Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 24

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The result was Withdrawn by nom.--Veritas (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Smith Bush

James Smith Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An ancestor of the Bush family but otherwise a non-notable attorney and priest. Notability is not inherited. --Michael White^T·C 20:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Besides being an attorney and a priest, he was also the author of The Evidence of Faith (Houghton Mifflin 1885) and other books about religion. During the late 19th century, he appears to have attained notability in the news media of the day without having famous descendants. Like U.S. Senator Prescott Bush, he had accomplishments other than his progeny. Mandsford (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This survived a afd discussion on January 10, 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush. This should not be discussed a little more than a month later. Americasroof (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator may or may not have been aware of the prior discussion. In any event, when an article is renominated, Wikipedia convention calls for adding a link to the prior discussion(s). Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources in the article related to what he did in his life, independent of his paternity, establish notability. A nicely tidy bit of 19th century biography, actually, and I am more than a bit puzzled as to why this was brought to AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Solely due to the number of publications (clearly not their quality) which per WP:BIO makes him notable as a writer. Simply being an attorney or clergyman doesn't make him notable, however. --Veritas (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I feel I have provided sufficient sources for independent notability, some of them dated well before any of his descendants entered politics. He was clearly author of at least one notable book that was reviewed by multiple major publications, passing WP:BK. See also George Bush (biblical scholar). Disclosure: I have edited the article extensively. --Dhartung | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 06:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn. Apologies, I did not realize there was a recent discussion. Seems he is sufficiently independently notable. --Michael White^T·C 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! The earlier nomination and closing of it was a series of errors -- from the first nominator who bundled it (including bundling with other presidents relatives) -- to the admin who closed the discussion on the first day on the job negelecting to put the notice on the articles and then in turn getting banned from wikipedia altogether. It was certainly an easy mistake to make. It seems to be rare when folks change their minds in these discussions as it takes a lot of courage to do that. Many thanks again! Americasroof (talk) 14:40, 25 February 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. Davewild (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Fay

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

Great-grandmother of George H. W. Bush, no claim to notability. Notability is not inherited. --Michael White^T·C 19:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. --Veritas (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not inherently notable, and notability isn't inherited through proximity to a famous relative. Could redirect to Bush family, but not a deal-breaker either way. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:03, 25 February 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. Canley (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Yıldırım

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

Youth player, not yet made his professional debut Matthew_hk tc 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think he no longer plays in holland, apparently returned to turkey, but still no evidence of notability BanRay 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom -- Alexf⁴² 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. John Hayes^talk 12:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands. Punkmorten (talk) 19:01, 29 February 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, which by process results in redirect. Given lack of clear consensus about appropriate destination, will tag accordingly. Please pursue at the appropriate talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Lightfoot Lee II

Francis Lightfoot Lee II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual, son and father of notable individuals Richard Henry Lee and Samuel Philips Lee, respectfully. Notability is not inherited. Propose consideration of merge to Sully (Fairfax County, Virginia). --Michael White^T·C 19:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems like a non-notable member of a notable family, and as such, a good candidate for a redirect. Not sure whether or not Sully would make more sense as a target than the page for his father or son. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:24, 25 February 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. Canley (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Prendes

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

Not notable enough for his own article. Kingturtle (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't an article, it's a eulogy--and we're not a memorial. Blueboy96 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Non-notable. --Michael White^T·C 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOT --Veritas (talk) 13:40, 25 February 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 for evident failure of verifiability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Pinkerton Goes to Town

Mr Pinkerton Goes to Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Suspected hoax. A German Nazi-era film made in England is quite startling and would be extremely notable and yet there is absolutely nothing I can find for it using either the English or German titles. If not a hoax this should be easy to prove and this nomination withdrawn. Ros0709 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. No IMDB entry or mention anywhere but this article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing found Googling. Definitely a hoax because it declares it's a Nazi-era German film. Made in England. Yeah, that's unlikely. Also found nothing when using the German Google. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yup, it's a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A fascinating hoax, with just enough elements that it would sound true if we didn't have ways to verify otherwise. After all, it sounds like the plot of a Nazi-produced film, and there really was a series of "Mr. Pinkerton" books published in the 1930s by David Frome and Zenith Jones Brown. Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I appreciate the vigilance of other Wikipedia users in their efforts to expose hoax or inaccurate articles, however this is a genuine piece based upon a recently published book and I have quoted my source material. I am not surprised “Googling” does produce any results. The film did not meet the expectations of the German authorities and received only a short cinematic release. It is worth remembering that the Internet is not the only repository of human knowledge and there is a great deal of fascinating information contained in published sources that has yet to be recorded on the web. I appreciate this type of subject matter does (and should) arouse suspicion, but I reiterate the point this is a genuine article. I would add that nobody has really made any truly valid points and the criticisms made amount to nothing more than suspicion and innuendo. Sarah Thompson99 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. If the cited source (Mary Elizabeth O'Brien, Nazi Cinema as Enchantment) fails to support the film's existence and notability, then delete the article, but the suggestion that it is a hoax cannot be sustained until someone has actually checked the source. EALacey (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a real book, but I find it somewhat odd that there are over 100 google hits recognizing Ms. O'Brien's book (which studies 13 films from the Nazi era) and not a single one of them mentions "Mr. Pinkerton", even though it would strike me as being a fascinating fact. Mandsford (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is getting rather silly. Let's look at this in depth. We're expected to believe that:
  • With all the scholarship on Nazi-era propaganda films, including numerous books, documentaries, etc, not one of them mentions this movie's supposed existance.
  • Not even the IMDB lists this, despite including many films farm more obscure than this would be if it existed.
  • A Nazi propaganda film was made in England in the late 30s? Ridiculous. Films of the time were rarely shot on location anyway, and it would have been far simpler safer and cheaper to make British-looking locations on a soundstage rather than move the cast and crew behind enemy lines to shoot an entire feature film! The very idea is ludicrous.
  • Both the claimed director (Wisbar) and supposed star (Frohlich) are very well-known, yet none of their filmographies mentions this film. The silliness of this is on par with believing that Steven Spielberg made an anti-communist propaganda film starring Harrison Ford in the 80s, which everyone has completely forgotten about.
  • Frank Wisbar's wife was Jewish, and he wouldn't have been involved in something anti-semitic... in fact, he left Germany for America in the late 30s, and the Nazis siezed some of his family's property.
  • The article claims Frohlich had a "near-fatal stroke", which is bizarre since he was about 30 at the time, was a well-known leading man and involved with a number of movies that year and the following years, and lived for more than 50 more years (and didn't die of a stroke even then). No sources mention this stroke or health problems around this time.
• All told, this is a pritty hard bratwurst to swallow. While this may not be a WP:BLP issue per se as nobody involved is living, it is essentially accusing two very-real people of anti-semitism, without any solid sources to back it up, when the actual information shows that neither of Wisbar nor Frohlich was friendly toward the Reich. Since it involves real people who have living descendants, it's far from a cute and harmless hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Keep This is getting silly, but only because your “research” about the film is limited entirely to on-line sources. You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the simple fact that the Internet is a flawed and incomplete repository of information. Dealing with your points in turn I would say the following:
      • The destruction wrought upon Germany during the Second World War was colossal. It is hardly surprising that the cultural and artistic record of Germany during the Nazi period is incomplete.
      • The IMDB is a flawed source of information – one only needs to mention the notorious claim that Christian Slater appeared in a film version of Stig of the Dump.
      • Britain and Germany were not at war in 1937, therefore Britain can not be described as being “behind enemy lines” at that time. Indeed, prior to Hitler’s regnaiging of the 1938 Munich Agreement, the British Government was very keen to come to an understanding with Germany and encouraged cultural links – which the Nazis sadly exploited. In fact it was much cheaper to shoot the film in England rather than build sets in Germany.
      • Wisbar did leave Germany precisely because of what the regime were pushing him into doing – there is speculation that he deliberately botched “Mr Pinkerton Goes to Town”. Frohlich survived his stroke and made a substantial recovery. Your comparison to Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg is simply facile.
      • I have discovered something that is very silly, namely your contributions to Wikipedia. Articles about Nude on the Moon, Wibbly Pig and Axehandle Hound do not add much to the gamut of human knowledge. Your only article about the Second World War relates to a computer game(!) about the North Africa Campaign.
      • The article is genuine and I am not accusing anybody of being anti-Semitic. This is a very "dry" article and as a first time contributor to Wikipedia, I am amazed at the fuss it has provoked. Please buy/borrow and then read the quoted source material. It’s really that simple.Sarah Thompson99 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only !vote once please. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that an editor's opinion is without merit because of their own contributions is a personal attack - please keep to the subject of the article itself. I am finding it very difficult to locate a copy of that book in the UK but you are correct in that respect - having access to a copy would help somewhat. Ros0709 (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Starblind spells it out well. If it were real, there would be sources, and the actor allegedly suffering a near-fatal stroke at 30 when he lived another 50 years is the icing on the cake. Edward321 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starblind did not spell it out well. He made a lot of sloppy, unsubtantiated comments that I dealt with (he thought that Britain was at war with Germany in 1937!). This article is genuine and it is certainly "noteworthy enough" becuase there is a whole list of similar films already on Wikipdia - see the link at the bottom of the article. I will reiterate the point. This article is drawn from a published source. The fact that it is not referenced on other web-sites is irrelevant. What is the purpose of Wikipedia? Is it simply supposed to be an echo-chamber of Google or IMDB? Sarah Thompson99 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Sarah Thompson99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Again, please do not make the argument personal. Ros0709 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the nomination, I would agree the film would undoubtedly be notable - specifically due to the unique status you attribute to it rather than whatever other articles are on Wikipedia already. Comparing against other articles is specifically addressed at WP:WAX. The issue I have is the verifiability - a third party needs to review your source. Ros0709 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if this movie really was published, does it also count as noteworthy enough to be included? Shentino (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pending a check of the actual source. My university's library has a copy of the O'Brien book that I can check within the next 24 hours. --RLacey (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any news? Ros0709 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I've checked the source, and there's a) nothing on p. 193 on the subject, and b) no mention of the film in the index (I've checked the English and German titles). This one does appear to be a hoax.--RLacey (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have most definitely not read the source material at all. You are a new user and I strongly suspect that RLacey is a Sockpuppet (WP:SOCK) of somebody else who has already contributed to this discussion. It seems rather convenient that you just happen to find a copy of this book in your university library. I have written a genuine article based on a recently published book. You have to ask yourselves who on earth would make this up? Sarah Thompson99 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the third time you have resorted to personal attacks. Please desist. I note that RLacey first contributed to Wikipedia in 2005 which does not, IMO, make him a new user. Ros0709 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 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 sources Mr.Z-man 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasi

