Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 7

< January 6 January 8 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD;G11 and WP:VSCA. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Emir

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

Clearly a vanity page, spam, violates NPOV SHostetler (talk) 02:57, 8 January 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 leaning towards delete or merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Towel-Headed Man

Towel-Headed Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - fails WP:NOT#PLOT as being little more than a rehash of the character's appearances. No reliable sources establish any real world notability per WP:N or WP:WAF. The last section is an original research essay. Otto4711 (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:WAX is not a valid argument for keeping. And his being a plot element is pretty much the problem with the article. It is all plot summary with no real-world content or context. Otto4711 (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ringu Ring (film). That article has plenty of space to incorporate the non-OR parts of this article, and frankly, I would think that is where people would expect to find him. Turn this page into a redirect to Ringu as a search aid. Note Orginally I had Ringu as the redirect site, but I changed it as Ringu is a disambiguation page.Xymmax (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough. John Smith's (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if sources can be found for the article contents. Otherwise, merge to Ringu. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep detailed and seems helpful to pull all this together at one point. JJL (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ring (film), minus the "origins" section. I agree with Xymmax's reasoning.....this character doesn't merit a standalone article. PKT (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is possible to the appropriate article (I'm guessing that would be Ringu, as this character only appears for an instant in the American film). Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's analysis. Nothing more I could add. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi samole

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

Contested prod for lacking sourcing. Procedural nomination. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:56, 7 January 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 non-notable, unverified and possible hoax film, and restore from point in edit history when the existing mess was replaced with information on a wholly separate and notable film with the same name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Mercury (Movie)

Red Mercury (Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails to meet notability criteria for films, and is probably a vanity article as well. Compare the name of the creating account with the listed producers and stars. Pairadox (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'd love to see the reviews on this :? -- Librarianofages (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either really non-notable, really crystalballing or really hoaxalicious™: a search for "Red Mercury" and "Chad Will" turned up nothing about the movie. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That the article was created by ScottAndChad and was produced by Scott and Chad, and stars Scott and Chad (and their friends?) suggests that Scott and Chad might be getting a thrill from seeing this on Wikipedia. Wait until they call everyone they know, then delete. Mandsford (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatant vanispamcruftisement —Travistalk 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crap! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment -- Article says this is a 2008 film. There is at least one real film with this title.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable as per WP:V and blatant spam. I really want to see the film though. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I took ten minutes to flesh out a stub amount of info about the 2005 film. Geo Swan (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am left wondering why our nominator didn't take the trouble to determine whether there was a real film named Red Mercury.
    • This triggers one of my concerns with the wikipedia. There is an aphorism, I'll paraphrase: "Too many executive chefs, not enough dishwashers". I think the wikipedia project would be healthier if some of its self-appointed quality-control patrolers were willing undertake some of the basic, simple, obvious maintenance tasks rather than jump straight to nominations for deletion.
    • Please don't nominate articles for deletion if you haven't spent thirty seconds on a basic web search, to see if the topic merits coverage.
    • WP:DEL says that articles shouldn't be nominated for deletion if the topic merits coverage, even if the current version is weak.
    • "Red Mercury (Movie)" does merit inclusion, because a movie was made:
      1. with notable actors;
      2. which premiered at Cannes;
      3. and has been released released world-wide, albeit only on DVD.
    • Any one of the above merits coverage here.
    • Please, when voicing an opinion, don't count on the nominator doing due diligence. Nominators lapsing from proper diligence is routine in the deletion fora.
    • Please actually read the article for yourself. Do your own web search to see if the topic merits coverage.
    • Please, if the topic merits coverage don't endorse counter-policy nominations for deletion.
    • One more request. Please bear in mind the advice in WP:ATA. Please avoid arguments that boil down to "me too". Geo Swan (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons detailed above.
    • I have no attachment to the unreferenced material about the 2008 film. I didn't remove it because of WP:BITE. IMO the newbies who started it deserve a chance to reference reliable sources while the {{afd}} remains open. Geo Swan (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that the article as nominated was clearly not talking about the 2005 film. Other than the same title and similar subject matter, I can’t see how it could possibly be assumed that the author(s) meant to write about the real movie. —Travistalk 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Geo Swan has really made an ass of himself with the assumptions about what research I did before nominating this article. As Travis has pointed out, the article was not about the 2005 film, nor did it make any pretense to be about the 2005 film. (Nor is it related to cinnabar. WTF was that about?) Geo Swan's "fleshing out" of the article has just confused matters, and doesn't even follow usual Wikipedia film article conventions, which is usually one film per article. When there are two different films with the same name, they are given different articles and the year of the film is usually in the article name. So yeah, Geo, I did do a LOT more than 30 seconds research, found the "real" film, and still decided to nominate this article for deletion. You disagree with that decision, fine, but there is absolutely no need to level a personal attack against me. Pairadox (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment And now the major contributor to the article, an IP address that is almost certainly for the creator of the article, has just removed ALL mention of the 2005 film, bringing the article back to the two-kids-with-a-video-camera flick that doesn't belong on WP. Pairadox (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't call other contributors names. I didn't call you names. I did my best to make my point without being offensive. If you were offended I failed, and you have my apologies.
        • I am glad to hear that you think doing research on the topic of an article before nominating it for deletion is important.
        • May I suggest you consider showing your work? If you did a web search, and saw there was a real film called "Red Mercury" may I suggest it would have made sense to mention it, in your nomination?
        • I am going to suggest that the existence of a real film, entitled "Red Mercury", with real stars, that premiered at Cannes, and has been released world-wide on DVD, is information those weighing in with an opinion on whether the wikipedia should have an an article entitled "Red Mercury (Movie)" deserve to know.
        • Yes you are entitled to conclude the existence of a real film entitled "Red Mercury" is irrelevant when deciding whether to delete the wikipedia's article entitled "Red Mercury".
        • But perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that by not bothering to mention the existence of the real film some might wonder whether you intended to preclude fair consideration for an article under this title by the other participants who wouldn't otherwise share your conclusion?
        • I saw that you reverted vandalism from the article's creators. They tried to delete the referenced material I added. I left a warning on that IP's talk page.
        • This eroded my trust in the creator's good faith, so I replaced their unreferenced material with the referenced material. Geo Swan (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because even though the earlier revisions about a purported 2008 film appear to be a hoax, there appears to be valid information about the 2005 film, such as a review at Variety. Results at Google show to have more details. Of course, if the consensus is to keep, move it to Red Mercury (film) per naming conventions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable film, review in Variety - [1]. Catchpole (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incredible An article that started as a practical joke has been rewritten by the helpful GeoSwan as an article about an actual film. Swan may have been trying to be nice, but all she's done is to encourage the Scotts and Chads of the world to make some more messes. What you're voting to keep is not what the rest of us were voting to delete. If I were the closing administrator, I'd delete the whole thing anyway, regardless of the changes. If someone wants to actually start an article about the 2005 film, great. Mandsford (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My gender has nothing to do with the value, or lack thereof, of my arguments. Please discuss content, not personalities. Please refrain from making criticisms of others personalities based on their gender. Geo Swan (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And your gender has nothing to do with my criticism either. Men and women shouldn't be encouraging high school kids to submit joke articles. The "rewrite" made it look like the original nominator didn't know what he/she was talking about. Mandsford (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If my gender has nothing to do with your criticism, why bring it up?
I have done my best to make my points without being offensive. I think I have a right to expect the other participants in this discussion to do their best to avoid being offensive. Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pairadox, thank you for spotting and nominating an obvious hoax. Whatever the closing administrator decides, you did the right thing. Mandsford (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mandsford.
Geo Swan, the only reference to your gender that I see is Mandsford referring to you by a female pronoun. Are you really going to cry gender bias over use of the word she?!?
For what it's worth, your original posts were extremely offensive. You claimed that I hadn't done more than 30 seconds of research, you lumped me together with "self-appointed quality-control patrolers [un]willing undertake some of the basic, simple, obvious maintenance tasks rather than jump straight to nominations for deletion," and inferred that I did not excercise due dilligence. That's pretty damn offensive. But you know what? It doesn't matter. We got rid of a hoax article, we will probably end up with a stub for a real movie, and nobody died. If Geo Swan has learned something about civility and jumping to conclusions, then it's a win-win-win-win. If not, well, three out of four isn't bad. Pairadox (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clickair destinations

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

Quite simply, fails WP:DIRECTORY and/or WP:IINFO. Yes, I know this was created in good faith and in accordance with "guidelines" set up by those who manage airline topics, but an exhaustive list telling where Clickair flies simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. I'd be fine with a paragraph in the main Clickair article informing readers that the line flies throughout Europe (with special emphasis on Spain and Italy) and to the Maghreb, but this is just excessive. Biruitorul (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per nom. -- Librarianofages (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article complies with the WikiProject Airlines guidelines in removing destinations lists longer than 10 from the main airline page to a dedicated page. Clickair destinations is one of over 200 airline desinations articles on Wikipedia. Most other airlines including many other Spanish airlines have a destinations page (see Vueling destinations, Iberia destinations, Spanair destinations to name a few) in accordance with the above guidelines. While I do not disagree with WP:DIRECTORY and/or WP:IINFO, if we are to remove this destinations list, we should remove them all, a debate better held at WikiProject Airlines. SempreVolando (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • A fair point, and I'll consider initiating that discussion once this AfD is over. Consider this a test case. Biruitorul (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually they were all nominated here in the past as a group the decision was to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:SempreVolando. The article should be categorized. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This discussion has been held previously at Afd, here and here, and the result has been keep. The destinations to where an airline flies is the entire point of an airline, it an airline does not have destinations, there is no airline...simple. The problem that I personally have with the destinations pages is that the majority are not referenced inline with WP policy, and that should be looked at. --Russavia (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SempreVolando and Russavia. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Russavia. Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not company's website. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is at least the third time this and related nominations have been here. The reasons to keep have been summed up above again. Consensus can change, but how many times do we need to ask. Once notability is established, articles don't simply lose it. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the definition of material that falls under both What Wikipedia is not sections cited in the nomination. Notability has not "been established". Notability means that a topic is the subject of significant treatment in reliable, independent sources; it is not shorthand for having been kept for reasons unrelated to notability or on bases that confuse the way we mean that word here for the vernacular. Are there any independent sources which treat the topic of where an airline flies to substantively? Probably not, but I'd be willing to be convinced. Yet this and every other similiarly situated article I just looked at (ten of them) had no independent sources cited whatever—all unverified and putatively non-notable. In any event, notability and other policies are separate. Even is this and related articles were shown to be notable, which looks impossible, topics can still violate WP:NOT and should be deleted on that independent basis. Wikipedia is not a directory, it is not a travel guide, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it is not stupid. The prior AfDs got it wrong as they ignored policy in favor of numerous arguments that appear right out of the examples at WP:AADD, such as I like it, it's interesting, it's useful, "people spent a great deal of time writing the material," etc. What is conspicuously absent from this page, thus far, is any policy-based rationale for keeping this material. The first keep cites to a wikiproject guideline which is not in keeping with policy and which begs the question as we already know the Wikiproject fosters the creation of these directories, followed by a classic WP:WAX argument. The only other rationale given is to refer to the previous debates about the larger class of articles. We are here. The nominator cites policy for deletion which appears to apply. I cite more policy for deletion which appears to apply. Does anyone have a policy-based reason these should be kept, or if not, why the policies cited are inapplicable?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It sounds like you're considering these as standalone articles. Rather, they should be considered as subpages of the main airline article (e.g. Clickair/destinations) except that, unlike talk pages and user space, subpages aren't enabled for the main article space. They were split out because for the large airlines (such as American Airlines), the destinations list was so long it overwhelmed the rest of the article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NOT#DIR is not relevant as the list is very precise for inclusion, that being, where this airline flies to, nor is it a 'yellow pages' type list. WP:NOT#TRAVEL is not relevant, as it is not a travel guide, but rather a list which provides precise detail as to the destinations this airline flies to, it is not a travel guide in the sense of what one would see on say virtualtourist.com. WP:IINFO is not relevant, as it is not indiscriminate, either the airline flies to these destinations or not. List of cities, towns, villages, hamlets Clickair flights pass over on their scheduled flights would be against WP:IINFO, this list is not. But yes, I do agree that the fact many of these destination lists are unreferenced is a concern (as I noted above), however, as these are not stand-alone lists, WP:V needn't necessarily be the be all and end all of inclusion of these lists, as WP:SELFPUB clearly comes into play. --Russavia (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)c[reply]
Fuhghettaboutit, very well put. Hawaiian717 and Russavia: as far as I'm aware, WP:V (an official policy) still applies to non-stand-alone lists, and this list, along with its counterparts, fails. There's no lead section per WP:SAL explaining why this is relevant, or documenting that any third-party reference considers it notable. The fact that it's a "very precise" directory does not make it not a directory, for that is what it is -- a list of cities one airline happens to fly to -- and, incidentally, the primary audience for such a list would be tourists, so WP:TRAVEL also applies. "Indiscriminate" doesn't necessarily mean "untrue" -- WP:IINFO states "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". And that is the case here. Airline destination lists have not been shown to be notable, regardless of what the WikiProject panjandrums say. Biruitorul (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Biruitorul. Regarding that it is a "not a stand alone article" (Russavia), it may be intended to function as a part of the article on the company but it doesn't. It is in the mainspace and is thus ipso facto stand alone. More importantly, while the distinction is at least colorably relevant for notability considerations, as that is a topic inclusion standard, it is irrelevant for WP:NOT and WP:V considerations as those are content inclusion standards. The issue is not why it became a separate article, but whether the content is appropriate, anywhere. In the article, or stand alone, the material suffers from the same defect. If it was still listed in the article, then it would be inapproriate there for the same reasons. The only difference is that because it is in the mainspace, we are here, rather than on Clickair's talk page, but the WP:NOT and verifiability issues would be the same.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you believe that this does not belong, then please take a look at Aeroflot, in which the destination list is in the main article, and is referenced to a verifiable, third-party source, and it most certainly is not in violation of any of the other WP:NOTs mentioned above. What you are doing in this Afd is trying to tell the airline project what does and doesn't belong in airline articles. As there have been quite a few comments from airline project members here already on this Afd, why have you not come over to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines to discuss this previously, as the airline project group as a whole is better able to judge what is and isn't needed in airline articles, rather than having article content dictated at Afd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, no one granted the WikiProject that sort of power. Of course, I respect the expertise of the people there, but WP:V and WP:NOT apply regardless of what the airline project has "judge[d] what is and isn't needed in airline articles". Biruitorul (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is definitely precedent here that airline destination lists are notable per Russavia's links above. Redfarmer (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikiproject Airlines guidelines. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fuhghettaboutit; I'm not exactly sure what this article does to warrant inclusion on the encyclopedia; also, I'm not sure a certain Wikiproject's guidelines should be overriding core policies (WP:DIRECTORY, WP:TRAVEL). I respect that the people in Wikiproject Airlines are knowledgeable about the subject, but they don't have the power to carry out arbitrary ruling concerning the fate of articles they encompass. None of those destination lists is cited, and so far the only arguments to keep have been "there are other destinations articles" and "the Wikiproject allows them". Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:56, 16 January 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 full of lies. DS (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Englishitis

Hoax. From article: "This disease primarily exhibits itself in...severe, persistent coughing of adjectives; an overwhelming desire to shout out nouns; and a strong urge to research controversial issues." Slightly funny? Yes. Encyclopedic? No. --omtay38 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as mildly amusing hoax; note that the external links are dead too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Bogus references, and Colleen M Shannon is a lawyer not a doctor. Marasmusine (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. One could say this is what Engli Shit is. I liked that the spots looked like commas, nice touch. Obvious jokes about colon blockage and missed periods overlooked. Mandsford (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a hoax. A funny hoax. Malinaccier (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a hoax. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete garbage. JuJube (talk) 03:35, 8 January 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. - PeaceNT (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Arbec

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

Delete no sources indicate that this local news anchor is notable, fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although this is a new article, which I don't like to see deleted, a little investigation (mainly visiting her CTV bio) indicates that she would fails notability per WP:BIO. -- Librarianofages (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability and fails WP:BIO Collectonian (talk) 13:33, 8 January 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 per WP:HEY improvements. GlassCobra 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Rears

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

No sources, reliable or otherwise. No assertion of notability. And it's utter crap, mostly porn advertising. Delete.VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong. The VFD is in the edit history for this article, there was no disambiguation. Jessica Sweet both played the character and used it as her stage name for a while which is why it still had an infobox when you put it up for AfD.Horrorshowj (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any sourcable info with Hillary Scott or Jessica Sweet. Epbr123 (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep per Horrorshowj. Seems to be one of the more notable porn film series. Epbr123 (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Epbr123. It's a porn character played by two different porn actresses. Vinh1313 (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hillary Scott --T-rex 00:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Epbr123, turning this article into a disambiguation page for the two. Pburka (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge or keep per Horrorshowj. Definitely don't delete. Pburka (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:Epbr123. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Epbr123 Steve355 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Epbr123 and Pburka. Tabercil (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Snowball merge anyone? That's a new one...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a snowball merge, because the name "Britney Rears" is given to more than one actress.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge does seem like the best solution - snowball or not. Natalie (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I would suggest nom reread the deletion policy. When claiming an article is unsourceable, you're supposed to put out some effort to find sources yourself first. There are 74 articles on AVN, [2] and a few more on Xbiz. Even with wading through press releases, it appears the entire article is sourceable. The article's subject, at least currently, appears to be the film series as a whole not just it's main character, which is probably as it should be. I'm also curious about the series awards performance, but will check on that later.Horrorshowj (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Third film won an award for "Best Comedy or Parody" from XRCO, and was nominated for "Best Sex Comedy" by AVN. Horrorshowj (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just wanted to note that AVN is not an independent reliable source for the film articles they publish since it takes money from companies to publicise movies in the forms of ads, press releases, and even the articles themselves. I don't know how XBiz works. Vinh1313 (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be notable: plenty of sources, has won awards. Everyking (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, or just Merge to Hillary Scott. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been almost completely rewritten since the nomination occurred. Asserts notability based on award wins, and 3 of the 4 movies are sourced. Sources available on AVN to source part 2 fully as well, but that section needs to be expanded significantly anyway. Horrorshowj (talk) 23:36, 13 January 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. Rudget. 12:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBA ranking

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

Orphaned/abandoned. Doesn't appear to be anything but an ad for an MBA website. Rhobite (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. -- Librarianofages (talk) 23:42, 7 January 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 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BEI viral inactivant

BEI viral inactivant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete insufficient context to know what this is, no sources to indicate any notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Do you like to make a habit of trying to get new pages deleted? Please allow for ORGANIC EXPANSION. -- Librarianofages (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Xyr contention in the nomination, if you read it, was that there was no context to permit such expansion, since it wasn't obvious what the subject even was. Please do not berate editors for not being able to determine context from an article that is one sentence long and that (still) doesn't even give the actual name of the subject or any sources that might have given a clue as to how the article could be expanded. Uncle G (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to Binary-ethylenimine or Binary-ethylenimine, which seems to be its full name. "BEI viral inactivant" gets no hits besides this WP page, but this is apparently an abbreviation for Binary-eth...argh, don't make me spell it again... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but as Binary ethylenimine per Ten Pound Hammer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Ross (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly needs more context and expansion, but seems verifiable and sufficiently notable based on its ghits. --Lockley (talk) 23:24, 10 January 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. There is not a clear consensus that the article meets relevant notability guidelines. The article could be merged and/or re-directed to another article, but that is not really supposed to be in the scope of AFD, so I will leave it to editors to create a consensus elsewhere if it is still felt that a merge/re-direct should occur. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour View Elementary School

Harbour View Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing to indicate that this elementary school is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep How could you possibly know if this school was notable or not? the page has been in existence for less than 3 days! -- Librarianofages (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one sentence, no description to the school at all. If it is notable, someone should write a new article on it. WooyiTalk to me? 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Nova Scotia schools#Dartmouth Centre - Albro Lake- Harbourview. Verifiable [3] but highly unlikely to be notable [4]. Similar treatment should be applied to many other articles on that list. cab (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per c.a.b. Nothing in the article to indicate notability, other than all the students go on to Dartmouth, which can refer to a good Ivy League college. Mandsford (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect. Per CAB. Non-notable elementary school. Malinaccier (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (for now): I call bad faith nomination, as the article has just been created and is certainly verifiable insofar as what exists in the article. Let it stand for a reasonable period of time before calling judgment on its notability. -- Masterzora (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the bad faith? Sure, it's verifiable, but which part of this article suggests notability? The debate won't close for another several days, which is reasonably enough time for anyone to improve upon it. Let us know if you do, but it's not going to improve on its own. Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bad faith is in the newness of the article, meaning it's had no chance to get anywhere. By the time AfD closes, the article will be barely a week old, which is hardly enough time to expect anything significant. The "verifiable" bit was thrown in to differentiate this from the deletion of, for example, a hoax, wherein it really doesn't matter how long it's existed. -- Masterzora (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a time I might have agreed with you, but I've come to the conclusion that articles need to have some meat on their bones before they're posted. In addition, the reason that "new" articles get nominated is that each day's new articles are posted for anyone to review, thence to edit or nominate for deletion. Some articles are tagged within minutes, which I think is unfair, though not necessarily bad faith. I like your spirit... I prefer to avoid deletion in favor of alternatives like a merge or redirect. Bear in mind that if this article does get deleted, it's just as likely that someone else at Harbour View will write another (and better) article about their school. Schools get written about a lot, usually because Wikipedia is often used in schools. Mandsford (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has only one sentence. It is not a notable elementary school. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a typical elementary school with nothing to demonstrate its notability. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Noroton (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, because a few days is too soon to delete. The creator of the article appears to be a newbie and should be welcomed rather than have a first edit deleted. There is no need to act this fast. Noroton (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC) (For additional reasons, see "Additional sources added" comment below. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the article was written by an eleven year old whose sole other input to Wikipedia was to deny that 50 Cent got shot. Has anybody found anything on the school? So far I haven't. AnteaterZot (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know the age of the creator? How did you find that out? To answer your question, yes, somebody has found something (multiple, reliable, independent sources) on the school, and it didn't take much checking in Google to find it. Noroton (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I inferred it from his/her username and the fact that s/he said she is a student there in the first version of the article. AnteaterZot (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to district. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a article on a normal elementary school? Seems a bit irrelevant, redirect it to wherever the school is located.--Him and a dog 13:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, not especially "normal". "Troubled" might be a better word. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional sources added. This article now meets WP:N criteria, and is in fact a different article than the one voted on previously. About 5 percent of the current article information was there before I started working on it. It now has multiple, reliable, independent sources giving nontrivial information about the school, specifically the two sources from the provincial General Assembly. In addition, I've added information from the school's own Web site and from a minor source. Concerns about the school actually go somewhat beyond the people directly invovled with the school, making this school more notable than most we've considered in AfDs. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a bit more searching and added a bit more. "Harbour View School" seems to be the more common name, and that produces different search results. There have been two murders at or very near the school in the past decade. One of the victims was found by students. Not a "normal" school at all, nor "typical" or "average" or "run of the mill" or ... "non-notable". Noroton (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, I'm not sure what you found is especially notable or actually directly about the school. Let me give an non-school example; a firehouse. There would be local news stories, to do with firefighters putting out fires, "Engine company 9 responded to a house fire on Leesville Rd..." and a few local news stories such as, "The firemen at stationhouse 9 have kept a Dalamatian dog for 50 years, but Spotski is the oldest..." and even, "A newborn baby was left in a basket outside firehouse 9 early Saturday morning, and was taken to the hospital...". Now suppose somebody has created a Wikipedia article which compiles all these news stories. Meanwhile, there isn't even an article on the fire department for that city. This is the situation we find ourselves in with schools. If Firehouse 9 was here in AfD, one could argue that the sources do not demonstrate notability, because the sources describe the ordinary operations of a fire company. One could argue that the local nature of the sources is not enough to demonstrate notability either. And one could argue that maybe, if one merged all the articles on the firehouses to a fire department article, one might have achieved notability. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: One might also argue that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy and that actual content policies, ie WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, are actually satisfied. -- Masterzora (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • One could argue that, but people rarely do. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: One could argue with Wikipedia policy or against it, but closing admins are instructed to discredit arguments against policy. Under Wikipedia's definition the local nature of sources is not relevant. I don't think it's contrary to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to point out that as you're arguing to keep out school articles as a class (other than schools that are notable on a more than local basis), tons and tons of new articles are flooding Wikipedia on: railroad stations, bus services, small companies, registered historic places, bus stations, video games, episodes of television programs -- and in each category all or nearly all articles that come up at AfD are kept. In some of these categories, the articles aren't even nominated. I think Wikipedia is better off for having articles on WP:N-notable elementary schools where we have enough sources to describe at least prominent features of the school. Also, frankly, it seems a bit disingenuous to say early on, Has anybody found anything on the school? So far I haven't. and then to say later, when something is found, that even higher standards haven't been met. Someone not familiar with your position might have wasted his or her time trying to meet the standard implied by that earlier statement. Noroton (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why don't you take a look at the various high schools I have researched and saved at AfD before you impune my motives? I'm not arguing to keep out school articles as a class, I argue each school on a case-by-case basis. There are at least 92,000 elementary schools in the US, 10,000 in Canada, and 1,000,000 in the world (possibly 2,000,000). Nearly all such schools will meet WP:V. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • When I looked for sources, my goal was to find things that met my definition of notability. I saw some of the information now in the article, but didn't think to include it. For example, there is a sentence in the article that says the school has 12 English classes. How is this encyclopedic? The students have an outdoor exercise program followed by a healthy snack? Not encyclopedic. Nearby murders suggest the neighborhood is bad, but is not directly about the school. What if an article was about a laundromat, and a couple of murders had been committed nearby? WP:N might be a guideline (but it is one that everybody believes in), but WP:NOT#NEWS is a policy. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see how it's not encyclopedic. Removing the traditional boundaries of space (Wikipedia's storage capacity is effectively unlimited) and time (print encyclopedias should be more wary about things that easily change, like the number of English classes, but it is in Wikipedia's very nature that the article can change as easily as the number of English classes at a school), there's nothing about this information that screams unencylopedic. Also, I suggest you be careful about the word "everybody". I think you'll find a nontrivial number of editors (myself included) that don't believe in WP:N. -- Masterzora (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not going to engage in any further conversation with anybody who doesn't agree with WP:N. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe it is unfortunate that AfD has become a playground for people to nominate a school for deletion and get to watch people scramble to find sources to rescue them. Not to say that this article was not nominated in good faith; the fact is that many people feel that a member of a class cannot be notable for doing things that are expected of the members of the class. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I was getting at with my firehouse example was not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which you somehow use to argue for the retention of school articles, but that the vast majority of schools will have a few sources that mention something about the school. This means that each and every time a school is at AfD, the debate will center around the encyclopedic value of that information. Figuring out what is "encyclopedic" is very hard to quantify, and no written policy or guideline will cover it. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, my contention is that this situation is untenable. I am not alone in my belief that for something to be notable, such as a Dungeons & Dragons monster, it must have some significant coverage demonstrating notability outside its community, whether that community be the community of Dungeons & Dragons enthusiasts or a city in Nova Scotia. Just as every character that has ever appeared on TV is not notable, some schools must not be notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • (more or less tangential) Question: I would like to know, why is it that some schools *must* not be notable? I can certainly understand the statement that some schools *aren't*, but why *must* sume be non-notable? It's surely possible that all school would be notable, after all. -- Masterzora (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Of course some schools are notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the community depends on how you define it. A state senator must be known outside the state? a UK minister outside the UK? ,or on the other hand, a school outside its own school district but elsewhere in the city? a restaurant where--outside its block? outside the neighborhood? outside the city? A Linux distribution--outside users of that distribution? outside of Linux users? outside Unix users in general? outside computer programmers? A high school athlete--outside his high school, his city, his state? There is no universal rule. DGG (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each of these can be addressed, however. Restaurants that have any claim to fame, even a hot dog stand in Chicago, are featured on the Food Network or other secondary sources as notable to the folks who generated the secondary source. It's not about this one school, it's about avoiding allowing such weak articles to become an established precendent for notability. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep clearly notable. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article asserts notability and is certainly more than a single sentence now. In fact, it's better than a stub. JERRY talk contribs 03:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to List of Nova Scotia schools#Dartmouth Centre - Albro Lake- Harbourview. Clearly the references are about the area that the school is in and not the school. That does not appear to meet WP:V and WP:RS. I also don't see how this meets WP:ORG. Clearly does not meet any of the generous past proposals of WP:SCHOOLS. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a single factual statement in Vegaswikian's comment. Just to look at the title of the article about one of the murders and to follow the link to the police Web site in the other shows that the locations are identified as being behind the school, with one of the bodies found by students at the school. Whether or not the corpses were discovered within or just outside the school grounds is, let's say, a tad irrelevant when what's important is the proximity, and potential danger and trauma to the children. Is it trivial that murders take place either in or close by the place where 240 primary/middle school kids get their education? If so, perhaps Vegaswickian would like to nominate Ford's Theatre for deletion ("Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"). Since not having the information on the murders would amount to an NPOV violation, it seems to me the information on the murders is important enough to mean that the school has received more than trivial coverage. And what on earth does WP:V or WP:RS have to do with this article when the sourcing is as reliable as it gets on Wikipedia? There are more footnotes here, all of them reliable, than on most Wikipedia articles. To reiterate: WP:ORG and the current WP:SCHOOS proposal guidelines on notability, along with the basic WP:N guideline have each been met by any fair reading of them. The school has received "significant coverage".Noroton (talk) 21:50, 11 January 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. - PeaceNT (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fly (artist)

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

Does not meet notability criteria set out for living creative professionals Librarianofages (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete is not notable per guidelines Clubmarx (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no independent third party sources available. AlfPhotoman 00:22, 10 January 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. - PeaceNT (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Campbell (Character)

Louise Campbell (Character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about a character in a tv show played by a redlinked actress, fails any real world notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable person. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnotable character that very plainly fails WP:FICT. Collectonian (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete as a sockpuppet's garbage and complete hoaxes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Grez

Diego Grez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Diego Grez discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article's creator claims that this person was an extra in a Disney TV series. Even if it could be true, I think that it is not sufficient notability. Additionally, a article about the same person has been deleted several times on the Spanish Wikipedia [5]. Jespinos (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable person, almost to the point of WP:HOAX. I noticed that Diego Grez discography was also created, and nothing on there seems real either. Can that be added to the list of related articles? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as hoax, no sources verify the information in the article, not to mention that it's been deleted from several Spanish-language Wikipedias (or whatever the plural of Wikipedia is). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Diego Grez is a non-notable person. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both absolute and total junk. JuJube (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Musicfan48 (talk · contribs) is most likely a sockpuppet of indef-blocked Diegogrez (talk · contribs) (surprise, surprise). JuJube (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep after copyvio removal. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water well

