waste management companies of the United States

      List of the largest waste management companies of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Indiscriminate list of a few waste companies in a country. It fails to explain why this list contributes to the state of human knowledge so it fails WP:SAL Tavix (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment is WP:SAL a reason to delete? Isn't that a style problem which is fixed by editing, not deletion? Hobit (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Edit it to be notable and i'll withdraw my nomination. Take one look at the article and you'll know that it would require a complete rewrite to even make it remotely notable. Until then, I believe deletion is the best bet. Tavix (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was pointing out that your including of WP:SAL as a deletion reason was perhaps not appropriate, that's it. I do suspect this is darn notable, but haven't looked for sources. Hobit (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete unless there is a single source for the entire list. --Polaron | Talk 16:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rename/MOVE to List of waste management companies of the United States. I can see this becoming a viable List and :Category. But, without that change, the Largest part would be POV/advertising and thus a Delete !vote. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:22, 7 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 close) RMHED (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Medpedia

      Medpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Website that is not yet operational. Medical wiki. Has been tried before. Hence fails WP:WEB. If they are so keen to start open source health content, why are they not coming to Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 12:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Red XNDelete - fails WP:N and WP:WEB.--SRX 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - although not yet operational, there are quite a few reliable sources: guardian.co.uk medicalnewstoday.com telegraph.co.uk pcworld.com washingtonpost.com latimes.com Ғїяеѕкатеяtalk 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • They are doing a splendid job at hyping themselves. But it is not yet operational and may never take off. Nowhere does the website actually say who is behind it. JFW | T@lk 06:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I wrote the writeup based on newscoverage I saw, not the other way around. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not everything that gets hyped in the news belongs on Wikipedia. That is why we have content and notability guidelines. JFW | T@lk 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge, into List of wikis and redirect. Not much known at present, so doesn't justify a separate article just yet. However, non-trivial news coverage so this could become a good article in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Still fails WP:WEB. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 21:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge as above CharltonTilliDieTalk/Contribs 13:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep (don't merge) well referenced and prestigious partners, under development rather than crystal ball. RJFJR (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep though Medpedia is a future wiki site, it has been reported by several independent and reliable news media, so the article does comply with WP:NOT. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep: Multiple reliable sources means it meets criteria #1 of WP:WEB. --JD554 (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep: (don't merge) It is already clear that this will be more than 'just another' wiki. According to the British Medical Journal even the British National Health Service will be contributing information to it. [44] Therefore the organization has achieved notability to get this amount of cooperation at this early stage (and for the other reasons already given). Also, the wiki software has undergone over a hundred modification to bespoke it for its intended purpose, so this is a seriously big project compared to most other wikis. The article just needs the editors to be free to get on and add more text (and the logo).--Aspro (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, clearly notable per prestigious partners. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:01, 9 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. Gazimoff 00:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Richard Aguirre

      Richard_Aguirre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

      This article fails to meet the requirements as prescribed for notability and objectivity and should be deleted. The article's creator, futuregovernor (Aguirre), is clearly bias and is using wikipedia as a tool to further his own political agenda.

      An excerpt by futuregovernor, before the Aguirre article's revision is as follows:

      [Richard Aguirre is a nonprofessional politician. This is the first office that he is running for, and has become so disapointed with the current corporately corrupt system we are living in...

      The self description of Aguirre as a "nonprofessional politician" suggest that Aguirre is euphemistically not a politician, never having held political office. The following statement explicitly states that this is the first and only election Aguirre has ever attempted. Moreover, there is an obvious bias of the statement that the current system (which is vague in and of itself) is corrupt. This is reinforced by the simple fact that only one external link supports Aguirre's notability. It is his own campaign website, which in addition to displaying basic html abilities, is not an objective third party.

      Further evidence that this Aguirre is not a serious contender for Governor of California is his listed qualification as a third-generation Californian, suggesting a dearth of actual credentials pertaining to politics. No PAC has been created in the name of electing Aguirre, which is necessary to raise political funds. Without money that can only be raised through a PAC, Aguirre is not a candidate for the Governor of California in 2010.

      Additionally the article on the 2010 Gubernatorial race in California, has been edited by futuregovernor to include Aguirre among the potential contenders. It should be monitored to prevent further inclusion of Aguirre, should wikipedia decide to delete this article on the basis of notability and or objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Mateo (talk • contribs) 2008/08/04 00:25:35

      • Delete. I'm not seeing any reliable sources that would indicate existing notability. A candidate for Governor, even if his chances of victory are slim, would be notable to some degree; whether an article would be warranted or not is unclear. However, he's not a candidate for governor at this time, nor will he be for a while; as a result, WP:CRYSTAL applies, and this article should probably be deleted as (very) premature. If there is coverage later on, and notability can be established, I would not object to an article. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy delete. I haven't tagged it as such because the history already involves a prod and unprod, but this looks like a WP:CSD#A7 speedy to me as well as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 6 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.Ty 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Roy Nachum

      Roy_Nachum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

      I nominated this article for speedy deletion but the tag was removed. The subject appears to be an aspiring NY artist. There is nothing notable about being an aspiring NY artist. According to the uncited sentence in the article, some celebrities and a few random people who don't have wikipedia pages have bought his art. The links supposedly establishing his notability don't really indicate he's a big deal. One of them does note that he his agent is making an effort to raise the artist’s profile. Ordinarily, as an inclusionist, I couldn't care less. I know plenty of artists in the city who would like to raise their profiles. I'm related to artists in the city who want to raise their profiles. I used to BE an artist in the city trying to raise his profile. I sympathise. But not enough to say with a straight face that this guy is notable without seeing more.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Weak Delete although he has mention in a variety of places it seems to always be in connection with the restuarant or his one painting in the gallery. I'm unsure if we have specific things on "creative designers" and "artists" but, if we don't this one does seem to fail WP:N and WP:V
      • Weak delete. Although I agree it is not a speedy candidate, I'm not seeing enough of an assertion of notability to convince me to keep this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. He seems to have achieved some degree of notoriety. A Moti Hasson Gallery exhibition is fairly important. Neutralitytalk 03:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - nice beginnings, but not encyclopedia material....yet. Modernist (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete He's beginning his career and there's some interest in his work, but he's not notable yet. There are no major exhibitions yet, no critical writing and no real evidence of being in any collections of note.freshacconcispeaktome 14:37, 9 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) 16:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      U Started It (Gwen Stefani song)

      U Started It (Gwen Stefani song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

      Orange County Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Fluorescent (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Dont Get It Twisted (Gwen Stefani song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Wonderful Life (Gwen Stefani song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Bubble Pop Electric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Serious (Gwen song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Danger Zone (gwen stefani song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

      Unnotable stubs, none ever relased as single, no notable info. User is creating articles for all her songs, and recreating pages that were already deleted also. Nominated for PROD, user just removed the PROD warning, and wouldn't comment on the discussion page as to why they were disputed. The page names themselves aren't even all in proper grammar/punctuation/capitalization. This isn't a Gwen Stefani fansite, maybe create a Gwen Stefani wiki instead? Ejfetters (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support deleting all these pointless stubs, per nom. Jonathunder (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep or merge/redirect; they don't necessarily need independent articles, but the info should be preserved. Everyking (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - no assertion of notability. Biruitorul Talk 05:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why not simply redirect them? Everyking (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We could... Biruitorul Talk 14:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Redirect them to their respective albums, but material doesn't need to be preserved, because most of it is heresy and has no references. Keep only encyclopedic information that has irrefutable sources, otherwise delete information too. Ejfetters (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps you meant hearsay. I don't think heresy was the intended meaning. Jonathunder (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah sorry bout that, that's what I meant lol. Ejfetters (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect to The Sweet Escape. There is not really any info on the article, but the page should not be deleted because more info may be discovered. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:27, 11 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Bad Guys (professional wrestling)

      Bad Guys (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Article is a few lines, poorly worded. Team is nonexistent save for select PPV matches.--KingMorpheus (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete as non-notable as well as non-verifiable, no importance/significance indicated in article either (which to my memory says it is a speedy deletion candidate). Bad Guys (professional wrestling) should be a redirect to "Heel" anyway.Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. While an article in need of cleanup is not itself a candidate for deletion, I'm not seeing any notability here, nor can I find sources with which to document what little facts there are. My first impulse was to redirect this to Heel (professional wrestling), but that's not much of a redirect. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      On the other hand, if everyone else things a Heel redirect works, then off we go. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Delete Created again? Damn. Delete, non-notable and the name is not official. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:49, 9 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), Withdrawan by nom. Additional sources added assert enough notability for me. Livitup (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Purple Labs