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

Individual fails WP:BIO notability criteria. Cursory g-search reveals nothing in terms of coverage from multiple third party reliable sources. Most of the results themselves are mirrors of the Wikipedia pages discussing this individual. Hence, I feel the article merits deletion. ITAQALLAH 18:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ITAQALLAH 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: May I request you to not to delete this article instead place a tag of incompletion, meanwhile as you can see that I am working on it, hopefully will get back with some sources soon.--سگِ گوھرشاہی 06:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsaa (talk • contribs)

Keep:I am also working on this and it is a part of my project of His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.--Asikhi (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone (either of the users above?) can present reliable third-party sources that assert WP:BIO notability. — Scientizzle 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment please note that Iamsaa (talk · contribs) is the "office bearer of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam" and Asikhi (talk · contribs) is the "Press & Information Secretary" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam. Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam is the religious movement founded by this guy and currently run by the subject of the article. WP:COI anyone? — Scientizzle 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like it ^_^. In any case, assertion of notability must be based upon proofs outlined here. Without such, making a case for keeping this article is unlikely to be successful. ITAQALLAH 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: He is the president of an International Movement isn't it enough to argue that he is notable enough to have an article with his name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconkhe (talk • contribs) 09:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a word, no. If there are no independent reliable sources upon which to create an encyclopedic biography, there is nothing to keep. Running an organization of questionable notability isn't a sufficiently strong claim to override WP:BLP and WP:N concerns. — Scientizzle 22:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, and currently there are no sources to verify that this individual is notable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:53, 1 March 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. Davewild (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomats

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

Addition of names to list is arbitrary. List is too long and could grow unwieldy. Better to leave identification of notable diplomats to categories created for this purpose such as Category:Diplomats. Mikebar (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It doesn't seem to offer any of the advantages discussed at WP:CLN. The category seems enough, in my opinion - Weebiloobil (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of those cases where a category does the job better-- yes, I know, a category doesn't separate them by nation, but as Flamond said, a diplomat's nationality transcends national boundaries. Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 24 February 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 original research with no sources. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts Without a Thinker

Thoughts Without a Thinker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is unclear, and article is written as a criticism, containing several statements that are biased. The article violates WP:NPOV and is not being worked on for improvement. PKT (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems to be a review for a NN book. Which violates WP:N anyhow Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 18:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Reads like a book review, also seems to fail WP:NOR. --SSman07 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep, disagreement over whether his notability is established. Davewild (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Abdul Haque

Muhammad Abdul Haque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable politician. Was found only in a couple of reliable sources that mentioned him in the passing. Very trivial. The claim of 12 years of political career becomes more non notable considering there is no claim of participating in an election, even at the lowest level. A face in the crowd. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NN. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep He is a political figure of major political party The Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Aside the sources used in article, others sources ([9], [10], [11]) might be applicable to establish his notability.--NAHID 21:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A mention in a one-liner wild rumor, citation as a reporter's witness of an event that doesn't involve the subject, part of a long list of equally non-notable people as a part of those present in gathering... very trivial, very non-notable, and falls very short of WP:NN and WP:BIO criterion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep He's been a leader in the political party for 12 years, not an elected official. He doesn't appear to be notable as a politician, but there are enough references to make him notable as a person. I think that this is what happens because of being a politician in Bangladesh: if he were a similar politician in a developed country, there would likely be plenty of references for him. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there ARE plenty of references for the politicians of Bangladesh who are truly notable. Unfortunately, the subject is not one of them. --Ragib (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, Bangladesh politicians get way more coverage in news media than anything else. And, any politician worth his or her salt would have much more coverage than a couple of trivial mentions that doesn't even meet the Wikiepdia notability criterion. His only claim to fame seems to be his role as politician. Failing that there is almost no way he can be considered "notable as a person". Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. As per above. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Never held a public office and never own an election, all sources seem to be trivial. Arman ^(Talk) 02:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Arman. The subject has not held any public office. There are thousands of petty local politicians in Bangladesh, and like the rest of them, the subject fails WP:N. --Ragib (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One of Bangladesh's major newspapers doesn't consider him non-notable. The Daily Star featured a long article about him only two days ago - far more than a passing mention. This is on top of his being leader of a major potitical party in a region with a population of over 8 million for 12 years. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have received similar press coverage (an article), would that make myself notable and wiki-worthy? Also, let me remind you about Wikipedia policies on notability, quoting from WP:N (people)

• Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[7]
• Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
• Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

Let's stick to policies on notability. If you claim every person receiving a mention in a newsreport, please go ahead and start one article on each person mentioned in today's New York Times. You'd get thousands of equally Non-notable persons in no time. --Ragib (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am sticking to guidelines on notability. He is not just an unelected candidate for political office: he meets the requirement that you quoted as a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage. If you have received similar coverage then point me to it and I'll write an article about you. If this was an American or British politician who had been leader of one of the Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Labour parties for 12 years in a region with a population of 8 million we wouldn't dream of deleting the article. Why shouldn't we give the same coverage to an equivalent Bangladeshi politician? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the subject the leader of Sylhet District, Sylhet city, or Sylhet Division? It seems to me that he's the leader of the Sylhet city which is a small part of Sylhet division BNP. Even within Bangladeshi politics, this person is utterly non-notable. Perhaps you do not get this point because of your unfamiliarity with Bangladeshi politics ... the subject is does not get any particular non-trivial coverage in local news media. (you mentioned one report on the subject, I can provide 2 to 3 reports in national media on any other equally non-notable person (including myself), and just a few news reports do not make a non-elected politician notable in their own right.) You can verify the notability of the subject within Bangladesh by asking this question to any other wikipedian from Bangladesh. --Ragib (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we were both wrong. He wasn't party leader in Sylhet Division or Sylhet city; he was, according to the reference I cited above, the leader in Sylhet District, which has a similar population to Wales. As a UK resident I can't believe that any leader of a major political party in Wales would be considered non-notable, so I would apply the same standard to Sylhet Disctrict. Whether you or any other Bangladeshi Wikipedian has heard of him is irrelevant. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to be able to find out about things you don't know about already. Do you think that I've heard of all of the pop groups, TV characters, footballers and politicians from the UK who have articles in Wikipedia? Of course not, but that doesn't mean than I say that their articles should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". Please apply the policy. --Ragib (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's apply the guideline, but taking into account the word just. He was not just those things, he was leader for 12 years of a major political party (for much of that time Bangladesh's governing party) in a district with a population of over 2.5 million. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the claim that the subject was "leader for 12 years of a major political party" is the main claim of subject's notability. If that is the case, do we have a reliable 3rd party source that states that the subject was an "influential", or "major" or "active" leader of BNP for 12 years? Unfortunately I don't see one. What we have here is a Wikipedia article probably written by the subject or someone close to the subject which claims that the subject was a an influential leader for Sylhet district for last 12 years and uses a small number of references that have merely trivial mention of the subject. The very source that Phil has provided rather proves that he is leading one of the three factions of BNP and the central command of BNP is yet to recognize the faction led by the subject as the legitimate faction. Being the President of District BNP really doesn't mean much in a situation where we have several groups claiming themselveds the legitimate faction of BNP. If the claim were that the subject held a public office, it would be verifiable from public records, even if there were no newspaper coverage. But unfortunately a claim to be an " influential leader" is not verifiable in such way and hence unless substantiated with solid 3rd party references should fail WP:VER. The only verifiable fact about the subject is that he is candidate for an upcoming Mayor election - which by itself is not enough to assert notability of the subject. Arman ^(Talk) 10:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may be leading just one of the factions now, but he was previously the recognised leader of the district party before it split. See the sources which I provided below for confirmation. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hear hear, agreed with Phil Bridger--NAHID 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(inserted for clarity) Is this cheering a piece of argument or evidence? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting. I see that the proposition that he was "leader of a major political party in a major geographical area for 12 years" is being used as a major point of argument. I completely agree to the "major political party" and "major geographical area" bits, may be the "12 years" thing is somewhat acceptable as well... but, what about this "leader" bit? Was he a leader for 12 years? He doesn't seem old enough to be that. And, what sort of a leader is he? Political parties have all kinds of leaders, most pretty non notable. At the risk of being accused of lawyering, I'd like to ask - is there any non-trivial mention (if not a clarification) of the 12-year leader thing from an independent reliable source available? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You ask what sort of a leader he is. According to the Daily Star he was president of the district party.[12] [13] [14] [15] I can't find anything online to back up the 12 years, but that is already sourced to the Bangladesh Observer in the article. There is no requirement that sources need to be online. I don't understand the comment about his age. Are you saying that he couldn't possibly have become district BNP president at about 40? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wondered if he'd been a district president or whatever since the age of 28, i.e. for 12 years. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still don't understand what you are saying. He was born in 1954, and seems to have been district president until very recently. That means that if he was president for 12 years he would have been about 40 when he started in that position. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as a sylhety i think an article on the subject should not be deleted. as it gained rational attention on systematic bias last time by the sylhety people living abroad. as far as i am concern, he is quite popular, and is considered as one of the back bone figures who worked to establish BNP in sylhet division. i therefore believe, an article on such person should not be deleted merely because of less online recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.69 (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep thank you aditya for drawing the attention.. well, it seems quite interesting.. my personal opinion is not to delete the article, as we, the sylheti people consider him well notable. however, i would like to draw attention in terms of the non-elected bit. the procedure of being the distric president is not un-democratic. all the councilors (members of BNP entitled to vote on party's enternal decissions, i.e. electing leaders among the aprty) called upon in every four year (i guess) and elect the president and other executive members of the committee. thats you can say it as an election, indeed. moreover, the subject was elected (presumebly) three times by thousands of councilors. its not that small thing to ignore. and last time as long i can remember there was an dispute on the distric committee election and one died due to it. so, we couls say he was elected through the election that attract enormous public awareness. thus, please do not apply the policy. Syl007 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have gone through the article again, and there seems to be absolutely no improvement. One tall claim has been made that has not been verified at all (the in-line citation says nothing to support the claim!). The peacock words and weasel words so abundantly used are not helping either. The ManabJamin, a political tabloid, is not a reliable source at all (though the cite isn't about the subject's claim to fame). On top of that, I can't believe (without supporting cites) the claim made by Syl007 that BNP elects its "leaders" internally. Given the concern shown by international community and warnings by the current Bangladesh government in installing some democracy into Bangladesh political parties (including BNP), it seems a bit far fetched. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, whether the BNP selects its leaders democratically or not is irrelevant - the fact is that M. A. Haque was the district president, as confirmed in the Daily Star references above. When you say that the in-line citation given doesn't support the claim that he was leader for over 12 years, does that mean that you have checked the 9 September 2003 edition of the Bangladesh Observer? If so could you please let us know what says about him? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it become irrelevant when put forward as a delete argument? Or is it as irrelevant when put forward as a keep argument? Please, read through the only non-trivial cite you have dug up. It pretty well tells the a story of a short-lived presidency earned through bickering between factions and quickly lost to to the same. Looks like one of a million Bangladeshi "political leaders" that wash up to newspaper pages with political tides. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant whether it is used as a keep or as a delete argument. Undemocratically appointed politicians can be just as notable or unnotable as their democratically elected counterparts. Please answer my question. Did you actually check the Bangladesh Observer source cited in the article? I'm not asking that out of awkwardness - I'd like to know whether or not it actually supports the 12 year claim, because that has a bearing on the subject's notability. Unless it has been checked and found to be wrong we should assume good faith on the part of the editor who added the citation and take it at face value. I hold no particlular truck for Mr Haque - I very much doubt if I would vote for him (or any of his BNP rivals for that matter) if I lived in Sylhet. I just want to apply the same standards of inclusion to Bangladeshi subjects as we do for American or British ones. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reduced indent) Yep. But, for fairness' sake let me check it once more (not easy fumbling through a newspaper archive, not for me, alas). That would a day or two (even if the AfD is close by then, it can't be rushed, alas again). For the irrelevant part and the Sylheti "nationalism", I was never responding to you. But, you see, aggressive irrationality may get a bit irritating at times. Sometimes I feel that to be my undoing, but what the heck... it is irritating as I stand. Alas! Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ofcourse keep i absolutely agree with phil bridger. it seems like the article was proposed for deleation merely for the sake of the believe of two bangladeshi wikipedians, not for the sake of wikipedia's notable defination.