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

Possible copyvio, see [6]. Maybe should be just rewritten, but bringing here for consensus.   jj137 ♠ 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep & RM CV Def. no grounds to delete, you might as well delete pillow or spanner. -- Librarianofages (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and remove copyright violation, as directed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you want to discuss copyright violations, that page is probably the place to do it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've removed the copyvioed content, which was added nearly a year ago. I should note that Jj137 didn't realize that I intended to take care of the problem; I meant my AfD advice as a more broad suggestion. Sorry if that wasn't clear, Jj - my fault. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I suggest someone close this AfD as speedy keep (I'd rather not, as I started it) --  jj137 ♠ 22:53, 7 January 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Takaaki Musha

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

This person does not appear to be notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: publishing is what academics do, so in itself this does not make this person notable. In most countries, one cannot even obtain a PhD without publishing in international peer-reviewed journals. Question is whether these publications had any impact. --Crusio (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From what's in the article, it's not clear he passes WP:PROF with flying colors. Is this the major notable accomplishments or is there more out there? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Lots of sources, seems to assert notability. Edward321 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not notable to me but then no one in the said category would be. Seems real enough.--Him and a dog 13:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is some verifiable discussion of him somewhere (as opposed to simple references to papers by him). Dekimasuよ! 11:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to Google Scholar, his most-cited article was cited a paltry three times. That is very far from impressive.... --Crusio (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable engineer working on a barely-notable pseudoscience topic. Lest anyone think he might pass WP:PROF, let's look at his publications: "Physics Essays" is not peer-reviewed. "Electric Spacecraft Journal" and "Infinite Energy" are non-academic fringe newsletters. "Speculations in Science and Technology" was a semi-mainstream journal (now defunct) that acknowledged, editorially, that its articles were probably mostly wrong but that it saw value in publishing creative speculation. "Journal of Theoretics" is held in two university libraries; "Electrogravitics II" is a book, found in two university libraries and two public libraries---any mainstream journal you can think of, no matter how obscure the field, is held in a hundred or so libraries. What's left? One engineering article and one conference proceedings? Forget about WP:PROF, this would fail WP:Grad_Student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm gub (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, ArXiV papers (xxx.lanl.gov or arxiv.org) are preprints and not peer-reviewed. (Sorry, forgot to sign above.) Bm gub (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - does not appear to fulfill the general notability requirements of WP:Prof, if there is more information out there about him, put it in and lets re-evaluate. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor work in non-generally accepted journals. Non notable fringe science. the only paper at all likely to be cited , in Speculations... , was apparently not cited at all, according to Web of Science. (btw, arXiv is in some cases increasingly considered sufficient publication; there is some minimal editorial control --but the paper in there was by someone else.) DGG (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Publications in scientific journals are typical for engineers and scientists and are insufficient to establish notability without other significant achievements. Pburka (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not quite; the way scientists become notable is by publishing scientific papers that are referred to by other scientists--its like saying that baseball players dont become notable by playing baseball. (In this case, o fcourse, there arent enough papers, and nobody's every referred to them). DGG (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. What I meant to say was that publication on its own isn't notable -- that's just part of the job. Pburka (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that additional acheivements do not seem to be forthcoming, delete as not meeting the requirements of WP:PROF. Though I wanna read the guidelines for WP:Grad_Student, just to know what's on them. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:37, 10 January 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 Re-direct to Aurora Public Schools. I will preserve the edit history, and leave it to other editors to decide if to merge any content. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy Creek K-8 School

Murphy Creek K-8 School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable two year old school Chris (クリス) (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to local school district More QQ less Pew Pew. -- Librarianofages (talk) 22:50, 7 January 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. Rudget. 12:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Short (Marketing Communications)

Rick Short (Marketing Communications) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete NN person. Sourced from blogs and the like which don't meet WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a personal resume --T-rex 00:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CV Jimfbleak (talk) 15:32, 9 January 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 Summary Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. This is an admin-discretion summary deletion, not a result of the AfD discussion. --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Elton

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

Elton is famous solely because of the striptease incident, which is already documented in the Haslemere Home for the Elderly article (which contained the exact same wording as the Elton article until I rewrote it today). Half of this article is devoted to the "Grim Reaper" incident that took place at the same home; as Elton is not particularly notable by herself, and most of the article concerns incidents at the Home anyway, I think it should be deleted. DearPrudence (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this article qualifies for summary deletion under WP:ONEEVENT and seems to be exactly the sort of situation it was intended for. --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Texas. GlassCobra 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Native Texan

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

No assertion that this is somehow a notable term, a real cultural identification, or more than blend of dictionary definition and semi-disamb page. We do not need articles for Native ~insert state here~ for all 50 states, and Native Texan is no more notable than Native Alaskan (which redirects to Alaska Natives, i.e. Native Americans in Alaska) or Native North Carolinian. The band mentioned isn't a notable band that could meet WP:MUSIC, so I don't think this article could be changed to focus on them either. Collectonian (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article is sourced with reliable source such as Texas Monthly. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A dicdef + an uninteresting license plate + a non-notable band does not make an encyclopedic article. Quale (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Texas (Texan already redirects there). The reference to the band is unnecessary and can be pulled. We do have Hoosier, but that article discusses the development and application of the term itself in great detail. As far as granfalloons go, this one need not be a daughter article until it's fleshed out. Dekimasuよ! 10:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A native Texan is someone born in Texas...well duh.--Him and a dog 13:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Texas. Majoreditor (talk) 21:37, 10 January 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Lynn

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

Nom under WP:NN. A bio that's been one line long since its creation in May 2006. It says he's the President of Cascade College, but that article disagrees, and the college's website doesn't mention him. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

Keep and Cleanup: A (very quick) Google search returns links such as http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20021127/ai_n10156718 that suggest that this information is merely old, not incorrect. This article could definitely do with some cleaning and updating, but the sources appear to exist. -- Masterzora (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Good find, I didn't get that one. So I'll moderate the nom to 'Was once President of Cascade College, is now Pastor of McCormick First Baptist Church, McCormick, SC [7]. Still fails WP:NN in my book, unless being a Pastor in a local church makes one notable. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't see this passing WP:PROF. Is there evidence of extensive coverage by reliable secondary sources? Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Preesident of a college of 300 students isnt enough for notability.DGG (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --Crusio (talk) 10:04, 9 January 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. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Maze

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

Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO, WP:Notable, WP:Reliable sources, etc. Repeatedly recreated after speedy deletion so I'll ask the deleting administrator to please SALT this (I can't figure out why my page protection won't work). Accounting4Taste:talk 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see absolutely nothing notable in this person, not even when compared to other Porn performers and if what is said above about repeated speedy deletions and recreations I also vote it be Salted as well. OneHappyHusky (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sign of unusual notability. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bros received an award for their bang bus series as best gonzo series. 70.180.140.119 (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and that's why we have an article for Bang Bus, but it seems that Maze only appeared on the cover of #17 in the series, I don't think she can be given much credit for the success of the whole thing. Also note that the theme of the whole series is "supposedly unknown women", rather the opposite of notability. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:23, 14 January 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 was delete. Severe lack of sources, non-notable. Rudget. 12:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Buckethead

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

Totally unsourced. No evidence that any of this is notable. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:delete, i thought this was a boardgame. Charley Uchea (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional video games

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

Unsourced trivial information. There was a prod on about a week ago, but it was removed for no reason. Also according to the log:[8], it was deleted in the past, because it was a redirect for a deleted page. The deleted page had similar content as this one if I remember right. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not only trivial and unencyclopedic, it is also arbitrary and unmanangable. I am sure that loads of fictional computer games have been invented for dramatic and comedic purposes and only an arbitrary few are listed. If all were included it would be unmanagable. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:53, 8 January 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. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeynel A. Karcioglu

Zeynel A. Karcioglu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Borderline notability. Seems to be a good teacher who belongs to a few associations.... Chris (talk) 20:38, 7 January 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 a non-notable albums. If/when it is released & covered by third-party references, recreate. As to WP:CHANCE, it suggests giving authors a chance - say a week or so - to bring articles up to the minimum guidelines. This article is ten months old, and the AfD lasted a week. Pastordavid (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't That Life (album)

AfDs for this article:
Ain't That Life (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Note: See discussion on Talk:Ain't That Life (album).

This is another article on an unreleased album by Jessica Andrews (even though two of its singles were issued). The only "source" is her MySpace page, which definitely doesn't meet WP:RS; the only other source the page's creator could turn up was an unofficial fansite, which doesn't appear reliable either. Therefore, this phantom album cannot possibly be verified. (Also, Andrews doesn't seem to have had a record deal since the collapse of DreamWorks, her previous label, in 2005, so there's almost no chance that this could be released anytime soon.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 07:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now if the album isn't going to be (and probably never will be) released. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources, and since it's not an official release probably not notable under WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep What is the point of deleting this album? When it gets released, this article will just be recreated. So leave it. Yes, I know I wrote the same thing on the other one but I don't have anything different to write.

Vala M (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would think that two years is enough of a chance. The album clearly isn't being released, and there aren't any sources to verify that it was even recorded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The page that Le Grand posted is an essay, and not a policy or guideline. He has recently been using it in various AFDs, as he can't find any other reason to keep it. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To give a possible article a chance is solidly based on WP:Deletion policy--that deletion is the last resort. Anyway, closing admins know what things are essays, and which essays have general support. Where this article stands, of course, I dont know enough to say.DGG (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources after 2 years means no sources, ever. On the off chance that someone ever writes anything about this album, the article can be created using that reliable information.Kww (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Three songs from the album have been released and it may eventually be released, I see no reason to delete. Cerebellum (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom MiracleMat (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think this album is notable enough to wait longer than two years to find a source for it. It will probably never be released, so this page serves little purpose. Kavanagh21 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see the need for a relist. Vala M's argument is not based on any recognizable policy, nor is the one used by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Cerebellum's argument at least has wishful thinking going for it, but no policy that I can detect. The deletes have it.Kww (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a bit on the album on Jessica Andrews GAC biography page. http://www.gactv.com/gac/ar_artists_a-z/article/0,,GAC_26071_4885839,00.html Does this help? Vala M (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also found a few other links. Including her website's biography page. http://www.jessicaandrews.com/bio/index.html I don't know how credible this is but I'll add it anyway. http://countrymusic.about.com/od/festivalstn/a/riverfront_thu.htm

And this http://www.tv.com/jessica-andrews/person/183274/summary.html http://todayscountrymusicvideos.blogspot.com/2007/12/jessica-andrews-who-i-am.html

There are many different pages on the album on the internet. I don't know why this isn't considered notable.

Vala M (talk) 03:42, 9 January 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 non-notable album. May be re-created if ever released and covered by third-party reliable sources. Pastordavid (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied (album)

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

Unreleased album by Ashley Monroe, fails WP:V. I can't find any sources to verify the track listing here -- All Music Guide at least verifies the album's presence (see here) but does not provide a cover or track listing. This album is probably not going to be released, either, seeing as she's no longer listed in her label's roster of artists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 07:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unverifiable. Can be recreated easily enough if it ever resurfaces as a legit release. Lankiveil (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep What is the point of deleting this album? When it gets released, this article will just be recreated. So leave it.

Vala M (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • She's been dropped from her label, so there's almost no chance that it'll be released now. Also, there are no sources in sight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:26, 7 January 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. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lukes

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

Non-notable fictional character from a novel that doesn't have an article of its own. See related AfD Creovation. JuJube (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The character may not be notable -- it's hard to tell on a cursory Google search -- but the book certainly seems to be, based on reactions to the original serialization in Financial Times. Given that half the article is about the book anyway, possibly this should be moved to Who Moved My BlackBerry and recast to really be about it. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment : The FT column is not a serialisation. The book is a novelisation of the column. I don't know if the novel needs a page but Martin lukes does (see my text below) --85.210.152.195 (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The character appears regularly in a weekly column in the Financial Times and the book is a spin-off from this. The FT column is written as a series of email correspondence and is presented as fact. Martin Lukes has become a sort of proxy for the shameless self-enrichment and hyperbole of modern management. I think the entry is a valid one for inclusion but needs tidying up. I'll try to get the time to write a better one. NBeddoe (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The character is highly notable. He is a minor deity in the pantheon containing Pointy Haired Boss and Michael Scott/David Brent. The article is badly written because it should emphasise the fact that he is the star of a significant column in a major UK paper. I have tried to correct this slightly but do not have time for a good rewrite. Also there is material on the Lucy Kellaway page which could be used. --85.210.152.195 (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unlikely reliable, secondary sources exist to satisfy WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Delete? What are you talking about? Delete Martin Lukes as non notable? Martin Lukes' column is the sole reason many people by the FT on a Thursday and (for what it is worth) was the main reason I took out a subscription to it. He is absolutely notable, and is quite separate to Lucy Kellaway (I am not aware of any notable public information which confirms that Kellaway is the author of the column, so to do a redirect to her page would be a form of Original Research). See here for the FT homepage for Martin Lukes. On a personal note I find it particularly distasteful that Martin Lukes should be proposed for deletion from Wikipedia while he is detained on trumped up charges by the US authorities and denied access even to his blackberry to defend himself. You might be interested to know there is a letters-to-the-editor campaign in support of Lukes gaining momentum even as we speak. Non-notable indeed ... good grief. ElectricRay (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you blathering about? He's a fictional character. JuJube (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Who stole my BlackBerry? or something similar. The novel/publication seems to be popular, but I don't think the characters require their own articles. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:59, 16 January 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. Notability is not inherited, and the relevant facts about the incident are covered at Pul-e-Charkhi prison. However, I would like to extend my condolences to Colonel Harrison's son and other family members on behalf of the Wikipedia community. GlassCobra 00:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Harrison Jr.

James W. Harrison Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a memorial and while very sad neither of these soldier are especially noteworthy. I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason

Wilberto Sabalu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jon513 (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: completely agree per nom. Very sad for both, but no assertion of notability in either article. Mh29255 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- I didn't start these articles to serve as "memorials". These two men are at the nexus of a controversy -- how the captives America apprehends in its global war on terror should be detained.
    • I started the article about Wilberto Sabalu first, and Harrison second. Even if Harrison hadn't been killed under these highly notable circumstances, even if their deaths hadn't lead to a delay in opening the American wing of the Pul-e-Charki prison, he would merit coverage. Harrison was the the director of the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A) Detention Capability Directorate. That is a significant post. Think Abu Ghraib. Think how much trouble there has been in training soldiers who can be relied on to take up the burden of defending Iraq. Well, Afghanistan faces the same problem, and Harrison, and to a lesser extent Sabalu, played noteworthy roles in the training effort.
    • Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan and the Detention Capability Directorate are currently red-links. But they shouldn't be. They too are important organizations that, IMO, merit their own articles. And, IMO, those articles should link to these two articles. Geo Swan (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geo Swan, do you think it would make sense to have an article about the event, not the people? Jon513 (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO1E and troubling WP:COATRACK assertions above by Geo Swan. Harrison was awarded the Bronze Star, which while a respected award, is not a top military medal. There is no assertion of notability in their actions other than as victims. Cover the incident in Pul-e-Charki prison in more detail if need be. --Dhartung | Talk 03:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I like the gesture made with the page. Col. Harrison is my father. Only thing I am noticing is that people are saying somethings that I'd like to clear up. The prison in Afghanistan was Afghani run and the American forces there are responsible for helping modernize the prison and train the Afghani guard so that prisoners being held can be transfered there. My father and the MSGT. were killed leaving the prison by an Afghani soldier who was later found to be an insurgent. Other than that, its a nice gesture and I appreciate it.
  • Delete Not everyone involved in a notable event is notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am glad you found it respectful. As you can read from some of the other comments here, articles aren't supposed to serve simply as memorials here. I think your dad merits coverage here for the totality of career. Perhaps you could help us locate online references to notable events from earlier in his career? Web searches turn up so many references to memorials that they drown out the earlier references.
    • Some of the memorials, from officers he worked under, said your dad was an innovator, without being specific about particular innovations. If you know of particular innovations, that were written about, that would be helpful. (I realize your dad could have made important innovations, that weren't publicized.)
    • Do you recall what role your dad played during the first Gulf War? Grenada? Panama? If your family has a scrapbook of press-clippings it doesn't matter if the clippings are of articles that are not online. Wikipedia references are considered reliable sources so long as a determined reader could find a paper copy, through the name of the publication, and the date of publication. If a wikipedia administrator concludes this article doesn't meet the criteria for conclusion, and you come across earlier references to your dad's career, don't hesitate to contact me.
    • Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepThere are a lot of non notable things that are posted on wikipedia. I think that as long as someone is willing to maintain it then it should be allowed up.
    • I do remember somethings and have gone in and edited some of the information that was incorrect, namely my dad's birthdate. I would like to help add information about his career to add to the page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.185.50 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete but incorporate the key information in an article on the incident. We accept the Medal of Honor as a sufficient distinction for WP notability, but not lesser awards. NOT MEMORIAL. DGG (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Mistaken nomination.Avi (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ballabon

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

Notability issues Avi (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced with Haaretz, Forward And the Observer, who all say, not in passing, but in long tiering articles that he is prominent, notable and important to the orthodox Jews and GOP politics in the USA. So notability is the last and least problem here. Never mind the nominator of this AFD hasn't even bothered to vote for Delete, which comes to show how serious his role here is in wikipedia.--יודל (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put up this deletion discussion in the Jewish wikiproject--יודל (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep, surely Avi this is an error on your part? Three serious profiles can be read establishing major notability, not to mention the extensive news coverage this man has had over many years, he is one of the 50 most influencial Jews in the USA. Surely this nomination is in error and shuold be withdrawn? Lobojo (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Objectively meets standard notability criteria, WP:RS specifically say he is notable. End of story. --Shirahadasha (talk) 11:59, 8 January 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. J-ſtanContribsUser page 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Andaryas

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

Only seven direct google hits, which is wikipedia and it's mirrors, most of the citations doesn't even mention him, and the two that does, it's a trivial mention and obvious self-promotion website. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. It was kept in an AFD before here, but it had no policy based reasoning Delete Secret account 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:N, WP:V.--Sandahl 02:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What Google search did you do? I get 185 web hits and 4 news archive hits. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The citations either aren't relevant or are websites created by the subject of the article. The top matches from Google results bring back mostly items written by the subject. The Afghan Today News is merely a news aggregate website - not a newspaper as claimed in the article. Also fails WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:N. Teleomatic (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion (G7). -- Ed (Edgar181) 04:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cohn

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

Non-notable person. D.M.N. (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per A7. TheIslander 19:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per TheIslander. JuJube (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is also, for what's it worth, a clear case of WP:AUTO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. Also, he created the article on himself and nothing deserves to be deleted more than self-promotion. Buh-bye. MiracleMat (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Ok, I tagged the article requesting speedy deletion (CSD G12) when it was a copyright violation, but frankly I think the guy has notability. He has 8 cd's out, is published in quite a few books and has done live performances. Now the article is a mess and doesn't characterize things that well, but I think he's notable, the Autobiography thing not withstanding. Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of the albums seem to be independent; "MusEx Records" gets virtually no hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Plus he is largely self-published and the references, from the Museum of American Poetics, are from an organization he created, as I understand it. Delete, unless other sources can be found. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that Mr. Cohn's article on his museum, which is cited repeatedly in his WP:AUTO article, was itself deleted as non-notable. See: The Museum of American Poetics.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 8 January 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. The general consensus on Wikipedia and within this debate is that lists of characters from notable works, when well written and sourced, can exist as a sub-article of the main article per WP:FICT. The caveat tends to be that the community wants them well written and sourced, otherwsie they shouldn't generally be split out from the parent article. However, as most of the respondents below have indicated, good faith can be extended to see an article improved in line with editing and verifiability policy. This nomination has been closed as keep with no prejudice against a new afd after a reasonable amount of time has been extended for good faith efforts to improve the article. A month has been suggested below, but being contrary I'll suggest 40 days. Hiding T 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Fairly OddParents characters

List of The Fairly OddParents characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There has been a long drawn out edit war (one month) between users who believe this article fails WP:FICT/WP:WEIGHT and should thus be redirected to The Fairly OddParents#Characters, while others do not agree. There has been no discussion (and also no improvement) from both sides other than through edit summaries, and attempts to change this were basically ignored from both sides as well.[9] [10] [11]. Note that the article's bluelinks are circular redirects from former character articles that have not been removed yet (I mean the links, the character articles are still redirected). This nomination is procedural, although I believe the article currently looks more like indiscriminate plot information (i.e. every trivial character that ever existed) and fails WP:FICT (I have no idea whether the characters can establish notability as a list.) This is an all-or-nothing-case (i.e. a complete merge doesn't make much sense), and since there is no redirection board, I chose AfD to confirm consensus one way or another. I can/will withdraw if this is not the right forum. – sgeureka t•c 19:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and relist in one month unless consensus between users found on talk page to keep. AFD should not be used straight away before proper talk page discussion. Relist after a talk page discussion. (edit conficted nom) -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Whiteandnerdy111 Said. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, withdraw. Thread is started at talkpage. Let's hope the edit wars stay away for a month. – sgeureka t•c 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The talk page doesn't control the article in every case. Seeing as no one seemed to even care much (as stated in the AFD nomination of this), I think this AFD is justified. Why wait for who knows how long, for a so called "consensus" to happen? Let's not crystal ball here. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll wait with the withdraw for another 24 or 48 hours. – sgeureka t•c 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the article is still very unstable, and still doesn't establish notability that would make it stable, I'll let this AfD run its course to get a stable result (for a month or for always). – sgeureka t•c 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While AFD isn't the place for this, I'll say Delete, the article has no evidence of meeting WP:FICTION, and I can't see a reasoning on adding all these minor characters of this show to the main page, if it doesn't meet current policy Secret account 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - South Park has a "List of students at South Park Elementary" article, and it contains minors as well as majors. The article discussed here should be resculpted into the same format. Instead of bulletins, each character should have a section for themselves, and each one should have a bio summary. If they are notable enough to be included in a private article, then a link saying "Main Article: (The characters' name)" just below the character's name in the list. Deleting the article when this sort of potential exists is a deconstructive, useless waste of time, and I'd say anyone who happens to be dumb enough to do so should be blocked from editing Wikipedia, as they obviously cannot be trusted. User:Wilhelmina Will has spoken. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Tell you what; I'll make some of the edits I've proposed, so you can become wise to what I mean. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not all individual articles, which usually mollifies me. It's a List of Characters article. I personally support keeping this, because a good description of the major characters could bloat the original article. That said, I do think we should remove many of the entries on this list, and keep only major and the more important minor characters. I also agree that if there is a discussion in place, AfD should not be used to bring a quick end to it, so I'd be fine with suspending the nomination until there the discussion is over and no consensus can be reached. I (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is just part of the main The Fairly OddParents article parsed out due to WP:SIZE restrictions. It is not a separate article; it just exists on a separate page. It should not be assessed for notability in complete isolation from The Fairly OddParents, but should be viewed as part of that article. Torc2 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should just be withdrawn because the majority of people are used to the every series having an article for characters. That'll sort of have a certain push on this AfD. People need to remember that this is a simple cartoon that relies on very, very simple characters and a very, very basic set up that rarely changes between the episodes. Two to four paragraphs to describe the major character and the general plot in the main article is good enough. On top of that, you also have an episode list to back that. TTN (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was just said by this user should not be taken seriously. He has undergone severe trauma in his life on Wikipedia, and is still lots of delirious since then. He has no idea what he is saying. Poor thing. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so tempted to block you for violating WP:NPA Secret account 03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm tempted to find out who you are, track you down and kiss you. I 10V3 my B18CK R053. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the policy has been to get multiple character pages merged into one page. We cannot then delete the list page, that would be in bad faith, and would be counterproductive for the next TV show that needs merging. AnteaterZot (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there was never any merge. The characters were just redirected. The information added recently does not constitute encyclopedic information, so it has been removed. TTN (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realized after I posted that this AfD has a weird history, but I think every major TV show should have the same basic structure, a main page, a list of episodes page, a list of characters page. If the pages get too large, then a list of minor characters page. If individual characters are independently notable, they can have a break-out page. If we can get the fans to merge all the non-notable characters to a list page, we're making real progress. So we should basically never delete a list of characters page, since it will make the fans not trust that the page will survive forever. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep: This is a character list. It's nothing out of the ordinary. However, it should be trimmed down so that it only includes the bare essentials. One-offs (like Silvester Calzone), characters introduced solely for gags (like Carl, Cindy, and Jimmy), characters without names (like the Sewer Gator), and characters who do not appear or are not even mentioned in the series at all (like Chip Skylark II) don't need to clutter up this article. Strip it down to Timmy, his prominent peers, family, and Godparents, Vicky, Crocker, Jorgen, and the Crimson Chin. Perhaps have a small section for a bullet list of minor recurring characters such as the Mayor, Binky, and Doug Dimmadome. You Can't See Me! 03:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but requires major rewrite. List of non-notable characters are acceptable but need to be written as if a section of the main article (see summary style). Main characters get a line while villians get a small paragraph? There's an imbalance here. Consider moving some material to a wiki if content should be kept, but this article needs a major trim and rebalance to be kept. --MASEM 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Catchpole (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Masem, but also agree it could use some work. I find it disturbing that compromise and guidance leads us to go from individual character articles to list of character articles, and then some want to delete those, as well. Ursasapien (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep as a character list is certainly appropriate for a show, however this list is in serious need of an over haul to make it balanced and bring in line with the current character list standards: stick to the notable, significant characters, hack out the minor characters, write proper descriptions and summaries for each. If no one is willing to do the work, redirect back to the main until someone is. Maybe see if someone from the TV project is willing to take on the work. Collectonian (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it a lean simple article. But keep. ThuranX (talk) 04:21, 11 January 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cake Financial

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

Originally an A7 speedy candidate, but an assertion of notability is present. Still, I'm unsure whether the links provide sufficient notability for WP:CORP. Weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep coverage looks significant and non-blog for once (except that last link which should be pruned). 4 reliable sources each with more than simple name dropping or cursory mentions meets WP:WEB or WP:CORP.--Crossmr (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to have notable references in well known press sources as well as new categories. Seems to pass muster. What else is wrong?m2k —Preceding comment was added at 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the other 2. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 14:49, 12 January 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 The Rocketz, fails WP:BAND, but keep Andy DeMize, drummer for Nekromantix. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rocketz

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

Non-notable band, seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Tagged with {{notability}}. Only source I could find was this review, which seems to fall short of WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing a related article:

Andy DeMize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:28, 7 January 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of public domain characters

List of public domain characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Subject has no international definition (the laws determining what is under copyright and for how long vary considerably by country), and is effectively infinite (potentially including every character of fiction, folklore, legend, and myth, from the 19th century back to Lascaux. It does not meets the standards of Wikipedia:LISTV for "clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria" and cannot pass WP:V without becoming a permanent stub. -JasonAQuest (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly. What this list actually contains, apparently, is a list of recent fictional characters with identifiable creators, for which copyrights or trademarks have expired or lapsed. With that qualification, the list is no longer quite so infinite; we don't need to worry about semi-historical or mythological figures like Robin Hood or King Arthur. Presumably the laws of the places of publication are the ones you would need to look to, specifically. I'd suggest a move to something more neatly descriptive of what the page purports to actually compile, though; perhaps List of fictional characters with lapsed copyrights? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright laws are local, internationally. For example, in the US the copyright for Hercule Poirot (published in the UK) is governed by the laws of the US (not the UK). His copyright has expired in the US (due to publication in 1920), but is valid in the UK until 2047 (due to his creator living until 1976). If this article is to be kept, this fundamental problem needs to be addressed. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smerdis Mandsford (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs a source describing the status in every country for which it is asserted that copyright has lapsed. My thinking is that we can limit this further to something like List of 20th century fictional characters with lapsed copyright(s) as the default assumption for 19th century and earlier is public domain (but perhaps we should list the handful of exceptions still controlled by an estate such as Sherlock Holmes). Or we could set an earlier date. No, this does not have to be open to everything back to get beginning of time. --Dhartung | Talk 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would this information (citing which of dozens of countries where a character is/is-not/might-be PD) be formatted? - JasonAQuest (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something like
  • Character Name:
  • Ruled public domain in United States as of 1983[1]
  • Ruled public domain in Frace as of 1987[2]
I wasn't suggesting a chart of status in every country. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coming up with rulings (or any citations) about copyright status would be difficult at best. No government publishes a log or record of expiring copyrights which we could reference. Court cases are uncommon, and usually hinge on the allegation of copying, not the status of the copyright itself. For example, there was a suit in the US over Peter Pan recently, but it was settled out of court, so there was no ruling. Personally I'm sure that the character is PD in the US, but there's no verifiable way I can prove that as a matter of legal fact. And for some other character, one that has yet to be the subject of a dispute, there wouldnt' even be published opinions that we could point to as references. Pretty much all we have to build this list with is original research. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The debate about the scope of the article indicates that it would be better to start again with a clear scope and good sources. These are deep legal waters and the article currently has no sources to support its quasi-legal opinions. For example, the article states that Peter Pan is public domain. The article to which it links does not mention or support this. The actual status of Peter Pan is quite complex and one could write an article on that alone. And note that one expiry for this happened in 2007 - this information is very time-sensitive. The article seems dangerously misleading in this case and it is better to delete than give readers such incorrect information. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sounds like an argument for correcting to sources and attributing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright status of Peter Pan is covered in the article for the book Peter and Wendy... which raises the issue that it's not just one character but the whole cast of the book that is or isn't under copyright. To say nothing of every other character created by J. M. Barrie in his rather prolific career. Limiting this to modern-era characters only reduces the scope from astonishingly unwieldy to merely unwiedly. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, could be a fairly useful article--Him and a dog 13:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both interesting and (potentially) useful, but determining what is and isn't public domain is a job for copyright lawyers, not an encyclopedia. We could get in some major hot water if even one item on this list is inaccurate, and such things are often disputed and seldom as cut-and-dry as they may appear. If this must be kept, I suggest it be permanently protected, with potential additions discussed on the talk page and added to the front if, and only if, a relevant court case can be cited. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the proper explanation. We are not concerned with the truth ofwhether they are PD or nopt-- as andrew correctly says, that's a job for the lawyers; we're dealing with whether they are reported to be so in reliable sources--Verifiability--that's the role of WP. DGG (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But they are not reported in reliable sources. This list is nearly all Original Research and will necessarily remain OR (or be turned into a stub) if kept, because sources that would provide this sort of information generally do not exist. The creators of this list are therefore trying to fill that void, by doing the math themselves, and interpreting copyright law to come up with answers, and that's a noble project, but it's incompatible with the requirements of Wikipedia. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An absolutely unmaintainable list. Despite comments above, this does not seem to be a list of characters that were once under copyright but where the copyright has expired; rather it appears an indiscriminate and potentially infinite list. Why, for example, are Aladdin, Ali Baba, Big Bad Wolf, Cinderella etc. there but not, for example Hamlet or Don Quixote or Beowulf of anything like that, you name it? Why are Captain Hook and Peter Pan there, but none of the other characters from the Peter Pan books? Why is Alice, Cheshire Cat, Mad Hatter and the Queen of Hearts present but not the March Hare, the Mock Turtle etc. etc.? Why is Oliver Twist there but no other Dickens characters? Should we put all Dickens characters here? Or only the most famous ones? And who is going to decide what is famous and what is not? A hopelessly indiscriminate, unmaintainable, arbitrary list. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep copyright rules, as anyone on WP should have realised by now, are pretty important. Not worried about finiteness. Plenty of other lists aren't, such as lists of anything where anyone wins awards each year. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list of Oscar winners to date is finite: there is a clear starting point, only a limited number are added each year, and there is a authoritative source for verification. This is fundamentally different: a list of an unlimited, unknowable, unverifiable number of items. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relcutant delete. While the topic is useful and valuable, the article as it stands is unsalvageable. Per Col. Warden, a useful article on this topic would need to be written from scratch; in the meantime, per Starblind, this article is potentially dangerous in its current state. Powers T 13:40, 11 January 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 01:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyst

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

Contested Prod. This game is already mentioned in the Parodies and fan games section of the Myst article - I really don't think there's any need for detail any greater than that already given. The article asserts little notability. TheIslander 19:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only sources I could find were short reviews, which don't amount to substantial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The game had an actual retail release, unlike the various fanmade homages listed in Myst#Parodies and fan games. Most of the coverage at the time (mid-to-late 1996) was in print magazines like Computer Games Strategy Plus, and is for the most part unavailable to an online search. -Sean Curtin (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I remember this game and found loads of references on LexisNexis. I integrated some of the references into the article and expanded it a little; please take another look. It certainly meets our notability standards, especially given its Firesign pedigree and appearance of John Goodman. — brighterorange (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Commercial release, two notable people involved, and, besides, I actually remember hearing about this back in the day. --Adamrush (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's sources in the article and a couple more here EW.com / salon.com, due to being published in '96 most of the sources will be offline, but there's enough to sustain an article. The info in Myst does not cover what could be wrung out of the sources above and already in the article - particularly reception. The other games listed in that section are via external links and should be deleted or turned into articles. Someone another (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's pretty safe to say that actually commercially released and widely distributed games are notable enough, even more so if sources agree. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:13, 10 January 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. Kubigula (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International capitalism day

International capitalism day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Prod removed without explanation. The article is about a proposed “Celebrate Capitalism Day” promoted by a small group as a world wide day. The resources submitted have a limited point of view and tantamount to “We thought it up one day in school and thought it was a good idea.” I feel it is not encyclopedic. I leave it up to the community to determine. Pmedema (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Claims it's been celebrated in many locations, but no references to back that up, and a quick google search on "International capitalism day" just turned up some of the same spammy URLs. I do note that there are several URLs, so someone is behind this. --Lquilter (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Clicking on the links for the different cities on the celebratecapitalism.org site is a good clue about the notability of this holiday. Ironically, this idea doesn't look like it would ever turn a profit. Mandsford (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this was a notable celebration I would have expected there to be at least one entry in the Google news archive. I note that this is supposed to have been celebrated in Korea. Would that be North Korea? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete due to failure to meet WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. {{Moonlight Cruisers}} is being included as well as all the articles it links to are being deleted with this AfD. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Image:Gonealbum.jpg and Category:The Moonlight Cruisers albums are included due to invalid fair use (not used in any article) and lack of any articles in the category (respectively). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moonlight Cruisers

The Moonlight Cruisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Antonio Pelayo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gone (The Moonlight Cruisers album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Baila (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Never Forget (Moonlight Cruisers song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Camarón Pelado (Moonlight Cruisers song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gone (Moonlight Cruisers song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moonlight Cruisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable music group. Fails WP:MUSIC. Could probably be speedied on its own but I though it'd be less work to bundle all related articles into one AfD. Also included are their lead singer, their sole album, 4 of their songs, and a redirect page. Precious Roy (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You beat me to it—thanks! Precious Roy (talk) 18:53, 7 January 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.-Wafulz (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guinevere (Play)

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

This (Guinevere (Play)) is an article on an unpublished play that does not seem to have any demonstrable notability in third party sources - in fact, it is hard to find any assertion of significance with regard to this play altogether. It appears to have been performed once in front of a small, non-public audience. The creator of the page seems dead-set on keeping it though; he/she deletes everything I and other users have tagged it with. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the page. I'm not sure on the 'significance' of the play, just as I'm not sure of the 'significance' of any play, film, book, etc. What are the criteria for judging so? I'm not trying to be confrontational. The play is an early work by a good playwright who went on to write superior works, much as Platanov or Ivanov by Anton Chekhov were early works that were later eclipsed by more popular or acclaimed pieces. Originally I wrote that the play was unpublished, but have since found that that's not true, hence I removed the 'unpublished' line. Also, performances at the Eugene O'Neill Conference are open and therefore the public would be able to attend. If these reasons are not enough to keep the article, I will understand and will no longer remove any notices that it is tagged with nor fight its deletion. Thank you. On a sidenote - these talk pages are really a great idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.250.98 (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many means by which this play might have been significant enough to warrant its own article. To contrast, one of the Gionfriddo plays attracted media attention and had famous actors and actresses star in it. Presumably, though perhaps for different reasons, there are quite a few third party sources dealing with the early works of Chekhov as well. What we really need is information that shows that the play is notable to those outside the O'Neill Conference and the playwright. As the below person notes, though, that doesn't mean that Gionfriddo's page can't include a short description of it. Cjs2111 (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Gionfriddo is certainly a notable playwright, I can find no real discussion of this play, only mere confirmation that it exists and was produced at the O'Neill. Being produced by itself does not make a play notable. Fails WP:BK. Perhaps a line of description in the author's article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dhartung. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:08, 11 January 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. Fram (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impact (The University of Nottingham's Student Magazine)

Impact (The University of Nottingham's Student Magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I believe that this page contains vanity. This is shown in both that the username of the author is subsequent to that of the article's name. Could someone please review this, preferably an administrator, and review my case. Sydney Know It Alltalk 14:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author I apologise if this entry appears vain, I was unaware of the Wiki rules. I would be happy to make changes (I have already revised u/n due to blocking). I believe the article does hold value however because Student Magazine groups across the country require history/staff/awards information such as this. I would also like to enforce that since the Impact is non-profit (part of the University of Nottingham's students' union (http://www.students-union.nottingham.ac.uk/activities/activities_impact.php) Impact stands to gain nothing from this page. --Chris Huttonov (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not due to vanity though, due to complete and utter non-notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC) - Comment to User:Chris Huttonov - If you could indicate the Awards that this 'Magazine' has won and provide a link to where it says it got these awards please. Has the Magazine been Cited as a source by other Magazines? All this would be helpful in its indication of notability. just my suggestions. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of the most recent award at least is here - http://media.guardian.co.uk/studentmediaawards - as far as citations go a simple Google Search for "Impact Magazine" demonstrates some 'notoriety', with it appearing twice in the top ten results. --
  • I have added in a few references to Awards for you, but if you could show a 1st place prize or alternativly where some newspaper has quoted Impact, would go a long way to show notability. Use this tool to help you make reference citations if you want, and they should show up properly now. (there was a missing {{reflist}} ) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - after references to awards and Article expansion, still needs work ... but it makes the grade. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. After the expansions, the article looks OK, even though it could be further expanded, for example by title-page image or a short list of interesting articles. I think, that a magazine with ~30 issues is partially notable.147.175.98.213 (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K. here's what I could find as supporting evidence. Impact WON the 'Best Student Magazine' category from The Guardian in 2001. Two entire articles have been lifted from Impact Magazine by the BBC here and here. Impact is currently on its 187th issue, issue 181 can be found in PDF format on Impact's website. Chris Huttonov (talk) 15:12, 11 January 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 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 605 (Washington)

Interstate_605_(Washington) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  1. REDIRECT Talk:Interstate 605 (Washington)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewayguy (talk • contribs) 2008/01/04 17:32:42

  • Speedy close, no reason for deletion given. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep Keep. I found this source, which could be of use. Also, the two existing sources seem just barely on the side of WP:V. Something doesn't have to exist to be verifiable. I still want the nom to give a reason for deletion, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: the article refers to a proposed, but non-existent highway. Hence, the article is highly speculative and fails WP:CRYSTAL and does not assert any notability per WP:N and is poorly referenced. Mh29255 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article as East King County Freeway as long as the highly speculative nature of the possible project is clearly included within the article, meaning that it may never come to fruition. Mh29255 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As long as this article contains the name of a non-existent & unapproved interstate, I will keep my vote as "Strong delete" because naming it as such is willfully misleading. Mh29255 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What else would you call it? This is the only name I can find in the media. --NE2 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You, and many other people here, are making the false assumption that because someone many years ago coined the term "I-605", that somehow, that freeway is being planned and is going to be built. Nothing could be further from the truth, which is simply this: there is no I-605, there are no plans of any kind to build an I-605 and even if a highway is eventually built someday (for which there are absolutely no plans to do) east of I-405, that highway won't necessarily be named I-605. I'd like to see Wikipedia contain accurate information, not wishful thinking. Mh29255 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I make that false assumption? If it was called I-605, that's where the article should be, not at a made-up name. --NE2 02:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term was coined in 1968 when the possibility of a "commerce corridor" was first revealed. That "commerce corridor" (the official name of the yet planned or yet built road) was dubbed by some as I-605. The 1968 plan was rejected. An additional & similar Washington state DOT study released in 2000 was also rejected. Thus, as this article currently stands, it contains false & misleading information about a highway that has been twice rejected; yet the top of the article plainly states that this is a "planned or expected future highway", which it clearly isn't. Mh29255 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that template. --NE2 02:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a small start in the right direction. Mh29255 (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can add details to the article, seeing as you know more about it than I do. --NE2 02:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added additional information to the article for clarification and accuracy. These changes will allow me to vote to keep the article since it no longer pretends that an actual plan for I-605 exists and that it has been nothing more than a decades-long series of studies & endless debates. Mh29255 (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your entire argument is based against the naming convention adopted by consensus at WP:IH? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but I was willing to compromise; but that was taken away. Mh29255 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Proposals for an I-605 have been coming forth for over three decades, and the reliable and verifiable sources describing different plans over the years satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In my opinion, the given that there is no clear, approved design for I-605, an article referring to it is WP:CRYSTAL. If this article is ultimately kept, I would want to see it renamed to "Proposed Interstate 605 (Washington)". Mh29255 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such a name change won't be necessary. Even though the freeway's only proposed right now, there appear to be at least a couple reliable sources indicating its status. Merely stating that something is proposed isn't necessarily crystal-balling, not even if the sources conflict. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your reasoning, the sources are several years old and may be outdated. Further, road planning can go on for years, in which case, this article could remain a "what-if" for a very long time to come. That is not particularly encyclopedic in my opinion. Mh29255 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name change would go against naming convention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Interstate Highways. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major traffic arterials have a huge impact on other development even in the planning stages. The article is sourced and I think plenty notable. I think Crystal Ball can be ignored here because of the impact and debate of the planning. matt91486 (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is sourced and notable, per WP:USRD. Furthermore, there are many proposed, unbuilt, unsigned, etc. highways that are notable and contain pages. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 30 years of bickering, arguing and public policy debates merit inclusion. The article absolutely needs to be expanded, though. —Rob (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Can we get a reason for the AfD outside of a talk page link? Something a little more... elaborate. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Comment: An October, 2005 article [12] (newer than anything on the article page) indicates that there are no current plans for I-605 and that no King County, Washington road plans have ever included I-605. I-605 was nothing more than a proposal made several decades ago an no serious work has ever been done to make it happen. I-605 in Seattle is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Even the name "I-605" is purely speculative since nothing at all exists and no official name for the yet-to-be-anything-more-than-speculative-freeway has ever been approved. How can this article claiming that there is a "proposed I-605" not be WP:CRYSTAL? Mh29255 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article is hardly as damning an indictment as you make it seem. That just says that one person didn't work diligently on it. matt91486 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The October 2005 article you've cited, which would only add to the article, describes conflicts between politicians who support and oppose an I-605, hardly the material of WP:CRYSTAL. The only entity described as not ever having plans for an I-605 is the board of the Regional Transportation Investment District; this does not mean that plans have never existed from other entities, public and private, as described in the article. Alansohn (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most recent (voter-rejected) transportation proposal for King, Snohomish & Pierce Counties in 2007, called "Proposition 1", did NOT include anything for "I-605". [13] I-605 wasn't even mentioned and the proposition was rejected by voters in November, 2007. I-605 was a suggestion that has never been given any serious consideration. Mh29255 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the number gets assigned at the end of a freeway construction project, not the beginning (unless legislated by law), so the fact the freeway wasn't referred to by the number in history isn't an article-killer in itself. If you'd rather have it as East King County Freeway (Interstate 605), a la Crosstown Expressway (Interstate 494) that's understandable, but at some point the number stuck. Plus no one's calling it the "East King County Freeway". It's better to have the number be the article name. —Rob (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has been moved to East King County Freeway. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And moved back, since that's not the common name. --NE2 00:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All state highways are inherently notable, whether or not they've actually been built. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This highway may never be built, but refs have been furnished from two newspapers and a TV station which discuss the proposal and use the I 605 nomenclature, thus barely satisfying WP:N. Many existing highways with articles have poorer refs than this and have survived AFDs. Edison (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, there are enough references in the article to establish notability. Chris! ct 03:11, 8 January 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karis Jagger

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

Does not meet notability guidelines of WP:BIO on her own over and above being the child of famous people. Although she has worked on some well-known films, there is no indication that her job is on the level of, say, a director or producer. I can't find any sources that go into any great detail about who she is or what she does. I suggest the information should be merged into the Mick Jagger article. ... discospinster talk 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First prod removed by anon IP. No sources other than IMDB, which is not significant coverage. Notability is not inherited. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being the child of someone famous doesn't automatically make one notable. They must gain notoriety for themselves. And, her job listed on the films is mostly just a set PA. TGreenburgPR (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no real claim to notablity --T-rex 00:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not independently notable. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Cropper

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

This article consists entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and does not have secondary sources to establish notability per WP:FICT. Google returns only non-WP:RS fansites, blogs, and the like which indicates notability criteria of significant coverage from relaible, secondary sources cannot be met no matter what. I both tagged the article and raised my concerns on the talk page over a month ago and bumped my concerns a week ago, yet the article has remained unimproved so I am bringing it to AFD. Doctorfluffy (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - Notable soap character. All the other current Corrie characters have articles. It just needs a bit of a cleanup. D.M.N. (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. You've !voted speedy keep; which particular clause of WP:SK do you think applies?
    I was wrong on that one, maybe its just Keep. D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. You say it's notable, but there are no sources on the article, none have been added since I noted my concerns on the talk page, and you have provided none here. Reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject are necessary to show this article passes WP:N or WP:FICT.
    You left a comment on the talkpage (which no one probably looks on); you never notified WP:SOAPS about your concerns; so the chances of anyone looking on there are zero. As for sources: [14]; [15]; [16] D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Other characters are irrelevant, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.
    2. It's more than "just a bit of cleanup". In order to not violate WP:NOT#PLOT, virtually the entire article would need to be removed. In additon, verifiable (per WP:V) real-world world context, analysis, or significance would need to be added, which is difficult to do without sources.
    Rewritten, yes. D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a lot easier to read this discussion if we keep it as a single thread. Inserting comments inside my comment block also makes replying difficult.
    You provided three sources. The first does not appear to devote significant coverage per WP:N to Roy Cropper himself, but is rather a synopsis of an upcoming plot twist. The second is from a fansite and is likely not considered reliable per WP:SOURCES. The third is from the official website and, as such, is not independent of the subject per WP:N. I think I actually came across all three of these myself when googling and they were not enough to deter my concerns. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as an interim measure I have added three four external links to the article which support notability. Obviously the quality of the article is still horrible, but I believe the notability concerns are now addressed ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One can tell from reading the article that recent effort has been made to “fix it up.” While more effort may be required, surely it now at least meets a minimum standard for keeping. Moreover, while the character of Roy Cropper may be less notable now, at other times in the 40-year history of Coronation Street, his character has been front-and-center. For instance:
  • Roy meets and falls in love with Hayley, Corrie’s transgendered character
  • Roy weds Hayley
  • Tracy Barlow attempts to “sell” her daughter to Roy and Hayley
  • Roy and Hayley’s attempted rehabilitation of Becky Granger
If the characters with which this character’s storylines are interwoven merit their own individual articles (e.g., Hayley, Tracy, Amy, and Becky), then it cannot be logically argued that a character sharing storylines with them does not merit his own individual article. Further, and to reiterate, just because a character's storyline occasionally gets moved to a backburner, that character's notability is not diminshed, especially when that character has been a steady, regular character whose storylines often propel him to the frontburner. SpikeToronto (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dont know how anyone can say that a character who has run nearly 13 years, in the highest rated UK tv programme, is not notable. Clearly they dont know anything about British popular culture, the character or the programme. The article needs rewriting and sourcing, but that's not grounds for deletion, it should be improved. It clearly has the potential to be more than just plot summary as many of the character's storylines had significant real world impact. He married a transsexual for one, which got huge amounts of coverage. It was widely reported that the storyline prompted UK MPs to try and change the law for transsexual marriage and improve civil rights:"tabled a House of Commons motion, urging ministers to give trans-sexuals full civil rights, including being allowed to marry....The political move follows the screen heartache of Hayley, formerly Harold, who fears she will never be able to marry her boyfriend Roy Cropper."[17][18]

Here's some other sources from a quick search proving notability, which anyone willing to improve this article can use.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]Gungadin♦ 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Notability is independent of the subject matter. I shouldn't need to be familiar with British popular culture or the program to see why the character is notable. All that matters is that the topic has received substancial coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. See the next point.
    2. Many of the sources provided, by you and others, are inadequate: either they are not reliable (fansites, blogs, some op eds), not independent (the official website of the show), or only provide passing mention (focus is on the plot or the show in general, not the character specifically). Some of them may be acceptable, but I didn't look at all of them closely.
    3. Even if proper sourcing can be established, the entire article still completely fails WP:NOT#PLOT, which is a serious problem. The ridiculously long plot summary to be condensed to a paragraph or two and sourced real-world context, analysis, and significance needs to be added. Your points about his marriage to a transexual seem like reasonable additions.
    Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "All that matters is that the topic has received substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject", which is exactly what the sources I have provided have shown. Not one of those is a fan site, and all are secondary. They are from British National newspapers or independent news sites like BBC News, none of which are connected in any way to Coronation Street, or ITV. Most, if not all, provide significant coverage, and they all mention the character specifically. This was just a brief search anyway, there will be tons more out there.
You said "Some of them may be acceptable, but I didn't look at all of them closely." Well if you havent looked at the sources then I dont think it's fair to dismiss them by saying "Many of the sources provided, by you and others, are inadequate".
I completely agree the plot needs reducing and a rewrite is definitely in order, but that doesnt mean it should be deleted. At Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) it says "The article is kept if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and this coverage is explicitly referenced in the deletion discussion or is used to add real-world content to the article. Articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop." Therefore, this article should definitely be kept. It can easily be turned around with a little time and effort, look at this featured UK soap article, Pauline Fowler, for an example of what can be done with soap characters. Editors can include sourced commentary, real world impact, ratings, quotes and comments from interviews with the actor (personality of character, how he plays him etc), recpetion - popularity and criticsm. Gungadin♦ 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the sources you provided do not devote substantial coverage to the character of Roy Cropper himself. As they are numbered above:
    (4) Passing mention - Article is about the politics of transexual marriage and merely uses Roy Cropper as an example. Likely more suitable for usage in the article on the series itself.
    (5) Similar to #4, but however focuses more on Hayley Cropper. More suited for her article than his.
    (6) Likely a reliable source, but does little more than to outline elements of the plot. Focus is more the plot than Roy himself, provides little or no real world context.
    (7) Written by a professional critic, but on her blog. I don't know if that qualifies as reliable. Only a portion of it is about Roy and it provides little real-world analysis.
    (8) Possibly valid. Ian Hyland appears to be a professional critic, but the article doesn't say much.
    (9) Duplicate of #7.
    (10) Passing mention - focus is on the show itself.
    (11) Similar to #6. Merely outlines elements of the plot.
    (12) Similar to #6. Merely outlines elements of the plot.
    (13) Similar to #6. Merely outlines elements of the plot.
    (14) Similar to #6. Merely outlines elements of the plot.
    (15) Article is about the actor who potrays Roy, not about Roy Cropper himself.
    (16) Similar to #6. Merely verifies elements of the plot.
    (17) Provides some real-world context for Roy, but is more about the politics of environmental friendliness. Not sure if it counts as substancial coverage.
    (18) Essentially a promo for an upcoming episode. Insignificant coverage.
    (19) Essentially a promo for an upcoming episode. Insignificant coverage.
    (20) Essentially a promo for an upcoming episode. Insignificant coverage.
    (21) Similar to #5. Focuses more on Hayley. Does little more than to outline the plot.
    (22) Similar to #6. Merely outlines elements of the plot.
    Taken as a whole, these sources are marginal. They do very little to establish the notability of Roy Cropper himself. Prior to this AFD, I didn't doubt that he exists and that the show is popular, but that doesn't necessarily make him notable.
    I don't see how the two statements contradict each other. Many of the sources are inadequate, but I didn't look at all of them closely at the time I had made the statement. Simple enough.
    I've seen this exact situation in 100s of AFDs. Editors frequently opine about how important a character may be during the AFD discussion and may sway the closing admin, but then the article remains unchanged for months afterwards and it gets nominated again in a few months. I'm not saying the article is impossible to fix, but there is still no evidence that it can be. Some of the sources you provided are okay (read: not great), but I don't know if they add enough to verify notability. And once again, I'll point out that 90% of the current needs to go by WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are just wikilawyering with regard to these sources, claiming that they do not prove notability, as you are keen for this page to be deleted. Precisely what kind of sources would you deem acceptable? Comb through every article on wikipedia and you could argue that the majority of sources should not be used because they do not focus entirely on a certain aspect of 'this and that'. Look at featured article Jabba the Hutt, for instance. A lot of those sources are primary and about Star Wars in general, not Jabba the Hut specifically. Does that make them inadequate sources in your opinion?

The fact that a soap opera plot is affecting real world issues such as transexual marriage, as shown in sources 4 & 5, should indicate that the subject is notable in itself. Saying that sources only focus on the character's storylines is another flawed argument. Storylines define a character, they have no character development without them; therefore, discussing a character's storylines is discussing a character. All the sources can be used collectively in the article to provide critical commentary and real world info, reception etc. It has been shown that the character has received adequate cover from a large number of media sources and editors should be given the opportunity to improve the article. There is no deadline on wikipedia, and predicting alterations (or lack of) to this article, based on prior AFDs you've contributed to, is not a valid argument for deletion. It's just crystal ballery.Gungadin♦ 23:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wikilawyering, but rather my interpretation of the sources you provided. The point of an AFD is to engender discussion and come to a consensus, usually involving the set policies and guidelines. Perhaps my intepretation of those policies is stricter than yours, but it should be clear that I am not acting against their spirit. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I do strive to ensure the quality of Wikipedia on the whole and I honestly believe this subject is of dubious notability.
I don't know how to define an acceptable source in language any plainer than how the policies are written. I've linked to them above in a few places. As a good reference though, Wikipedia:Waf#Secondary_information has a decent list of typical secondary sources for fiction. From those examples, I would think it's clear that a simple regurgitation of the plot, even from a reliable publication, is not a good source of secondary information.
You're right - storyline and the character him/herself are essentially one and the same. In fact, that's precisely why mere plot information does not indicate notability and why secondary sources are needed to provide context and analysis.
Although I can see your viewpoint, I think you're looking at WP:DEADLINE from the wrong perspective. If you read it more closely, you'll see it's mostly about waiting until you have a quality article and ensuring the core policies are met before submission to Wikipedia; it's not about an unlimited grace period for articles that fail policy. Note, the Roy Cropper article was created without any establishment of its significance. Luckily though, WP:DEADLINE is only an essay, which generally won't receive as much weight as the official policies or guidelines.
Also, for future discussions, you've misused WP:CRYSTAL. It is applicable only to information in the encyclopedia (mainspace) itself to facilitate compliance with WP:V. I am "allowed", so to speak, to speculate however I want in AFDs. Doctorfluffy (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip, but I dont feel that I have used crystal ballery incorrectly. I'm aware how the term is used in the encyclopedia, and you'll notice I did not link to WP:CRYSTAL. Seeing/predicting the future is exactly what crystal ballery is, and this is what you are doing when you claim this article wont be improved. You don't know this, and guesswork should not be used as an argument for deletion. I see your point about WP:DEADLINE, this one's clearly more applicable Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built.
I don't watch this show much, so i'm not the best person to do the work here, but I have the afternoon off work, so I will see if I can come up with some improvements. No point in all talk and no action, best way to prove you wrong is to show you :) Gungadin♦ 14:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, you didn't mention WP:CRYSTAL specifically. I'm sorry I put words in your mouth.
Indeed, improving the article would be the best way to prove me wrong. Good luck. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ive done some work adding real world stuff. All the stuff under "Character creation and development" is what ive included. I will continue to do more when time permits, but can you see now that this could become quite a good article if allowed to develop?Gungadin♦ 23:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once more I confess to not knowing about the subject except from this article. The information there shows that it is a major character is what is clearly regarded as a major work of fiction, which is enough for notability. that the material is actually sourced to a considerable degree makes it evident that opposition must, AGF, be based on a desire to restrict fictional coverage to he bare facts of publication and distribution--the least important things about fiction. Let each concentrate on improving the articles that interest them. DGG (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with reservations to consider appropriate measures (e.g. merge, transwiki, expand) outside of AfD. I don't know this character, but Pauline Fowler from a similar(?) British series shows what can be achieved with such an article. – sgeureka t•c 12:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep much newspaper material online is reduced. I am sure if I was in the UK and liked Coronation Street enough I could find enough weekly mags with 3rd party material in them. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 11 January 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. Addhoc (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top scorer by year in the Commonwealth of Independent States Cup

Top scorer by year in the Commonwealth of Independent States Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Part of the Commonwealth of Independent States Cup article. There's no need for splitting the article. BanRay 22:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BanRay 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, I removed the CSD tag from the article as I didn't feel any of the CSD criteria applied to the article. It was originally marked with CSD A1, No Context, while I believe there quite obviously was context. Having said that, I think your reason for deleting the article is perfectly sensible, but some discussion about whether or not to split the main article probably won't hurt. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've left the user a comment, reminding him that he can propose those changes on the talk page BanRay 00:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, delete. Zqxwce (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Commonwealth of Independent States Cup#Top scorers by year, the parent article is not over-long and the information is contained there already. Qwghlm (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I suppose there is no need of a separate article about top scorers.   Jhony  |  Talk   21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need for a separate article. Robotforaday (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Information duplicated in main article, which is short enough that there's no need to split. Struway2 (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete --JForget 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are just pulling my leg

You are just pulling my leg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, it's a terrible article, full of obvious copyvio and/or POV. Delete. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Doc Strange (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of WP:NOT. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources whatsoever, and might even be a joke article (with the punchline being the title) Mandsford (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not even a topic --T-rex 00:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. The etymology is actually tripping someone, so this is in fact ... pulling our legs. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 8 January 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 Original content was speedy deleted by me as a CSD G10 attack page. Now recreated as a protected redirect, to prevent insertion of such attacks. Xoloz (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Marufu

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

Delete fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krakk

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

Lacks any assertion of notability, vanity page Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and no assertion of notability per WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Mh29255 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even Librarianofages is more notable for his rapping abilities, which really says something about Krakk's notability. -- Librarianofages (talk) 22:48, 7 January 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 and restore redirect as unknown "made up" thing, possible hoax. - Revolving Bugbear 15:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blue crab

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

Originally redirected to Blue crab, the creator of this confusing article put the original content back in, which is neither notable per WP:N, verifiable per WP:V and may be a WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Allen3 talk 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:NFT Doc Strange (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the content and redirect it back. ViperSnake151 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be an advertisement of some kind for a non-notable beverage / alcoholic drink. Should be redirected back to Blue Crab. --Hdt83 Chat 02:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete OK, the article is not a hoax. I can supply at least 8 people to verify the drink exists. There are also a facebook group 'Blue Crabs, Drank and Games'. It was also not made up in one day, but evolved over many summers. It is not an avertisment of any kind, this is not something that is for sale. The reason for this page, although confusing and not well written, is that many people visit Still Bay (holiday destination in South Africa) each year and asks what the name of the drink is that we enjoy. Fanienel (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was "made up one day" (please read WP:NFT, especially the analogy to the creation of Scrabble). A Facebook does not assert notability for anything. In fact, it's only notable to a very small and select group of people with no widespread claim to why this is notable. At all. Doc Strange (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still do not think it falls under the "made up one day" category as it is not known by only a select few people. Well, that off course depends on what the definition of 'select few' is. It isnt just a spesific group or group of friends that knows about the blue crab. It is known in at least 7 south african cities and also in London. Fanienel (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Very close to nonsense. DGG (talk) 01:44, 11 January 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. Addhoc (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doofer

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

This is a card game (a variation of rummy) that is not notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. CastAStone//(talk) 17:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems a very subjective comment. --Cardshark23 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC) — Cardshark23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete, absolutely no reliable sources found in a search. Wikipedia is not for made-up card games. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest TenPoundHammer performs some better searches. "Doofer" is alternatively known as Proter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardshark23 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest Cardshark23 read WP:RS before getting a snarky attitude. Geocities is hardly a reliable source. JuJube (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Is Wiktionary a reliable source? --Cardshark23 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close.--CastAStone//(talk) 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore we assume that the pagat.com website (1999 onwards) is equally useless. It also references Proter on http://www.pagat.com/whatsnew.html --Cardshark23 (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think that that looks like a much better site. It at least verifies that the game is real. Now the problem is Notability - you have to prove that the game is notable enough to belong in an encyclopedia; if you can find a few newspaper articles or some mainstream media coverage about the game or the game's impact or the games popularity, something like that would absolutely change my mind. As of now, I feel this is not notable.--CastAStone//(talk) 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. (Cardshark: "Notable" is actually a rather objectively determined term on Wikipedia.) - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean "subjective"? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak
  • Delete as lack of sources indicates lack of notability. My Google search turned up diddley ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:49, 12 January 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 completely non-notable. BLACKKITE 15:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mechstar Dynamics

Fails WP:FICT, non notable fictional subject written completely in, in-universe style, no references, and no real world significance. Blueanode (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fictional corporation from a game that has not and possibly never will be released. Edward321 (talk) 05:16, 8 January 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 per addition of sources and other material. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UMSL Student Government Association