      Purple Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Speedy declined by admin. The two references currently in the article are press releases, so they are not reliable sources. The only press coverage I can find of the company is trivial (brief mentions in larger articles in IInfoWeek and CNet). The Openwave software they bought is probably notable, but that information is in the Openwave article, so it's duplication here is unnecessary. Livitup (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep. Added three non-trivial third-party references, which should be enough for WP:N. Gr1st (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong keep. Purple Labs is a rapidly expanding company with almost 400 employees (counting all their recent aquistions). -- Egil (talk) 16:09, 7 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 WP:CSD#G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Mellis. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Per Weihrauch

      Per Weihrauch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Contested PROD. As well as being a copvio of [45] and [46], the subject of this article fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league or competition. Qwghlm (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete as nominator. Qwghlm (talk) 12:15, 6 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 Snowball delete --JForget 23:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Inverted (band)

      Inverted (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Contested prod. Non notable band (No claim to notability or reliable sources found) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 12:05, 6 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Bait Rumman Hotel

      Bait Rumman Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Contested prod. Non notable hotel. Altavista search provides no reliable third party resources, and news.google.com results no results at all. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 12:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete par being the nominator. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 12:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - article does not assert any notability. -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - this is a joke, the hotel isn't even a year old! South-East7™Talk/Contribs 13:29, 6 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 03:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      David Hidalgo Perlas

      David Hidalgo Perlas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Contested prod. No assertion of notability (6 non usable altavista results), Autobiography, and in general badly formated Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 11:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete par being the nominator. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 11:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as non-notable. -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:29, 6 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 --JForget 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Army Men: World War-Team Assault

      Army Men: World War-Team Assault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Contested prod. Article is in-universe and seems to provide no valuable information that can be made into a stub. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 11:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete par being the nominator Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 11:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as non-notable. I could find no reviews online for this game, and very little discussion of it other than mentioning the fact it was released. -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per above. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete fails notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Delete - per nom, as non-notable --T-rex 16:05, 6 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 WP:IAR deleted as guff. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 11:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      How to post biography on wikipedia?

      How to post biography on wikipedia? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Not taggable as a CSD. Violates WP:NOR, WP:MOS, WP:NOT, WP:ESSAY and probally a load of other rulesets Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 11:25, 6 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--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Asshole

      AfDs for this article:
      Asshole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Wikipedia is not a dictionary or slang usage guide. This article is all about a word, not the topic denoted by the word, and so fails WP:DICDEF and WP:NOT. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete per nom. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 11:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - is there any way to adjust the AFD history list to remove the unconnected AFDs relating to the song, the clothing line and the rap group? 23skidoo (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete and redirect to Anus - this article is simply a semantic fork of Anus --T-rex 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • keep A redirect to Anus would be a mistake. since this is not just an alternate word for anus, but a well known term of insult. There are 34 Google book hits [47] with "Asshole" in the title, few of them about the body part, indicating that sources exist to improve the article. A Google news search shows it turning up in press articles by 1965 [48] with the derogatory meaning. By 1974 President Nixon was referring to Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau as "That asshole" [49] in the Watergate tapes. The degree to which its use is disorderly conduct or assault has been the subjecty of many court cases [50] , [51] , [52]. A national magazine by 1988 was in the federal courts for calling someone "Asshole of the month [53]." There are sources to allow creating an article that goes far beyond a dictionary definition. As to deleting it because it is offensive, Wikipedia is not censored, and has articles about many other offensive words, which have survived AFD. Edison (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is some interesting material there but the putative topic is still unclear. In your view, which of the following is the topic?
      1. the varied usage and history of the word
      2. the body part
      3. unpleasant people
      4. pop cultural allusions
      5. words derived from ass
      The latter is how the OED treats it - just as one of several formations from ass, like ass-kisser and ass-licker. I still think we're better served by proper articles on each of these topics, such as Sycophancy and Malice. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The reason for existence of this article is the insult/allusion to disagreeable people, popular over the past 40 to 50 years. The article can certainly mention the anatomical meaning and link to Anus, but there is more to Asshole than anus. Edison (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. evidentially Wikipedia worthy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep a notable slang whose article has appropriate sources, and does not have only pronunciation, etymology and meaning. List of English words containing Q not followed by U is a Wikipedia list about English words , which was once nominated for deletion since the nominator had thought it violated WP:NOT but gained no consensus and finally kept later became a featured list. Hope everyone would know the true spirit of WP:NOT and WP:DICDEF. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The nom features tortured logic: the "topic denoted by the word" can be found in another article that's more suitable for discussion of anatomical details, the topic of the word as used in society (which has a distinctly different pattern of use than "anus") has been dealt with in reliable sources, and discussed in this article beyond a dictionary definition. Here's a few offerings for expansion of sources based on two minutes of Googlin'...[54][55][56] Considering the wide usage of the term, it appears to be a relevant topic for Wikipedia, particularly the legal history of the word. — Scientizzle 21:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Also widely expand. There is so much to say on the topic. DollyD (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep and improve. This is an expandable and sourceable subject. I've added a section of notable recent usages in politics, although some additional historical context would be appropriate. Sections of original research should be excised.--HidariMigi (talk) 02:04, 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--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Media Temple

      Media Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      This is a procedural nomination on my part, I think the person who added PROD template was trying to send to Afd - PROD template was also removed by article creator who I think is objecting to deletion. There do seem to be some notability concerns and references appear to be mainly to companies own site. See Talk:Media Temple for other users comments. Now removed, particpants have commented here. Hunting dog (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Weak Keep - the reflist contains sufficient reliable secondary sources to meet the requirements of [{WP:CORP]]. The claim to notability is as a pioneer of grid-hosting, as outlined in one of the sources attached and now included in the lead. It's not exactly Microsoft but there is reasonable coverage in several industry media outlets and a moderately impressive client list. The size of the company and number of employees is not a benchmark for inclusion or otherwise. I've copyedited it a little to remove some obvious advertising but though it needs more work I think it might just make the grade. Euryalus (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - I can't see any reliable sencondary sources which meet the req. of [[WP:CORP}]. Media Temple Inc. cannot be a pioneer in Grid hosting because grid computing and hosting is well known since 1999 (cf. I. Foster, C. Kesselman, The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure, 1999).The article contains a lot of advertising and external links to its own company website. Yes, Hunting dog is right, the person who added PROD template was trying to sent to AfD and of course the article creator has deleted the PROD template in bad faith. Mediatemple (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2008 (CET)
      • Comment - To note I didn't say there was any bad faith on the part of the creator, in fact I tried to explain on user talk page that creator (or any other editor) is entitled to remove a WP:Proposed Deletion tag, if he/she disagrees with deletion. This process has different procedures and templates, the templates for this process are the ones which should not be removed. -Hunting dog (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Thanks to User:Mediatemple for the comments above. A couple of points - JediLofty points out the relevant secondary sources below. The claim of being a pioneer in grid-hosting is directly referenced from one of those articles. The reference above to a 1999 book on grid-hosting doesn't of itself invalidate the secondary source describing them as a pioneer of the concept, as Media Temple itself has existed since 1998. Lastly, the article did indeed contain a lot of advertising - a fair bit has been removed over the course of this AfD and hopefully the article is in better shape. Advertising in an otherwise notable article would seem to be better addressed by editing it out rather than deleting the entire page. Euryalus (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Thanks to User:Euryalus for his comments about Grid Computing. My opinion is, that the reference above to a 1999 book on grid-hosting does of itself invalidate the secondary source describing them as a pioneer of the concept, as Media Temple itself has startet this service (GS) in October 2007. Mediatemple 09:497, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Keep - while most of the references in the article are primary sources, there are a few that meet the requirements (Netcraft's page about them as well as a mention by Inc.com and TechCrunch). -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete because most references are primary ones. Their is no reliable secondary source given, which could verify the content of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.12.92 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Strong Delete - Given secondary sources, which only verify Media Temple's GS outages, are not good reasons for keeping this article in the Wikipedia. Additionally the article is almost a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.12.92 (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Indented as suspicion raised at SSP on whether this IP is used to votestack OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I've now struck through the above vote as User:Mediatemple confirms it is his/her IP account here and he/she has already !voted above. Euryalus (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - As the creator of this article, I would like to add that it was not intended to be used as advertising. I am not affiliated with the company in any way and if I was, I don't think I would have added in the criticism section. If the article had no references whatsoever, then I could understand why it would be an obvious candidate for deletion, but this is not the case. Although several were from the company itself (a number to illustrate the criticism), I think there were adequate third party sources. If references need to be improved, then deleting the article outright is hardly the answer. Toytown Mafia (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - Hosts several high-profile sites and has 445 hits on Google News which suggests notability -Halo (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment The number of Google or Google News hits are not good criteria for notability. As you might know, Google results are 99% Spam. Not all Media Temple hits in Google are about the Media Temple Inc. in discussion. A lot of them are hits for Mediatemple ® GBR in Germany (see mediatemple.eu), another Hosting company Mediatemple (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Another Comment I've found another Hosting Company, which called Media Temple Inc. It's from India (see mediatemple.in) and a lot of Google hits about them.
      • Delete. Tech Crunch is a Media Temple client, so not 'independent' per WP:CORP. All hits I've checked, including Netcraft and Inc. mag trace back to press releases or other information directly from Media Temple and/or are not primarily about Media Temple, it just is one of multiple companies mentioned. Just another webhoster with a proficient PR department. Shawisland (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Copy that All links and google hits are not independent. It's mostly self-advertising b Media Temple Inc. and PR of dependent customer-sites. Mediatemple (talk) 08:34, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Lego Harry Potter: the Video Game