one of those who claim himself as notable as m a haque.. joke of the day! hahaa.. if you are so, then mr , you are notable enough to deserve a wikipedia article on you. this man lead at least 3/4 million bnp supporter of sylhet vicinity for more than 12 years. how come you ignore this? another, who i believe resided in the US, who point him as a face in the crowd. however, miss, i can see from that picture, he is leading the crowd of thousands of people along with the prime minister and ministers, rather being in the crowd.. to sum-up, i would say, i agree with the point that phil bridger arose, he is a distinct leader of a political party, and leading a huge number of political supporters. we should not, therefore, delete just for the personal opinion of two bangladeshi wikipedian.. if we do so, we should then also consider the opinion of sylhety wikipedians as well, what i presume is complete diffrent from their thought.Angel eye222 (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User's only edit in Wikipedia. Possible sockpuppet. --Ragib (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really sad to see a Sylheti stand against Bangladesh. What are you trying to imply? Bangladeshis hate Sylhetis, and therefore the notability of all things Sylheti should be left to Sylhetis? Aren't Sylhetis included in the list of Bangladeshis, at least yet? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep i have edited the article, have a look, it might helps. however, just to infrom you ADITYA, what the current government is doing, is only to keep-away the corrupted politicans. as we peopl are informed. its not the duty of the government neither the election commission to put their nose in terms of a party's internal affairs. the government and elcetion commission also mention this on their press note several times. though this is not relevent, let me say, khaleda zia, or sheikh hasina were the elected chair persons of their parties, they were not acquiring post merely bacause of their family's history. as a matter of fact, its regretful that the constituion of those political parties are not that democratic, as it allows the chairperson to act like a dictator. thank you.. Syl007 (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The government is wrong, the international community is wrong, the top two leaders of the top two parties are wrong... only MA Haque is right!!! Not much of an argument there. May it indeed is a fact that he was never elected to the post he occupied for a short time, but gained the short lived opportunity as part of favoritism inside the party. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate "keep" as Syl007 has already commented "keep" above". --Ragib (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

with due respect my friend, i never said government is wrong, nor the international community and the top leaders. what i simply tried to convey is, your believe about the action of current government is not so appropriate, as the government per se said said several times they are not going take any step to implement democracy inside the political parties, its their own business to do so. and i do not think 12 years time is a 'short' period of time'. and apologies for put keep again, it was a mistake.Syl007 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Ethics of a government's operations shouldn't ideally be a consideration in a Wikipedia deletion discussion. All that I had to say is that the parties in Bangladesh has no electoral system internally, as testified by the current government (including the election commission) and the international community (including UN observers), and the convention is to accept these authorities as reliable. It isn't important if they are making comments beyond their scope (the point is they have already done so, within their scope of not). Therefore an election inside the party can't be an argument, unless supported by ample references. On top of that, it has already been shown that the issue (raised so forcefully by you) of an internal election is not even relevant. Verification of the 12 years thing is on its way already (though Wikipedia policy clearly puts the onus on the editor who put the information there, but someone who advocates a delete doesn't necessarily have to be unfriendly).

• Keep - the idea that "not inherently notable" is the same as "inherently non-notable" is probably my biggest pet peeve surrounding the interpretation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines generally and WP:BIO specifically. Per WP:N, any subject that has received non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources is notable. This person has. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Looks like a very good guideline to go by. Makes me half willing to retract my nominationation alreadt. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Again, per WP:N, "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." I do not see how a few small articles on the politics of Sylhet count as "in depth", "significant press coverage". Note that, the same articles are not focusing on Haque as a politician, rather are commentaries on the politics of Sylhet (involving multiple other local politicians). A cursory look at any Bangladeshi newspaper any day shows thousands of other equally non-notable local politicans being mentioned ... do they also deserve a Wikipedia bio? Mere mention or a few paragraphs on a news article does not mean "significant press coverage". --Ragib (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How little should be considered as "significant press coverage"? May be one major report in a reliable newspaper that repeats the name or the subject three/four times, with at least once/twice a bit of commentary attached. Or may be not. Also a few unverified cites that includes a majorly distrusted tabloid may fall a bit short on the standards. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)::[reply]

* ’’’ comment ’’’. Seems, we have now changed our position regarding to our opposition of the subject’s notability. We now involving a new discussion whether or not this person attract appropriate media coverage, i.e. internet news sites.

From the discussion above, i reasonably assume, we have sufficient ground to consider the subject as notable; which is the most radical concern. I would like to draw an attention in terms of his internet coverage; that the numbers of internet users are relatively few in Bangladesh. Probably around 2-5% of total population use internet frequently. Nonetheless, the Bangladeshi newspaper, i.e. daily star presumably does not have enormous archive on the internet, which leads to an end to delete most of its report from the web. For instance, i read an article (on daily star) on the subject last week regarding to the potential candidates of coming election. However, could not find it anymore. Therefore, in my opinion, I do not think the lack of internet sourcing manifest him as non notable. I would also like to add, there is no such definition of reliable newspapers. The news media of Bangladesh are experiencing their freedom of expression, and is no bounded by any political parties. Thus, we should not define ‘reliability of newspapers’, in terms of personal taste of believe. Manabzamin is the most powerful tabloid in the country, in terms of circulation. And seems like quite popular back in Bangladesh, and therefore, could be regarded as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel eye222 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 28 February 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. Band appears non-notable per the criteria —αlεx•mullεr 18:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dhira

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

Non notable band, vanity page, and advertisement. Ism schism (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable subject, advertisement with no independent reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I fixed the PRI link so the article is no longer completely without reliable sources. I created this article after listening to the PRI segment about them, and I thought it would be good to have an article; I based it almost completely on the NPR report. They get quite a few Google hits, but there's admittedly not a whole lot of news coverage on them. --TexasDex ★ 06:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 17:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable--Hazillow (talk) 20:26, 24 February 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. Mr.Z-man 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath

Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Some assertions of notability made in the article, but no reliable sources cited, and a Google search shows up little that is authoritative. Arguably fails to meet criteria for a biography. Content could be merged to Syro-Malankara Catholic Church with a redirect? Likely conflict of interest, given username of prime editor. I am also nominating the following related page because it covers similar topics and could likewise be merged:

Salvific Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Presumably the name is a transliteration and could be spelled variously, making the Google test less useful than usual. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The author is an accepted writer among the kerala people and not only among Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzhinapurath (talk • contribs)