UMSL Student Government Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for non-commercial organizations. Their activity seems to be local in scope, and given that no third-party sources have been provided, it seems that this topic might better be covered in the USML main article. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i just added new references that are third party. Please consider these before deleation. also many student governments have their own pages i dont understand why UMSL cannot have one also. thanks!134.124.35.72 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

should i add more references? I was looking at the MSA page, Mizzou's student government, and they have many of the same things that i added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whsbrain (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: non-notable organization whose only importance is to a single university. Mh29255 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But UMSL's SGA is not only important to UMSL it is also important to the System. SGA Officers attend the Board of Curator meetings. Without them there would be no student input to the board. Also what about them? Missouri Students Association Whsbrain (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are many of these articles (see Category:Student governments in the United States, and article is far to large to be merge in it's entirety to the UMSL page.Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Elected Gov't is notable, even Student Gov't. And in saying that "only importance is to a single university" ... your assuming that there is a Local Clause in WP:N, but no, there is not. If it is notable to a sizable University and Alumni, then it has achieved Notability. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG. The article's sources do include one truly independent source but it only mentions the SGA incidentally. (The SGA's own web site and the student newspaper on its campus should not be considered independent for purposes of establishing the SGA's notability, regardless of what the relationship, if any, may be between the SGA and the newspaper.) There are actually relatively few student governments listed in Category:Student governments in the United States and some others have failed their AfD discussions. Furthermore, it is unclear how a student government would be notable to the alumni since it would not govern or finance their activities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your correct, S.Gov't would not govern or finance the Alumni's activities. But you have it backwards, the Alumni would govern and/or finance the S.Gov't. Like any other Gov't, it relies upon and enforces the rules as drawn up by generations before them. And I do not see how the size/contents of Category:Student governments in the United States, nor other AFD's outcomes has any impact upon any other AFD? 'cause that would be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but in reverse. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - UMSL's Student Government does a lot in the community around UMSL and St. Louis and for the state of missouri by lobbying the state government on behalf of public universites. In fact sometime in Feburary they will be going to the capital with the other student governments in the state. SGA does a lot of events with the Alumni Assoication. SGA attends their meetings and works closely with their representative on campus. Also there are many student government (some with less citations than this) pages and if this one is deleted because it is a student government associated with a university then all of them would have to be. Yes more notable souces are needed so if that is the only objection then shouldnt we be working to find more? The Post-Dispatch did a story about umsl's student government,although you have to pay to see the story, the largest newspaper in the state thinks UMSL's SGA is a creditable orginazation why doesnt wikipedia? Whsbrain (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You say, "Also there are many student government (some with less citations than this) pages and if this one is deleted because it is a student government associated with a university then all of them would have to be." Please note that to some editors, myself included, that would not sound like an undesirable result. Rather, it sounds like a mom telling a kid, "If you want cake for dessert, you have to eat ice cream with it too." Also, in regard to the above comment by Exit2DOS2000, I am surprised to hear that the alumni finance the student government; at most universities, the student government is financed mostly through fees paid by current students. I couldn't find proof on the UMSL SGA's website either way, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apolagies if I gave the impression, I was not implying this was the case, in this case. I can only speak from my experiences in my country. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The UMSL SGA has a voice on a state level. What would a student government need to achieve to satisfy your notability criteria, Ioeth? ... Alatari (talk) 15:57, 10 January 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. Article is not without problems, and current title, while an improvement, may not be perfect either, but the consensus seems to be that there are enough good references to indicate that this subject is noteworthy. Fram (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 wars of independence

2008 wars of independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Previously renamed to Potential military conflicts resulting from the Kosovo precedent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Currently renamed to Potential crises resulting from the Kosovo precedent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

"The 2008 wars of independence are a series of speculated conflicts..." that have no place in Wikipedia per WP:CRYSTAL. Possibly merge, in limited part, to some article related to the status of Kosovo. Even if renamed to e.g. "Geopolitical implications of the possible independence of Kosovo", this is not a notable topic for a dedicated article. Sandstein (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I changed the title since that seems to be the only issue anyone actually has a problem with and is the only part that could even be considered speculative. The rest of the article is citing events that have all happened or statements that have already been made. Also, it is a very notable topic which has been discussed in all kinds of news reports. Each potential conflict and their link to Kosovo's independence has a source either in References or External links.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much speculation in the future. None of us amateur Wikipedia gurus have the competence or qualifications to make these predictions. Hidden POV that recognition of Kosovo independence will start a (negative?) domino effect. --RenniePet (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That makes no sense. How is there any unpublished synthesis? Are you going along with this ridiculous notion of a hidden agenda?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no speculation in the article at all. Point to anything, ANYTHING, that could be called speculation. You can't because there is no speculation going on in this article.
Also how can any one possibly address what you consider to be a "hidden" POV. It seems like this is something you could bring out regardless of whether you have any basis for it. Recognition of Kosovo independence expected to start a domino effect is substantiated by links provided in the article. Some consider war negative that's for certain. However, is saying, for instance, that Taiwan declaring independence would be met with a Chinese attack POV against Taiwanese independence or just saying what is an expected and widely reported outcome? Some people would consider independence from a nation that tried to commit genocide against your people worth the costs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that expectation in some circles is established by the sources. But I could just as easily create an article called Possible wars of independence for currently oppressed peoples or something similar, and find additional sources to establish that that was a widely-held view. Article organization and titles need to be NPOV. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except this comes from one thing, Kosovo has said they wil declare independence and, according to them, a date is already set. Every major news reports and every comments from those directly involved says it will be in the first few months of this year, possible after the February 3rd run-off election or sooner. So it is more than a widely held view, but an overwhelmingly expected, maybe even scheduled, future event.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The declaration of independence is likely to occur, yes. But this article isn't about the declaration of independence, it's about a number of (generally undesirable) events that some have speculated might follow the expected declaration of independence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the article a little harder. Srpska's Prime Minister said he might have to have a referendum because of "popular demand" and there are reports they're already printing out the ballots. The head of Russia's two chambers of parliament have declared their intent to consider recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Armenia's foreign minister has said they cannot accept Kosovo getting independence, while Nagorno-Karabakh is denied their chance. This is not speculation, but comments from officials of the governments of these countries.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know. My concern is that considering all of these events from the perspective of their (possible) relationship with a Kosovar declaration of independence is only one angle from which they can be considered, and a POV one at that (just as considering it from the oppressed peoples angle I mentioned above would be a single, well-sourced, POV angle). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except this isn't POV, because the people involved are saying this would be a precedent and one they intend to use. Again, I suggest you read the article. This isn't an article about the possibility of their independence and a resulting conflict alone, but specifically those events in relation to Kosovo's independence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline keep, but just barely. The topic *is* discussed in the media, and as such merits an article, but maybe it should be subsection of an article on Kosovan independence or something like that...? Either way, the content is borderline legitimate in my book, so either keep or merge are okay by me, I suppose. —Nightstallion 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The speculations are sourced and may as well be true but what is actually done here is in opposition with WP:SYNTH. And I think that it is basically impossible for this article to be totally NPOV written. However, I assume that separate cases can be mentioned in corresponding articles about the regions that want to separate. --Tone 23:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to separatism. Alternatively, drop the "2008" part and make this an article about separatist movements, without speculating about what existing separatists have made for their new year's resolutions. Mandsford (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the title, it's been changed. Also there is, again, no speculation, it's all statements from different officials about what they will do.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with separatism would be too vague, this article is specifically about separatism that might be triggered by Kosovo independence. Nikola (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Kosovo status process anything with any detail is just guesswork at this point. for all we know it could go perfectly peacefully --T-rex 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is about what relevant people said might happen, not about what will happen. No crystal ball here. Nikola (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split, Merge, etc. The biggest problems with this article are the title (specifically the inclusion of the 2008) and the WP:SYNTH. Split the article up into Independence movements in the former Soviet Union and Independence movements in the Balkans. Merge the content on North Cyprus into Cyprus, and the Western Sahara stuff into Western Sahara. The article as it exists now just isn't cohesive enough, and is too much a collection of tangentially-related topics. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the title has been changed. Look at the article's title again. Also they are deeply interlinked, you can't possibly ignore that, the External links make this clear.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As it stands now, this is a very useful article, with potential to be substantially expanded. Nikola (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark The question of whether or not there is a "hidden point of view" involved here keeps popping up, and those who want the article kept keep stedfastly denying it. I will still claim that 100% of those who want to keep this article are against Kosovo's (possible) indepdence and (possible) international recognition of that (possible) independence. For example, the latest Keep voter has on his/her user page that he/she is a native Serbian speaker and, "This user opposes the independence of Kosovo and Metohia". Fair enough, and that user's vote is as good as anyone elses. (Worth a lot more than mine, in fact, as that user has been on Wikipedia much longer than me and contributed much, much more than me.) But I still think it emphasises that there is a hidden POV here. The article is indirectly saying, "If event A occurs, then the following really bad things, B, C, D and E, are going to happen. So don't let event A occur, OK?" That is not the job of Wikipedia, in my opinion. --RenniePet (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was the authors' intention or not (and I assume that it wasn't), I agree that User:RenniePet raises a valid concern about the effect of keeping the article as is. By linking these potential military conflicts specifically to the possibility of Kosovar independence (and indeed, building the article around that link), it definitely creates a POV situation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the article is incomplete the way it is now. What about Basque, Catalonia, Transnistria, Scotland, Belgium and similar regions where some support for independence or separation has recently been shown (to various degrees)? I suppose the debate is leaning to a conclusion that the information are valid and should be somewhere on WP, just not in an article like this. Besides, even the present title is highly speculative. --Tone 18:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incompletion is not grounds for deletion, it rather calls for completion. Nikola (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is mainly referring to potential crises, since the name's been changed again, resulting from Kosovo's independence and the use of it as a precedent. Basque, Catalonia, and Transnistria are all potentially going to use the precedent, but they also are not likely to result in conflicts or a crisis of any sort. Scotland, Walloons, and Flanders probably wouldn't even use it as a precedent.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that not every conflict is linked to Kosovo, I just removed Western Sahara from the article, but the article as it is now is about conflicts which were linked by relevant people to Kosovo. Nikola (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I'm pro-Kosovan independence (though neither Kosovan or member of any other independence-seeking group seeking to benefit from the event) and borderline in favour of keeping this article. —Nightstallion 17:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against Kosovo's independence, albeit I'm against the methods being used to achieve it. It seems there is a general assumption of bad faith with this article that just isn't there. The Kosovo precedent has been discussed in British, American, Chinese, Russian, Turkish, and Canadian news among others. Many of these areas are feared to erupt into conflict if they follow the precedent of Kosovo and no instance before have such threats been made to such a degree and level. Even Javier Solana of the EU has expressed concerns about the consequences of Kosovo's independence.[36] Does he have an agenda against Kosovo? The danger is not even in Kosovo's independence, but how people seek to exploit it, in particular Russia and Serbia. Russia has been threatening the West with this for years now, warning it would create a dangerous precedent, but at the same time implying they'd act on that precedent for their own gain. So really it's not a warning but a threat. Arguing this somehow is not notable is just baffling.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting off topic here, but isn't this a sort of moral dilemma, the "if you do the right thing I'll make you regret it" situation, where (over-simplified, as found in comic books) the coward lets himself be bullied into submission, in contrast to the hero, who does the right thing and then overcomes the bully as well.
Another point, if this article is considered OK, how about articles like, "Potential downfall of the American republic if Hillary is elected", or "Potential arrival of Armageddon if we don't all shape up and burn Richard Dawkins at the stake". --RenniePet (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On your first comment, I hope you're talking about the geopolitical situation and not the article, because then it would seem like a personal attack. As to the second comment I think you're taking this much further then it needs to be taken. There are articles where potential conflicts are mentioned and speculation around them referenced because such speculation is common. For instance, even though there's never been a nuclear war between India and Pakistan a mention of the possibility is made in the section on nuclear war. Also mentioned is the possibility of Taiwan's independence bringing about a nuclear war between China and the U.S., surely that is a much more severe and frightening a prospect than anything mentioned in this article. However, these are events commonly speculated on or expected in the event one of those things should happen. Indeed, a possible Sino-American War is mentioned in the article on Taiwan independence. It's not bias to say a predicted event has been said to have a predicted outcome or to have an article on that alone. The spirit of the policy seems to be aimed more at preventing original research rather than articles on predicted events. In general WP:CRYSTAL isn't even needed if writers stick to the policies of no original research and verifiability, which this article does. Also, it is not even an article on a predicted event, but about an expectation of an event, meaning this is not describing or saying what will happen in the future, but what various people involved have said or believe will happen. In a way this is similar to the article on World War III, which does mention what it is believed would happen or how it may happen, but never makes a prediction or asserts it will happen, but only references the expectations of reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the comic-book morality comment. What set me off was this: "Russia has been threatening the West with this for years now, ... So really it's not a warning but a threat." Now, what I was trying to say is something like this: We have situation A, and we can support what we think is right in situation A. Or, we can take into account, or choose not to take into account, that supporting what we think is right in situation A may result in someone carrying out nasty threats. My (very poorly expressed) point is that (usually) the best course of action is to support what you think is right in situation A, and then do what you can to change the behavior of the threatener. Letting oneself be influenced to not support what you think is right in this situation will not result in any final good situation. --RenniePet (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the comment about Dawkins amusing, and I hope you don't consider the first one a personala attack. Indeed, the possible wars between Pakistan and India or PRC and Taiwan are mentioned but in an appropriate context, there is no article dedicated entirely to a possible war. And there shouldn't be one. --Tone 23:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the PRC and Taiwan it might be legitimate since it is an issue dealt with deeply by various fictional novels, analysts, and military experts. It wouldn't be quite like this since there are no serious actions in the direction of a conflict and so any talk of a future conflict would focus more on the idea solely as a matter of interest, rather than as a present international issue based on an almost certain event, in so far as an upcoming event can be certain to happen. Here, however, a possible conflict is an issue hanging over the situation and movements and threats being made in that direction all of it centering around the following weeks and Kosovo's independence which is, honestly, universally expected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I don't think that someone's vote should be worth more just because he spent more time on Wikipedia (not counting newbies obviously). Nikola (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete under whatever - This is an ungainly combination of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH violations, all piled up in an unsubtle, WP:NPOV-violating effort to say, "If the Kosovars are allowed to break away, the world will regret it." --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not CRYSTAL because it does not try to predict a future event, but only gives information about existing predictions, it is not SYNTH because it nowhere makes a new fact of other available facts, and it does not violate NPOV (and even if it would, it is not grounds for deletion). Nikola (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it would be nice if someone could point out any speculation or synthesis. It keeps being said, but I can't find anything and I've seen some pretty ridiculous explanations of what counts as synthesis.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Synthesis" includes just such actions as the creation of this article: taking a number of different articles, sources, etc. and saying, "These are all due to this other thing here"! We are not saying it is not notable; we are saying you don't have any sources for the claim. You may be wrong or you may be right, but the conclusion is still not sourced to a reliable source other than yourself. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research. (And just because blustering politicans say they will or won't do something, doesn't mean it will happen.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another way of looking at it is that there simply can not be reliable sources for (possible) future events, not until after they've happened. Come back in a year or two and write an article (with the undertone of "I told you so", if you must) where you do document what really actually happened. --RenniePet (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except by the same token any mention of prospective membership in international organizations would have to be removed. Mentioning the possibility of war if Taiwan declares independence would have to be removed. What you're arguing would also basically mean not having any scientific polls on elections included in articles. All of these are referring to possible future events. None of them are brought up as being invalid under WP:CRYSTAL and that's because some articles or sections on future events are indeed valid if they are something that has been discussed thoroughly and is verifiable speculation. Here we're not even talking about speculation, but statements from government officials in those concerned areas saying what they will do or plan to do if Kosovo declares its independence as it has consistently stated it will and not years from now, but this year, sometime in these first three months. It is certainly notable, definitely not unverified speculation, and is not biased against Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I keep saying to look at the article and look at the External Links, but it seems you insist on ignoring them. Almost all of the sources explicitly mention Kosovo and its connection to all of them. Javier Solana, the High Representative of the EU himself mentioned this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you keep telling me to read the article and the references. And what I do is I read the title of the article, and I say to myself, "Oh dear, an article that contains speculation about the future, with pretentions of authoritativeness (it is on an encyclopedia), do I really want to waste my time on this? Sorry, no." I mean, if I want to read speculative stuff about the future I'd rather grab a good science fiction book.
And I still maintain that because the article concentrates on negative possible consequences of "the Kosovo precedent" that it is fundamentally POV. One could just as easily (and hopefully with greater accuracy) write an article entitled "Potential advantages resulting from the Kosovo precedent", or "Expected new world order resulting from the Kosovo precedent". In fact, I'd love to write an article saying that "the Kosovo precedent" will eventually result in every group of people on Earth being allowed to decide for themselves if they want to form their own country, and which kinds of associations they want to form with neighboring countries, and which international organizations they want to be a member of. But it would be a very POV article, and totally unsuited for Wikipedia.
So what I'm saying is that to remove the POV element of the present article it should present a neutral perspective with both positive and negative (possible) results of "the Kosovo precedent". But I'm also saying that even with the POV problem removed, the resulting article would still not be suitable for Wikipedia because it would be too much speculation and not enough hard facts. --RenniePet (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're joking about not reading it, because if you aren't reading the article you've just invalidated your whole opinion. It contains no speculation whatsoever. None of the officials are speculating about what might happen, they're saying what will happen or what they intend to do all of it operating around what is already scheduled to happen, Kosovo's independence. Saying it's a negative article because it says something that many in favor of independence have said, such as Javier Solana, is absurd. There's no POV here. It's not speculation either. It is a subject of speculation, but the article is not itself speculation, because it only includes hard facts.
You may think it is negative, but it's not my decision to make it so, it's just how things are. Russia has made threats which ultimately mean Kosovo's independence is likely to have negative consequences. No one has really said it would have positive advantages, except maybe for Kosovo, even the people trying to make it happen. They've insisted it's not a precedent, but Russia isn't biting. It has been said time and again by Russian officials at all levels that they consider Kosovo a precedent. This has been said by officials elsewhere as well such as in Armenia. Independence for those regions would quite literally mean war, a war that probably wouldn't happen if Kosovo didn't get independence. It's not POV or any negativity, it's just what is the expected outcome. Just like Taiwan's independence most likely means war with China.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not joking. I read the title of the article, and that is enough for me to decide both a) I'm not interested in reading the rest, and b) this is not for Wikipedia.
The title of the article makes it clear that it is about the future. When you get as old as me you will (maybe) become sufficiently cynical that you know that everything about people's promises about what they will do in the future is speculation. What people say they will do in the future and what they actually do are two very different things.
The title has used the words "wars", "military conflicts" and "crisis". If that isn't negative, I don't know what is.
So that's good enough for me; it's people's claims about people's actions in the future, i.e., speculation, and it's negative, i.e., POV. Case closed. --RenniePet (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're absolutely serious it means you haven't read the article and so your opinion is invalid. Read the article thoroughly, then come back and give your opinion, until you do, your opinion is not valid.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In case this article stays, to prevent it from appearing a POV, there should be mentioned that several UN people and state leaders (I can't source this from my head but anyway) have expressed an opinion that the Kosovo case is a Sui generis and that it can't serve as a precedent. So there are both views covered. However, I would still prefer having a summary of this article in the Kosovo status process article or maybe another one, more suitable, instead of having it as a separate one. Regarding earlier comment, saying that Basque, Catalonia, and Transnistria are all potentially going to use the precedent, but they also are not likely to result in conflicts or a crisis of any sort. Scotland, Walloons, and Flanders probably wouldn't even use it as a precedent. is a great speculation. How can you say that for example independence of Basque would not cause problems? (I can add Kurdistan to the list and there are even more regions... sui generis each of them, according to some politicians...) Just by the way, my personal opinion about Kosovo process has nothing to do with the standpoint I am defending in case of this article. --Tone 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen those sort of references too and thought about including them when I first created the article. At the time the title was different, but with the changing around since it was created it would certainly fit well now. On Basque and Catalonia, there is no way to verify such a claim linked to Kosovo, is more my point and no indication that there would be any conflict over it. I don't think any Spanish official has said anything to the effect that they'll invade the Basque country if it declares independence. However, I believe there are articles which have said it could create a snowball effect reducing Europe to a bunch of statelets, certainly this would be something relevant. Also the general issue of irredentism could be addressed. For instance, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria have talked about joining Russia after independence, Nagorno-Karabakh has may merge with Armenia, Kosovo with Albania, and Srpska with Serbia. It's also believed this could create an irredentist situation with Russian-speaking regions like Crimea.
Also the issue often brought about how this could create a problem is the territorial integrity vs. self-determination issue unresolved by the U.N. I had thought of putting a stub on this because there's a great wealth of background to it and many areas untouched, but it was pretty large just with what I did. Basically on that it's been said since Serbia does not acquiesce to Kosovo's independence it would be overriding it's territorial integrity in favor of Kosovo's self-determination, both technically recognized under international law, this was why it's been referred to as a precedent.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Analysts and news media have speculated on potential military conflicts " the very definition of crystal ball. DGG (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The administrator who decides the fate of this article should also check out the talk page for the article itself, where there are also several Delete opinions. --RenniePet (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. A fascinating, important topic... for another web site that can accept Original Crystal Ball Research. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research because everything is referenced and it's not Crystal ball because there's no speculation and everything is verifieable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but must be renamed. The main problem is the title of the article, 2008 wars of independence is of coure pure nonsense. Having said that, the topic in itself is frequently discussed in media in relation to the pending Kosovo solution, so the topic is both notable and possible to source. So keep the article, but change the title. JdeJ (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in order not to violate WP:SYNTH and/or WP:NPOV this could be retitled to something more neutral such as Potential effects of the independence of Kosovo and include a more balanced view of the issue - but then of course it would still violate WP:CRYSTAL. Though well researched and written, it's clearly pushing an agenda. Teleomatic (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not violating any of these policies. There is no synthesis, no bias, and no speculation. People supporting independence or who generally think it's a good thing have commented about the possibility of a precedent and problems resulting from it. There's nothing negative against Kosovo's independence in the article, there's no speculation, and there's no synthesis. Please read the article before you give an opinion. This is an article about a subject which has been frequently discussed in the media and brought up by some of the most high-ranking diplomats and government officials. This is a classic international law conflict between self-determination and territorial integrity if self-determination wins out, which all indications are that it will because Kosovo will declare its independence and be recognized by the West, it will set a legal precedent. This precedent would be used in many frozen conflicts throughout the world.
There is precisely zero speculation in the article. All of it is government officials saying they will see it as a precedent and use it as a precedent, and others saying if that happens they'll use force.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
High-ranking diplomats and government officials often make comments in the media about what they might do under certain circumstances - but select comments about possible future events are not appropriate as an encyclopedia article. If self-determination occurs, information about the precedent that it may set and the possible crisis that may ensue will make an excellent article once it is widely regarded as a precedent, and once the anticipated crises do occur. As for now, this remains an excellent, but unencyclopedic, news analysis of what some people speculate will be a potential political and humanitarian crisis that could someday occur. Teleomatic (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except Kosovo declaring independence is not something that simply "might" happen, but is something that will happen. Only a few overly hopeful Serbs actually think Kosovo won't get its independence in these first three months. So what these officials are saying is what they intend to do when it happens, not speculating on what might happen.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we grant (for the sake of argument) that Kosovo’s independence is as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow, can you see how reporting people's intentions that if carried out as promised (once this inevitable future event occurs) could then potentially cause a crises does not make for an encyclopedic entry? Teleomatic (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's not what is being said in the article. What's being said is simply that the potential exists and is widely reported. It also details comments and statements indicating the strength of the potential. Also with the word crises now it isn't even as uncertain. Surely there will be crises in Kosovo and other regions even if there is no military conflict, though all indicators say there will be some conflict. In fact, with regards to Russia and Georgia it could be an all-out war since there's lots of bad blood there and just one thing tipping over throws it all into a tailspin. All the same it is certainly going to cause problems, whether you want Kosovo to have independence or not.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You’re basically proposing that a potential crisis that may result from a future precedent is a valid subject for an encyclopedia entry. This is where there is a difference of opinion. I maintain that Wikipedia is not the place for detailing the problems that may ensue from future events. This topic is better suited for Wikinews. Teleomatic (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't even like that as Kosovo's independence is an idea in itself and doing so without Serbia's consent, favoring Kosovo's self-determination over Serbia's territorial integrity, is an idea that has been around and it would be considered a legal precedent, despite some trying to say it is a unique case. Kosovo may be considered a continuation of the break up of Yugoslavia, but the unrecgonized states Russia has called for recognizing would be like a continuation of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Srpska would also be like a continuation of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Other areas, like Western Sahara and Taiwan could be considered as a continuation of decolonization. Ultimately the legal precedent applies. What this article is about is how that precedent could affect other regions. It's certainly legitimate. If there were an article dedicated to the Kosovo precedent, then maybe this could be merged with it, but right now there is no truly suitable article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current name is OK. Article well sourced. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:16, 13 January 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. GRBerry 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity James

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

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to pass wp:bio. I looked up newspaper articles about steve york aka stevie why that the steviewhy site referenced, and those articles identify Trinity James as unidentified woman. Now the reason I know it's Trinity James would be considered WP:OR. So Steve York is notable; Trinity isn't. Vinh1313 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable source coverage or recognition in porn. Nothing found aside from a mention of a "Trinity" in Craig Gross' book. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to be a fairly interesting case. She wasn't that notable a porn star, but was used for a fair bit of publicity by XXXChurch, (they named their fund raising project after her; Christian Examiner article), but it seems she now regrets working with them (her blog about the experience). Luke Ford has a fair bit about it. If there is something about the Koala TV scandal, that's even more notable. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:31, 11 January 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATF Cleaner

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

Delete Article does not assert notability [edit: it also reads like an advertisment] -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because, as already stated, it is one of many and shows no individual notability. --Stormbay (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence or even assertion of notability. Tim Ross 22:30, 13 January 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. Hut 8.5 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMD (advertising)

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

Delete Advertising, plain and simple. Previously nominated for deletion in April 2007, when it survived with a comment by the closing admin that those who had advocated keeping would actualy make the necessary improvements to the article. In fact, since that AfD, the only significant change has been to expand the article to 3 times its original size with blatant advertising copy from the company. It is clear that there is no prospect of this article being improved to a satisfactory standard. Mayalld (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article might be merged with Omnicom but would be retained as a redirect in that case. Otherwise the article is obviously capable of improvement as a few moments research would indicate. Mayalld needs to do more research before raising such futile nominations. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether improvement is possible is pretty irrelevant, given that having survived a previous AfD, improvement failed to happen. Nobody is interested in improving the article, so it won't improve. Let us not live in cloud-cuckoo-land where we fondly imagine that every bad article might just improved if we just give it 15 more years Mayalld (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge/redirect to Omnicom Group. This company is notable enough and the page can be split out again if someone is prepared to expand it.

  • Keep - Plenty of sources here. Consideration should be given to taking merge action without an AfD in future, similar cases. Unless the page meets speedy criteria, deletion should only be considered where the subject is not notable, not because of a poor quality article. TerriersFan (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company is the second largest media specialist agency worldwide, it's nearly $25 billion USD in billings worldwide not enough to keep the top spot it held in the 2006 rankings. Reliable and verifiable sources satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Note: The fact that an advertising firm is described does not trigger the "advert" tag, as the article provided factual details of the firms business in neutral terms. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand before the deadline. The article is not advertising by any standard, or if you do actually detect any in the current version, just fix it yourself. This company is huge and notable. I don't really see the point of a merge to Omnicom Group. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is poor but asserts that the company is succesful and noteworthy. I do not think the article qualifies as advertising. It just needs some attention from someone knowledgeable about the company. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 03:22, 12 January 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.-Wafulz (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superball Arcade

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

Contested speedy. This article is about a non-notable shareware computer game whose only assertion of notability is a "5-star Editor's rating from Download.com". I did find another reveiw by Game Tunnel and there's certainly plenty of Google hits (404 uniques pages out of 28,300 hits), largely from sketchy program download sites. I'm still not convinced of encyclopedic merit, and this is certainly weak on the reliable sources, but this article deserves community discussion. — Scientizzle 16:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notability: This game was released on Big Fish Games, one of the web's largest private downloadable game sites. It is still available on www.bigfishgames.de. The game designer, after completion of this project then became the Game Lead on the Webkinz project. Jellytot77 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game was also considered one of the "Top five time wasters on the Internet" by game columnist Marc Saltzman. Unfortunately, this article is no longer online. - Jellytot77 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Games are great (for the most part), but not every game is notable. This game, unfortunately, is one of the non-notable due to its lack of reviews, news articles, or other types of independent coverage from reliable information sources. Sidatio (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand why "lack of review or news articles" makes an article non-notable. Wikipedia is FULL of references to obscure games with lack of reviews or news articles. For example, I just downloaded Begin (computer game) last week from the Star Trek video games list, an old game with only a few existing articles written on the game. I can't stop playing it, and would never have found this gem if it was not listed on Wikipedia. What makes a game notable is how special it is in the hearts of the players, which I feel this game gives it it's "notability". - Jellytot77 (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of reliable secondary coverage (IE quality reviews when it's a video game) means that an article doesn't pass the notability guideline, and is therefore non-notable, notability isn't just a term it's a set of criteria. An encyclopedia article aims for broad coverage, in videogames that means what gameplay involves, how reviewers found the game and if at all possible some details about how the game was developed, as well as any other facets which may be present. Without these extra details 'articles' are just repeats of documentation that's already available. You will see plenty of articles which suffer the same problem, registered users are free to make articles as they see fit, hence why there are more than 2 million of them. They can't all be patrolled all the time, so articles which are not suitable stay around until they are dealt with. Before creating an article, every contributor is warned Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted., sources should be found before an article is started rather than after the event. Someone another (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The Marc Saltzman article is here, hardly a massive lump of text to take a lot from, it is direct coverage. Game Tunnel is A-ok for casual/indie game reviews, and that review's a good source (if there was another like that this would be a standard keep). There is also a top 5 Arkanoid clones piece for whatever year [here] from the same site, providing some additional data. Add to that Download.com's editor comment [here] there is at least some article building blocks, reception information and different sites to slot into the references. Just wish there was another nice fat review. Someone another (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are now cited in the article, they could be used to expand gameplay a little further and considerably increase the reception section too. Some more opinions would be useful. Someone another (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good finds, Someone! I don't know if this article will ever be improved any more than it is with what sources are out there, but it seems to be just enough. It's a weak keep, and I agree - it'd be nice to have one or two more devoted reviews from reliable sources. Until then, though, it seems you've found just enough to keep this one on life support. Sidatio (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've got to be good for something ;) I also found this on a blog called Windows Fanatics, which seems quite well rooted. Nothing else is coming up unfortunately. Someone another (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a minute.. the site is called LockerGnome, run by this guy and the post is by him too! COME ON, who's the daddy? :D Someone another (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am convinced by the above that this article is not an obvious case for deletion and deserves some time. Recently read this essay on it, which quite accurately describes my stance in this deletion debate.User:Krator (t c) 17:08, 8 January 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 and redirect.-Wafulz (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Thomas

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

the article does not cite any sources, and it has almost no content that it can provide to the reader, this article needs to be expanded or otherwise deleted Λua∫Wise (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this is being deleted as I just used information that is currently available here on Wiki. I know that the information is correct as I have worked for Lenny Thomas and the band Trashlight Vision—Preceding unsigned comment added by RichieRiot (talk • contribs) 16:04, January 7, 2008

hello, if you are going to expand the article beyond the ten 10 words it has for the moment, i will remove the tag.Please note the {{underconstruction}} or similar tags were not displayed, one might assume that the creater has finished working on the article. Λua∫Wise (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Enterprise (NX-01), editors may wish to Merge any useful information into that article. BLACKKITE 15:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NX class starship