      Lego Harry Potter: the Video Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Unreferenced article about a game that may or may not be developed. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. -- JediLofty UserTalk 09:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I have heard lot of rumors but it violates wikipedia policy when the article has no veriable source.--SkyWalker (talk) 17:33, 10 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. There is no consensus for a merge. Recreation as a redirect is an editorial decision. If there has already been a merge, contact me so I can restore the page for GFDL reasons. lifebaka++ 14:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Leona Lewis on The X Factor

      AfDs for this article:
      Leona Lewis on The X Factor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Delete. This is an entire article full of trivial infomation about one person's role as a contestant in a Reality TV show. All of this infomation is included in Leona Lewis, The X Factor (UK) or The X Factor (UK series 3) anyway. Only primary and unreliable sources are cited, and sometimes Wikipedia itself is used as a source (WP:RS). This is a pure example of WP:CRUFT, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Dalejenkins | 09:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete after Merge of any adequately sourced relevant material not already included in Leona_lewis#2006:_The_X_Factor. --Cameron* 10:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The nom should have also indicated that the previous AFD, concluded 2 months ago, ended in a no consensus and that the closing admin recommended it be renominated. 23skidoo (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom RJFJR (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong delete Lewis is notable for her appearance on the show, so an article with this title is surely redundant. In fact, the article title fails WP:NOTDIR for being a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Much of the information in this article is chaff about small details of what happened on the show, making it resemble a fansite, hardly worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge with either The X Factor (UK series 3) or Leona Lewis. BUC (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, appropriate as a subarticle dealing with a crucial part of the career of a highly notable performer. Everyking (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge, content belongs in main articles, no need for subarticle - per Dalejenkins. Brilliantine (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong delete – I have said it before and I will say it again. This is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion and it is because there is something inherently non-noteworthy about it. There have been all these arguments that 'Leona Lewis' journey on The X Factor was significant'. No matter how 'significant' it is subjectively deemed to be, a contestant's time on an talent show is not the basis for an article. The word-for-word verbiage of what the judges said week-in week-out is excessive and the general quality of the content is not in line with WP:GUIDELINES, particularly WP:NOTABILITY. — Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge and Delete - Everything down to the Leona Lewis on The X Factor#Live Shows section is okay, and probably could be merged into the Leona Lewis article to expand the comparatively shorter Leona Lewis#2006: The X Factor section. The Live Shows part can probably be summarized generally and also added. Then, I think, this article is ready and eligible for deletion. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 12:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per Wiki edit Jonny GunGagdinMoan 13:20, 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 Snow delete; would have been an A7 if albums were eligible but they're not so it's a snow slow.. TravellingCari 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Deeper Than Rap

      To quote the article itself, "The album is due to be released fall of 2008. Nothing else is known as of now." This fails WP:MUSIC and we really don't need articles like this right now anyway. JBsupreme (talk) 08:40, 6 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. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Many-finned sea serpent

      Many-finned sea serpent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Fails WP:RS. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources [57], [58]. Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep (and maybe rename). The article states it is cited by a classical source: In his book, On the Nature of Animals (second century CE), Greek military writer Aelian.... Also, if you Google for the keywords related to the sightings, you find a fair number of hits reporting about the cryptid, see e.g. here. It could be that the article title is not the most common name of the cryptid, however. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The google ghits you mentioned shows 0 RS, please pick up some reliable sources which cover this topic in detail. Otherwise it fails WP:N. If you search for Cetacean Centipede, google shows many ghits [59], but none of them is RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you heard of "books"? They predate Google. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep As far as cryptozoology goes, if it was good enough for Heuvelmans it's good enough for wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Nomination withdrawing Withdrawing this particular nomination because it is mentioned in some ancient texts. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:42, 6 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 due to failure to meet WP:N. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Beresfield United

      Beresfield United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
      • Delete non notable football team. Only 5 GHITS, all of which are incidental mentions. Not one single WP:RS specifically about the club. Mayalld (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete unless the NewFM Division is within the highest levels of the sport in Australia. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 11:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: It's very trivial, isn't it? The Sydney Morning Herald reference provided does not mention the Beresfield United Club at all. The local paper does, but I don't think a mention in a local paper establishes notability.--Lester 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. This would appear to be a team in the third tier of Australian soccer. At team with semi-professional players. Seems to be as, or more, significant as a Tier 9 or Tier 10 team in England. Am I missing something? Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      (Comment) If it is the case, that this really is a major Australian sporting team, then the author should have no trouble finding a few major references from major independent publications to demonstrate the team's notability. The author should supply those (we shouldn't have to search for them).--Lester 22:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Article fails to demonstrate notability of this organisation. Teams of this kind do not warrant a WP article of their own, but could be listed in an article dedicated to the sporting code or the relevant League. The prose may be appropriate for the local community newspaper but it is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ".....could be listed in an article dedicated to the sporting code or the relevant League" - the article on the league, I could understand, and any half-decent article on a league should include details of the member clubs, but when you say "listed in an article dedicated to the sporting code" surely you aren't suggesting a merge to Association football.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per WP:N - lacks of reliable sources. --Angelo (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I don't see what the big problem is with having this article here just because there is no mention of it in any major newspaper article. Even the bigger teams here in Australia struggle to get a spot in them. And yes the NewFM Division is one of the highes levels of football in Australia therefore this page shouldn't be deleted. If this article is to be merged, merge it with maybe the NewFM Division page or maybe make a new article 'teams in NewFM Division'? Marco (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The problem is that Wikipedia has a policy that requires notability (WP:N), which acts as a line to define the cut-off between Things that should have articles, and things that should not. Could you clarify what level the league is at. As far as I can tell, it isn't at the top level of the sport. Rather, it is at the lowest level of semi-pro football, in a country where association football is not a major sport. Mayalld (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment True, it is the lowest level of semi-pro football. But then again it is also the 3rd/4th highest. I just have a couple of things to say... sorry.. 1. Notability sucks.. 2. If this is going to be deleted, please consider moving it. 3. There is another team in the league that has an article where they don't go on about WP:N, yes they have been in the higher league last year, but I think that Beresfield has a ex NSL player (highest league in Australia) adds to the notability of the club, doesn't it? 124.187.178.14 (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC) *That was my comment Marco (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment OK, so notability sucks. If that's what you think, try to get the policy changed. Special pleading that the article that you wrote should be exempt from policies you dislike isn't convincing. Mayalld (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete does not meet the notability guidelines. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep There's an article on Adamstown Rosebud, and that's just as famous as this. 121.218.174.17 (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Marco (talk) 11:20, 9 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 :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 08:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      MUSCOM

      MUSCOM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
      • Delete nn student society Mayalld (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Delete A7 So tagged for the benefit of passing admins. RayAYang (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy delete (A7) per RayAYang. No need to wait it out 5+ days. JBsupreme (talk) 08:41, 6 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 --JForget 23:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Commonly used Product Lines at Day Spas

      Commonly used Product Lines at Day Spas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
      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, defaults to keep--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Hest Bank North Junction

      Hest Bank North Junction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Orphaned articles with no evidence of notability (contested PROD). See discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Articles on Railway Junctions