Dr. Philip Chempakassery has reviewed the book Salvific Law in the following words, "Salvific Law is a precious book on law highlighting the fact the law has a salvific nature. The author Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath, who is specialist in Oriental Canon Law had his studies in Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome. He publishes his research findings for the degree of Doctrate in Canonical studies in this volume. ...The author has written these pages after a hair-spliting perusal of all that has been written on the subject. This fact is proved by the long bibliography given at the end of the book. ...And he concludes that,"The supreme function of Canon Law is to help the Christian faithful to lead a life, which is oriented towards the ultimate communion with God."^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzhinapurath (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now He seems notable and as stated earlier a google search will not always be useful in cases like this. Citations should be requested for the assertions of notability. JASpencer (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am confused, because as far as I understand the author of that article and the subject appear to be one person! We should ask for an expert in the Eastern Catholic Christianity about the importance of that matter. Generally I think, that because he has written these books he has his place in Wikipedia, but he has to focus his contributions not only on his life experience and work, but on items that are of greater interest - the history and the rites of the Syro-Malankaran Catholic Church maybe,its structure :dioceses, bishops, schools and churches, etc. This is one very old Church with long and interesting history and life and it is not enough presented in the Wikipedia, I think.Drjmarkov (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now : I would suggesting keeping this page as the notability of the person is shown by a no of references. The same name issue might have happened due to another family member using the id with the same family name. With additions from other wikipedians , we may improve the article , especially from the newly formed Indian Christianity Wikiproject partipants. Any unverifiable stuff may b removed to Wikify the article - Tinucherian (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Keep : Reasons are given below as Comment by me. - Tinucherian (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article has been almost entirely written by an editor with the same name as the subject. He has now confirmed to me (editing from an IP address!) that he is in fact the same person [16] although he sometimes writes about himself in the third person on talk pages etc. I have suggested that there is a conflict of interest problem here, but it seems to me this may be too widespread to be solved by a simple AfD. I still feel this article, when judged against WP:BIO, fails to meet the criteria. But this is not the usual 'vanity' editor and if the consensus is that, despite his eccentric editing style, the article should stay I will continue to try and help him conform to Wikipedia style. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Despite the conflict of interest and the writing style I think Wikipedia is better off with this article. It's not like we have too many articles about Syrian clerics. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Article seems to be a clear copyright violation of another article here. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The article you have listed is a copy from wikipedia under the GNU Free Documentation License. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Duh. I are so shtupid. Sorry about that. Removing tag now. In any event, though, still Delete based on now independent assertions of notability. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  John - if you're saying delete, you presumably mean "...no independent assertions..." above? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Avinesh Jose  T  10:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article includes unpublished facts and the references are self published that fails WP:RS. The notability is also not established as no sources address the person directly in this case per WP:N. Can anyone provide at least a single reliable source? We understand that there are many priests and church leaders who are notable in some extend in the society where they preach and write some booklets we appreciate their service also. But it doesn’t mean that we need to merely create articles for them. It is exempted to people who are well-known by their contributions, work, etc. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is notable because the subject of the article is not only a priest but also a well known writer. His writings are recognized by the University of Kerala. And the former students of the university has qualified him a well known writer on the discussion page of the article. The soources are rliable because some of them carrying ISBN. None of the sources are selfpublished. The publishers include the University of Kerala, Carmel International Publishing House. So the arguments of Avinesh Jose are not factual. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — Simon Cheakkanal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 17:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete His writing might be notable, but there is no way of telling from the sources. Nor can I figure out how to tell is his essays are student work, or scholarly. His one book is actually a PhD thesis. I think this has to wait until he is more firmly established. DGG (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT : His essay in Bhasha Thilakam (ISBN-81-86397-13-2) is NOT a mere student work .It is an University Publication also co-written by many eminent writers of Kerala.It is an anthology of poems and literary essays published by the University of Kerala in 1998. It is consisted of poems by Kumaranasan, Ulloor S. Parameswara Iyer, Vallathol Narayana Menon, G. Sankara Kurup, Edasseri Govindan Nair, Vyloppilli Sreedhara Menon, Changampuzha Krishna Pillai, Vayalar Ramavarma, O.N.V. Kurup, Sugatha Kumari, and literary essays by Ullattil Govindhankutti Nair, N.V. Krishna Warrier, M. K. Sanu, Dr. D. Benjamin, Dr. George Onakkur, K.S. Ravikumar, Seeri, Achyuthsankar S. Nair, Kozhikodan, Nitya Chaitanya Yati, S. Chandrasekharan Nair. - Tinucherian (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - (reply to Simon Cheakkanal) If your comment is factual, please explain the following: Do you have any evidences of his writings that are recognized by the university of Kerala? Is there any source available in the University of Kerala website about him or his title? Is there any additional-independent-reliable source about his writings? (as you said if he is well-known, I assume it should be there) Could you again explain the ISBN link you mentioned? I’ve again checked (even carmel publsiher's website though we can't accept since it is self-pblished kind) it but did not find anything useful. Please explain. As you have further commented, we can’t agree with talk page comments (by anonymous ip) unless references are furnished. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I tried a search of his book Daivajanam on
  http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61451322?tab=holdings
  

It says the book is archived in the following libraries :-
1. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Austin.
2. University of Chicago Chicago.
3. Library of Congress Washington, DC.
4. University of Pennsylvania Libraries Philadelphia, PA United States
- Tinucherian (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, meets WP:BIO. MrPrada (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tinucherian (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting opinions from Christianity Project members - Tinucherian (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :It is easier to delete an article than to create one. Every time an article is deleted, the contributions that were made to it are lost. Wikipedia administrators can access the information in deleted articles, but they are not necessarily experts on the article's topic. Once an article is deleted, its appropriateness can no longer be evaluated by the general public.

A contributor who writes a poor article on a notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, they may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Everyone starts somewhere. I strongly suggest to keep this article and improve it with contributions from many people. - Tinucherian (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment :I had a look at this article earlier today. I suppose we could keep it, but it needs serious, serious editing. As it exists now it is very poorly written. I will try to work on it, but I suspect it will be significantly reduced in length. Dgf32 (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now and ask for an expert My confusion is bigger, because when I went to the WorldCat link, provided up in this page there appeared other similar name as the author of the book Daivajanam - Tōmas Kul̲ināppuram. I just don't know what to say, it may be because of the transliteration from Malayam language, but... Drjmarkov (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC).Changed to KeepDrjmarkov (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : That may be right.It may have messed up due to transliteration. I searched for his other book Salvific law : the salvific character of law: an historical overview on worldcat http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/63146776?tab=holdings and found that it is archived in Washington Research Library Consortium Washington, DC also. - Tinucherian (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on scanned images sent by author. Author has sent me two scanned images. One is that a collection of prose selections compiled & approved by Kerala University named ‘Bhashathilakom’. There is a section (chapter kind) in that ‘Paalam thettunna koumaram' (The youth that derails) is written by Fr. thomas Kuzhinapurath. There is a brief intro about the author i.e Fr. Thomas Kuzhanapurath in the same chapter. According to the intro, Fr. Thomas has written some articles on social & cultural issues. He served as student editor for a magazine called ‘relegion & thoughts’, wrote a book ‘daivaganam’ (gods people). At present he is serving as a chancellor of Trivandrum archdiocese. If it meets WP guidelines of keeping (weak?) it, the entire WP article has to be re-written & remove all WP:OR from it. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on scanned images Rightly pointed out the signifance of the article. It is I, Simon Cheakkanal who scanned and sent on demand of Avinesh Jose, those pages of the book published by the University of Kerala. And I am not the author of the book.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think user:DGG already commented about this book. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've been asked by Avineshjose to comment on the material in the images. Only he really doubted they existed--I said before, and can only say again, that the material cited, taken at its full value, does not come anywhere near notability for a writer. An essay in a collection published by a university does not make it, and everything else together in the bio as given there does not make it either. What would be notability in a poet is third party reviews of his work, in reliable independent published sources, outside his own university. But what also needs to be evaluated for notability is ecclesiastical position. But chancellor of an archdiocese, though very impressive sounding, is an administrative not leadership position, a great deal less than archbishop. If he becomes a bishop he would probably then be considered notable. The very small number of libraries holding the book does not make for notability. Normally it would do just the opposite, except for the country of publication and the topic only very few US holdings would be expected even if it is important. Looking again, the assertions in the article are those typically made of those not really notable: when he sent a copy of his book to the pope (though he was not able to arrange a personal audience to present it), he got a formal thank you note ; he attended eminent schools; he studied under eminent people; he was a student editor. Changed from weak delete to Delete. DGG (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The University of Kerala is secular university of Kerala Government. The Governor of Kerala State is its chancellor. Its is very rare that a work of a ctholic priest was selected for the syllabus of the University of Kerala. May be the first event in the long history of the University of Kerala. The relationship of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath is only that he was a student of it. The notability and usefullness of the work made selection board to select the article for the predegree syllabus.