NX class starship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fancruft that fails WP:V, WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT and has in universe issues with WP:WAF. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Basically you can throw the whole book at this one. Gavin Collins (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-direct to Enterprise (NX-01), keep the history of the redirect, and merge anything if possible. Acalamari 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing to merge after policy-breaking content is removed. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Enterprise (NX-01). Perfectly valid alias for an existing article. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Merge. I quite agree with Fosnez and Blue387 above. I see nothing wrong with the article, and it certainly doesn't appear to me to be original research. At the very least a merge into the Enterprise (NX-01) article in a sub-section on the NX class. This is core information from a major TV franchise; it is not self-indulgent fan material. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 13:11, 15 January 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. Notability established in its state as of 15 January. If there is still a WP:SPAM or WP:COI issue, fix it without bringing to AfD. Argyriou (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asymptote Architecture

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

Blatant advertisement; Non neutral point of view; Conflict of interest from Main editors; No intention of fixing by Main editors as shown in history: one of them deleted the advert tag on 19:32, 17 December 2007; Main editors are probably sockpuppets anyway --W2bh (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: pure & blatant WP:SPAM as per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. There are some relibale sources. If not deleted, stubify? Rudget. 16:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The sources are very recent and where added by RMHED when after discussing with him why he removed the original db-spam tag I placed on the article. --W2bh (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it matter at what time they were added? Rudget. 16:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just trying to illustrate my point that it doesn't seem the original editors where trying to construct a proper article. --W2bh (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm not totally sold on all the sources that have been added to the article; most of them seem to be about the buildings rather than the firm proper. However, I would think that, between the number of buildings they've designed and the large number of awards they've received, they are indeed a notable architecture firm. Therefore, other reliable sources must exist for them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • super speedy delete I LOATHE self-promotion. Go place an ad in the New Yorker. MiracleMat (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I am dismayed to see an adverse reaction to this page—as a former architecture student, I can attest to this office's notability, they are one of the more promising young offices. As for architectural and artistic keep criteria, there isn't that well defined a policy here as there is for music or the very generic corporation requirements, the latter this studio seems to escape in my view. An editor whose opinion I'd like to see here once drafted an architectural notability page which hasn't found much use but I think this article and its subject would qualify, and I do think they meet our broader requirements, they are award winning, frequently enter prominent design competitions and exhibitions, have academic cred, and illustrious clientèle. What the commentators at this AfD seem to take issue with is that this article appears to be written by the studio, and is a form of self promotion, however, with notability established by third party sources, having the subject of the article releasing images can obviously work in the benefit of Wikipedia—and in this instance Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary architecture which is scant in all honesty and has little access to high quality renderings and projects of this sort. The text isn't far off from neutral coverage, the IP contributor to the article has done some trimming and added more references, I think their notability as far as third party references should be covered. The image of the partners was clearly a promo photo, but if they are willing to release it to Wikipedia we should be accepting and appreciative of that, as we have very few portraits to illustrate our architectural biographies. The strategy at this point, I would think is to, as tactfully as possible, find some way to confirm that the accounts editing this page and uploading images have in fact been operated by the office in question and confirm that they are releasing these images into the GFDL whether by OTRS ticket or by polite email posted on the image pages, as I believe an article about this studio written by its members according to our rules and fashion can provide valuable insights and access to coverage we may otherwise not be able to achieve. To reiterate, I think this article should be kept. Regards, dvdrw 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant 3rd party coverage implies notability. Blatant advertisement = edit issue. Conflict of interest=Noticeboard& WP:COI. Sockpuppets=Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I can see no meat for the deletion request? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa there keep! Ok, so we have blatant self promotion - this is a wiki, anyone is free to add sourced counter viewpoints. What's important is whether this is a notable architectural firm - Exhibits at the Guggenheim, numerous column inches in respected architectural journals, and the odd award mean this isn't Crushing and Normals associates - "we specialise in exquisite accomodation for your four legged friends". --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significantly improved from the self promotion submitted, and while need of improvement, it seems ok at the moment. Otherwise it fulfils all the other criteria (N,V etc.) for a keep. Mostlyharmless (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination rationale lists several good reasons for editing the article, but no policy- or guideline-based reasons for deleting it. There are plenty of reliable sources for verifiability and notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason was WP:SPAM. --W2bh (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there is plenty of non-spammy verifiable information here, so if you think that any particular statements are spammy the solution is for you to edit them. There's no need to delete a whole article about a notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what this needs is editing, not deletion. Surely with thousands of WP editors out there we can together rearrange what is significant, factual and notable in this article into an encyclopaedic format? -- Hebrides (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is effectively deleted merely by virtue of the Deletion banner and discussion. A horrible credibility hit. The company should stub it or insist on its deletion until unequivocally disinterested editors write a new one. The comments supporting retention are as weak as the article itself. Eye.earth (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that it's use as a promotional article is marred by this process? That's fine isn't it? - of course if the result is keep the banner will be removed. It doesn't really follow from this that the company should stub it or wait for disinterested editors - I don't understand that. The article just stays as it is unless someone choses to do something to it. Would you elaborate why "comments supporting retention are as weak as the article" - just saying they're weak, doesn't shed any light on your thinking. thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:23, 15 January 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, articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate. --Oxymoron83 12:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kuthkameen

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

WP:NFT. Follow the link http://lappet.topcities.com/kuthkameen.html and you will see that this is a made up word. Failed prod. Toddst1 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: only a handful of hits on the Internet, all of which show this WP:NEO being used as a personal name. Mh29255 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism with no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:37, 7 January 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, sources were not presented.-Wafulz (talk)

Agile Project Leadership Network

Agile Project Leadership Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert notability of the organization. After doing a web search, I find it has fairly low hitrate, and most hits are self-promotional or directory listings. Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:SPAM. JERRY talk contribs 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: while the article is short and inadequately referenced (the articles needs work), an Internet search does show a large number of hits that are not necessarily self-promotional. This article, in my opinion, does not fit WP:SPAM; and the referenced founding member (one of several founding members) is notable. Mh29255 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but as non-notable rather than spam. A Google news arvhive search unearths a number of press releases (all those entries from PR Newswire and Business Wire) which, if this was a notable organisation, you would have expected to be picked up and translated into significant press coverage. This doesn't appear to have happened. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agile methodologies are poised to overtake the world of project management. The topic of agile project management is covered already in Wikipedia articles on extreme project management and human interaction management. Significant academic work points to this coming phenomenon as a replacement for traditional project management techniques. Since the Agile Project Leadership Network is the professional worldwide organization for this movement, it is completely and legitimately notable, and therefore meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Mpleahy 17:04, 13 January (UTC)
  • Delete: non-notable, cf. Phil Bridger. _R_ (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - it may yet become notable, but it lacks any good cites. Press releases verify nothing. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to the character list. BLACKKITE 15:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Chamberlain

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

Minor soap character with no claim of meeting WP:FICTION, and no sources merge somewhere or Delete Secret account 15:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: this article is one of over 100 articles about fictional characters from General Hospital TV show. Hence, this significant amount of coverage about show and its characters collectively, in my opinion, imply notability. The article does need a lot more references for verification. Mh29255 (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of these fictional characters should be merged or deleted, as they are mainly unsourced, I can't do a mass nomination though as it would be confusing, etc. Secret account 15:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:NOTINHERITED. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the appropriate character list of the series. Minor soap character that fails WP:FICTION and lacks real world notability.Collectonian (talk) 07:19, 10 January 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. --Oxymoron83 12:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chef graham fox

Chef graham fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources cited for this chef at a North Carolina restaurant. Said to have won a Young Chef of the Year award, but no sign of the awarding society on the www. No substantial Google hits on him: that is to say there are several listings entries and one restaurant review, but no substantive articles with him as the subject. Suspect this is a bit of astroturfing for www.fearrington.com, given the conflict of interest apparent in the originating editor's username. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: fails WP:BIO. Comment: apparently the Young Chef of the Year Award was from "Averey's Food & Wine Society"[37], but they got no google hits at all! --JD554 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and comments from JD554. Mh29255 (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am the creator of this page, and I'd like to propose that it be kept on the basis that Chef Fox is indeed notable. There are other Wiki articles about Chefs whose restaurants are listed alongside The Fearrington House in the destination restaurants article, as well as Thomas Keller, who is now the chef of French Laundry, where Chef Fox has also worked. I have updated the article to include links to several reviews and profiles in magazines and travel guides. Hope this helps. Fearrington (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he is notable, then he presumably meets the criteria here. Conversely, if he does not meet those criteria then he is not (in Wikipedia terms) notable. You'll need to cite the publications in which evidence of the notability appears. I realise that you do believe he is notable and wish to create the article, but your conflict of interest on these articles means you may have to allow other editors to make a more objective judgement on this. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable - note that creator of article has created only articles about Fearrington Village (a rural mall/development) and institutions therein. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure he's a great chef, who cooks tasty dishes, and is a really nice guy, but he's not notable. The sources are less than reliable, and have trivial mentions of the subject. Spam from SPA. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The articles cited are incidental mentions of his restaurant i combination articles andtravel guides. DGG (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the secondary sources aren't really in-depth enough. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 04:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep; snowball clause. JERRY talk contribs 15:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International PEN

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

Organisation appears to be non-notable. All 3rd party sources in article are actually self-published or press releases from the organisation, and all non-trivial GHITS appear to point to the organisations own sites. Relisted due to premature non-admin closure of previous AfD after 45 minutes and 3 comments. Mayalld (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator Mayalld (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Again, per comments of JdeJ from original AfD nomination, whose outcome was to strongly keep the article. Mh29255 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The outcome of the previous AfD was that somebody took it upon themself to close it within 45 minutes after 3 comments. That isn't an outcome, that is playing silly games with the process Mayalld (talk)
      • Comment I'll have you keep your personal attackes to youself thankyou! Fosnez (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very surprised at this nomination of an internationally known organisation. Yes, the article itself is poor and lacks sources but this can be rectified. Assume speedy closure of previous AfD was because closing admin also agreed this is clearly a notable subject. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Previous AfD was a non-admin closure after 45 minutes. Closure of AfD is supposed to be about consensus, not somebody taking it upon themselves to make a decision to refuse a debate Mayalld (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Leaving the discussion open would only have resulted in a pile-on of surprised 'strong keep' votes. It was in principle correct to close the first discussion per WP:SNOW. However if one editor objects, WP:SNOW does not apply and so this second discussion should run its full course. The organisation is a very well known and long lived international human rights group. I am sourcing some better references for the article now and I'm certain the article can be improved to the point where all editors agree it's viable.Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Organization is internationally well known, with verifiable sources can be easily kept. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As the person "playing silly games" with the process and closing the article per WP:SNOW originally I would to take the time here to say that this renomination is invalid, I have clearly showed that this organisation is notable, sources can be found and I have added some already - This is why I closed the AfD - this article has a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. can someone else please SNOW Close this?. Fosnez (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If it is such a clear case, then it will be eminently suitable for WP:SNOW once a reasonable time for discussion has elapsed. 45 minute and 3 comments is not a reasonable time. Mayalld (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a thoroughly documented article that provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard for a clearly notable international organization. This has to be one of the more irresponsible AfDs I have ever seen, as the article makes the clearest possible claims of notability. The nominator has clearly violated Wikipedia:Deletion policy which requires nominators to make a good faith effort to research notability and to edit, improve or merge articles before the mad rush to deletion. The quick closure of the first AfD should have been a resounding slap on the head that the AfD was unjustifiable, and this second AfD only compounds the problem. Appropriate administrative measures may need to be taken to prevent future such disruptive abuse of Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oh, it's you again is it? Did you ever read WP:NPA? The quick closure of the first AfD simply told me that somebody had decided to jump the gun before anybody got a chance to discuss it. Yes, the artcle claims notability, but it fails dismally to back it up. At the time it was nominated, it was unreferenced. Then external references were added that turned out to be press releases. Yet again, you accuse me of breaching policy. Perhaps you'd care to quote exactly which bit of the policy I have breached. Perhaps you would also like to stop issuing silly threats. Mayalld (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please take a good look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which states that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem." Here are a few warning signs that this just might be a notable article:
        1. Article makes explicit claims of notability, including the statement that "It is the world’s oldest human rights organization"
        2. The article is one of Wikipedia's oldest, created on September 7, 2004
        3. Approximately 200 other articles link to this article
        4. While you were unable to find any relevant links in your search, this Google News Archive search on "International PEN" found 2,040 sources, a Google search found 307,000, and The New York Times alone had 132 references in articles since 1981.
Again, you are being given a resounding wakeup call that your perceptions of notability are completely out of whack with the rest of Wikipedia. You may want to review relevant Wikipedia policy to help prevent further disruptions. Alansohn (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentYour quoting WP:NPA? Thats a bit rich. I believe this would be the part of the deletion policy he is refering to: Reasons for deletion
  • Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
  • All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed Fosnez (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you feel that anything I have said to you was a personal attack, I apologize unreservedly. You clearly believe that my nomination was misguided. I believe that your very rapid closure was misguided. I don't believe that there was any lack of good faith on your part. I do think you were rather premature, but that you believed that WP:SNOW applied. Equally, I hope you will accept that my nomination was made in good faith, and that I had made a bona fide attempt to check for reliable sources before nominating and found none. Sadly, Alansohn seems to be following me around eager to attack me and accuse me of acting in bad faith whenever I nominate anything that does anything other than go for a WP:SNOW deletion outcome Mayalld (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, well i'm gonna try to stay as neutral as possible on this one then... Fosnez (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, if you had searched for sources, there wouldn't have been any need to nominate for deletion. Addhoc (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked. I spent a reasonable amount of time looking at the results. Everything I saw was self-published. If others found good sources, then all well and good, but that doesn't excuse the personal attacks that some are making on me Mayalld (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - based on Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - appears to be notable. Addhoc (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be pretty clearly notable and passes WP:ORG easily. Even a very quick Google News search showed plenty of substantial reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep don't be ridiculously Mayalld even Britannica have this article. Please do better research before you make another deletion nomination Moravice (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect.-Wafulz (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oru Kaidhiyin Diary

Oru Kaidhiyin Diary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Foreign language film with little or no context or references. Triwbe (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Aakhree Raasta, then add a reference to this version. Egdirf (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Egdirf. The fact that Aakhree Raasta is a remake of this movie can be verified from better sources than IMDB, e.g. this article on Rediff [38], which mentions Oru Kaidhiyin Diary in passing. (I added that source just now to Aakhree Raasta). cab (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no particular opinion on whether this should be deleted, but I'd just like to point out that the language of the film has no bearing on its notability. It just means that it may be a bit more difficult for non-Tamil speakers to find sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Oxymoron83 12:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Connor's Full Breakfast

AfDs for this article:
Liam Connor's Full Breakfast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Highly speculative article. I can't seem to find any reference to it Egdirf (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article was previously deleted on 1 January 2008. The reason given was (CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance.) Egdirf (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: notability of this fictional & speculative radio show is not asserted per WP:N, no references per WP:V and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mh29255 (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if article has been previously speedily deleted, then it should be deleted also per WP:SD#G4. Mh29255 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks. Wasn't quite sure what to do with it. Will remember for future reference. Egdirf (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's actually incorrect- reread G4. That only applies to material deleted via a deletion discussion. J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But it is true. It is a fictional radio show which will appear in Coronation Street from March 2008. Liam Connor is invited to become a guest presenter on Radio Weatherfield, but becomes breakfast host because of his popularity. The show will be called Liam Connor's Full Breakfast. Gene Mort (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then provide us with a reliable reference. Otherwise the article will be deleted. Egdirf (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if this is true, and I can find no source to prove it is, a ficitional radio show within a TV programme is extremely unlikely to merit an article in its own right ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not merit an article. If true, could perhaps merit a paragraph at Liam Connor. MSGJ (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ChrisTheDude and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per CSD criteria G11. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crain's Manchester Business

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

Delete NN newspaper. Mayalld (talk) 14:38, 7 January 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, appears at least borderline notable; cleanup would be good. BLACKKITE 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Şahin K

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

Fails WP:BIO for pornographic actors. No references to awards, mainstream media attention, or unique contributions - TheBillyTalk 14:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep. You should put a tag to re-edit the article and make a call for Turkish-speaking users to improve it. The present users in discussion cannot weigh the notability of this personality. The article may be in ill condition, which is a fact, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the subject matter is not notable. Behemoth (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Nevertheless, I don't smell a hint of common-sense here. Behemoth (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T VOTE TWICE. You're being extremely disruptive. Also, new text goes under old text. - TheBillyTalk 12:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable actor. No reliable independent sources either. Egdirf (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as previous. Triwbe (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. He is at least as notable as dumbass American football players present in Wikipedia. He is an important actor in Turkey and will now begin a new phase of his career. Behemoth (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC) See the new additions to the article. Behemoth (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Please read the current references. Behemoth (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and Behemoth (talk) please reconsider your choice of language. -RiverHockey (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go ahead, delete all articles that don't concern your great nation! Out English-language Wikipedia, in All-American Wikipedia. Behemoth (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Turn this reputable source called Wikipedia to a tabernacle of your sacred commercialism and vanity. Behemoth (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot about stubbornnes and ignorance. God bless America! Behemoth (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Don't even bother yourself for checking the references. I guess that's what you call NPOV "down" in the States. Behemoth (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are quite obtuse. I said please reconsider your choice of language because of this quote of yours, "He is at least as notable as dumbass American football players present in Wikipedia." Please refrain from further insults or you will be banned. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please avoid irrelevant politically-charged comments.
We can't check the sources because they're not in English. This is an English-language encyclopedia, and it's unreasonable to expect contributors to know all of the world's approximately 6,000 languages and be able to read absolutely anything presented. English is spoken in many countries throughout the world, in many forms. English is not exclusive to America, The UK, Canada, and Australia. If no reputable sources in english can be found, then it's doubtful that a person is important in the world in general - TheBillyTalk 12:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in policy that says non-English Language sources are unacceptable. WP:V says "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality". This means that in this case, as no English language sources of equal quality have been found, Turkish ones can be used. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed I didn't say they're unacceptable. You're arguing a point that nobody made. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to expect us to be able to read absolutely any source thrown out there, as Behemoth seems to think we should - TheBillyTalk 15:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that you were claiming that they couldn't be used to establish verifiability and notability, but I see now that you were just replying to Behemoth's rant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's ignore the ranting and concentrate on whether the article conforms to policy and guidelines. References given establish that he, to quote WP:BIO's provisions for pornographic actors, "has been featured multiple times in mainstream media", and also confirm the awards. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 9 January 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 per Snow (Rational) - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International PEN

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

Delete Organisation appears to be non-notable. No 3rd party sourcing in article, and all non-trivial GHITS appear to point to the organisations own sites Mayalld (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - but needs improvement. The International PEN is a very well-known organisation, often found in the news and with a long list of very notable authors as members, including nobel prize winners. It has often stood up for imprisoned authors and for the freedom of expression in authoritarian countries. Having said that, the page on the organisation is surprisingly bad, given its fame. Although never a very reliable indicator, the existence of the same page in more than ten languages says something about its fame. I hope it is kept and that the article is improved. There should be no doubt about the notability of the organisation. JdeJ (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per comments from JdeJ. Mh29255 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep- one of the most important writers associations worldwide. Needs Improvement.--80.144.117.41 (talk) 14:41, 7 January 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imankalyan lahiri

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

No assertion of notability. Autobiographical having been created by user with same name. Was created under a different name (albeit in a different format and information level) and speedy deleted. I'm not certain either way, so I present it to the community, but I'd personally lean to Delete. Ben W Bell talk 13:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:COI. The re-creation of an autobiographical article that's already been speedied certainly is the triumph of hope over experience, I guess. And while I loath autobios with a passion, this guy seems to be borderline notability at best. He gets just a couple of academic hits as Lecturer in Political Science of Netaji Subhas Open University [39] and [40]. Without anybody stepping forward to independently verify his notability, this has to go, I think. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, A7. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Mizelle

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSIC. Claim to fame is membership in a non-notable band, which receives less than a page of G-hits, mostly to Myspace. Redfarmer (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7, clearly doesn't assert notability in any way. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete perfect example of an A7 speedy, no notability asserted whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close, wrong venue. Moved to MfD; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Clemency. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clemency

User:Clemency (edit | [[Talk:User:Clemency|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article in userspace, duplicate with Clemency, Luxembourg. Possibly created by representative of the local government who didn't quite understand wikipedia??? If the content of this page is deleted, than Template:Infobox Luxembourg and Template:Lux box can be deleted as well. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:08, 7 January 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. WP:HEY seems to apply. As for merging: I would call that supported by the debate but not the outright consensus, and no one seems to object. Mangojuicetalk 02:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headlinersuk

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

Delete NN organisation. All sources self-published Mayalld (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please explain yourself - what is a NN organisation? Why does an entry exist for Children's Express, our former name, but you won't allow one for our current name? Ollybenson (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment NN = not notable. Mayalld (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The BBC seems an adequate source. The article should perhaps be renamed Headliners which seems to be the proper name of the organisation. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The BBC is an excellent source, however non-trivial coverage is required, and whilst the article claims coverage, it provides no evidence of that coverage, and I have been unable to find any myself. Mayalld (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is a link thru to the work Headliners did with BBC Northern Ireland in the recent work section Ollybenson (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that an article for Children's Express is neither here nor there (WP:WAX), in any case, the Chilren's Express article refers to the now-defunct US organisation. While it is a worthy organisation and has had some coverage I do not believe it is significant coverage as per WP:N. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret. Links appear to be statements that the named media organisations support this charity, rather than coverage of it. Not notable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure I follow. There are links to coverage on BBC News 24, BBC Northern Ireland, Sky and I can add more links to our work appearing in other publications and on ITV etc. I don't understand what you guys are looking for. Ollybenson (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The links are like public service announcements, not hard news. Sounds like you have a conflict of interest too! --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment So the fact that a Headliners reporter went to Kenya, made a report about young people with HIV/AIDS that was shown on BBC News 24 is classed as a "public service annoucement" by Wikipedia. I've never hidden the fact that I am employed by Headliners; but I don't think that puts me in conflict of interest. All I was trying to do was create an entry based on our existing name rather than a former name. Ollybenson (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment If you imagine that (as an employee of this organisation) you don't have a WP:COI, just what do you think does constitute a conflict of interest? Mayalld (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I tried to write a factual entry in line with what I assume Wikipedia requires; without promoting the organisation I work for unfairly. To me, and according to the reference you cite a conflict of interest occurs when I am doing something other than trying to further the aims of Wikipedia. I've got no problem with disclosing that I work for Headliners, and if Wikipedia wants me to declare that information then that's fine. But then I've edited a lot of wikipedia entries on subjects that I have knowledge or an interest in; primarily because I either work or volunteer or have involvement with them. Does that mean there is conflict of interest each time? Ollybenson (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Since you ask, it presents the possibility of a CoI, by my reading of the policy. I tried to look up your other edits, but under this username there are none that I can see. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment possibility of a CoI is not the same as having a CoI which was what was initially suggested. I've never had to log in to make changes on Wikipedia before, which is why I only registered today. Ollybenson (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, at least for now. It's somewhat telling that the first 2 links on Google for Headliners UK are a dance troupe and an indie band. Comments by Ollybenson above ("...our current name..." etc.), suggest a WP:COI problem here as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do a search for Headliners. The reason it is listed as HeadlinersUK is because Headliners already existed; I don't understand how to change the name to Headliners. Ollybenson (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The previous Headliners article doesn't seem to merit its place - it's just a redirect to an ad for a chain of clubs. The name should either be a disambiguation page or freed up for this article. Perhaps we can sort this out together Colonel Warden (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Headliners Entertainment Group have been deleted pr CSD A7. Taemyr (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Possible merge to or from Children's Express - I have added a couple of references to the article but it needs a lot of work. I will flag it for rescue. Fosnez (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How about moving to Headliners UK, and making it a redirect to Children's Express which mentions the UK org'n and its name change? That then allows for an expanded, properly sourced, article at a later date. This seems like a well-intended situation which hasn't yet met the notability criterion in a demonstrable way. That's the only reason we're having this discussion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep adequate reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish notability. This appears to be yet another questionable drive-by nomination, created within two minutes of the article's creation, hardly sufficient to meet the most perfunctory interpretation of a nominator's obligations under Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I also agree that the article's title does not do justice to the organization and should be renamed to avoid possible misinterpretations. Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the sources don't establish notability. They are little different from ads. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Alansohn accuses me of drive-by nomination, whilst indulging in drive-by personal attacks in every AfD I submit. Mayalld (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Is this an ad? [41] (published by the BBC today) Ollybenson (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it's an article about knife and gun violence. There is a difference between an article about Headliners and an article by Headliners. A example demonstrating notability would be an independent coverage of [42] Taemyr (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Children's Express And redirect Headliners there. There is simply not enough content here that not merging is meaningfull. Merging with childrens express would also help give readers context. As and when there is more content to add the page can be spun out again.Taemyr (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Children's Express pet Taemyr's argument. At the very least, move this over to Headliners. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge Children's Express, this is the current name.--Him and a dog 16:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but merging would be OK. Well-sourced: BBC, The Guardian, etc. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Pond

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

The prod was removed with the rationale "I think that the fact that she wrote the first episode distinguishes her enough from other writers" but notability is not inherited. And by the way, she wrote the episode that aired first, not the very first episode, because Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire was written to be in the mid season. She has only done one other thing, and in my mind she easily fails WP:BIO. Scorpion0422 12:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like she has done more than one thing, and has been noted in reliable sources for them.[43] Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's done a few things as a cartoonist as well as a writer. [44] [45]. I'll add info to the article now. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've updated the article with the rest of her work.--AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep; this does not preclude WP:BOLD editors from merging and redirecting as may be appropriate. JERRY talk contribs 02:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines Flight 380