      I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

      Hest Bank South Junction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge and redirect somewhere useful like a nearby station or a list of railway junctions in the UK. These appear to be possible search terms. --NE2 07:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a junction. That's a piece of railway real estate that exists to join two lines when there's no other reason to build a railway nearby. There is no "nearby station". If there was, we'd have an article of "Hest Bank major metropolis" or somesuch. The nearest relevant station for this would be Morecambe (the junctions exist to connect the Morecambe coast branch onto the main line), and that's far too far a distance away. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Keep It's a minimal stub, but it's a real junction, as is the South junction, (check a route map). Are you trying to delete the entire Category:British railway junctions? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I am fully aware that it is a real junction. I am a real person, but that does not make me notable. If someone can provide significant coverage in reliable secondary sources about these junctions, then I will agree that they are notable, but I don't see any reason why these are any different to most other junctions. I will look at other junctions in due course. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Hence my point on the category. Should the entire category be deleted? Hest Bank is the pair of junction(s) (which I presume you accept) serving the line to Morecambe, a fairly large town. There is no notable station or conurbation at Hest Bank. Now if this doesn't meet notability for the group "British railway junctions that aren't otherwise notable as being towns" (i.e. Dovey junction, but not Crewe or Clapham, then what would? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can we listify the junction articles (including the short descriptions) in that category and merge this into that list instead? --Polaron | Talk 15:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      How would listifying help? The hypothetical question is "Are junctions notable?" (as articles in their own right). If they are, a category is a good way to represent them. If they aren't, they shouldn't be listed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Things that might not be sufficiently notable as an individual thing but as a group are often constructed as list articles. An typical individual junction might not be sufficiently notable but junctions as a whole probably are. For most junctions, it would probably be difficult to expand the article beyond a stub so listifying would also help that by combining many stubs into a more substantial article about junctions as a whole. A list is essentially a category where you can add additional information beyond the name of the junction. --Polaron | Talk 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      "An typical individual junction might not be sufficiently notable but junctions as a whole probably are." I disagree entirely with that. Junctions don't become more notable as groups. Some things do, but not these. Stations of middling size and upwards are notable, as are lines and routes. Individual points and signals clearly aren't. Now where do junctions fit into this? I'm quite happy to see them, as appears to be the status quo, seen as notable and categorizable. This is an inherent property of all junctions between notable lines (as these are) - it's not reduced by the stubbiness of these articles. It might be reduced in the case of a very minor junction, such as two branches of a barely notable branchline, but that's not the issue here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge (the two articles). On the assumption that the article(s) survive independently of other merges, then what's the consensus on merging Hest Bank North Junction with Hest Bank South Junction to [[Hest Bank Junction]]? It's a triangular junction - they're effectively the same junction anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:01, 7 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Son Vita

      Son Vita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      It isn't even a village, it's a place in a village. No ghits, notability, anything I can find to prove it's particularly important (or why it needs an image of every mountain ever in the world. ever.) so i'm nominating it for deletion as a non-notable location. Ironholds 07:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete - another stub created by a blocked sockpuppet of User:Hatashe, since edited by another sock to dispute the prod and add a load of unrelated filler, and references that aren't anything of the sort. User:Hatashe and his socks edit local Bangladeshi related articles as some sort of promotion drive. No indication of why this hill is any more notable than the one behind my house, which is rather beautiful, is renowned for its hill like-shape, and keeps the memory of the Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Plantagenets, etc, etc. - Benea (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete the village that contains it already has an article. --Polaron | Talk 16:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete—Had this on my watchlist to look into later... didn't realize it was on a place within a village. So, clearly non–notable. Livitup (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Clearly non-notable. "It is renowned for its wave and parabolic shape"? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom and WP:N. --Ragib (talk) 02:57, 7 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 00:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Lavellan

      Lavellan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Fails WP:RS. Google shows several ghits, but those aree not blogs and not all ghits are about cryptid, no hint in google scholar [60].Google books shows some ghits [61], but that is not significant coverage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment - if Google is the criterion for notability, no wonder wikipedia is a joke. Why don't you look at the hard copy sources mentioned in the reference section? Like Dwelly's dictionary, which is unavailable online, but can be found in any Scottish library? What are ghits anyway?
      "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." - there are three or four of these available at least. In fact, if you look at the bottom of the article, it incorporates text from the most comprehensive Scottish Gaelic dictionary around. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) p.s. Listing on Scottish articles for deletion.[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —MacRusgail (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak keep The Google books hits do hint at the presence of other sources that aren't available online. I'm a bit hesitant to call this a "cryptid", though, since the speculation over this creature took place many years before modern ideas about cryptozoology. The comparison to the Mongolian death worm is definitely inappropriate. Zagalejo^^^ 19:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment "cryptid" is a modern term, but could perhaps be applied retroactively. Some of the animals termed "cryptids" are pretty wild (no pun intended) by the terms of medieval mythology. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak keep Not a great article but I am not aware of any policy that specifies a minimum number of google entries as a necessity. This might be a fair point when considering the fame of a completely new subject, such as a young athlete, band or author, but its pretty irrelevant to one that's been around for centuries. Putting up an AfD for a stub with a source from an encyclopedia strikes me as being frivolous to be honest. Vast tracts of Wikipedia are not and never will be in a hard copy encyclopedia or other reputable publication. Ben MacDui 07:47, 7 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. Consensus indicates that another source is needed to establish notability. Room for improvement or lack thereof was not a factor in this close. lifebaka++ 15:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Row (cryptozoology)

      Row (cryptozoology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete by the article's own admission "The only treatment of it is in Bernard Heuvelmans' book On the Track of Unknown Animals. There is but a single report of even any native stories about the Row". Not notable. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 07:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep It's a cryptozoology article. It's in the very nature of such things that many of those listed, and many of the most notable, will be hoaxes. Is a Sasquatch, Bunyip or Loch Ness Monster WP:V? Our purpose isn't to document the animal (it almost certainly doesn't exist), but to document the report or hoax within the annals of cryptozoological reports. As a report (albeit a negative report), it's credible and verifiable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Agreed that the purpose is to document the hoax, but only if the hoax is notable. Loch Ness has appeared in a number of media, same as Yeti. I can not find anything on Row, and the article itself seems to suggest that the only book which documents it is the cited source. Per the general notability guidelines a subject must have "Significant coverage". ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 10:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      In the field of cryptozoology, any mention by Heuvelmans would be regarded as "significant". 'On the Track of Unknown Animals' isn't just some random pamphlet, it pretty much defined the field. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I agree with Andy that a mention from Heuvelmans is significant; On the Track of Unknown Animals is considered the "Bible" of cryptozoology. However, I don't think anyone (Heuvelmans included) ever took this story seriously, and there aren't any other reported sightings of the Row besides the one mention in the book. It might be best to mention the Row in the article about On the Track of Unknown Animals, rather than giving it its own article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Doesn't deserve its own article, but could get a cited mention in cryptozoology.--Dmol (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Hoax with only a single mention. Not notable enough for its own article (it certainly fails WP:N), but no reason not to include it within the main cryptozoology article, or create an article dedicated to cryptozoology hoaxes (if there's not already one). 12:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Keep As said above, OTTOUA is the definitive work on the field, but it has become dated in over 50 years. Part of my intent in creating this page is for anyone looking for current information can see basically that Heuvelmans still is all there is. There actually is a second reference- the original book claim. Perhaps a page for that book or the author might be more appropriate. But I've never been able to find a copy, and my copy of OTTOUA was stolen years ago. Referring it on OTTOUA's page might work, but Heuvelmans mentions a LOT of critters not found in other sources and it would probably unnecessary detail to mention them all. This is the only one such that gets its own chapter in the book, and that in itself is notable. I can work on the article a bit- but it won't be in the next few days. CFLeon (talk) 02:36, 10 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 over hasty nom

      Red factor canary

      Red factor canary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
      • Delete as a WP:HOAX Mayalld (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - I don't think it's a hoax. The picture that has been included is not the best, partly because the canary pictured is yellow. I'll clean it up a bit. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:38, 6 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. No convincing reason why WP:BIO1E shouldn't apply here. lifebaka++ 15:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Shelley_Batts

      AfDs for this article:
      Shelley_Batts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Not a notable blogger; practically nothing on google outside blogs/academic websites; no wikilinks to this page

      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete She seems to be noted mainly because of one single incident, which itself does not really merit an independent article either (although it might merit mention in article on copyright and Internet, for example). --Crusio (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • no vote I should declare that although I nominated this, I could be said to have some tangential conflict of interest as a Wiley employee (although the incident actually had nothing to do with Wiley - the incident is described more accurately here). I nominated the article solely for notability, and because it had previously been put up for WP:PROD. But to keep things neutral, I won't participate in the debate. Thanks for your understanding, guys - stick a note on my talk page if you want to comment on this. Hopsyturvy (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      weak keep I think she is notable for the controversy surrounding her. I realize that the blogosphere is often not taken seriously by some people, but she appears to be notable in her field of blogging. However, perhaps this would be best suited if it were added to a section about controversy on a blog related article? I was watching Democracynow and they discussed how traditional media is trying to place a stranglehold on bloggers, so this might be good content for an article involving those issues. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

      • Keep or change title. Notable blogger. Science blogs is a standard of ntoability for the ones included there. The author/editor of one is not necessarily notable, but can be if she is engaged in significant controversies. I would however like an additional source. One Event, if the event is one that is within the professional notability of the person, is not a reason for deletion--ins one event in the sense of something peripheral to any real notability. That said, I would be very open to changing this to an article about the blog. DGG (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep or move and redirect to Of Two Minds and convert to an entry about the blog. Ford MF (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as per WP:BIO1E. She receives coverage for precisely one event. Not at all clear to me that her blog comes close to being notable. RayAYang (talk) 20:02, 3 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, Tan ǀ 39 06:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Just one isolated case. If it kept being refered to by third parties then it could be worth keeping. As it is it isn't. Alberon (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete If the blog is itself notable, it may warrant an article. However, we delete references from blogs, and people known only for writing blogs. What's more, this article seems to be no longer sourced, although the source appears to have been an expired or deleted blog, so fails WP:RS. Ohconfucius (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Copyright issues have come to the fore in the last several years and there is now almost a constant deluge of dispute and debate. For example, I just stumbled upon this article yesterday in APS News (see last page). The subject of this article appears to assert "notability" primarily in light of a particular copyright flap. However, this minor episode is decidedly non-notable within the enormously larger stage of copyright law. Neither is the blog notable, nor is being a PhD student. Though I applaud this individual's efforts, there isn't enough here to qualify. Agricola44 (talk) 20:10, 8 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 by me. This article has no context, seems to be on a strange topic, lacks a space in the article name, and consists of content that could not be considered suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Knightsof the altar