I have consulted with Fr. Thomas and he said to me that he met the Pope personally in 2000. He said he had the photoraph of the event with him. So I disagree with the arguments of the user DGG. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews- Many Reviews on Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath's book Daivajanam were published in various journals. A few of them are the following:

1. Dr. Geevaghese Panicker, "Jeevithasparsiyaaya Daivasasthram", Aikyadeepam, July 1998, p.34.

2. M. V. Thomas, "Daivajana Jeevithathinte Vilayiruthal", Deepika Daily, July 26, 1998.

3. Johnson Karoor, "Yesuvilekku Nayikkunna Daivasasthram", Talent, July, 1998, pp. 429-431.

4. Daniel Poovannathil, "Uthamamaya Vayananubhavam", Christava Kahalam, March, 2002, p. 58. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achasu (talk • contribs) 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments : The above said Deepika Daily is a reputed ,trusted and 121 year old histroy Indian newspaper in Malayalam language . Seehttp://www.deepikaglobal.com/about.asp - Tinucherian (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the Deepika news also. If anyone has it, please scan & send me a copy of it? If it meets notability, I will edit my comment based on it. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now - This article suffers from several; problems (1) it began as an autobiography (which is discouraged) (2) whether the subject is sufficiently notable. Except that he has published a couple of books in more than minimal sized editions, he seems to be serving in a very ordinary priestly ministry. My view is that he is on the borderline of notability, in which case the best solution is probably to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment based on Deepika book review. I’ve checked the image sent by Simon now. It looks like a two column review of the combined articles of Father Thomas Kuzhinapurath, reviewed by a person M V Thomas published by Deepika newspaper. The column looks like an announcement / review that I don’t know. It says the book ‘god’s people’ has three sections of Jesus Christ’s congregation, Christ-as a human being and social issues etc. According to the reviewer that Father Thomas has done a good job by authoring this book. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Based on what I found [17] one of the subject's most notable works appears to be a 36 page term paper. The article appears to be a self-promoting autobiography. I'm going to try to edit the article to improve it, but no matter how much I am able to improve it, I still maintaint that the subject is not notable and that the article should be delete. Dgf32 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have significantly edited the article, and I think I have improved its quality significantly.

• Weak Keep After reviewing all the citations and other evidence, it seems that the subject of this article is very borderline for notability criteria. Erring on the side of caution, I suggest keeping it. Dgf32 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Winneke

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

Seems not notible- no scrces apart from an MTV article. Complaints that it was written by the artist on the talk page (from anon) although no proof RT | Talk 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, delete. I have made some edits to this article before (can't remember now what led me to it) and I believe the article history makes it extremely likely that it was written by the artist himself, e.g. the text removed here. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Removal of controversial material doesn't necessarily signify a COI... see the guidlelines at WP:BLP. SingCal 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your point. It was me, an independent editor, who removed the controversial material. That material had been placed by the article's creator Fauxone who appears on strong internal evidence to be Nathan Winneke.
    • WP:BLP requires biographical articles to adhere strictly to Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and No original research. This article clearly fails to comply with those policies. I tagged it long ago as unreferenced; that tag was removed by Superchavo, apparently also an interested party, leading to its nomination for deletion. I am generally an inclusionist, but this one has to go. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad. I thought that you were pointing to the removal of the text as a COI indicator. That's what I get for not reading histories well enough; apologies! Delete SingCal 18:40, 29 February 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 John Vandenberg (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table dance

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

Article cites no sources establishing notability—Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs)

• Speedy Keep article has been around since 2004 with many edits. Movies from Flashdance to Coyote Ugly sparked phenomenons of table top dancing bars. Article may need more sources, but per WP:CITE sources aren't required unless topics are controversial or questionable Tabletop dancing from stripping to college girls is not really controversial, especially when movies have been made. This is a case of "I don't like the way the article looks, so I will delete it instead of allowing sourcing to happen naturally through time." --David Shankbone 17:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a great advert for WP if this is the best that could be achieved since 2004 for such an apparently notable term. Delete unless a radical proper rewrite is instigated. MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use deletion nominations to improve writing for articles. --David Shankbone 17:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do if the current content of the article is non-notable. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. We do if the topic is non-notable. The current content may be deficient, but if the notability of the topic is uncontroversial then that's a content issue, not an AFD issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; current content seems notable enough, and the topic certainly is notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can it 'seem notable' when no assertion of notability is made? Similarly, how is the topic notable? MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are nine hits on "table dance" on the recent news of news.google.com. You could try [18] for just one. Between 2003 and 2006, news.google.com has over 600 hits. How is the subject not notable?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article reflect that notability? The one link you provide shows a clear no. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a surmountable problem. The references exist, they just need to be added. That means the topic is notable, but the article needs to be fixed. And we don't delete articles on notable topics just because no one has added references yet. --Ig8887 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article subject is notable. matt91486 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -Could use some work, but like it or not this is part of the culture Change to Speedy Keep as references have been added which addresses the phrasing of the nomination Mstuczynski (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very obvious keep. The subject of the article, is clearly notable. SQL^{Query me!} 20:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with addition of references demonstrating notability, but it is very obviously notable--Hazillow (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Mick, if all of us guys could take you with us to a strip club so we could all get drunk and watch table dances, you'd appreciate the subject more. I agree that the article itself needs some better editing. Did anyone catch the part where the German "table dance" at Oktoberfest "is not of an erotic nature"? That's laugh-out-loud dumb. Mandsford (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for the info, suffice to say, I know what the term means, and I see what the article says, hence the quite obvious candidacy for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see sufficient [19] results for table dancing to indicate to me that this subject could be covered. If not an independent article, merge/redirect to erotic dancing. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, have the google results presented got precisely anything to do with the contents of this article?MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content of the article is irrelevant. Subject is the concern I have, and I'd have no objection to adding a {{rewrite}} tag to the current content. Content is actually a clean-up issue in this case, and as such, it isn't an AFD matter. Why? Because a quick search indicates plenty of sources for potential content. Thus the initial rationale isn't a concern. If you want to find sources, there's plenty out there. Take the opportunity to fix a problem rather than rushing to deletion. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The worst aspect of WP. The article is nonsense, but just because the title means something IRL, it has to be kept regardless. MickMacNee (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the best aspect of Wikipedia: The community is essentially telling you that all the time, effort and keystrokes you spent to try and contract the encyclopedia, information that in the month of January alone over 3,700 people wanted to read about on our site, you could have found more than enough resources to improve an article. Instead, you sought to delete it In February alone 5,000 people went to this article and the month is not even over. That is the problem with deletionism: they forget that what makes Wikipedia relevant is people actually finding an article they were curious about.--David Shankbone 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Are those stats all humans, and not just google et al? Besides, since when do page hits equal notability? MickMacNee (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. But this subject being notable does indicate it. matt91486 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say we all take Mick out for a night at Hogs & Heifers. He'll be placing the photograph of it on his User page the next day! lol. --David Shankbone 22:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly. Creating a wiki article on the back of it though, I don't think so. MickMacNee (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I don't think the article is nonsense. Nonsense would be something else entirely. The content of the article is coherent and understandable. The only problem is the one with sources. Which does seem to be addressable so it's not a great problem. You're certainly not convincing me that I'm wrong to say that there is potential for an article. You'd have been better off suggesting a redirect, that I could have gotten behind. But instead, you're saying this is the worst aspect of Wikipedia. Do you really think I find that persuasive? It's not. It's an argument unrelated to the article at hand, and quite a bit of hyperbole. And if there's anything that's a bad aspect of Wikipedia, it's that kind of behavior. You may wish to rethink your statements. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; please do not attempt to delete things that need only expansion, sourcing, and improvement. We have a deletion criterion for things that are too short and undeveloped to have any value at all but that's clearly not the case here. Antandrus (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, lack of references is a surmountable problem as notability of the term is not in doubt. This nomination borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Ig8887 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Has anyone noticed that Dhartung added references? Unless the nom wishes to challenge these, I believe that he no longer has an argument for deletion and should withdraw. Mstuczynski (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable topic, longtime article. Possible slight case of WP:OSTRICH in the nomination. Can always use expansion, improvement, but just as viable an article as, say, Lap dance. 23skidoo (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wrote most of the article on Go-Go dancing. I think this article is just as worthy of inclusion. Keraunos (talk) 02:13, 28 February 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. Empty list created by blocked user. No content to merge to Sri Lanka Broadcasting CorporationKim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Radio drama Actors in Sri Lanka