Singapore Airlines Flight 380 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clearly in violation of WP:NEWS, and dare I say it, WP:ADVERTISING. Details are more than covered in detail in Airbus A380 and Singapore Airlines. Russavia (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think you meant one or both of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT#NEWS. Jpatokal (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Singapore Airlines, which already covers this subject. Mh29255 (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS (what I think the nominator meant as WP:NEWS is not a "law" but simply a portal to news stories). If you read the full text of WP:NOT#NEWS, you'll see it it primarily about living persons and avoiding causing harm to private individuals. The first two sentences state "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." This article in no manner is harming any individual. And surely the maiden flight of the largest commercial aircraft is of historic significance. --Oakshade (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And the last sentence of your quotation is especially relevant, as this flight received media attention for all of a twenty-four hour period, in other words it is of passing importance. Additionally, this was NOT the maiden flight of the aircraft as it underwent hundreds upon hundreds of hours of flight testing before even being delivered to Singapore Airlines. As to the notion this is not harmful to the subject, that may be the case, as most advertising is beneficial, however, it is harmful to WP. --Russavia (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That this event was of "passing importance" is but a matter of personal bias and perception. Even the aircraft's recent incident at Changi Airport when it rolled into the grass during pushback was widely reported by all major news agencies and picked up by thousands of other articles. To argue on technicalities on its status as a "maiden" flight or not in a bid to downplay its significance is completely moot, and he knows it. The global media obviously could not care less whether the aircraft was flying its maiden test flight or its maiden commercial flight with fare-paying passengers. To them, it is THE maiden flight of the worlds largest commercial aircraft (itself a technical error), and that was where it gained international prominence and notability. Wikipedia reports what the world reports, not what individuals with agendas think is technically correct.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable enough for an article of its own and already documented in Singapore Airlines and Airbus A380.MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment From where did you deduce non-notability, despite obvious widespread media coverage?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and MilborneOne. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every aircraft model ever built has had an inaugural flight of some kind. There was some coverage, but I don't see how this can't be covered in a couple of sentences in both the aircraft model and airline articles. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Every human has a brain and two legs of some kind, so I suppose we should not write articles on any of them too by this logic. "Some" coverage actually translated to hundreds if not thousands of news coverage alone all over the planet. Notability is established by the extent of its coverage, not necessarily by (current) article length.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect ot Airbus A380 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Airbus A380 as suggested by 132. Flight 380 is part of the history of the Airbus 380, and not the other way around. Mandsford (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And Singapore Airlines has no part to play in this? Why should the article not direct to Singapore Airlines instead, when it was SIA which made it especially significant?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Airbus A380 as suggested above. SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Singapore Airlines flight 380 has gained enough global notability to justify it's own article, with over 18,600 hits on google when searching "SQ380" alone[46], and with entire websites dedicated to this subject[47]. Notability is not established just because it is the "first flight". It was the first commercial flight of the current largest commmecial aircraft in operation, with high publicity and a relatively unusual means of selling off seats which has gained widespread attention. I do not recall any other "first flight" in recent memory which was telecast live on national TV, as has taken place for this flight. The flight is not only part of the history of the A380, but also that of Singapore Airlines, if not even more so for the later. Keeping this information on two seperate articles (both of which do not cover the subject in detail) is cumbersome, repeatitive and not helpful to readers.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Huaiwei (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how significant that "18,600" is, given that there's also stuff like the SQ380 Lockit-Socket Squirrel Mannikin, the China Cleaning Machine (SQ-380) and the SQ 380 Amplifier in there. For comparison, a Google search for "SQ 220" pulls up 6,960 hits. Jpatokal (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A better google search is the news, with only 35 hits for SQ380+"Singapore Airlines". A website dedicated to the flight can't be used in any argument as it is not a valid source for information inline with WP policy. As to the notion that you can't recall any recent flight in memory, well how about the unveiling live Russia wide on TV of the Sukhoi RRJ? Given twenty four hours I too could come up with an article Sukhoi RRJ unveiling and provide enough marketing and advertising material in it to make it seem like a legitimate encyclopaedia entry, whilst in reality approximately 2 paragraphs would have anything to do with the unveiling, and the rest would read like a Sukhoi marketing brochure. And I could use this article as a foundation, and just replace the "Copyright by Singapore Airlines marketing department" with "Sukhoi", because the article reads more like marketing than an encyclopaedia, "They were pleasantly surprised...."? "adding buzz to the event"? --Russavia (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • By Russavia's argument, we can deduce two things: one, since google's news search is considered reliable in this regard, he must be very confident that there are a grand total of 35 news articles in the entire planet which reported on this flight. How true is this? Common sense says otherwise. Second, since his search only constitutes SQ380+"Singapore Airlines", he must also be confident that all articles on this topic must mention both phrases. I happen to discover that the word "SQ380" actually do not necessarily appear in articles on the inaugural flight. A casual search of A380+inaugural+"Singapore Airlines" produces 29,200 hits. A search for A380+inaugural+"Singapore Airlines"-SQ380 produces 26,400 hits. And A380+inaugural+"Singapore Airlines"+SQ380 produces just 2,820 hits. Russavia takes my casual search literally when I decided to google "SQ380", yet decides to skirt the possibility of "SQ380" not even appearing in many of these articles discussing this topic.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At the moment, only the "Inaugural flight" section of the article actually discusses the flight itself, the rest concerns SQ and the A380 in general. If the focus is to be kept on the flight, the extraneous material should be removed; if the focus is to be expanded beyond it, a better name is required. Jpatokal (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI see that there is room for expansion on discussing the flight, but some background information will also help the reader.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Airbus A380 with a mention in Singapore Airlines. -- RattleMan 16:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep it's a historic flight that is clearly notable, and worthy of its own article. I don't see the value in redirecting this to the A380 article, because this one only talks about this particular flight, and the A380 one is already long enough. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't "only" talk about the flight — as noted above, a good three-quarters are duplicated from elsewhere and/or about SQ's A380 program in general. Jpatokal (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentThe so-called "duplicates" are clearly necessary to provide context to the reader, both in explaining the significance of the aircraft's production and delivery, and the impact of the aircraft's introduction to the airline. This is perfectly normal in many other articles.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question Huaiwei, can you please provide examples of the other articles you talk about? --Russavia (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment To take a recent example, Assassination of Benazir Bhutto.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment The correlation between this article and the Benazir Bhutto assassination is, IMO, erroneous as their were several notable events in the timeline previous to the assassination which are relevant to the assassination, and which likely paid their part in the assassination itself, a background is totally appropriate to the event. Also, the assassination itself received coverage for days/weeks after the event itself, and has had ramifications elsewhere, all of which are directly related to the assassination. The information provided in the B.B. article clearly provides context to the assassination, whereas that in this article does not; note the total lack of PR-type language in the B.B. article --Russavia (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment In other words, anything positive is considered "PR" and "Advertising", while anything negative is worthy as wikipedia articles in your books? I see. Meanwhile, what kind of "erroneous" correlation is there, when you only asked for an illustration of articles requiring a background summary, which may duplicate content from another article? I left you with the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto article just to see if you know how to analyse the article, and boy, you went completely out of focus in actually attempting to justify that article's inclusion instead! Well since you decide to digress, have you ever realised that the very arguments you charge against the Singapore Airlines Flight 380 article can aptly apply to the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto article? Why don't you launch an AfD on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto?--Huaiwei (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Airbus A380#Entry into service. Simply put, there is no justification to have complete articles in three, or more, places. I could support keeping this article if I believed that the other two articles would forever remain as links here in a single sentence about the flight. We need to get away from including identical information in multiple articles. This creates maintenance nightmares and conflicting information in different articles. Singapore Airlines should also link to Airbus A380#Entry into service. Keep the information in one place! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your suggestion is contradictory. If your concern is to keep the information in one place, why then are you advocating this article to be a redirect, when that will result in information appearing in both the A380 and Singapore Airlines articles? Kindly be reminded that the first flight is operated by Singapore Airlines, and it is the airline which made the flight more significant than it already is via its intensive marketing efforts. Did Airbus arrange for the first flight to be a full-charity flight with tickets sold by auctions? Did Airbus offer complimentary gifts for the passengers? Did Airbus organise the send-off and reception ceremonies, and did it promote the first flight in its website? None to all, because Singapore Airlines did all that and more. To insist that this article be redirected to A380 makes little sense to me, if it is to be a redirect at all.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be blunt, my suggestion is based on the constant bickering in the various articles related to SA. My suggestion is the only way that I see to keep the information in any encyclopedic form that is appropriate for this wiki. So while not the most logical on the surface it is the wisest move for the quality of the wiki. Sometimes conditions say to what would not normally be done since in that case it is the best choice. And I am suggesting that the information be primarily in one article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Airbus A380, the real subject of this article. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Airbus A380. I could have been argued into supporting an article on SQ's A380 program in general, but an article focused on the flight alone is too narrow. Jpatokal (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. Russavia has a long history of disputes with Huaiwei on Singapore Airlines-related articles and once frivolously mass-nominated many articles on Singaporean hotels for deletion. Considering the press coverage this has received, it is definitely notable. If there are issues with the article, improve it, but do not remove it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What exactly is my bias? Point it out from my previous nominations from here. It should also be noted that Huaiwei had no input on this article previously. And it should also be noted that you accused me on ANI of sockpuppetry, an accusation which you have neither followed up on nor apologised for. Now, if you can present an argument which is based on policy instead of WP:PA, then please present them. --Russavia (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it may need to be trimmed down a bit. This long-awaited aircraft is likely to a a workhorse of the aviation industry. Accoringly its first commercial flight is historic and thus encyclopaedic. This is not a typical case of "famous for 15 minutes", though I susoect a lot of those manage to stay in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that anyone is disputing the need for the information. Just the need to have three articles with different versions of the same information. Can someone explain the need for this information to exist in at least three articles? If not, then merging is the smartest way to go. Leave a sentence with a link for articles that remain and a redirect from here to the section on the first flight in another article. What does the design of the SA fleet have to do with the first flight? It is not something that should be covered here. How does the SA selection of engines affect the first flight? This article really deserves an advert tag in it's current state. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Between the information equally divided between two articles, and being centrally located in one article with brief mention in two articles, which one sounds more sensible to you?--Huaiwei (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, the work horses of the aviation industry are aircraft such as Douglas DC-3, Antonov An-2, Boeing 737, Tupolev Tu-154, yet none of these articles have the need (nor desire I imagine) to have such an article. With a single aircraft in service, it is way too early to call it a workhorse, and once other aircraft are delivered there will be a "big deal" factor. If it is that important to document, as mentioned above, this flight is part of the history of the aircraft, not the other way around, and a PR-spammy-advertorial cum-news article does not belong on WP, perhaps on Wikinews, but I would expect that the same policies are in place to rid their articles of the PR-spammy-advertorial content. --Russavia (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Would you not agree that your comment has basically degenerated (once again) to nothing more than WP:OTHERSTUFF? In fact, it fits the bill exactly: We do not have an article on <the first flight of Douglas DC-3, Antonov An-2, Boeing 737, Tupolev Tu-154>, so we should not have an article on this. Notability is not established by what you define as a workhorse of the aviation industry. It is established by the extent of coverage via third-party sources, which has been clearly demonstrated as meeting the requirements as per above, irregardless of the outcome of the plane's performance in years ahead. If an article has PR-spammy-advertorial content, than initiate an attempt to clean it up (unless you are able to do it yourself). You are once again reminded not to abuse the AfD process.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment No, my arguments are the same, those being WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. It should be remind that from WP:N#TEMP that a short burst of news reports on a particular subject, including this Afd, does not afford a subject long-term notability, and as such is better off being covered at Wikinews, not on Wikipedia. --Russavia (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment So care to explain your own comments on the non-existence of other first flights then? It is your own comments we are talking about here, mind you. And I find it very interesting that you should quote WP:N#TEMP, because it actually supports the existence of this article: If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. This article has met the general notability guideline easily, in that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as well illustrated above. Once again, our friend Russavia attempts to reinterpret wikipolicies in selective ways to suit his agendas.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historic, sufficient coverage worldwide. Chensiyuan (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:N#TEMP states that a short burst of news reports does not afford a subject long-term notability, therefore it is before off being covered at Wikinews, not on wikipedia. --Russavia (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:N#TEMP states that once a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic. Therefore there is no need to show continuous news articles on the same flight several months or years later. If anything which appears in Wikinews is not encylopedic, then I would question the existance of practically thousands of articles covering historical events. Obviously, the true intent of WP:N is completely lost in the warped mind of Russavia desperate to rid this encyclopaedia of anything he has a personal distaste with.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Comments erased due to yet another personal attack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 10:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huaiwei, that was totally out of line. I suggest withdrawing your comment and apologizing. Jpatokal (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Evidence continues to mount against a user's disruptive means of editing, and even as we speak as illustrated above. A double AfD nomination of an SIA-related article done sneakily by group nominating another article would probably have been missed by people less aware of the entire situation. He can attempt to try to cover up his tracks, but we shall see.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ad hominem attacks in an AFD discussion are in themselves disruptive. Please stay civil. Jpatokal (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment It should be noted that the above editor believes I have it out for the little-red dot, and it has NOTHING to do with any policy, and the fact that certain airline articles are spiralling out of control, and it also has nothing to do with the above editor being somewhat responsible for this due to his inability to abide by concensus, and various other issues. The modus operandi of the above editor is to resort to personal attacks at any opportunity, as is evidenced by various disputes he has been in, including those which resulted in him being put on probation and banned from editing certain articles for a lengthy period of time. What the above editor fails to see is that quite a few occasions other editors from the general community have agreed with my Afd nomination, resulting in article deletion or redirection, and that I could hardly hide the other nomination as I had to Afd all 3 articles openly. But when one can't argue against the argument, they attack the person, and this is commonplace, hence why I removed my above comment and placed a struck out comment, as I have no interest in discussing and reasoning with such a person. --Russavia (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please refrain from ad hominem attacks in an AFD discussion and stay civil — I'm getting very tempted to call an RFC on both of you. Jpatokal (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I just caught you lying, Russavia. You have never removed a comment. My comment above was followed by two edits from yourself, one of which has stayed [48] and is not related to the above comment, while the second was the addition of that "strikeout" comment without actually striking out any existing commentary[49]. I would demand that you come clean with your actions.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Lying how? As I said, I had several unsubmitted comments typed out in response to you, which I then removed and placed what I placed, as I have no interest in discussing in response to WP:PA, and if I did post what I had typed out, I think I might have been subjected to 20 life sentences. And in response to Jpatokal, please do so, I have no problem with that. --Russavia (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So just for the fun of it, what was the comment you were meaning to post? I promise at the most 10 life sentences, a hefty discount of 50%!--Huaiwei (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all keep arguments canvassed. Manderiko (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Airbus 380 where this information is covered. This flight is mainly notable for being the maiden voyage of that aircraft. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And why redirect it to Airbus 380, and not to Singapore Airlines?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • He just told you: "This flight is mainly notable for being the maiden voyage of that aircraft." That is, any notability is due to it being the first flight of the A380, and not because it's a Singapore Airlines flight. (Which is why I also support redirecting to Airbus 380.) Jpatokal (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I am obviously questioning that logic. Is Airbus going to be able to launch that flight without any airline operating the aircraft? It has been pointed out repeatedly that the flights notability is established not just because of the aircraft, but also because of the airline. If an article on a flight operated by an airline gets redirected to the aircraft article, I suppose an article like Pan Am Flight 103 shall be redirected to the Boeing 747 article if it becomes a redirect?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pan Am Flight 103 is not notable for being a Pan Am flight or for being flown on a Boeing 747, it's notable because it was blown up by terrorists, and the WP convention is to name such incidents after their flight numbers instead of, say, a tail code like "Boeing 747 N739PA".
          • Anyway, to me it seems fairly tautological that any notability of the first flight of the A380 is due it to being the first flight of the A380. I see you alone argue that having SQ operate the flight makes it somehow more notable than it would otherwise have been, but this seems rather hypothetical, as there's no way to know what another airline would have done with the opportunity. Jpatokal (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That I am the only one who bothers to voice out a logical flaw is not much of a concern to me, for wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not need to imagine what it would be like if another airline does the same thing, for it is clear that there is much publicity on the first flight thanks to many factors which are actually not aircraft-related. The way tickets were sold for a charity cause, the new suite class introduced by SQ (that the airline introduced rules against certain acts in that adjoining bed was the talk of the town!), the ameneities provided, services offered, the flight crew, the ceremonies and mementos, and even the passenger list (one was apparantly a rather notable figure in airliners.net and the crew threw her a birthday party on board)...are all of these related more to the aircraft or the airline which organised everything to make it especially memorable and noteworthy? Many who say it should be redirected to the Airbus A380 article are also the ones who simply drop a "as per nom" comment. I wonder if each of them has actually thought it through before commenting, or if they are simply adopting a herd mentality.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep seems notable and historical, but I'd be happy with a merge to Airbus 380 too Hobit (talk) 02:15, 17 January 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 JERRY talk contribs 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Halischuk

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

Non-notable junior player who has yet to play in a professional game. JD554 (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - While I agree that every junior player does not merit inclusion, I contest that statement that he is not notable. Being a member of the Canada U-20 team alone is a strong stance (I believe might merit inclusion alone) that places the player in the upper tier of Canadian junior players. In addition, his performance in the tournament should merit the article (overtime, game winning goal). As shown through Paul Henderson in the Summit Series, a single goal in international competition can propel a legacy. While in no way is what Halischuck did near the importance of Henderson, I do think it highlights how the single event can reach the notability level necessary for an article such as this one. A view of the 2008 IIHF World U20 Championship article shows a number of players that have articles that have never played professionally, yet their junior/college careers (e.g., playing, draft position, international, and the like) are enough to merit inclusion. I do think that the goal, with the relatively high draft position (i.e., not a random player who scored, but one with somewhat of a career) show enough merit. I am the article creator and therefore am considered to have a vested interest. RonSigPi (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being selected to play for the Under-20 team doesn't mean he will play or do anything notable in the future — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --JD554 (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep: Sorry, not noticed he had played. I agree then he meets the criteria of WP:BIO assuming the U-20 Worlds is the highest amateur level and I'm inclined to believe it is. --JD554 (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually look at the players on that page that do have pages, they have either played professionally (which is the case for almost every player on that page that isn't Canadian). Or they have been drafted in the first round of the NHL draft or in the case of Tavres and Stamkos, are highly talked about draft prospects. -Djsasso (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as he scored the game winning goal at the 2008 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Delete World Juniors is not the top amateur competition. The Olympics or World Championships would be. Lots of people have played for the World Juniors who will never have a page on wikipedia. And notability is not temporary so the temporary notability he has for scoring this goal is not likely to last. Does anyone remember the last guy to win the World Juniors in overtime. I don't think so. Personally I think he should go until he plays a game professionally and therefore meets WP:BIO. As to RonSigPi why they have articles, is that they were drafted in the 1st round which is one of the criteria we (WP:HOCKEY) have for allowing junior players to stay. -Djsasso (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympics and World Championships now allow professionals (they have for about 15 years now). It is hard to say absolutely that the U20 are amateur, since 18 and 19 year olds under professional contracts can play - but many who do play professionally do not get approval from their club to play (at least in North American leagues); so in a way it is for amateur players. That being said, the U20 championship is a major contest for 'junior' players. -RonSigPi (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in no way saying its not major. Being in Canada I think its bigger than the World Championships, however, Europeans would say the opposite as the World Juniors are an also ran in Europe. That being said anytime you restrict something by age you are in effect showing that it is not be top level because you are cutting out older people who would often (though not always) have better skills than their younger counter parts. Especially when you consider the fact that all of these junior players are elligable to play in the World Championships as well. And as you mentioned yourself a relatively large number of players in the junior championships are also professionals as most of the European players often have played a few games professionally since hockey levels are set up differently in Europe. So the fact that the Olympics and World Championships now allow pros to play is not a differentiating factor because just as many pros play in the Junior championships, just not for Canada and the United States. -Djsasso (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you are saying. I know what I said hurts my stance, but I would rather be accurate then right. My point was to clear up when JD554 said U20s were the top amateur competition, since technically it is not amateur. I think this is a bit of a degression from the topic (i.e., if this article should stand), but thought that should be cleared for anyone who wants to add in. -RonSigPi (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know what Halischuk did, but feel that isn't enough. WP:HOCKEY set out guidlines, and we shouldn't make an exception here, or anywhere, as it sets dangerous precident. If we let Halischuk in, then it means any junior/non-notable player who does something should be considered, and suddenly the entire guidlines are just a waste of time. It also seems to be a case of WP:RECENTISM. Seriously, does anyone here know who scored the winning goal in the 2007 tournament, or any tournament? (Not a serious question, rather a redundant statement). As well, just looking at his stats, he was a 4th round pick; While that can mean whatever one wants it to, I think it shows that the NHL hasn't thought of him enough to make him a top-draft choice, with less odds to have a pro career, though again that isn't always true. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has yet to win a major award in juniors and wasn't a first round pick in the NHL draft. Once/if he plays some pro hockey or he wins a major award, the article can be recreated. Patken4 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons behind the deletion of the Stefan Legein article. Andy Saunders (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it would be more beneficial to bring up your concerns as to the notability or non-notability of a player other than just saying Stefan Legein is your reason as some editors who are participating in this discussioon may not know the circumstances behind that player's page being deleted. --Pparazorback (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per commentary by Kaiser matias and Djsasso above. --Pparazorback (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since he scored the game winning goal for the gold medal in the U20 championships. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:31, 15 January 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. east.718 at 17:21, January 13, 2008

Naturbia

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

Neologism with no evidence of widespread usage. 25 unique ghits, nothing on Google Scholar. MER-C 11:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The article starts out "Naturbia (trademark pending)". Seems like spam that went unnoticed until now. Hasn't even reached neologism status: someone's trying to use this article to coin the term (protologism) - TheBillyTalk 14:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: a search on the Internet brings up links using this WP:NEO, but they refer either to the apparent creator of the article or to a woman with a claim to have written a book with the same name as the article. There is no evidence for the existence of the book. The website http://www.naturbia.com has no content, but implies that this article is essentially WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term itself is not notable, although it could easily be covered in the biographical article for Kvan/Karakiewicz, who seem arguably notable for their urban design work. Backwards way to go about things. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 7 January 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. east.718 at 17:20, January 13, 2008

Zero Gravity Pregnancy

Zero Gravity Pregnancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH from junk-science sources that are hardly reliable. Mayalld (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete At a glance, the user seems to be making a good faith attempt to write a legitimate article on the topic. However, instead of linking this from Sex in space, any encyclopedic content on this topic should probably be written (merged) in the Sex in space article instead. I think calling this a "hoax" is pushing it. Good sources might not have been presented (I don't know, I haven't looked too carefully) but I think good sources probably exist, because there has been scientific attention to this topic. Space travel - and all of our understanding connected to it - is still young, that's all, so conclusive findings published in respected sources might be lacking. I agree it reads like original research (questionable sources and new synthesis of information) but I don't think it's completely impossible to write about this topic correctly TheBillyTalk 11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Weightlessness#Health effects From reading the article and checking out some of the sources, I don't think there is any consensus on whether or not Zero Gravity Pregnancy is actually possible. I wouldn't say the article is a hoax, as some of the concepts quoted are being considered, but personally I don't see it as correct to present it here as a page in it's own right. Would probably be better if it were merged into the article discussing weightlessness. Kavanagh21 (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This is a really poor article on a topic that at best is speculative. The only article we should have is one that summarizes the serious mammalian zero-G research and other approaches found in Google Scholar. As this is speculative I'm not sure it should go in our weightlessness article -- probably Human_adaptation_to_space#Effects_on_humans is better. The title, in any case, might best be Space pregnancy. --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the hoax tag wasn't me, and is a little harsh, so I've removed it. I still maintain that this iw WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to an extent that makes it beyond hope. Mayalld (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reading this article, I haven't learned anything except that people have written about the subject. While the details of such speculation might have been interesting reading, simply improving a boring page won't spare it from deletion. Since the intent is to write about a human pregnancy in outer space, this is crystalballing at its worst. Mandsford (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or Merge what might be salvaged into Weightlessness#Health effects per Kavanagh21. There's not really much substance to the article, though. Tim Ross·talk 17:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delte This article does seem to be a bit on the far side of WP:SYNTH and has a bit of original research issues. The topic also has some trouble establishing notability since its a bit of an abstract concept and a fairly specific one at that. The original editor of the article, while making a good faith attempt at outlining this topic, seems to have just compiled a list of several theories (some more reliable and notable than others) on the general subject of zero gravity reproduction and so forth and poses various potential outcomes without ever noting the specific merits, academic response, or criteria for any of them. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or Rewrite completely. The article does not contain any relevant information but a list of references and a poetic but a bit off-topic introduction.147.175.98.213 (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it's a bit premature (excuse the pun) to merge into Weightlessness#Health effects since that section deals with actual documented effects whereas the subject of zero gravity pregnancy is purely speculative at the moment. I agree that the article was written in good faith, but there's too little verifiable information, beyond simply documenting the small number of discussions that have taken place on the subject. Perhaps it could find a place in space colonization or a related article. Cosmo0 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 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 into Minor Characters in The Hardy Boys. This action should be undertaken by an interested editor as soon as possible, as this is not being performed by the closing admin. JERRY talk contribs 01:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Hardy (The Hardy Boys)

Laura Hardy (The Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable minor book character. Prod contested, so Afd. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No out-of-universe content to pass WP:FICT. If there is a list of minor characters from the series, it may be appropriate to merge this content there. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Minor Characters in The Hardy Boys (although that's hardly worth the effort). – sgeureka t•c 13:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Who on earth contested this prod? Eusebeus (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to minor characters for Sgeureka. --Lquilter (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sgeureka. Maybe if Elizabeth Taylor or Joan Collins portrays her on film, there will be a different outcome. Mandsford (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep I removed the deletion proposal, writing "Keep the information on Wikipedia, either as a separate article, or merge into an article on minor characters." There is no reason to remove this information from Wikipedia. Fg2 (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I removed similar deletion proposals from a dozen other articles on Hardy Boys characters. Together, they form a solid body of content on the minor characters of this major series of books. For reference, see Category:Hardy Boys and within it Category:Hardy Boys books. If this character appeared in a single book, deletion would seem worthwhile, but when a regular character appears in a series of nearly a hundred and fifty books, that's another matter. Fg2 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge this information on a significant character (mother of two recognizable characters) as suggested above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:54, 13 January 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. east.718 at 17:19, January 13, 2008

MobPodcast

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

Web neologism that shows no sign of widespread usage. 51 ghits. MER-C 10:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Likely nonnotable portmanteau. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Seems like a protologism, specifically. If anyone starts using a word like this, it will probably arise as "modcast", because it rhymes with podcast and people are easily amused, or "mobcast" because "modpodcast" is too awkward. In any case: no references, no possibility for expansion, no legitimacy to claims of its use, 26 google hits [50] and they're incidental (expired domains, wikimirrors, usernames), absolutely no worth to this article TheBillyTalk 12:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO, no sources found documenting the term -- pb30<talk> 06:32, 12 January 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 a WP:HOAX per WP:SNOW. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Parkhouse

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

This is a hoax, created by Lord Cuthberton (talk · contribs), and just be reading the article we can tell it is a joke. Alientraveller (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:HOAX Mayalld (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. In case anyone wants evidence, the IMDB doesn't show the subject on the actor lists of any of the three movies the article credits him with which are currently released, and the Heros WP article makes no mention of him (although WP isn't a reliable source). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteis faily obviously a hoax, since it says he's 7'4' born in 1919 and maried to yoko ono.Ratman9999 (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sting_au Talk 11:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. WP:SNOW, please. Yngvarr 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above; clearly a hoax. I second the move to snowball this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete absolute and total trash. Userpage indicates user is only editing Wikipedia "for fun". If this is his idea of fun, better to block him now and get it over with. JuJube (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there really should be a speedy category for blatantly obvious hoaxes like this. JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:18, 7 January 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. east.718 at 17:19, January 13, 2008

Magna 73

Magna 73 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Amateur football (soccer) club that has never played at a level deemed in inherently notable by WP:FOOTBALL or gained notability by any other route. Previously AfD'ed here but I'm not going to speedy as the content of this version is all new ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly not notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn fails WP:N and WP:RS. Sting_au Talk 11:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7. TheIslander 19:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, certainly non-notable, unreferenced and no sources. Looks like it's been written by the club's chairman/manager. Peanut4 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was created by User:Skeems and according to their website they have a player with the surname Skeemer - there's your answer, I think....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Jon513 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Phi Chi

Xi Phi Chi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable "secret society", unreferenced, also maybe a WP:COI issue. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 09:32, 7 January 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 per Snow (No reason has been given for the afd-nomination and nobody except the nominator has supporter it. A well-documented article on a notable event) - Non-Admin Closure . JdeJ (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of South Carolina steroid scandal

University of South Carolina steroid scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an unfinished nom created by an anonymous user. Frankly, I'm not sure if the reasons he gives are valid (see the talk page of the article in question), but I thought I'd at least let this process go through. JuJube (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete This nomination is based entirely on an assumption of bad faith (see Talk) by the nominator (not JuJube, but 65.188.38.31). I was worried about the article tone, which seemed inflammatory (considering how commonplace steroid abuse cases are these days), but apparently (per the cited sources) this case was a big deal that led to federal legislation being passed. Notable and reasonably well-sourced, might need a retitle at some point since this 15-year old event could be confused with other such news (if such occurs). / edg ☺ ☭ 10:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Those reasons sound more like a "keep" than a "delete", I'm confused... MorganaFiolett (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • By golly you're right. Actually it was a typo. Thanks for noticing. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominated for deletion because CobraGeek is an avowed Clemson fan and hater of all things USC-related. Simple proof can be found on his userpage which clearly exposes his agenda on Wiki, one more suited for a sports message board than an online encyclopedia. This article was obviously written simply as backlash for a fact pointed out about Clemson in another article (Carolina-Clemson Rivalry). This user has used up any "good faith" they might have enjoyed due to their constant trolling of USC articles and POV edits. Anyone with a pair of eyes and a half a brain can skim over the userpage of the creator of this article and see why it was written and also why no assumption of good faith should be tendered this user. I thought attack pieces were generally frowned upon in Wiki, well-sourced or not.
    A quick Google search reveals that Clemson University had their own steroid scandal in 1985 which led to coaches being convicted and several University administrators (including the school's President!) to resign. I'll register and get to work on that article alongside another about the Clemson football recruiting scandal that led to their probation in 1982. Or we can just stop all this silliness right now, delete this obvious attack piece and move onward and upward. Someone just let me know which direction we are going to move this thing...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Created by 65.188.38.31, the user who wrote the unsigned comment above, as a part of an editing war. The user's actions over this page include personal attacks, blanking the talk page and removing reports on himself so I beg to be forgiven for not assuimg good faith. The article is well sourced and I don't see the case for deletion. Whether a certain user (CobraGreek) is a Clemson fan or not is completely irrelevant. I suggest the template be removed swiftly as there is no case here. JdeJ (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article being discussed for deletion was created as part of an "editing war." Go back and look at CobraGeek's contrib history and it's pretty plain to see. At the top of the page of "What Wikipedia is Not" is the following: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Essentially, that is my argument. Investigate the REASON this article was written in the first place, not simply that it is well-sourced and "notable". Is there a personal agenda at work here? That's all I'm asking. Also see: Wikipedia is not a battleground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "reason the article was written" is not a factor here. That it is well-sourced and notable is sufficient. You have given no reasons for deleting this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree 100% with edg. Whoever CobraGeek is, the article seems noteworthy and is well-sourced and no good reason has been given for why it should be deleted. JdeJ (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I can see where this is headed. Attack articles written because someone is upset at content they can't get removed from other articles is 100% acceptable at Wiki. Even when they are written so quickly that they have much of their content lifted almost verbatim from their referenced sources (check the linked NYT articles and compare them to the text here). Thanks for clearing that up. I'll go register and get to work on the 1985 Clemson steroid scandal article and 1982 Clemson recruiting scandal article which will be factual, notable and well-documented. So I'm sure I won't have to worry about anyone deleting them for any reason. Oh, and I'll also mimic CobraGeek and place links to these 2 articles in EVERY OTHER Wiki article dealing with Clemson University, athletic-related or not. But you guys are right...there's no bad faith that can possibly be inferred from him taking those actions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're on Wikipedia for all the wrong reasons. If those articles are noteworthy, then fine. But this is a worlwide encyclopedia, not a battlegound for fans of University of Carolina and Clemson. JdeJ (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I believe I made that exact argument above with regard to CobraGeek who you seem to believe is above reproach. Why does that hold true for me and not him? Double standard, much? Like I've asked repeatedly, check this user's contrib history. Look when this article was created by him, and after which edits he tried to make stick but couldn't. Look what he did after writing this article. He posted links to it on pretty much every USC-related Wiki page he could find. Is this article relevant to the general page about the University of South Carolina? Come on, are you really asking me to believe that you can't see what he's up to? Seriously?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We look forward to your contributions. Be sure to give Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability a read. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd support a Speedy/Snow keep, as a bad faith nomination. I suppose we also have to check the Clemson articles in case there are problems there. DGG (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, you're right. The nomination was bad faith, but this article was totally in good faith. No personal motives at all behind why this angry Clemson fan wrote it up (plagarized mostly) and linked it on every USC wiki page. He is all about spreading truth and information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So this AFD is withdrawn? Or was that WP:SARCASM? / edg ☺ ☭ 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest interpreting him literally and removing the AFD. Nobody has provided any reason why the article should be deleted. JdeJ (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No it wasn't literal. But I like how you neatly dodged my "double standard" question above.
            • There is no double standard. The article is not judged by who creates it or what their supposed motivation might be. If you have a problem with another user, you might consider taking it to dispute resolution. AFD is not the forum for grievances of that sort./ edg ☺ ☭ 12:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, there is a double standard, and I wasn't really looking to you to answer for the person who is using it. Basically, JdeJ has approached the entire issue thusly: CobraGeek=good faith, me=bad faith; CobraGeek=using Wiki to spread useful info, me=using WIki as a battleground; CobraGeek=creating article out of search for "truth," me=calling for deletion of article as part of "edit war." It's amazing how some people have these powers of judgement and can see things so clearly. At any rate, you've both made your views abundantly clear, why not sit back and wait for a few other folks to have a chance to do the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I agree that the nomination is not in bad faith, but it is based on a bad-faith assumption. I see no evidence 65.188.38.31 is deliberately breaking any rules, only that WP:AGF dismisses this nomination as irrelevant. I don't think anyone is saying CobraGeek=good faith because in this case it doesn't matter. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • And per WP:SNOW, there is no reason to wait for other editors to consider this AFD, because no reason has been given for deleting this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with DGG in supporting a Speedy/Snow keep. I find it unlikely that anything more (anything productive) will come out of this discussion. JdeJ (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, because a whopping FOUR people have voted here. Why don't we wait until we get just a tiny bit larger sampling of people to read the discussion and weigh in. You've already made your viewpoint about this issue and what you think of me more than clear. Pardon me if I might want a few other people without your bias to have a chance to contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you care to explain what my "bias" here is? And as not one single reason has been put forward to motivate why this article should be deleted, I think a fast decision could be taken. JdeJ (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll restate it for you: CobraGeek=good faith, me=bad faith; CobraGeek=using Wiki to spread useful info, me=using WIki as a battleground; CobraGeek=creating article out of search for "truth," me=calling for deletion of article as part of "edit war." That pretty much sums up your views as expressed in this discussion. Not exactly the most neutral I've ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I may have escaped you, but I haven't said anything about CobraGeek, good nor bad. I haven't checked any of his contributions and I don't intent to do it as it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. JdeJ (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • What didn't escape me is that while you didn't check any of his contribs (not a surprise) you apparently checked all of mine, and then immediately brought them into the discussion, when they weren't any more relevant than his, according to your criteria. Again...bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically the anon vote doesn't really count. But then technically This isn't a vote. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The idea that editors without accounts cannot contribute to AFD is believed by a small number of editors, but those editors are wrong. Contributions from editors without accounts that are firmly based upon our policies and guidelines are, indeed, more welcome than contributions from editors with accounts that have no bases whatsoever in our policies and guidelines. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also support WP:SNOW keep. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and advice: Anonymous, the problem you're facing here is that you're actually asking AfD to decide two things. Firstly, that User:CobraGeek is acting poorly with regards to this topic. Secondly that, following from that, this article is dubious. However, Articles for Deletion is only qualified to discuss the article. If you still feel there is a problem here and want to resolve it, the most correct course of action would be to deal with the issue would be to read through the dispute resolution advice, as I think someone already mentioned. If you still believe there is a problem with the article after you've reached a resolution there, then likely that will give you a more solid foundation for a second AfD nomination (that is, one which doesn't require AfD to make value judgements about users, which as I've said it's not really supposed to do). Hope that helps! --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Well, I will certainly look into that. Thank you for the advice. I believe edg also mentioned something about this dispute resolution. I'll check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having checked up User:CobraGeek, I will agree that he's made some edits in the past that I don't agree with and that I don't think there needs to be a link to this page from the University of South Carolina. Having said that, I don't find his contributions particularly controversial and he appears to be more responsible and balanced in his edits than 65.188.38.31, who will probably say that this is just because of the yet unexplained "bias" I have. My only "bias" in this is that I dislike disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia, and I consider 65.188.38.31 to be engaged in exactly that type of behaviour. The whole afd-nomination of this article is an example of such disruptive behaviour. JdeJ (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batman dark descent