      Knightsof the altar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
      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). Gr1st (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Indulekha.com

      Indulekha.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      non notable site according to me. The site has a claim to fame though... To hold an online exhibition of books?? ChiragPatnaik (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      One of the links is flagged by FF 3 as an attack site. all the other refs talk about the said "first to hold an online exhibition" press release ChiragPatnaik (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. It seems to meet the second criterion at WP:WEB. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - it reads a little too much like self-promotion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Keep It meets WP:WEB and it only needs a little work of which I have started. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 12:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Added an article about the website from The Hindu newspaper, which combined with the Limca Book of Records coverage, should be enough to pass the general notability guidelines. Gr1st (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, article was already linked to, but now an inline cite. Gr1st (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, please see the record "First online show of all books of a writer"??? If we accept this as notable. then, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      We shouldn't use our personal standards to determine acceptability. If the Limca Book of Records has recognized it, I would believe they earn a mention. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep -- A noteworthy achievement that is mentioned in the Limca Book of Records. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Withdrawn I withdraw the nominations ChiragPatnaik (talk) 05:39, 7 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.--Termer (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Communist Party of Estonia (1990)

      Communist Party of Estonia (1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
      • Comment: Pard me but would you care to explain what exactly did you have in mind? which party should be considered the successor to the Communist Party of Estonia in your opinion? the facts are straight forward: since the party split there were 2 successors exactly. One Communist Party of Estonia that was a regional unit of CPSU since 1940, so called CPU/CPSU or EKP/NLKP and another part that split away/declared independence from CPSU in 1990 and later called itself and is covered on WP with the Estonian Democratic Labour Party--Termer (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said that Wikipedia should maintain a neutral point of view as to which party should be considered the successor to the Communist Party of Estonia. I don't know why my personal opinion about it should matter, as I only became aware of this dispute yesterday and read the applicable Wikipedia pages at that time to give advice in this AfD discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Got you, I simply misunderstood you because in my mind the AfD has nothing to do with neutral point of view regards successors but with factual accuracy: Was the part of the Communist Party of Estonia that remained loyal to CPSU in 1990 a newly fonded party like the article suggests?--Termer (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep There is an extensive discussion on the talk page of the article. I will here try to summarize some key points from that discussion;
        • The Communist Party of Estonia (CPE, I've used the Estonian abbreviation EKP on the talk page) was founded in 1920. After being merged into CPSU in 1940, CPE retained its organizational identity. Whether that had any political impact can be discussed, but 1920 was still considered as the foundation date of CPE and the numbers of congresses of CPE did not start at 1 after the merge into CPSU. For a list of CPE congresses, see http://www.knowbysight.info/1_ESTON/08241.asp
        • The 20th congress of CPE decided, by majority decision, to break with CPSU. The CPE was from that point onwards an independent party, later evolving into the Estonian Democratic Labour Party
        • In response to the decision taken by the 20th CPE congress, a minority left the congress venue, regrouped and formed a new party in Estonia, which was known as CPE (on CPSU platform). Later the name was shortened to CPE(CPSU). In August 1991, the party was banned. Informations on the congresses, plenums, leaderships of this party can be found at http://www.knowbysight.info/1_ESTON/08256.asp
          • Which indicates the Estonian government considers the CPE-CPSU same as the CPE that merged with the CPSU in 1940.
            • No, there is no such logic here. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The CPE that continues to exist til today is the continuation of the CPE(CPSU). It is small, its current 'activity' appears to be limited to signing international declarations and participating in international communist meetings. It was no legal recognition, and is a negible force in Estonian politics today. The notability of the party relates mainly to its role 1990-1991.
          • Indicating that the CPE-CPSU regards itself as the true CPE that merged with the CPSU in 1940. Martintg (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is not any such indication in this passage that so would be the case, but the numbering of congresses (see below) certainly indicates that. But self-perceptions of parties are often deceiving when it comes to counting foundation dates. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Termer has argued repeatedly on the talk page that since CPE(CPSU) continued to function as the CPSU branch in Estonia, there is no need for a separate article on the CPE(CPSU). That argument disregards the fact that the CPSU was a party constisting of (at the time of its dissolution) 15 republic-level parties. The preface of the 1986 CPSU programme (prior to the foundation of the 15th republican CP, the KPRSFSR) states "The CPSU incorporates the Communist Parties of 14 constituent Soviet Republics." Thus if one of the republican CPs would leave the CPSU, and a new republican CP would be formed as the new CPSU regional organisation, then that would be a new party.
          • This article should be merged with the one on CPE, since the CPE was for most of its life affiliated with the CPSU. Martintg (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why? This is a group that split away from the CPE, and is notable enough to hold its own article. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ishiyama writes (Ishiyama, John T. Representational Mechanisms and Ethnopolitics: Evidence from Transitional Democracies in Eastern Europe. Published in East European Quarterly, Vol. 33, 1999); "At the CPE 20th Congress, held immediately following the election on March 25, 1990, First Secretary Vaino Valyas claimed that the election had demonstrated the necessity of immediately transforming the party into an organization independent of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in order to survive under the conditions of democratic competition.(n68) Mikk Titma, the Secretary of Ideology and a leader of the Free Estonia Association, then moved for a declaration of independence from the CPSU which occurred on March 26. The delegates who opposed immediate independence then left the Congress to form their own loyalist party" (my emphasis)
          • There is a world of difference between left the Congress to form their own loyalist party and actually doing it, all this passage means there was an intent to form a new party, nothing more. Martintg (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is ample evidence, in this and other sources, that such a formation actually took place. This is bordering historical revisionism. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the talk page, an argument was put that a full split had not taken place in the CPE, that it was just two fractions inside the CPE with intentions to form separate party. In line with that argument a {{synthesis}} tag was placed in the article. However, Ishiyama/Breuning writes rather clearly on page 86; "Immediately following the vote, the CPE split into two -the Indepedent CPE organization and a second CPE constiting of CPSU loyalists. Each organizations elected its own Central Committee and its own leadership." In another text, the article "Estonian Parties and Movements Prior to Independence (1987-91)." by Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera (Journal of Baltic Studies, Dec, 2000) on page 337, there is a table which clearly shows CPE and CPE-CPSU as two separate parties after the 1990 split.
          • However Ishiyama/Breuning writes on page 87 calls the CPE-CPSU the "loyalist branch of the CPE" that was "willing to reconcile its differences with the pro-independence forces (within the CPE)". The article by Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera has a table on page 332 that lists all 57 political parties that existed between 1987 and 1999, and the CPE-CPSU is not listed, only the CPE. The text on p336 states the table on 337 shows the "formation of popular movements and their splitting into proto-parties". Martintg (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please read Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera more in detail. The title of the table at p. 337, in which CPE(CPSU) is listed, is 'Estonian Parties and Movements Prior to Independence (1987-91).' There is no mention in the article that CPE(CPSU) would have been a 'proto-party'. As per Ishiyama/Breuning the term 'branch of the CPE' is used on p. 87, but that doesn't remove the fact that the same book in other passages talk of the CPE and CPE(CPSU) as separate parties, note for example the passage above on the choices put to local branches to decide their affiliation. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Furthermore Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera presents a founding date of CPE(CPSU) as '3/90-12/90’., 3/90 is the time of the 20th party congress, 12/90 would be the date of the 21th CPE(CPSU) congress. The article also states that CPE(CPSU) 'ends 8/91'. Regarding the end date, this is the date that the party was banned. The authors do seem to take for granted that a party ceases to exist once it loses its legal status.
          • If the CPE-CPSU did indeed start 3/90, then the congress held on 12/90 would have been the 1st CPe-CPSU congress, not the 21st. The CPE-CPSU was banned on 91 because it was considered the rump of the CPSU affiliated CPE that existed since 1940. Martintg (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • ? The CPE(CPSU) considered itself as the legitimate inheritors of the CPE legacy. Thus counting all other 20 congresses as theirs. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Outbidding to Radical Nationalists: Minority Policy in Estonia, 1988–1993 by Lee Kendall Metcalf, published in Nations and Nationalism, Volume 2 Issue 2, Pages 213 - 234, has the following passage (my emphasis): "However, there was a split in the CPE between those who favoured independence from the CPSU and those who did not, mostly Russian-speakers. At the 20th Party Congress in March 1990, the majority decided to separate from the CPSU after a six-month period of reflection. They concluded that ‘only an independent Communist party of Estonia can efficiently participate in the political life of Estonia, change tactics in a flexible way, form coalitions and compete with other parties and movements’ (FBIS-SOV-9073: 104). Many Russian-speakers, however, were unwilling to cut their ties to Moscow. Therefore, a group decided to establish their own party still loyal to the CPSU. Initially this split was patched over by the creation of a Coalition Central Committee."
          • Again, there is a world of difference between deciding to establish their own party and actually doing it, clearly if "this split was patched over", then it hadn't become a formal party at that point. Martintg (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)~[reply]
            • Well, they did for example hold their own party congress in December 1990. Several sources point to the parallel existence of two separate parties. Also, you might want to look closer and notice the word initially prior to the passage "this split was patched over". Initially denotes something temporary, i.e. that the split was not possible to evade. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • http://www.knowbysight.info/2_KPSS/08980.asp considers CPE and CPE(CPSU) as two separate parties.