List of Radio drama Actors in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

At the moment an unpopulated list, mostly redlinks. ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and go from there Mandsford (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is part of a determined campaign of self-promotion. Note that the only blue-link is was Malaka Dewapriya, since deleted via an AfD, and that the originator of this page is Malakadew (talk · contribs). His article was started on 19 Feb by Srilanka short film (talk · contribs) and Srilankan short film (talk · contribs) who both got blocked on 20 Feb for creating inappropriate articles, removing tags etc; today user:Malakadew has taken up the running, and has also been blocked as a sock. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 24 February 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. I'm closing this early, as the article is radically changed, the nom is withdrawn as a result, and the only deletes are based on the initial version with conditions that have been met. No point in taking up more time over it. Tyrenius (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art in Ruins

Art in Ruins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An art group. The problem with the article is that it is completely made up of quotations from magazines and news articles and as such fails at asserting notability. Has been speedied before, but was rejected this time around. Was rejected as a speedy. Prod was removed by author after simply sticking some weblinks and not putting any new prose in at all. JuJube (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless notability can be asserted. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of original writing. Soxred93 | talk bot 17:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete If some better sources can be found, the article cleaned up and wikified, it would be a nice article. Do away with the quotes. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 06:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's astonishing that having references from verifiable external sources is now considered grounds for deletion (!). This article is a useful reference for anyone investigating the artworld in the UK and should remain. If this needs wikifying I can do it, but it will be difficult to wikify it if it gets deleted... --Rob Myers (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The quotes of which the article is composed were some of those used by the artists in their exhibition 'Double Take" at the Windows Gallery Prague in 2000. Each quote appeared as lasertext on the window in front of a piece of the artist's work, thus instantly mediating the exhibition with the disembodied voices of critics. The artists play with the voice of the artist and that of the critic. The article does the same thing. In effect the article attempts to capture the way they play with the legitimising authority of 'normal' articles. 2. The image comes from the artists. It has been used as a postcard and is this in the public domain. It is too low res. to reproduce. HannahThistle (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • So you're basically acknowledging that the whole article is ripped off from other people but that that's the point? Wikipedia does not take artistic stands, thank you. JuJube (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See note below I appreciate the sincerity of the submitter, but she has not taken in the comments about Wikipedia policies and the issue of copyright violation. I'd change my vote if a policy-compliant article could be written by the end of the AfD. Also I'd be willing to suggest userfying for further improvement if the submitter agreed to take on the task of writing a normal article. I considered doing so myself but the Google results are too confusing (the top hit for 'Art in Ruins' is a group in Providence, Rhode Island). There are 14 external links at the bottom of the article but they are written in a hip, insider style that makes statements of plain fact hard to deduce. Hannah's statement about the rights for the image are incorrect; distribution as a postcard does not put the image in the public domain. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Texts have been published in numerous publications and exhibitions made internationally (see the CV published at http://www.lcca.lv/projekti/utopija/art_in_ruins/ ). Art in Ruins never copyrighted the name and it was used by the group in New York who set up around 2000 to highlight buildings of architectural note threatened with demolition. Most of the links at the end were added for verifying 'notability' and give details of notable exhibitions and publications in which Art in Ruins participated, particularly in UK, Ukraine and Austria. Regarding the postcard what would be the best way to make it usable in the article? HannahThistle (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am concerned that Hannah may be planning to write a jokey, indirect article that says as little as possible about the group in plain terms. A jokey article is unlikely to survive on Wikipedia. If we leave the field others will come across it and insist on rewriting it in a clear, common-sense way. So I'm asking Hannah if she's willing to have a normal, prosaic article on this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article I have submitted is serious as is the work of Art in Ruins. I would say there is no such thing as common sense and I don't consider it appropriate to be prosaic. I have however added two introductory paragraphs written in authorial voice, if that helps, to contextualise the article. HannahThistle (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment might possibly be notable but needs complete rewriting. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject matter is notable. The article needs to be wikified. It needs information on founders and location in introductory paragraphs (vs. buried in someone's quote), and intro paragraphs need in-line citation. It needs to explain how, in a google search world, it's been effected by not copyrighting its name. It needs to summarize or incorporate quotes within the context of an encyclopedic article, not leave a string of stand-alones. Collaborative editing by SME, such as at WikiProject Visual Arts, would remove the "article ownership" tone. Coffee4me (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Did a complete rewrite. I submitted this AfD to the list over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts hoping to attract some experts, and I am glad to see more participants in the AfD. I'll change my vote to Keep if a reasonably-rewritten version (like the one I just checked in) is still standing at the end of the process. Somebody still needs to fix the copyright on the picture or the image police will come by and delete it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My rewrite edit-conflicted with yours! I've merged the results. All the deletes need to look again, but I would say their objections have now been met and it looks like a reasonable stub. Tyrenius (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A great improvement, in my opinion. I'm changing my vote to Keep based on Tyrenius' version. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after rewrite(s). I note " For a while there was a real buzz around Art In Ruins, they signed to the Gimpel Fils Gallery in the West End and it looked like their brand of critical post modernism was about to storm the institution of art and give it a real shake up. Unfortunately most historical traces of their influence are currently obliterated by the less interesting work produced by what became known as Young British Art ...." from this. Just an (friend0 and artist's blog, but I think they are notable. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Stewart Home is a recognised writer on art. Tyrenius (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks way better now. I withdraw my nom cheerfully. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For future reference speedy criterion G11 would work with the article as first written: "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Tyrenius (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason we are having this AfD is because I declined the A7 speedy nomination. Tyrenius, are you saying that I should have let the speedy go through? EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 27 February 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 01:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Washington