Batman dark descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a nonnotable fan made Batman movie, somewhat promotional tone. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 09:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Completely and utterly non-notable. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete NN and no assertion of notability Mayalld (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non-notable.Ratman9999 (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as non-notable spam. AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - consensus and author request. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Raval

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

Nom under WP:NN. Autobiography of a person for whom no evidence seems to exist that he is in fact a "radio personality". Google searches only bring up a person of the same name who works for the BBC. Author has several times blanked the page or removed sections of text, citing "Privacy concerns" [51][52] [53] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:16, 7 January 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. east.718 at 17:18, January 13, 2008

International English

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

Keep per WP:SNOW - Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a request HERE I have reopened this AFD. I apologise for any inconvienence caused. D.M.N. (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article unencyclopaedic, without sources, probably entirely WP:OR or covered by other articles. This concept is covered under multiple pages and this one has to be the most ambiguous and unsourced. Two fellow users supported deletion on talk, including one with significant input to the article, and another user removed prod but said would not oppose AfD. Additional citations have been needed since July 2007 and none have materialised. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but clean up. You say "unencyclopedic, without sources" but the twenty-seven sources listed indicate otherwise. That the topic is notable is indicated by the Google Books result for "international.english" as a phrase, which yields more than 1000 books starting with English as a Global Language and International English Usage. Google Scholar yields more than three thousand academic sources for this topic. You're going to have to be much more specific about this article's failings and why it is not a candidate for cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are references to books with additional details, not sources, and there are eight articles that deal with the topic of an international or simplified English in the "Dialects of English" template, most of which are by far more sourced and relevant. Googling "international english" in reference to this article alone is like googling "encyclopaedia" and claiming all the results to validate the Wikipedia. I'll try and address any concerns but won't babysit this AfD, I am merely proposing the article for deletion as it stands. It'd be more NPOV and less WP:OR to start afresh if anyone wanted to recreate the article, not to mention sourced from the beginning. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they are sources, as evidenced by the lengthy talk page discussions about them (q.v.), the fact that they are in a section entitled "References", and the fact that they are cross-referenced from the article text. Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:FAR shows that there are many, many highly-regarded articles on Wikipedia that were written in this format before 2005 when easier citation tools became available. A section of books with additional details per the WP:MOS is called "Further reading", not "References". I take the original editors at their word. The job of adding citations may be drudgery but not wanting to do it isn't a reason for deletion. Ideally, no article in Wikipedia is ever finished; all articles need work. --Dhartung | Talk 11:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't aware of the pre-05 format, but I still don't believe that cleaning the article up will remove all the POV and OR, and as the article would have to be almost or entirely rewritten in any case, deletion will prevent any of the current faults creeping into the new version. And a notice that the article needs improvement has been up for half a year, with minimal effort made. There are too few interested editors for us to wait years and years for any substantial improvement. +Hexagon1 (t) 13:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The citations are already there. What you are talking about are cross-references to those citations in the article text. A citation is not the little superscript hyperlink. It's the author+title+date+publisher+whatever stuff. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#The requirement is only that the sources be cited somehow. Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — this nomination for deletion is not constructive. The subject of the article is difficult, in that there are multiple, conflicting definitions, and it has been worried over, constructively, in the past. The article is well referenced — the format of those references in no way demands the article's deletion, and such an approach is against the spirit of this project. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. The article is largely based on the references, with little original research, mostly confined to the introductory section; and it's a lot better now than it used to be a couple years ago. It needs a few footnotes and some cleanup; a couple of sections need to be expanded. Jack(Lumber) 14:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave all comments after reopening below this line
  • Keep as per all the above. The topic is important, and if other articles deal with it also, they should be pointed towards this as a central point. Agreed, it needs improving. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The topic's obviously relevant. The complaint about sources seems a bit off, sure it isn't perfectly line-referenced, but it has sources galore, and I don't see any claims that veer wildly off the mainstream anyway (I worked in EFL and most of it's familiar). Original Research, again I doubt it. I'm willing to assume good faith that it's supported by the sources - where it gives them, they're good - and it certainly looks conventional enough. Personally, I would decimate the bit about "historical context" as being on the wrong page, and I can understand the 'start again from a clean slate' argument, but I really don't think throwing out everything is any kind of progress, nor a good way to motivate people to put in all this work again. Hence strong keep. The Zig (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable. Marlith T/C 16:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 02:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PixFeatures

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

This article lacks reliable sources to verify notability for this organization, and my googling didn't yield better sources. Prod removed without comment or improvement by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pretty weak claim of notability and not verified. Pharmboy (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails notability - couldn't really find any third party sources. Also fails WP:NOT#NEWS, as mentioned above. --Dawn bard (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (without prejudice) - Does not appear notable in the article and investigative work by FisherQueen did not turn up anything. --Lquilter (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine Syjuco

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

Previously declined speedy. Article concerns a young poet with a forthcoming literary debut. No objective indication of notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Even though she hasn't published a book yet, a quick Yahoo search came up with eight pages of results just for her name (in quotations no less). It seems she has some notability in the Phillipines already. Though the article clearly violates WP:POV, that's a clean up issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redfarmer (talk • contribs) 17:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced by the quality of the references at all, either those in the article or those that can be found on Google. See WP:RS.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly a NN person. Yes, it is possible that she may become notable in future, at which point an article would be appropriate, but we don'tdo crystal balls as to whether somebody might become notable in the future. Mayalld (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. If that changes with future success in her career, then the article can be created at that time. -- Whpq (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computational epigenetics

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

Page is essentially original research and the content is simply material lifted verbatim from the research paper so this is a copyright issue as well. Montco (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it is the author's own research, but it's not original here - it's properly referenced to a peer-reviewed journal, Bioinformatics. The only issue might be whether the "Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License" under which it's offered from Bioinformatics is compatible with the requirements of the GFDL; but as the article is a precis, and the wording isn't actually copied verbatim from Bioinformatics, I don't see a problem. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with JohnCD. I also note that the author in his first edit, hoped that others would add to this article. Let us give others time to do so. It is the wiki way. --Bduke (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Leaving aside the debate over whether "Computational X" is its own field or a subfield of each X, there appears to be a goodly amount of research in the field using the term. If it is good enough for the Max Planck Institutes, it is good enough for me. Eldereft (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Roush

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

American poet and teacher. Author's COI is admitted on the talk page. Is the guy notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DEFINITELY KEEP No COI, article is neutral and objective, not a vanity piece. Article (including works, external links, and sources) makes very clear that the subject is a notable author. 199.94.67.44 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above user has previously stated that he is a student/assistant of the subject, and consequently has a clear WP:COI in respect of this article Mayalld (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Knowledge of a subject makes writing an article possible and does not constitute COI if said article is notable, neutral, informed, researched, and objective. If knowledge of a subject invalidates said article, then proceed with deletion. Wikipedia editors should not disrespect users for providing valid information as a public service. 199.94.67.44 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At no point have I been disrespectful. You are simply too close to the subject to either be truly objective or to objectively decide whether the subject is notable Mayalld (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, thank you for that clarification and explanation regarding the article's nomination for deletion. 199.94.67.44 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Personally, I would not even think the Director her-/himself would be notable, unless there was something more than just that. --Crusio (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- dug up this LGBT Lamda Literary Foundation award nomination, and there's college paper coverage of him, but there doesn't seem to be any sources that would meet WP:RS to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an academic, doesn't meet WP:PROF, as a writer, doesn't meet WP:BIO Teleomatic (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails to establish notability. --Crusio (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. External links consist of subject's own website and faculty profile and four of subject's own works. Cited sources are a brief article in the Berkeley Beacon (not to slam the BB, but when half of your basis for satisfying WP:N is a single article in a college newspaper, you've already lost) and an interview in Outlook, dated within one month of each other. This is the entirety of the external material. The article makes reference to (unquoted!) praise by Eileen Myles and Alfred Corn, and briefly quotes Robert Pinsky and Richard McCann, but none of this is sourced. (Let me stress that: the subject's own work is externally linked, but material that might show notability is not sourced or even quoted.) The quotes read like back-of-the-jacket blurbs, which gives the article an advertising feel. It is possible that the subject is notable within one or more limited communities, but I don't think that's sufficiently general notability for Wikipedia's purposes. If this article can be rebuilt from the ground up by an author without a COI, demonstrating notability, it will be good. If not, not. But I think Mr. Roush will have to have a bit more of a career before that can be done. --7Kim (talk) 19:25, 15 January 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 full of lies. DS (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't Get Caught!" with Peter North

Prod (and prod-2) removed, so here we are. IMDb has nothing like this, nor does Google. WP:MADEUP and/or WP:HOAX vandalism. Shawis (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. None of the cited sources mention the show. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:MADEUP. If it is real we can always have an article once the show airs. Mayalld (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a hoax. I've checked, and can find no supporting evidence for it. I've placed a hoax tag on the article as well. Bellwether BC 16:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Nothing on Google. Proclaimed to be hosted by a pornographic actor named Peter North and I don't think he'll be hosting a prime-time game show on FOX any time soon (well, actually I wouldn't put that beneath them). Nonetheless, one of the stupidest hoaxes i've seen. Doc Strange (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would an uninvolved admin please SNOW this one, and delete? Bellwether BC 19:13, 7 January 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 JERRY talk contribs 01:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry C.K. Liu

Henry C.K. Liu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A newspaper columnist for Asia Times Online who fails to meet WP:BIO. Another journalist by the same name was assassinated in 1984; this is not him. The subject of this article is still alive.

  • Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL mostly gives you sources about the assassinated journalist or the engineer by the same name
  • Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL gives you lots of articles by him, and a few minor quotations, but none about him. 90% of GHits disappear by subtracting out the phrase "By Henry C.K. Liu" [54]
  • Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL gives very few hits; subtracting out bylines leaves you with only 130 GHits [55]; the two most prominent sources (Voice of America [56] and Xinhua [57]) are just brief quotes.
  • The claim that he invented the term dollar hegemony is easily falsified by a Google books search which shows numerous hits using the term "dollar hegemony" in relation to the dollar's role as an international reserve currency from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s [58]

By the way, is there a deletion sorting list that journalists should go into? Thanks and cheers, cab (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think there's any deletion sorting lists that fit. the wub "?!" 12:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't find a deletion sorting list for either journalism or journalists, but I've added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors. Anyway, I've read Liu's articles before, and his website hosts a big collection of writings. Has anything he authored become notable? And if so, does that extend notability to him? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two relevant policies would be:
      1. WP:BIO's "creative professionals" section, which says that someone who "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is notable
      2. WP:PROF, which say that a person "known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies" is notable
    But I don't see that his work qualifies him for either one. He claims to have come up with the "dollar hegemony" concept, but that's hardly the subject of non-trivial reviews, just some scattered quotes, and anyway, Talk:Dollar hegemony pretty much demolishes the idea that he came up with this concept in the first place. cab (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - He's a major columnist of that said newspaper, chairman of his own investment company and former professor. That article has been there for more than 2 years, plus I'm sure many people would want to read about him. Humortueio (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A mix of random unverifiable factoids from users' personal knowledge, plus parroting of what a subject says about himself in his own writings, does not belong on Wikipedia. The fact that it's been here for two years means that we've been violating policy for two years, not that it should stay and keep violating policy for even longer. Per WP:SELFPUB (part of WP:BLP): "Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if ... the article is not based primarily on such sources." There are no secondary sources about this man or his work, so Wikipedia cannot and should not be the place for people to read about him. cab (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per cab. --Crusio (talk) 07:40, 14 January 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.

PC World's "The 50 Greatest Gadgets of the Past 50 Years"

The result was Speedy deleted as copyvio.Woody (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PC World's "The 50 Greatest Gadgets of the Past 50 Years" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT#MIRROR. ShakataGaNai (talk) 06:54, 7 January 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. BLACKKITE 16:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rose metal press

Rose metal press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Small book press, without much to their name, including notability. Jmlk17 06:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Only 139 unique Google hits, 4 hits in the google news archive but those are all trivial passing mentions, such as being one of many companies to attend a printing convention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:59, 11 January 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. east.718 at 17:14, January 13, 2008

Lake of the Dead

Lake of the Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page is for a location that appears in two video games, and only briefly. There is no hope at all here for an out-of-universe page, and indeed, many of the location articles referring to the LoK series should be deleted or merged. The Clawed One (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for many of the same reasons above:

Necropolis (Legacy of Kain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Physical Realm (Legacy of Kain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruined City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sanctuary of the Clans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete per nom. Notability is not there. Tavix (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 06:15, 7 January 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. Secret account 22:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur J McDonnell

Arthur J McDonnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article makes no assertion of notability, nor does it provide any references showing notability. Instead, it reads like a resume. Bellwether BC 06:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not trying to be snarky here, but how does being president of a rather obscure (as it seems to be, at least outside of G.B.) organization confer notability? And what of the fact that the "article" reads like little more than a resume? Bellwether BC 13:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't (yet) have an opinion on this deletion, but reading like a resume is not a deletion reason. Maintenance tags, such as {{cleanup}} or {{tone}} can take care of that. The only deletion issue I see here is notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited, so even if the organization is notabile, the president of it is not automatically notable. The sole source offered in the article is a primary source and doesn't show notability. Gsearch for this name and either tenpin or bowling returns less than two dozen ghits, none of which show notability. Seems to fail WP:BIO.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As much as I enjoy 10-pin bowling when drunk (milk bottles beware HIYO!), this article lacks the necessary secondary sources and this gentleman seems to fail WP:BIO. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 06:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete (I would add how-to guide as another reason for deletion.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rescuing a Child Locked in a Bathroom

Rescuing a Child Locked in a Bathroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic essay on how to rescue a child that has locked himself into a bathroom. Violates WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNT. Prod was removed by author, who disagrees with my reasoning for deletion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a copyvio from multiple sources, including [60] for "Forcible entry relies on physics..." (Rescuing a Child Locked in a Bathroom#BREAKING). So tagged. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author may wish to write for WikiHow instead. This is perfect for them (if copyrights are respected, naturally). --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 7 January 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. east.718 at 17:14, January 13, 2008

J-14 Magazine

J-14 Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (media) or WP:WEB. Strothra (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too much like an advert. Jelly the Supermodel (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, almost a speedy, no notability asserted. Lankiveil (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete *cough* advertisement *cough* No assertions of notability. Master of Puppets Care to share? 04:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OMG! Gross! Didn't anyone like, do their homework on this?!? J-14 is, like, soooo notable (see this New York Times article [61] which states that "For girls from 8 and 14, J-14 and M are two of the country’s best-read magazines"), and is additionally notable (and I am eternally ashamed to admit I know this) for "reporting" that Hannah Montana was pregnant (OMG!!!) (see [62] et al.) Also, per WP:NOT(media) "Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that: (#5) are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" (and the niche market of American tweens drive something like 84% of all U.S. spending). I'm going to stop now, as my level of knowledge of this subject is becoming soooooo frightening. ΨνPsinu 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have gone ahead and added these references. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. ΨνPsinu 15:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing." That cracked me up. --Strothra (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached after additional sources were added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 05:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been significantly improved since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with improvements. All three refs from reliable sources actually mention J-14 Magazine so passes WP:N. Sting_au Talk 06:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even with these alleged improvements, still reads like an advert. Mayalld (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - though not my cup of tea, meets notability. Agree a rewrite to make less advertorial though cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Props to Ψν. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:20, 7 January 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. east.718 at 17:09, January 13, 2008

Benny Sings

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

I've spent some time attempting to tidy this article up. However, having done so, I'm wondering if this musician actually meets WP:MUSIC. Although fairly heavily referenced via Google, the references seem to be mainly either a) blogs or b) CD retailers, neither of which I believe are valid for notability. There's no indication of any tours or awards, and nothing I can find relating to media coverage. I'm therefore seeking opinions on whether this is worth keeping or not. CultureDrone (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, although I hate to say that since you did such a wonderful job cleaning up the article and getting rid of the point of view violations. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the nom and vote about, but I dug up a little on him as I had never heard of him before. He is on IMDB, as he guest starred once on the Dutch tv show "Raymann is laat" (still running) as himself, adding to notability. The publisher, Dox records is at http://www.doxrecords.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3&Itemid=25 and is small but over 10 years old and has more than Benny (but mainly Benny). He has released three CDs, which are still available. He isn't as big as Madonna or curly fries, but he appears to be notable enough in The Netherlands (his home) to squeak passed wp:band. Pharmboy (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's listed at allmusic which is an accepted resource as per WP:MUSIC so I believe he has the notability for an article here. Sting_au Talk 07:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He records for Sonar Kollektiv (although for some reason the article doesn't state this fact). Not a huge label, but very well-established and certainly a big enough indie to count. Precious Roy (talk) 19:05, 9 January 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. east.718 at 17:09, January 13, 2008

Battle Arena Toshinden 5

Battle Arena Toshinden 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I've basically nominated this article for deletion because there is no Battle Arena Toshinden 5 in development. Also, even for a made up article, not a lot of effort was put in this, not even for a fanbase >_>

Google yourself for Toshinden 5, you will not find anything besides web forums asking "Where's my Toshinden 5?". As a fan of the series and someone who owns the Japanese PSX versions of all 4 games, I can assure you that there is no such title in the work, Tamsoft (the developers of the franchise) as long given up on this franchise, the 4th title was never even released in North America.

The simple fact that no source was provided should be enough to have this page removed.

Duhman0009 (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, do we delete the article now? Duhman0009 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 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 all. — Scientizzle 05:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montblanc America's Signatures for Freedom pens

AfDs for this article:
Montblanc America's Signatures for Freedom pens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a group:

  • Montblanc America's Signatures for Freedom pens
  • Montblanc Annual Edition pens
  • Montblanc Donation Series pens
  • Montblanc Limited Editions
  • Montblanc Patron of Art pens
  • Montblanc Special Theme Edition pens
  • Montblanc Writers Edition pens

There are no third party sources, not notable, seems to be spam. futurebird (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All as WP:SPAM Mayalld (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I wouldn't necessarily call it spam as the tone isn't particularly advert-like, but a list of pens made by a company is something for a brochure or catalog, not an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - No content other than promotional content for products not shown to be notable and, frankly, not likely to be shown to be notable. See WP:PRODUCT. --Lquilter (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I haven't looked through all of these (so feel free to stone me if I'm wrong), but they all seem essentially empty except for external links to the company's website. --TheOtherBob 06:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No assertion of the notability of these...uh...pens. WP:PRODUCT says the Sword is mightier on this occasion. Delete all. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 03:39, 12 January 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. Canley (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annotated Bibliography of Fly Fishing

Annotated Bibliography of Fly Fishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a listcruft containing only original research. Pilotbob (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I do not see this as original research in any way. It is doing what all editors do, collecting information from sources. That is not original research. This is a most interesting and thoroughly encyclopedic entry. --Bduke (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Simply putting 'cruft' on the end of a word isn't an argument. Having articles written by people who actually know something about the subject might be seen by some to be a good thing. Nick mallory (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using the term cruft in this way is common in AFD threads. See WP:CRUFT#Usage. Your comments do not address any of the problems with the article. Pilotbob (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that 'cruft' is commonly used in these discussions, I'm saying that it's not an argument in itself. My point is that you don't actually present an argument for deletion. Nick mallory (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the extensive evaluative annotations would appear to be OR, and the mere list of books is not encyclopedic, so there's no usable content DGG (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See this. Uncle G (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: On the surface I find Bibliographies in Wikipedia very useful. There are currently 57 bibliographies listed under Category: Bibliographies by subject. I suspect there are more that are not categorized. All these bibliographies have one thing in common—they are a list of well cited references related to a particular subject. With the WP emphasis on citing sources, these bibliographies are important. Although their formats differ, their content is essentially the same. If this particular article is Non-Wikipedic then they all are which I believe is not the case. I would be hard pressed to provide a rationale to delete: Bibliography of the Western Apache (or any other bibliography) on grounds other than Bibliographies are not encyclopedic—a premise that I disagree with. The other rationale for Keeping this and other bibliographies is that most of them have been embraced and referenced in their respective Project pages. Members of a project find bibliographies very useful in working on new and existing articles as well as expanding their overall knowledge about the Project subject. To delete this or any other bibliography would be a disservice to knowledge on the related subject.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing the OR here. There's the occasional unsourced statement one wonders whether it's from the jacket flap or whatnot, but by and large the comments contain statements thare would be patently obvious to anyone who had the book in hand. Furthermore, as noted above, this is the sort of research that compilers of encyclopedias are supposed to be doing. Think of it as a "For further reading" section split off for summary style reasons from all the flyfishing articles. Keep —Quasirandom (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's certainly a lot of unsourced personal opinion masquerading as fact and weasel wording ("an argument that today seems", "readable but comprehensive", "excellent read", "probably the most", "beautiful compilation", "masterfully", "transcends the cavalier attitude", "very nicely written", "superbly told", and so forth). Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks more like a collection of short book reviews than a bibliography. It contains unsourced, NPOV violating statements like "Skues was the greatest early twentieth-century authority on nymph fishing for trout" and "The first definitive biography of the father of dry fly fishing". The information is not independent or verifiable. I have a feeling that some may also by copyright violations which is difficult to determine because the statements aren't sourced. If these statements are copyvios they are probably original research (actually, opinion may be a more appropriate term). Pilotbob (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a subpage of WikiProject Fishing instead of deleting (and trim out the opinion/annotations). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of the annotations need to be fixed, but overall I find this article very useful. If it is deleted it should be moved to a page in WikiProject Fishing, as above. themcman1 talk 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness is not a good argument. See WP:ITSUSEFUL Pilotbob (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We do not really have a fixed place for this sort of material. Possibly the wikiproject would be the best of the various possibilities. DGG (talk) 05:01, 9 January 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!☺ 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - some good arguments from both sides but I do see it as useful. I never knew about "The Joys of Trout" (sounds somewhat familiar though?) so if I hadn't scanned through that bibliography I never would have know it was there! All jokes aside though it's good for reference purposes and to me that's what an encyclopedia is all about. The fact that there are currently 57 bibliographies listed under Category: Bibliographies by subject also helped me say keep. Sting_au Talk 06:12, 16 January 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 violating WP:BLP in many ways. Possible hoax. It can be "read" as an attack bio. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raelani Lucas

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

Seems to be nonnotable by herself, not sure if dating a notable person make one notable as well. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 05:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. east.718 at 16:59, January 13, 2008

Crush (beverage)

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

This page is about the product called Crush Naranja, which is literally "Orange Crush" in Spanish. It incorrectly states that Crush is Peruvian. While I wouldn't be surprised if Coca-Cola does indeed bottle Crush in Peru, and I can personally attest to the fact that Crush is much more successful in Peru than it is in the United States, at the end of the day it's the same exact product that is described in Orange Crush, which is American. The only difference is that the word "orange" has been translated on the lable. Crush (beverage) does not contain any other information about the product, so there is nothing to merge into Orange Crush. It should just be deleted. Descendall (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Orange Crush. I usually hear Orange Crush referred to as just "Crush", so a simple redirect would probably be best. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Orange Crush; my bad, I didn't realize Crush redirected already. This doesn't seem like enough content for its own page, but I could see it being merged to the main Orange Crush article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Orange Crush. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why redirect? Crush already disambiguates directly to Orange Crush. What reader is going to enter the string "Crush (beverage)" into the search box?

    This title is useless as a redirect. The article contains 2 sentences of content, one of which is (as noted) incorrect, and a fair use image. Just delete it. Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. No one is going to enter "Crush (beverage)" into the search box instead of just "Crush" or "Orange Crush." That's why I'm sticking with delete --Descendall (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I dont see why anyone would search for crush (beverage), and not just crush.Ratman9999 (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have made an edit on Orange Crush to be 100% sure that total deletion would not cause any useful information to be lost. --Descendall (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Orange Crush. I tend to use parentheticals like (beverage) or (film) when I believe the main article would hold something more notable (such as in this case). Further, a redirect is trivial to make, and can only serve to help, not hurt. -- Masterzora (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Orange Crush. As with Masterzora above, I frequently use parentheses when doing Wikipedia searches. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 04:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 05:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Joseph

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

Non-notable person, no verifiable/reliable sources. Created minor internet conspiracy theory movie. John Nevard (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The film may be notable, but the creator's wishes should be honored. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Take a look at the article history. Wouldn't be surprised if that's the creator of the web 'film' in question stirring. And I'd be surprised if his name is as pseudonymous as 'Peter Joseph'. John Nevard (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Wikipedia needs less coverage of conspiracy theories; not more. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage of conspiracy theories is fine, but this guy simply isn't notable. --RucasHost (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I was responsible for that drivel then I'd want to hide behind a tree too. Nick mallory (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The movie he made is seen by increasingly many. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is why we have an article on the film. This discussion is about the creator of the film. --Stephen 08:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Credibility of the movie rely on the Author, so of course we need to pin this guy to the wall also. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The writers of feature films can be far less notable than the films they write. Even if hte film achieves notability, that does not grant the writer notability by default. If there are many references about hte movie, but none about the writer, then the writer fails WP:V. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he wishes to remain anonymous and there are no reliable sources about him on which to base a biography. Therefore delete per WP:BLP --Stephen 22:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - should be speedied. Deb (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no verifiable, neutral sources available for a full article. SWik78 (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - If the article is to be kept, I would suggest it only be done so because it has been suggested that The Zeitgeist Movement article be merged with this one, which I am not at all opposed to really.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2011 (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. Addhoc (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory G. Smith

Gregory G. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Biographical article written like a resume or a press release. Only possible claim to notability is the fact that he is a town manager in Pennsylvania. Mr Senseless (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look more closely at the author's username (Gregorygsmith), I have a feeling this is likely a blatant WP:COI/ self-promotion. Mr Senseless (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:N people/politicians. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:N, WP:RS and looks like self promotion? i.e. fails WP:BIO per note 4. Sting_au Talk 05:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN person self-promoting Mayalld (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not often I vote delete for political figures, but this one's pretty flagrant. Delete per WP:N. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable per WP:BIO. I did a Google search and it turned up a lot of Gregory G. Smiths, so I couldn't confirm anything through it. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After getting the notices, I became aware of the rules for the submissions, which I should have become familair with prior to editing, but failed to do so, sorry, please excuse my ignorance... please delete biographical information, birth date, career history, whatever else doesn't apply to the standing Wikipedia policy/procedures as the arbiter[s] sees fit.

If there are suggestions or recommendations, I'm very open to them for this or other articles, editing efforts. However, also note the following sampling of various sources referenced to notability; Pittsburgh Tribune Review, October 11, 2007, [63],Pittsburgh Post Gazette articles,[64] ,[65],[66], President of State Association, [67] ], Trib Total Media,[68], [69], [70],Forgotten Past, A History of Moon Township, authored by Dr. Robert A. Jockers, Gregory G. Smith authored the chapter of this history on Moon Township's Governmental History, Xlibris Corporation,[71],Library of Congress Control Number 2004099641,,Pa State Association of Township Supervisors, [72] ,[http://www.pghpointswest.com/allegwestmag/index.html. There are secondary sources for all any and all positions listed or awards referenced, and if it is of any use to whomever makes the final decision, I'll provide those for verification and documentation of any and all statements when time permits. Gregorygsmith (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I believe to be truly notable one needs to have done more beyond just being good at their job and recognized primarily within their own inner circle. I decided to compare Mr. Smith to the mayor of my own city, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, and what struck me was Nickels' affiliations various groups, committees and political action groups and general contributions to his community and the nation. Nickels is notable because he has a multi-faceted career and assorted activities beyond simply leading a community. I don't feel Mr. Smith has achieved this level, as of yet OneHappyHusky (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--RedShiftPA (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the comments concerning biographical information, no outside affiliations with outside groups, associations and general contributions to the community were presented, however, there are substantial number of these...they include but are not limited to the following: Elected by members as Vice Chairman, Municipal Employer Insurance Trust, (MEIT)[73] - an innovative health insurance consortium specializing in the specific needs of municipalities, authorities and councils of government throughout Pennsylvania providing group insurance benefits at the lowest net cost. MEIT is member driven and operates under the direction of a diverse Board of Directors that includes eight highly respected municipal managers.The Airport Corridor Transportation Association, Board of Directors[74] ACTA works with Pittsburgh Airport area corporations , communities and public transportation entities to promote ride sharing to reduce traffic congestion, air pollution and public transit planners and providers.It was the first ever in the Pittsburgh area. Has been recognized as a leader in the promotion of sustainable development practices in communities, most recently by Sustainable Pittsburgh for several efforts unique to the region which warranted their recognition[75]. Sustainable Pittsburgh recognized Moon Township for it's innovative and unique approach to its zoning and land development ordinances which they said "balances traffic capacity, infrastructure capacity, fiscal responsibility and land use, making hard decisions, focused on a 'build out' approach to assess over all capacity." [76] Also recognized by The Allegheny Front [77] as well as [78][79] and [ http://nezen.net/suspgh/show/index.php?proj_id=80]. There are number of other recognitions for which additional research needs to be undertaken to cite the proper sources, such as recognition by the Federal Highway Administration for the innovative public/private financing for the interchanges built in the community since 1991, International City/County Management Association and other outside posts and recognitions, as well as all of the recognitions and contributions originally listed in the submission, but at this point time doesn't permit any further research on those items. If some other questions need answered, that will be attempted. At least my learning curve increased markedly as to what the editors/reviewers & general contributors think is acceptable. Whether or not this submission is acceptable, I won't submit again, unless I have plenty of time to put together a complete submission with all the documentation. That was the obvious mistake made previously, the documentation wasn't initially included with the original submission. It was mistakenly believed that the general public and Wikipedia contributors would help help build on the site, whether positive or negative information. Thanks all.Gregorygsmith (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they haven't is one sign (though certainly not a definitive one) that the subject isn't particularly notable. There seems to be lots of evidence that you're good at your job, but honestly, when I support the deletion of an article about an individual involved in a municipal government, chances are the person's not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:49, 10 January 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.