          • Does http://www.knowbysight.info qualify as a relaible source? Martintg (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is set up by a group of historians, its not a forum or a wiki, it appears to be systematic in its approach but is not clear on the sources used. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • At Estonian Wikipedia, there is a separation between the main CPE article et: Eestimaa Kommunistlik Partei and the article on the CPE(CPSU), at et:Ööpartei. I suppose ‚Ööpartei’ is a negative name (and should probably be moved to a more appropriate name), but it is seemingly clear that the editors at et.wiki don’t consider CPE(CPSU) as the direct continuation of the CPE legacy.--Soman (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Ööpartei" means night-party, meaning that it was considered a phantom party. Martintg (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - this appears to be a content dispute. AfD is not an appropriate forum. Warofdreams talk 11:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - there does not appear to be a serious intention to delete the article, so this is not the place to have this discussion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy - "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Warofdreams talk 03:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect that its role in the referendum and coup would probably meet clause 3, and it would probably meet clause 2 due to its relationship with the CPE. That wouldn't preclude a merge, but would indicate that if the policy is adopted, deletion on grounds of lack of notability probably wouldn't be appropriate. However, no-one seems to be seriously proposing deleting the article. Warofdreams talk 03:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I regret that my intention to delete the article entry doesn't seem serious to you. Please answer the fundamental question for this AfD, can the part of Communist Party of Estonia that remained loyal to CPSU in 1990 considered as a newly founded party?--Termer (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd answer yes to that question. Metcalf write "establish their own party". www.knowbysight.info starts a new chronology for CPE(CPSU), separate from the CPE founded in 1920. Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera states that CPE(CPSU) was founded in 1990. Miljan talks of two separate Communist Parties coming into existence in March 1990, and that the pro-USSR Communist Party held its separate party congress on March 26. Ishiyama states that "[t]he delegates who opposed immediate independence then left the Congress to form their own loyalist party". Ishiyama/Breuning states that CPE split into two separate parties. As per notability, I think we can establish that the party is mentioned in several academic sources, participated in the 1990 elections with a non-negible vote. --Soman (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge and redirect to Communist Party of Estonia. Sources such as "Historical Dictionary of Estonia" by Toivo MilJan characterise the CPE-CPSU as a faction of the CPE that wanted to remain loyal to the CPSU, Ishiyama characterises it as a branch. The CPE-CPSU was essentially a Rump organization of the CPE as it existed since 1940, not a new party, hence it should be merged with Communist Party of Estonia. Martintg (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, Miljan writes at p. 28 "23-25 Mar: XX ECP Congress: the Party splits into an independent Estonian Communist Party and a USSR-affiliated one, largely along language lines.", he further writes that the "USSR-affiliated Communist Party" held a congress on March 26, 1990. Seems your semantics argument on the 'intentions to form a party' falls quite flat. The word 'faction' is used on p. 212, but not in a manner that would denote that the CPE would have remained a united organization. Miljan talks of the independent CPE and the 'Moscow-oriented faction' as two rather separate entities. Moreover, Miljan's terminology is a bit faulty, he says that CPE left USSR, not CPSU. --Soman (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only thing your sources indicate is that there was a split, they held a few meetings in that regard, but it never went beyond remaining a faction of the CPE, as shown here on Estonia's official political party history site, which shows in bold red print "registreerimata" (unregistered), that this phantom "Ööpartei" was never registered and remains an unregistered proto-party to this day. As Miljan writes in his book, the CPSU faction saw the Estonian leadership of the CPE as traitors and agitated against them, including walking out of the congress and holding their own rival 20th and 21st congresses (indicating they believed themselves to be the true CPE, and no doubt had the SU survived they would have purged these Estonian traitors from the CPE with the support of Moscow, as had happened several times in the past). In fact it was more a gambit by a handful of hardliners to usurp control of the CPE and its resources (which they successfully did in the case of the Latvian Communist Party) rather than create a new party. Martintg (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Could the fact that the party was banned have anything to do with it not being registered? Worth to notice is that the institute does have a separate entry for the party. My Estonian language skills are not that great, but doesn't 'lõhenemisel' mean split? The way I read the first sentence is that in 1990 the CPE split into the independent CPE (linked to the entry on EÜVP) and the CPE(CPSU platform). --Soman (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Some 37 parties are listed as unregistered, I don't believe they were all banned. The independent faction seemed to have escaped being banned. Should we create 37 new articles for them too? Martintg (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Doesn't make sense. Being banned is probably a quite important reason that this particular party wasn't registered, but doesn't state anything about the other parties. Official registrations and wikipedia notability are not the same, there might be other notable parties amongst the unregistered parties for whom articles can be created. But that does not affect the outcome of this particular AfD. --Soman (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merging to Communist Party of Estonia seems the most appropriate solution; outright deletion would be unwarranted. Biruitorul Talk 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment the title Communist Party of Estonia (1990) is ambiguous because it can mean both parts of the Communist Party of Estonia that split in 1990: 1. the Communist Party of Estonia that declared independence from CPSU and 2. the Communist Party of Estonia that remained loyal to CPSU. The question is if the title should be deleted or perhaps made into disambiguation page?
        And certainly, any facts from the current article that are not already listed in the Communist Party of Estonia should be merged into it.--Termer (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you have a better name for the article, then suggest it at the talk page of the article. These namings are never 100% perfect, but the majority Communist Party of Estonia was not formed in 1990, it was formed in 1920 (some sources, like Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera, Miljas portray equidistance between the two CPEs, Metcalf and Ishiyama/Breuning point to that CPE(CPSU) can be considered as the 'splitters'. I personally feel that the majority at the 20th congress would be the continuation of the original CPE; thus who left the congress would be splitters). 1990 is merely the year of separating from CPSU, not the foundation of the party. Moving this article to 'CPE(CPSU)' would be possible, though, but complicated since the bracketted 'CPSU' is no longer in use in the name. --Soman (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see where Metcalf and Ishiyama/Breuning point to CPE(CPSU) being the 'splitters'. You have it back to front. The splitters were the majority that split with the CPSU, declaring the CPE independent. The CPE-CPSU were the old guard wanting to maintain the status quo that had existed since 1940, opposing the split from the CPSU. The argument that because the CPE-CPSU delegates walk out of the congress 30 seconds after the vote to split with the CPSU, somehow makes them the splitters from the CPE doesn't stand up. This is why this article sought to be merged into Communist_Party_of_Estonia, because the CPE-CPSU were the rump of the CPE that was loyal to the CPSU since 1940 and is really part of the story of the demise of the CPE, while the real splitters, the majority that split from the CPSU, went on to create the Estonian Left Party after various name changes.Martintg (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ishiyama: "The delegates who opposed immediate independence then left the Congress to form their own loyalist party", Metcalf: "Therefore, a group decided to establish their own party still loyal to the CPSU." Stating that the majority of the CPE splitted from itself doesn't make sense, and so far in the discussion there is not a single reference that point to that so would have been the case. The fact that the CPE majority broke away from CPSU does not mean that they broke away from CPE. --Soman (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sigh, read the article Communist_Party_of_Estonia: In 1940 EKP was merged into the CPSU(b). It became merely the territorial organization of CPSU(b). I never stated the majority of the CPE splitted from itself, but the territorial organisation of the CPSU, known as the CPE, split from the CPSU in 1990. Is this not an accepted fact, or shall I provide references? Martintg (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but 'merely' is a bit misplaced here. CPSU was a party, which in turn consisted of constituent republican parties (except in Russia until 1990). If a party left CPSU, and a new CPSU republican party would be formed to substitute it within the CPSU apparatus, then it would be a new party. It is not comparable to, say, if the SPD in Bremen would split from their mother party. --Soman (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • rename - it should be renamed Communist Party of Estonia (CPSU) as it was known these days. The Estonian equivalent would be Eestimaa Kommunistlik Partei (NLKP). Ööpartei - night party was a nickname that stemmed from the fact that the hardline communists initiated the split in late night hours as the CPE was having one of its sessions. CPE (CPSU) was a splinter group of the 'mainstream' CPE, which was pursuing a pro-sovereignity course and developed into a (minor) left socialist/reform communist party in the independent Republic of Estonia. These two are separate parties and cannot be covered in one article. --90.190.166.173 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the views of anonymous IPs are valid, are they?, due to concerns of potential sock puppetry. Martintg (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Views might be vaild, but their 'votes' don't count. --Soman (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Communist Party of Estonia (CPSU) is not any less ambiguous than Communist Party of Estonia (1990). It has been pointed out several times already that CPE(CPSU) means simply Communist Party of Estonia that was a regional unit of CPSU since 1940.--Termer (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any source were the name 'CPE(CPSU)' is used pre-1990? --Soman (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • the name "CPE(CPSU)" or "Communist Party of Estonia (CPSU)" is not used by any sources. Instead the sources say that, for exml in The Collapse of a Single-Party System: ISBN 0521469430: The CPE is a component of the CPSU, however, not just in the capacity of its territorial organisation but as an independent party of a sovereign union. And also in Estonia: Return to Independence; ISBN 0813317037: Although CPE had declared itself independent of the CPSU, it maintained a representative in the CPSU Politburo. There are 4 sources that mention a name in the form of "CPE-CPSU" but none of the sources claim that it was a newly founded party in 1990.--Termer (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My question was, is there any source mentioning that name pre-1990? The sources i have mentioned point that the names CPE(on CPSU platform)/CPE(CPSU) was used by this party (i.e. the pro-soviet splintergroup) 1990-1991. --Soman (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My answer was that the names in the forms of "CPE(on CPSU platform)" or "Communist Party of Estonia (CPSU)" and/or "CPE(CPSU)" have never been used. Not before or after 1990. Since the names have not been used in such forms, the meanings are ambiguous and open to interpretations AKA original theories and conclusions--Termer (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm from Estonia and I can say, that the party was indeed called Eestimaa Kommunistlik Partei (NLKP platvormil) in the media. The abbreviation was EKP (NLKP) or sometimes EKP (NLKP platvormil), that was not used before 1990, for the simpl reason that it was taken for granted that the pre-1990 EKP was part of NLKP (i.e. CPSU). See [62]. The party (nowadays indeed a phantom party) is listed with this name in the registry of estonia's political parties: http://erakonnad.info/register_2.html#. The note (mõningail andmeil tegutseb tänaseni) means according to some data it still exists (of course, nowadays it can be only pro forma existence) 90.190.166.173 (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I checked Termer's search http://books.google.com/books?q=%22CPE-CPSU%22&btnG=Search+Books. The first source (Taagepera) clearly refers to Ööpartei (see the clip there). Perhaps we might use the variant Communist Party of Estonia-CPSU (abbreviated CPE-CPSU)? 90.190.166.173 (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Ishiyama also refers to Panfilov-Annus party as CPE-CPSU. He calls the pro-independence majority Independent Communist Party (a version not used in Estonian). 90.190.166.173 (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm closing this AfD opened by me and taking the discussion to the talk page to find a consensus.--Termer (talk) 06:59, 9 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--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Illiteracy Will Prevail