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

No claim to notability other than being the great-grandfather of George Washington. Notability is not inherited. --Michael White^T·C 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Lawrence Washington (1602-1655)#Washington family sketch. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Change decision to keep following evidence of notability. -- Roleplayer (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. John Washington is not only notable for his being the great-grandfather of George Washington, but in addition he was the Washington family patriarch who brought the family to the Americas and purchased the land that would incorporate Mount Vernon, Pope's Creek, and Woodlawn Plantation. I feel that the article could grow and that it should be given a chance to do so. The notability is here, the content isn't. Let's keep it and continue adding content. --Caponer (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Caponer, based on John having emigrated from Britain to America, founding the Washington family, and acquiring a large amount of land in Virginia. Mandsford (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Plenty of people came to America and bought land. We are still left with his notability only being because a descendant came to be famous. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, served in the House of Burgesses, passes WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and as it turns out, passes WP:MILMOS#NOTE as well. In fact, he was partly responsible for a notorious incident in the history of Virginia and Maryland. --Dhartung | Talk 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having been in the legislature, he is unquestionably notable by our established practices. (He would be anyway--early settlers who are the founders of important estates are notable. yes , there are a few hundred from Virginia--but why does that make them less notable? We should have them all. -- In practice, most holders of major estates will have been in the colony legislative body at some time or other in the career, anyway. DGG (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Solely due to his time in the House of Burgesses. Otherwise, he wouldn't be notable per WP:BIO.--Veritas (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think he's over the bar, due in part to his political service. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Nomination withdrawn. Dhartung has expanded this article to provide evidence of him meeting WP:BIO because of his service in the Virginia House of Burgesses. --Michael White^T·C 18:43, 25 February 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. An individual is not inherently notable for being the grandfather of someone who is, but is evaluated for his own contributions and treatment in reliable secondary sourcing. Consensus is that, regardless of the relationship between Hutchinson and Jackson, there is insufficient notability demonstrated for Hutchinson to have his own article. If Hutchinson can be demonstrated to be the grandfather of Jackson, reference to him may be appropriate in existing articles related to that president. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson

Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not inherited. This person's only claim to notability is being the grandfather of Andrew Jackson and the grandson of John Hutchinson (Colonel). Reputable genealogical sources do not support him being Jackson's grandfather, and in any case, he would never have met Jackson, so he did not have any influence on him. --Michael White^T·C 16:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Unfortunately, in addition to his lack of notability, that he is her father is genealogically dubious, as I have provided information on at Talk:Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson. --Michael White^T·C 16:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case delete unless reputable sources can be found, otherwise merge as above. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - Clearly, Non notable. Canyouhearmenow —Preceding comment was added at 17:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge thsi somewhere, please). Gotta agree with the Mikester on this one; I recall that Andrew Jackson pretty well grew up not knowing his ancestors. Mandsford (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)nn[reply]
• Strong Keep As user Michael A. White removed my links from the article. He is clearly a Vandal. Now listen up Andrew Jacksons aunts, all knew Andrew Jackson. Also they all knew who their father was and their Grandfather. I,am one of his mothers sisters direct kin. DNA has already proven this. Andrew Jackson grew up on the Crawford plantation. It was owned by Robert Crawford. Whos brother lived there as well. Two of his aunts married Leslie,s. this is a known fact. The link Michael A. White removed proved this. The link Michael A. White supplied, i have searched, it leads nowhere. The site Micheal A. White removed was the offical site of the Charlotte Mecklenberg library. I think they know a little more about this then Michael.

• Comment The site (link) contained no mention of Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson, so it was appropriate to remove it as a reference. The only mention of Andrew Jackson's mother is the sentence "The maiden names of my grandmother and sisters (Mrs. Jackson, Mrs. McCamie, and Mrs. Crawford) were Hutchison." --Michael White^T·C 14:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I have checked and Ancestory.com has Francis Hutchinson listed, as the parent of Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson. Several of his kin are listed. I tried looking for the people Michael White claimed were listed as kin to Andrew Jackson the vast majority listed Francis Hutchinson. Only one or two was listed that was different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Better1 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What record set at Ancestry.com did you use? -- Roleplayer (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just look under Francis or Cyrus Hutchinson. You might have to be a member to look it up. It was under the Wells & Scott Genealogy (USA & South Africa) for one. Also under the Moody Family Genealogy, by Jeannie Potter. Plus to many more to list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Better1 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - are these the family trees that have been listed by Ancestry members? If they are, they are not peer reviewed prior to listing so they cannot be listed as viable references. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and in any case, he would have died in Ireland and never met Jackson, thus not being notable.--Michael White^T·C 14:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This user's only edits are to this AfD. --Michael White^T·C 14:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sockpuppetry case opened: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Randall_O —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael A. White (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sister joined last night As anyone can do. This was not a Sock poppet. As Michael White is reporting. Also i forgot to sign my own post. Also Michael has accused me of not writing any articles. When in fact i have written several. 66.19.114.161 (talk) 08:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Randall O[reply]

• Comment It should be noted that pbs.org has done 3 documentary programs on Andrew Jackson, and 2 mentioned his aristocratic ancestry. All were done in the last twenty years. I think they did plenty of research. Randall O (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Randall O[reply]

• In any case, he's not notable. And I would think that the preeminent presidential genealogy scholar should be given more weight than a PBS documentary, which you haven't even provided the actual source for. --Michael White^T·C 13:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I did not accuse you of not writing any articles, I accuesd your "sister" of that, which she hasn't.--Michael White^T·C 13:52, 29 February 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. Davewild (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PH-DVD

PH-DVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references have shown up other than ones related to the initial press release in 2006. "Polarizonics Corp" has made no SEC filings since 2006, implying that they are no longer active, and I can find no corporate web page. Given all this, it's probably safe to say that this technology is never going to see the light of day - that is, assuming it ever existed in the first place. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. My original inkling in the original AfD was that this was a hoax, given the proximity to April Fools' day, and I still believe that to be true. There are still no reliable sources anywhere out there... the only sources cited in the previous AfD (i.e., the basis of the previous keep) were unreliable by Wikipedia standards... that is, bloggish news aggregation type sites (Engadget, etc.) that based their report solely on the press release put forth by the company. There do not appear to be any WP:RS based on investigative journalism by a news source... just rehashes of "Polarizonics says they're creating something called PH-DVD... here's what they say it is" and so on. (It's almost as if I were to put out a press release saying "I'm creating something" and having it picked up... don't give me any ideas! :P) One would think that something so "revolutionary" would have attracted more attention from the technology community. That assumes, however, that this is real. Sure, the company may exist, they may be working on something, etc., but Wikipedia is not a primary source of information, and there is nothing else of value out there (reliable sources, for one) on which to base a legitimate article. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Polarizonics filed a few SEC documents suggests that, if it's a hoax, it's a very thorough one. Still doesn't mean it's a notable hoax (or non-hoax), though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this didn't get transcluded by the creator of the AfD, so here it is... --Kinu ^t/_c 16:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no real coverage besides a slight blip in a handful of blogs in 2006... oddly just in time for April Fool's Day, not that I'm suggesting anything by that, of course. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - I feel this is blatant WP:Hoax. Canyouhearmenow 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could be a hoax, but either way, it's still far from meeting WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Believe it or not, it has Google hits from outside of Wikipedia, so it's not a hoax (for once), but none of it helps the fact that it still fails WP:CORP. No Google News hits since October 2006, all of them blogs except for a sentence mention in a few British newspapers. But they're just the briefest of brief mentions Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not to be confused with Ph.D-VD, which doctoral students sometimes get from unsafe research. Mandsford (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. While I'm glad this isn't a hoax it still fails WP:CORP and related guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]