      Illiteracy Will Prevail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Unreleased (to the public) bootleg/demo. Little media coverage. Track list isn't even defined. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tan ǀ 39 05:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. The original demo tape from one of the most notable musicians in the world, Kurt Cobain. Also a highly sought-after bootleg. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:29, 7 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 10:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      St Giles' Church, Cheadle

      AfDs for this article:
      St Giles' Church, Cheadle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Delete Nothing to indicate that this Church is particularly notable. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep It was opened in 1846 and designed by Augustus Pugin. Tharnton345 (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Loads of sources are availible after a quick Google, even the BBC. - Sorfane 09:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The BBC article is focused on this church and is a WP:RS. So, its more than unnotable. The church's existence has been verified. Artene50 (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - highly significant Pugin church, important in the English Catholic Revival - article just needs building up to do it justice. Trout to nominator. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep seems like a good landmark, has some history to boot.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep major work of a notable architect. David Underdown (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Can someone please close this? Tharnton345 (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      We cant until one of these criteria are met. - sorfane 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - Pugin. Those words in blue? They're called "links". Click on them, they'll tell you stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - Notable church, acknowledged as one of the finest works of one of the most significant architects of his age. Plenty of sources. Benea (talk) 23:23, 7 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 it's been expanded and its notability has been asserted. Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      St. Bridget's Kirk

      St. Bridget's Kirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Delete nothing to indicate that this former church among many in Scotland is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete per WP:N. Please note that Tharnton345 manually removed two DBs from this article on August 2nd. Also note that this user has been creating pages for seemingly every Scottish church he is aware of. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages! --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete makes no attempt establish notability or to verify that this is a former church in Scotland. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 04:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. It is a notable landmark. Tharnton345 (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment can you offer any information or sources to support that it is notable? When faced with an article that offers no evidence that the subject is more notable than any other church, people really have no choice but to suggest deletion. It's to keep Wikipedia clean, credible and not full of articles about every building, statue and landmark in the world. I would rather articles were kept, but when faced with an article like that I really have no other choice and I think others are in a similar position. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 09:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect to Dalgety Bay as the article stands, but Keep if it can be suitably expanded beyond a single sentence. I've found this online, but subjects such as this will be best researched in good old fashioned books. PC78 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Struck my redirect !vote as the article has indeed been expanded. PC78 (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been there since the 12th century, so that is notable. Keep if expanded, but otherwise redirect to the Dalgety Bay article. Article is only a few days old and needs work.--Dmol (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, that's the stub of all stubs. If that's all there is to say about it, then deleteKeep -- but if it's expanded and source, I'd change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Still a stub, but that's okay. Somehow, it registers keep with me now for historic impact.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - A 12th century church is certainly historic. The government of Scotland seems to agree. Others do too.--Oakshade (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per Oakshade. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per PC78 and Oakshade (after several of these nominations I trust that Tharnton345 has taken on board how to avoid having his/her articles put up for deletion).HeartofaDog (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - certainly seems notable. Expanded it a bit to better demonstrate this with some of the online sources. Now if we could get that book the current church offers, then we'd really be talking. Anyone want to stump up £4? Benea (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep a notable historic building. RMHED (talk) 19:48, 11 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. Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Atlanic City Tsunami

      Atlanic City Tsunami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-Encyclopedic Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete - can move content to the historic section of Tsunami. It could be a one sentence example of an Atlantic Ocean event. It is not clear that the Tsunami in question were named after Atlantic City. Perhaps they were called the "Dominic Republic Tsunami" or the "Atlantic Ocean Tsunami". Each one affected more than Atlantic City, and there is no source to justify that the events were named after just one of towns that felt the impact. The one reference does not use the term "Atlantic City Tsunami." Racepacket (talk) 08:45, 6 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) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Edward Lino

      Edward Lino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable gangster... article has absolutely no information about why he would be notable... he was a gangster, friends with John Gotti, related to a bunch of other gangsters, and he was killed by a couple cops... The external link provided only barely mentions him in one line, and the only G-news hits appear to be regarding his murder... Seems to Fail WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED... Adolphus79 (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you, I hadn't even thought about WP:ONEEVENT... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete being related to gangsters and being in the Gambino crime family does not make him notable. Being murdered by corrupt detectives makes him notable - but not enough for inclusion into Wikipedia according to WP:BIO1E. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 05:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete or Merge to John Gotti or Lucchese crime family Artene50 (talk) 10:27, 6 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 Snow keep and per WP:HEY. TravellingCari 03:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      MS Prince Albert II

      MS Prince Albert II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Delete nothing to indicate the notability of this ship. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Weak keep if sourced. The ship does appear to be a major new expedition-class cruise ship which is a growing but still narrow category. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - it's a big ship that people might search for on wikipedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete unless this article can be expanded to at least one paragraph with notability and a reference. In its current state it may as well stay on the parent article. --Brad (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Article has been expanded nicely. --Brad (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - expanded from a one sentence stub and sourced. There's quite a wide range of sources out there once you start looking, and notability has not been an issue with ships like these. Benea (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - Ships of this size are generally considered to be automatically notable. Excellent work on expanding the article, Benea. Parsecboy (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, seems notable enough. What's wrong with trying to improve before trying to delete? — Bellhalla (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - ships of this size are automatically notable and per Benea. -MBK004 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, now that the article has been expanded and references added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:53, 7 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, withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Animo locke

      Animo locke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Yes, I know high schools are almost always notable, but I can't find a single reliable source about this one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per sources added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment The article is worse than nothing, it should be deleted for lack of content. However, Google gave this source without any effort. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per [63]. Took 2 seconds to find. --  Darth Mike  (Talk • Contribs) 02:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment also I suggest moving to Animo Locke Technology High, as that's the proper name of the school and correct capitalization. --  Darth Mike  (Talk • Contribs) 02:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I moved it. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 17:43, 6 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 deleted. Tan ǀ 39 06:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Yu-gi-oh Abridged

      Yu-gi-oh Abridged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Articles on this subject have been deleted several times before for failing WP:N. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series. I do not believe this is a candidate for speedy deletion because it is a recreation of a page that has been through AfD, but I could be wrong. Wronkiew (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete. Because Wikipedia is not Yu-Gi-Oh Wikia and this another fan-made that lacks notability. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete is not notable. Makes no attempt to establish notability and offers no sources to indicate notability. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 05:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, fan-made series are generally not notable. JIP | Talk 05:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Delete actually, the G4 criteria is explicitly for recreation of material previously deleted by AfD. So tagged. JuJube (talk) 05:59, 6 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. Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Lisa haynes

      Lisa haynes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Contested PROD. Notability not established, too few google hits. Reads like a personal homepage. roleplayer 01:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete. A couple of references in the article (one of which,[64], may not pass WP:RS since the home page says "Content is posted freely by web site members and may or may not reflect the opinions, goals or mission of Best Friends Animal Society"), certainly not enough to pass WP:BIO. Such coverage as there is concentrates mostly on "Save our Strays" organization. The article in Burlington Free Press[65] does mention that she is a former professional wrestler. It is possible that there is some additional coverage related to her wrestling career, which could change things in terms of notability. However, I did not find anything relevant by googling. Nsk92 (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - redirect and rename to Save Our Strays. A quick Google found several WP:RS news articles about the organization: St. Petersburg Times article, another St. Petersburg Times article, Burlington Free Press article; the organization and its founder has also been supported and publicized by Purina® Pro Plan®'s Rally to Rescue™ program (courtesy link hosted elsewhere) that helps worthy pet rescue organizations. Save Our Strays is not a major organization, but it's notable and verifiable enough for an article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I might support that, but it looks like there are multiple organizations with that same name, including one in Australia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Not a bio, just spam for a local animal welfare group. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete non-notable RJFJR (talk) 16:23, 6 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. Most delete arguments invalidated by sources added by David Eppstein. lifebaka++ 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      ODD (One Document Does it all)

      ODD (One Document Does it all) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      non-notable initialism that lacks significant context. Fails WP:NEO. Tavix (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete only reference is a wiki. Makes no attempt to establish notability. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 05:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, no reliable sources, no notability established. JIP | Talk 05:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I added some sources and slightly expanded the description. At least one of the sources (the W3C one) is third-party. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment just pointing out that the W3C reference is a series of examples of how to apply Internationalization Tag Sets to other XML types, which does not necessarily denote notability. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 06:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, the article is the stubbiest of stubs, but a bit of research on Google and Google Scholar shows that it is in fact notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article (search on Burnard and Rahtz). Looie496 (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - it's a fairly obscure topic, but I feel that someone might search for this in wikipedia and deserve to get an answer. It's not a commercial product, it's a programming language design philosophy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. This seems central to the Text Encoding Initiative and now has multiple third-party sources that describe it in a nontrivial way. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If kept, shouldn't it be moved to "One document does it all"? The ODD part is just an abbreviation of the term. Tavix (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The TEI web pages seem to talk about it either just as "ODD" or as "ODD (One Document Does it all)". So to me it seems more like ODD is the name of the file format, and "One Document Does it all" is the explanation of how it came to be given that name. Similarly, e.g., our XML page is not titled "Extensible Markup Language", despite being an acronym for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • weak keep The term appears vaguely notable, and certainly sourceable. Probably doesn't meet the requirments of WP:NEO for deletion. http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=%22One+Document+Does+it+all%22&btnG=Search+Books, http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/09/15/xtreme.html, http://www.extrememarkup.com/2007/abstracts.html. Hobit (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - not a neologism but an established term within its field and now properly sourced thanks to good work by David Eppstein. TerriersFan (talk) 18:37, 11 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 merge to List of General Hospital characters. lifebaka++ 17:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Farah Mir

      Farah Mir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      This is an extremely minor character with around 4 appearances on General Hospital. After at least a month, notability has still not been established, and this should be deleted and relevant information merged into List of General Hospital characters. AniMate 00:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC) AniMate 00:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Merge and rd; character has only been on since 9 June 2008. JJL (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on your criteria, then you also need to delete the following characters since their biographies are nearly nonexistent: Leyla Mir, Andy Archer and Leo Julian. I believe that recurring and regular characters are a part of the history of a show. Zayya (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I completely disagree with the deletion of this article. The timetable by which you operate is meaningless and arbitrary. 3BluePenguins (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge as above; again, I don't know why someone didn't boldly merge rather than start an AfD.— TAnthonyTalk 22:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The attempted merge was boldly reverted... twice. AniMate 00:21, 7 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, G3. Lenticel (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      China Dust

      China Dust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Alleged health hazard. No refs to indicate how notable. Mostly an how-to guide. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete under WP:NOR. There aren't any cites to "China dust" anywhere, much less medical discussion on the "hazards" of said dust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Vernon (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. A Google search on this term returns an entirely different issue, which affects South Korea. No sources. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete G3 For a supposed health hazard, I'm finding nothing to even verify it. Hoax? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: No references. Complete WP:OR. Possible hoax. – Jerryteps 00:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Completely unreferenced, looks rather like a hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Seems to be a hoax. No relevant Google hits. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 01:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Cliff smith talk 02:00, 6 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 a7, high school kids with a MMPORG that's not finished yet; sources don't mention the subject. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      GGK entertainment

      GGK entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Speedily deleted three times. This latest version seems to assert notability as having a new technique, however, Google returns only two non-WP hits. Apparent self-promotion. Delete. Accurizer (talk) 00:05, 6 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. Keep arguments do not provide sources to establish notability. lifebaka++ 17:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Shree Jnaneshwari Peetha

      Shree Jnaneshwari Peetha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Bio of non notable religious leader. Also, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Reply Do you know of any reliable sources that discuss this information? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per Deepak. ~ priyanath talk 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment References are needed for verification. If this person was the "Pope" of all .8 million Daivadnya, then this subject would be notable. Being able to verify this information is very important. The Wikipedia article on the Daivajna Math Tradition states that the math at Shree Jnaneshwari Peetha is new and that there are many religious communities and two large ones (Smartha and Vaishnava) that constitute the entire religion of the Daivadnya. If this is the case, then this person and his organization really do not represent the .8 million Daivadnya, but may only claim to represent them. There needs to be reliable sources to back up any claims that he is the religious leader of the Daivadnya, or that this math is the center of their religious community. I have not seen any. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Reply: My knowledge of Daivadnyas is limited. Perhaps the creator of the article can carify this issue better. I will leave a note on the creator's talk page. --17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      Thanks. The reason why I ask for sources is that I could not find any at all, much less reliable sources. I found no mention of either the matha or its guru in Google Scholar, Google Books or Google News. Thank you for contacting the author, maybe they have reliable sources or know where to find them. Without the reliable sources, editors are not able verify the notability of this article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Delete - although I might be persuaded to switch sides if the article is heavily copyedited and completely rewritten to make it more understandable to the average reader. --Alinnisawest(talk) 01:18, 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 --JForget 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Krystal Jordan

      Krystal Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Although she was an award nominee, I don't see much prospect for expansion here. Article is about a porn actress. Deepecologyfanboi (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. If this porn star was nominated for an AVN Award (which needs to be verified), she passes WP:BIO. Potential for eventual development is presumed. Right now, the article does not give specifics or cite any sources, so we'll have to check it out. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Verification failed. See below. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete I don't think she has been nominated for an AVN Award. I've looked through all the AVN nominees over the past eight years and she isn't among them. Epbr123 (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per Epbr123. She's performing since 2006. I just checked 2006, 2007 and 2008 AVN nominee lists. She's not any of them. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per Epbr123 and Gene93k. No evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete not notable and per the article's previous false claims of notability. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 05:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - I'm presuming bad faith in the false mention of the award nomination simply to establish notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Makes totally non-verifiable claims such as "She is known for her cute looks and her voluptuous body, particularly her large buttocks." Give me a break. JBsupreme (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete non-notable actress who fails WP:N and WP:V BTW "Article is about a porn actress" probably isn't a valid reason for deletion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete is clearly non-notable, 2006 is nothing compared to Jenna Jameson and on another note, I never knew that there was a WikiProject on Porn --Numyht (talk) 15:55, 6 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. — Scientizzle 16:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The Magazine Manager

      The Magazine Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:06, 6 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.
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_6&oldid=1116722185"