Beeva Thapa

The result was Delete as hoax per WP:SNOW. Tabercil (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible hoax. Biographical article with lots of interesting claims, but no sources to back up any assertion. For instance, the article claims that Thapa represented Texas in Congress in 1928, but the available lists of representatives don't mention her. I couldn't find any sources whatsoever when searching by name, and a person this notable would turn up at least a few hits in a google/news/book search. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, obviously a hoax. In case there's any question, there are no results for "Beeva Thapa" at the Biographical Directory of the US Congress, and her name never appears in the New York Times archives. Zagalejo^^^ 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. The photo in the article certainly isn't that of someone who lived in the period she's supposed to have lived, and, anyway, the first woman to represent a Texas district in the U.S. House of Representatives was Lera Millard Thomas, in 1966. Deor (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) Delete - tried different spellings on google .... no hits at all (not even this article, surprising). LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Google database doesn't update instantaneously; this article has only been up for a few hours. If this article lasts the full five-day period on WP:AFD, it will probably show up in Google by then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the black and white photo is obviously modern based on the hair style ... despite the nineteenth century birth date. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. I'm sure there are several dozen ways to prove this is a hoax. Zagalejo^^^ 05:01, 7 January 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 and redirect. Sources were not presented.-Wafulz (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clown Circus (album)

Clown Circus (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by a band that isn't even notable enough to have its own page. (Even though the singer of said band, Neil Cicierega, does.) BranER (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable singer, and I also dont see why we don't have an article on lemon demon. Ratman9999 (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Lemon Demon" is just an alias of Neil Cicierega, and is therefore a redirect. the wub "?!" 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Lemon Demon" and "Neil Cicierega" are not synonyms, however. The former only has a section in a larger article, and the larger article itself is just barely notable due to the combined fame of Lemon Demon, Cinema Rocketry, and Potter Puppet Pals. --BranER (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although not a particularly notable album, if this goes, then it will be harder to make articles on more notable albums such as Dinosaurchestra, which contained The Ultimate Showdown. Even if certain albums by an artist weren't very popular or notable, you should still have articles with them, at least to have a complete discography. And if you are going to bother to list them in the discography on Neil's page, shouldn't they have an article? --DrProfessorman
    • Delete You just said yourself why it should be deleted "Although not a particularly notable album", Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information so it needs Notability in order to be added. Also I fail to see how deleting this would make it "harder to make articles on more notable albums" if the album is notable enough then there should be no problem creating it. "if you are going to bother to list them in the discography on Neil's page, shouldn't they have an article?" If you can show me a policy that says just because something is mentioned on another article page that it must have it's own article then this would be a valid argument. The Light6 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I'm sure users will pull up a lot of online sources, but the song remains no more notable than a million others. Wikipedia cannot be cluttered with an entry for every "somewhat notable" track. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Song"? This is an album... Also if people were to "pull up a lot of online sources" assuming they high profile sites or something that would show that the album would be notable, or at least have some notability amd could possibly stay. The Light6 (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Album, still no more notable than 10 million other albums, all of which can't be merited an entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 05:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Davidson Orange

Harley Davidson Orange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability. No verifiability. No reliable sources. Article is 100% speculation and original research. No support (of any quality or veracity) for assertions, including assertion that the colour "Harley Davidson Orange" exists per se. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The term does seem to be fairly common among H-D fans, but I can't find any reliable sources pertaining to the particular color, its cultural impact, or anything else that should be verifiable about a "specialty" color. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Harley Davidson specifies a particular shade of orange as theirs (as many sports teams do for their colors, etc.), then that may deserve mention in the company's article. But the color itself, unless there is substantial coverage of the color and its signifigance, is not notable enough to be the subject of its own article. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The values shown on the page are original research. And I agree with the above comment, if any of this is notable it should go in the Harley Davidson article and not as it's own article. PaleAqua (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - the last sentene is WP:OR; the opening is word-for-word palgarism from [80]. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, take a closer look at the answers.com page — its content is drawn from the Wikipedia article we're presently talking about deleting. This is a pretty common phenomenon, Wikipedia content copied and tossed onto other "answers" type pages. It's one of the reasons AfD is so important: we can't stop the promulgation of bad info, but we can help reduce it. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR. A little perusal of sources indicates that something called "Aztec Orange Pearl" is a commonly specified color for Harleys. Dunno if that's a custom blend or just marketing language for something else. Some Harleys come in other colors like "Candy Orange" or even no orange at all. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. I would have thought that if HD actually created their own shade of orange then there would be a lot more information about it on the Net. Although I will say that seeing the name on a colour chart is fairly hilarious. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 03:29, 12 January 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. - PeaceNT (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refugee ships

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

Unnecessary and poorly titled article, since 3 of the 4 ships mentioned are covered in Operation Hannibal, and the 4th neither carried German refugees nor was sunk by torpedoes. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Cantent is not appropriate to title, not can I think of an appropriate title for this factette. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Unnecessary.--Astroview120mm 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it seems that this title could apply to many groups of ships. If an article already cover this, this seems to be the one that should be deleted. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a mis-titled article that duplicates Operation Hannibal, but do not salt. A legitimnate article could be writtne with this title, covering Operation Hannibal, ships taking Jewish refugees to Palestine, ships taking English children to Canada sunk by U-boats, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 05:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NetPay

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

Lack of Notability, Orphaned Article Cahk (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, because a Google searches brings up many results on this service. The article just needs to be improved.--Astroview120mm 03:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of those are thousands upon thousands of pages from the same domain, screen-scraped copies of pages, linkfarms, and other outright keyword spam. Google says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 781 already displayed". This is why the Google hits - WP:GHITS - argument is listed in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - TheBillyTalk 14:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete No press coverage about the importance of their company or other proof of notability. There are countless online payment processors that have sprung up in the vain hope of ousting PayPal. Their Alexa rank is 1.1 million suggesting that nobody actually uses them. My own non-notable 100-unique-per-day website has 400,000 to 600,000. This could probably be speedied, actually, since it doesn't even have a mere claim of notability - TheBillyTalk 14:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, strongly: absolutely no showing of independent sources required by WP:CORP, and as an Internet business, that case needs to be made from the beginning in the article itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and avoid re-create. Cornell University uses an online payment system called Net.Pay.[81] Clark Public Utilities uses a system called Net Pay that links to mycheckfree.com.[82] Allison Payments Systems has a product called APS NetPay.[83] Netpay here[84] refers to a specific protocol for online payments. NetPay and its variations seems to be used as a generic term for an online payment system. This article could seriously mislead readers into signing up for an online account they didn't mean to sign up for. That's worrying. I hadn't realized how widespread the abbreviation is. It belongs in the dictionary. --Busy Stubber (talk) 16:15, 7 January 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.east.718 at 00:42, January 13, 2008

Facepalm

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

Non-notable. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 4chan, common meme there. --Merovingian (T, C) 02:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as minor web meme, as the article itself admits. Pretty unlikely there would ever be anything close to a non-trivial reliable source. I disagree with redirection for two primary reasons: this doesn't seem confined to 4chan, and I don't see the point of redirecting to an article that doesn't even mention it (not that I'm suggesting it should be added). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Facepalm more or less came out of 4chan. (see the Encyclopedia Dramatica article "Facepalm") Also, there are a lot of other things not mentioned in the article that redirect to it. ([85]) --Merovingian (T, C) 03:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's complete rubbish. People were slapping their foreheads with the palms of their hands long before the World Wide Web even existed. This is an example of why Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't a reliable source. Try books, as below. Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say ED was a reliable source, but the term itself is a distinct neologism. Would you rather it be redirect to disgust or annoyance? --Merovingian (T, C) 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure that several silent comedians have used it. ☺ What the sources, such as ISBN 0810808633 and ISBN 0471183423, tell us is that there are a lot of meanings to slapping the palm of one's hand to one's forehead, including concentration, emphasis, self-annoyance, and dismay. It's verifiably an entry in a list of gestures. Let's not claim that this is some sort of Internet meme. The Internet didn't invent this. Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying it did. Rather, there is, I think, a difference between the gesture and the humorous Internet representation. I don't wish to discuss the matter further, though. Do whatever you want with it. --Merovingian (T, C) 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to meme. While it may or may not have come out of 4chan, it is incredibly widespread now, and simply pointing the reader to 4chan won't tell them anything. At least by pointing them to meme, they'll know that it's a meme. - Koweja (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • O RLY is notable. Most 4chan memes are not, because there are no reliable sources about them, and many have been salted to prevent creation after multiple deletions. See Happy Negro, Cockmongler, Pedobear, An hero, Rule 34, LOL WUT, and so on.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Uncle G. This is not a meme as 4chan or the internet certainly did not invent the gesture. It is simply internet slang for a common human gesture. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per headdesk. If there were anywhere to point it I would possibly say "redirect per fapfapfap" - TheBillyTalk 15:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Common human gesture, has been taken on by 4chan, but no reliable sources seem to exist. It might be a notable topic as a gesture under a different name, though, if anyone wants to do any research on the subject.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:20, 11 January 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. --Oxymoron83 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Goulstone

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

lack of sources and seems to breach WP:BIO and WP:RS especially as books listed are believed self-published BlackJack | talk page 14:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - looks like a resumé. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not established and "facts" appear not verified. If he is notable, then any article on him would have to be written from scratch, because this is valueless as it stands. Johnlp (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Expanded a little, but vote remains the same. Johnlp (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Google Books and Google Scholar hits for this person's name along with 'cricket' look surprisingly promising.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note what you say but Google hits do not prove notability. Most of the hits are WP-related in any case and you only need to scroll one page before you find Richard Goulstone, Phil Goulstone, etc. --BlackJack | talk page 20:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We are here to debate whether the subject is notable, not the quality of his books. Any review by a subject expert, whether good or bad, is evidence in favour of notability, not against it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. You're right. I've withdrawn that part of the previous comment. --BlackJack | talk page 13:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Two of his books, one on cricket and one on football, are available through Amazon UK, which I think just about makes him notable. JH (talk page) 14:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No WP:RS establish any sort of notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google convinces me that he is notable. (apropos nothing, we use him as a reference on another article, 1756 English cricket season). I've de-peacocked the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Not enough search volume to show..." - C/O Google Trends Lsingel (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment FWIW, availability on Amazon is meaningless. If you pay their commission, they'll take almost anything. DGG (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only 132 direct google hits in my search, most of which seems like wikipedia mirrors, the ones that aren't, are trivial mentions and no Reliable source found, nothing in google news, as for amazon, any author can place their book there, several of my old high school teachers wrote books that can be bought there, that doesn't make them notable. Secret account 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't think Google News is a place to expect anything substantial: perhaps try Google Books and Google Scholar instead? And I'm not sure how "vanity" his book publications are, but he has also published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of the History of Sport. Having said which, I too have published books and peer-reviewed articles, but I hope to God nobody thinks I should be in a wikipedia article because of it. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin. Please review the comments which Blackjack removed, as they have a bearing on the subject's notability in that one of his books was reviewed by a noted expert on the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much evidence of notability here. --Crusio (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N (no significant 3rd party coverage), fails WP:BIO (no significant awards or contributions) Teleomatic (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilons

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

Non-notable definition and a strange second meaning, also nn. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definately delete, per the nomination. Surprised it lasted this long. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedy per A7. Fails to indicate any notability outside of a term used in a fiction book and the name of a gravestone. Firestorm (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Though, I wonder out loud if a redirect might be called for??? LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Lsingel (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: epsilon is the fifth letter in the Greek alphabet. Whether or not the term was given special meaning in a fictional book is not notable since there is no widespread use of the term as described in this article. Further, the article fails to provide any third-party references per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 05:52, 7 January 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. Sources were not presented.-Wafulz (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer Time Radio

Gamer Time Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom as de-Prod. Does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements. Article lacks WP:RS reliable sources and has been tagged requiring references since November 2007. Breno talk 01:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not voting at this time but here's what I've got. First, the nomination for an award looks both serious and non-trivial. I'd say it establishes some degree of notability. There are tons of gaming podcasts out there, and a real review process appears to have happened. However, past that I can't find anything. Apparently there are some proposed notability criteria for podcasts here but I've no idea how we treat wikiproject notability guidelines. That's all I've got. At the moment I don't know enough to form an opinion (either notability or policy) so I'll pass for now. Hobit (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Under WP:WEB guidelines a podcast is notable if it has won a well-known and independent award, so a nomination would not count. I get where you're coming from saying that they have to be reasonably well-known to receive a nomination, but bear in mind the Podcast Awards have 10 nominees in 22 categories – 220 nominations in the 2007 awards! I'm part of WP Podcasting, and although a proposal went through discussion on the talk page, it never eventuated as a notability guideline. As a result we continue to use WEB when assessing podcast notability. Thanks. --Breno talk 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think I've heard this podcast mentioned in at least a couple of articles on the (reliable) gaming news sites I frequent. It's new, nominated, and probably notable, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. User:Krator (t c) 17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article is completely unsourced and is currently not passing WP:V policy, so if you have those sources it would be appreciated. Thanks. --Breno talk 00:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little coverage in non-self-published sources, aside from award nom and [86] -- pb30<talk> 05:27, 11 January 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 per WP:SNOW - Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Banker

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

(contested prod) An assistant coach for a college football team. Although has previously worked as an assistant in the National Football League, that doesn't make him notable. There can be up to 30 assistants on any NFL team. Fails WP:BIO. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Former defensive coordinator of the San Diego Chargers. That's one of the "big 3" coaching positions. If that isn't notable enough for Wikipedia, then I don't know what is. How does it fail WP:BIO? VegaDark (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It fails WP:BIO because he hasn't recieved substantial coverage from reliable sources. Ghitsgive another Mark Banker. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of those refer to the same Mark Banker. Also, try a google news search or a more refined search. Several articles on how he is/was being considered for several open head coaching jobs. VegaDark (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per VegaDark. This isn't the assistant defensive backs coach for a DII school, he's definitely done enough to be notable. matt91486 (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and please, withdraw nomination. SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per VegaDark. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even if he hadn't coached in the NFL it looks like he would be notable enough.Xenocide85 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:42, 7 January 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. Wikipedia is not just reserved for Paris Hilton, as one editor suggests. Merging is a possibility, but should be discussed on the article talk page in the normal way. Tyrenius (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Bossons

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

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: There was a mandate on this article to clean-up after the last AFD. However, a month has passed and an editor felt it was time to PROD the article because it had not been cleaned up; here is what the PROD nominator had to say, "Several reasons for deletion: Since the "Consensus to clean-up" up was given, now a month has passed and no edit since then other than that of a Bot, as a result, this article is now eligible for deletion". Personally, I don't think renominating for deletion is a constructive way to go ... but here we are again. For reference, the diff between the AFD closure and the PROD nomination, to demonstrate no substantive progress on the article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've now removed the unsourced info. She has recieved significant media coverage, so is notable. Epbr123 (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My reason is still notability issues, the huge majority of these ghits are promotional sites, ebay, and wiki mirror sites. If she is an international success, then have you heard of her before because as I stated from my previous nom, I have still never heard of her even if I am from the same area, nor is she is mentioned in schools and colleges as well as in local papers. But the main reason is this line in the article, It is unclear whether this was a publicity stunt, there are plenty of workers who are solely responsible of the success of the companies and they never get an article here, if they do, they get deleted ASAP. Personally, I think people should think that if they have heard of the person before they decide if the subject is notable or not, rather than let this article decide if that person is. Thats is the problem of this site, if it has an article herre, then people are going to assume that this person is notable. Willirennen (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment posted on 13 Jan 08: Reading Robertlondon's reasoning, considering Bosson is considered as specialist notable, I am withdrawing my nomination, I did not reply until not because I hoped the outcome would come out as a keep. Willirennen (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm sorry, but the notion of "I have not heard of her; therefore, she should not have an article" is completely at variance with both consensus and policy. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Can I see the any reliable source that does not sell her products other than that sole BBC newspiece.
        • Further Comment: A merge to her employer would be better suited to this nominated article considering she has no other notability other than that employer she works for, IMO, I don't think she has other notability other than working at Moorcroft. Willirennen (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Moorcroft. At most, it's a WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree with a merge. There's enough sources for her to be notable in her own right, and I don't believe in merging articles just for the sake of it. Much of the current info would have to be lost if merged into Moorcroft. Epbr123 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But is she notable on her own if it wasn't for the company, I don't think so. Plus with you saying she is notable enough to have her own article, are you trying to say that every reality TV contestants should have their own article, even though they get more news coverage than she does; are you trying to say that every "employee of the year" who have contributed heavily to the company enough to have a news coverage should get their own article here, even many of these do get successfully AFD'd. Usually people who are notable for more than just being an employee are usually entitled to have an article, as for her she only received a small piece of news article. I would like you to refer to WP:BIO, I can't see that she would be able to pass this. Also WP:NOT#NEWS, like reality TV contestants,she is only notable for just this piece of news article. Willirennen (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Should all baseball players be merged with their teams? Should all musicians be merged with their record companies? Epbr123 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • They are notable in their own right, and is she, not at all, she is simply just another employee who is notable for one or two minor news article. Willirennen (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Merge to the Company, if no better sources found. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sure the BBC article was part of the company's PR, and possibly only picked up by the BBC as a skateboarding duck type story, but it does make her notable, not because of the coverage, but because of the insurance sum.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • seppedy delete, im from stoke and who the heck is she, [redacted per BLP] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.139.5 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete shouldn't these articles be reserved for famous pooeles like paris hilton and this one isn't.Charley Uchea (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I originally created the Emma Bossons page because it appeared obvious to me that she was a significant figure not only at Moorcroft but in modern day British pottery. I have an interest in antique pottery and certainly did not create it as a "promotional" piece. Stoke on Trent (known as “the Potteries”) in the UK has a great history and includes prestigious names such as Royal Doulton and Wedgwood. Important parts of this history are the female designers which have innovated and led to growth of the pottery industry. Notable ones include Charlotte Rheade, Clarice Cliff and Susie Cooper who were all ceramic artists and are included on the Wikipedia page of “British Potters”. In my original page (which was the first one I ever created and perhaps did sound a bit "evangelical"), I tried to describe how she changed the style of relatively traditional Moorcroft designs into something which could now be identified as her own. I had hoped to include photos of one of her initial pieces at Moorcroft using their traditional style and a later one using the same elements but in her distinctive style. Unfortunately I was unable to locate free images for this. Her influence can now be seen throughout the Moorcroft range with the other designers adopting many of her ideas. This is all the more remarkable for the fact that she was a junior designer within a team of 6 or 7. Bossons’ style innovations have helped her employer Moorcroft to increase sales dramatically. This is especially notable given the ongoing struggle of so many potteries to survive in the Stoke on Trent area. Many have closed down and/or transferred work to the Far East. Her designs were responsible for a huge amount of sales and have helped Moorcroft to buck the trend and expand rather than diminish. Current British pottery is not very sexy and is not widely reported on the internet. Other than Turner Prize winner Grayson Perry (who produces individual work), I think it would be difficult to find information about any significant figures working in British pottery today who have been responsible for sales as big as hers. The fact that the BBC and Guardian have reported on her is testament to the fact she is important. There are no articles about the Head Designer Rachel Bishop or any of the other Moorcroft designers. Sweeping statement here... I would also suggest that buying £500 ($1000) Moorcroft vases with flowers on (for that is what she produces) tends to be the preserve of, dare I say, ladies of a certain age and people buying wedding presents rather than people who would use the word "vaneetyee" or are in touch with the goings on of Paris Hilton. Their interests are less likely to be included in internet newsrooms. Her poor show on a google search does not make her less important, rather it illustrates how the internet is overly weighted towards youth and dynamism. Whilst Bossons is young, she works in a field which could be considered as sober and unexciting. She should not be merged with the Moorcroft page. Her innovative designs and subsequent effect on sales are too significant for that. I also disagree that she would not be "notable on her own if it wasn't for the company". She started out at Wedgwood before moving to Moorcroft. Once there she produced designs which fitted a very Moorcroft style. She produced new designs herself whilst the other designers continued in a traditional vein. She "broke out" from what was usually a painstakingly fussy design pattern. In my opinion Bossons should keep her page. She is a significant British ceramic artist and should be reinstated to the “British Potters” page along with the other ceramic artists (from which it appears she was removed long ago). Furthermore her name should be reinstated along with the other current Moorcroft designers to the “Moorcroft Pottery” page (which again appears to have been deleted). Finally I need to say that I have never had contact with Moorcroft Pottery, Bossons or anyone associated with it. I just admire her work and can see her innovation. Robertlondon (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I understand your reasoning and happy to accept it as a keep, providing there is a source for the old (now removed) edit, but as I must assume you got your info from a magazine or a book, then why claim it as a source (refer to WP:SOURCE), there is nothing wrong with that, thats is what I do if there is no source on the 'net. But do bear in mind is as I assume the reason why it was targeted for deletion was original research, plus from my experience from school was I was only taught about the S-o-T Big Fours, Moorcroft wasn't one of them, I only know about the company later via a local paper.As for reinstating deleted article, refer to WP:DRV. Willirennen (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Moorcroft. She is NOT a significant British ceramic artist... no mention of her in any Ceramic Review article that I can find.Teapotgeorge (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But she is mentioned by the BBC and The Guardian. Epbr123 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which may make her notable but NOT a significant British ceramic artist as has been suggested. Teapotgeorge (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep Teapotgeorge reasoning is flawed, or at least showing prejudice. Emma Bossons is a industrial ceramic artist, or perhaps more accurately a designer. As such she would not be expected to appear in "Ceramic Review" which concerns itself with Studio Pottery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.67.235 (talk) 23:34, 14 January 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 per WP:SNOW.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psilohydrocannabinol

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

This is almost certainly a hoax and the two references appear to be faked. A google search for the term returns only this article and the internal link for the "reputed" inventor points to a New Zealand man who died thirty years ago. Loonymonkey (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's good when the hoaxers make it so easy. This hoaxer thought to include citations. Xe cited the South Wales Evening Post. The archives of the SWEP are searchable on-line, and encompass September 2007. (I was able to pull up September articles using other keywords.) They contain no mention of this subject by either name. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Astroview120mm 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per WP:HOAX Pilotbob (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per WP:HOAX --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly a hoax; in any event, it fails WP:V. Hoaxes aren't speediable, however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:V; neologism —Preceding unsigned comment added by LonelyBeacon (talk • contribs) 05:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:HOAX, failure to meet WP:V and clearly a WP:NEO. Mh29255 (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, default to keep.-Wafulz (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woophy

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB. The wall street journal source is unavailable for me to read so I can't evaluate its content, but both the BBC link and the guardian link qualify as trivial sources. They do not offer significant coverage of the subject as required. From WP:NOTE "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive The guardian article is hardly significant, and even it acknowledges the site is small. From WEB: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site This is nothing more than a brief summary of the content of the site. In fact its an extremely short usage guide at best. Notability requires multiple non-trivial sources so at the very least we need to evaluate the wall street journal coverage to see what it is, and find another source of non-trivial significant coverage. Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Photo sharing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to be nothing more than a nn Web 2.0 site and possibly just advertising. Unless somebody comes up with notability, i'd suggest speedy per G11. Firestorm (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The WSJ article is non-trivial coverage (I'm a subscriber; it's 16 paragraphs entirely devoted to the site, including the history of how it was started). There's also a Dutch source of several paragraphs, [87] and a shorter German one in a computer magazine [88]. Others that show up in the GNews search are trivial; the ones that might look non-trivial (Forbes and the German one) are both reprints of PR newswire/press releases about a competition they're holding. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If its a reprint of a press release, its not independent of the subject. 16 paragraphs at the WSJ? That sounds notable, but I'd still prefer something we can see. We give it a pass now, and someone wants to double check in 6 months because there still really hasn't been anything else added and you're not around to read it for us? That doesn't sit well with me. I can't read either of the other two provided references, but given the length of the german one, I'd need to see the content to decide what its saying to decide if its trivial. Same with the dutch one. Its not much longer, but its getting to a better length depending on what it actually says. Actually with a google search I question the german one, as the text is showing up on a few pages [89], which unfortunately since I can't read it makes me think it could be a press release.--Crossmr (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The WSJ is available in libraries. That's sufficient public availability for RSs. There is no requirement that a source be free, or even available on the internet at all. Forbes does not uncritically repeat press releases. If they thing one is quotable, it makes it a RSs.

DGG (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it wasn't an RS, I said it wasn't independent of the subject and isn't usable as citation, its 404 anyway, but its very clearly a press release, part of their prnewswire section. I don't know what their criteria is for being listed there but it sounds like just a feed of press releases.--Crossmr (talk) 14:13, 7 January 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 and userfy.-Wafulz (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Kasulke

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

Autobiography, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ghits churn up the usual profiles of anyone who has ever gotten some sort of credit somewhere. No substantial coverage that WP:BIO requires. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO due to lack of substantial third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While this article is an WP:AUTO, there is coverage that agrees with this article at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1848388/. If his work to date fails WP:BIO requirements for notability, then I am not opposed to deletion. Mh29255 (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I am just getting started with Wikipedia and am doing my best to get my sources and notations in order. Any further suggestions or comments you have that would allow me to get this article up to speed are most appreciated, many thanks, Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminKasulke (talk • contribs) 08:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy this admitted autobiography. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, has not yet achieved enough to merit an article. PKT (talk) 15:02, 16 January 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. Fram (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Bulsara

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

Appears to either be a hoax/prank or a fictitious biography. Most of the sources are bogus; the link to a conference supposedly in the subject's honor goes to a link farm site. The link to his personal site shown as "tribute to Adi Bulsara" is blank with "under construction"; the link to his supposed employer (a U.S. Navy research lab) gives a 404 error. Article looks like a vanity autobiography or COI creation. There appears to be someone with this name publishing works on physics, but not the person described here. Furthermore, even if everything in the article checked out -- which it doesn't -- subject would not pass WP:PROF test as a notable academic/researcher or WP:BIO in general. Delete. MCB (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, this person exists and is somehow related to the field mentioned in the article as shown here and here. This one seems to be his most-mentioned book. Oh, and he is Erdos 5... --Ouro (blah blah) 08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, there's someone with that name (or at least surname and first initial) publishing physics books and papers, although if you consider the ones listed, they really don't add up to actual notability, just an average academic/researcher. It's not at all verifiable that that person is the one described in the article and photo. (By the way, an Erdos number of 5 is pretty meaningless as an indicator of prominence in the scientific field. I'm no worse than a 6 myself, and could probably find a shorter path if I put my mind to it, and I know two 5's who are not even working as scientists -:- one is a nurse, and the other is a librarian.) --MCB (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I'd be a weak delete on this pending proof of notability - though I doubt it will be found. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 10:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a scientist, cited publications are critical to notability. According to web of science, he has 110 peer-reviewed papers. His 4 most cited papers have been cited respectively 248, 247, 247, 245 times. This is notability in any subject. 56 of his papers have been published in Physical Review or Physical Review Letters, the very highest quality journals in the subject. This is a notable record for a physicist. This is way more than an average researcher. I've added this information to the article. The third party sources proving notability are the peer-reviewers of these journals, and the hundreds of peers in his subject who have cited him. Can't see why the person publishing physics papers isnt him--it is a very uncommon name. (there only 4 people named Bulsara in Web of Science for any subject). Yes, the refs need fixing. If some bio details dont hold up they can be eliminated. But the true subject is the person who wrote the papers & if we knew nothing more than that and his degrees and position, he'd be notable. His position is verified by the addresses on his papers: "bulsara{at}spawar.navy.mil, SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego, CA 92152-6147, " (from neco.mitpress.org/cgi/content/full/15/8/1761] "Adi R. Bulsara is at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, 53560 Hull Street, San Diego, California 92152-5001," from [www.nature.com/uidfinder/10.1038/437962a -]- I'm working on he rest of it. DGG (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep DGG's revisions seem to moot the "hoax", and notability seems established Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerebellum (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after DGG's improvements. I think the section on his Erdos number is disproportionately large in relation to the importance of that aspect of his work, but that's a minor content issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article now asserts notability, per DGG's fixes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete WP:NOR - 100% original research from miniscule bits and pieces and even as such thoroughly unreferenced. He was not an author of the single listed book (two other are military manuals). The "very very frequently cited" papers are mutli-authored and it is not at all clear whether Bulsara was a theoretical contributor or a technician who mocked up the devices used in experiments. What is more important, what exactly contribution makes him famous. Just as google count is an invalid merit in wikipedia, citation index is but a vague indicator of notability. What is really needed are actual citatrions from peers' articles, like, "dr. Adi Bulsara's theoretical principles of the operation of turboencabulator were further developed by Drs. Adi Baba and Ali Baba bla-bla bla". Finally, it is a clear-cut case of WP:COI. `'Míkka>t 06:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although technicians sometimes get listed as authors on papers, I have yet to see one that racks up the citation record that DGG uncovered. --Crusio (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you evere heard about "walled gardens", sometimes disguised as "scientific schools"? It is not an unknown practice that a closed community may rack up their citation count by buddy-buddy cross-referencing each other in their numerous 2-3 page articles half of which are lists of their own references. Just as google bombs, "citation index bombs" were known long before internet, only not very famed. `'Míkka>t 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have heard of this (something like that was encountered in a recent AfD where a journal's impact factor was padded this way). But I strongly doubt that you could get away with this in journals like Phys Rev or Phys Rev Let. Getting published in journals like that is already an accomplishment (although not enough in my eyes to be notable). The citation rates obtained are excellent. --Crusio (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. You still did not answer my fundamental question: what was so important an ahievement of this guy? If no one can explain it then it is only natural to suspect something fishy. `'Míkka>t 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It takes about 30 seconds to scroll through the citation list of the 1991 PRL and confirm that it is not a "citation index bomb". The citations are from many different authors writing in PRL, Phys. Rev. E, and similar journals. Bm gub (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment from nominator. While the hoax issue may have been cleared up, although I am still concerned about the bogus sources and links like the conference supposedly held to honor him, there's still no way the subject meets WP:BIO/WP:PROF. My searches have not found a single instance of media coverage of the subject or independent recognition by notable people, and thus the article fails WP:V as well. There are just no independent sources for the assertions which are clearly either autobiographical or written by someone with a COI. All we have are non-testimonial primary sources -- raw lists of journal papers & co-authorship of technical books. (And as I pointed out, the Erdos 5 list is of no encyclopedic value.) That does not equal notability or prominence, but instead an attempt by someone with a COI to promote an obscure researcher into a Wikipedia article. --MCB (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that the links did not work does not prove that the conference did not exist. the secondary sources are the citations to the papers, they're the relevant media. Obscure is about the opposite of the situation, and agreed the Erdos number paragraph should go--and I just now removed it. a naively written article. COI sometimes does that--it often ignores what is actually important. DGG (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What we are missing is the fundamental basic criterion of WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." A mere listing of papers from a mechanically-retrieved citation database is not a useful secondary source and does not meet that criterion. The only verifiable source for this person's existence, let alone his work, is a list of the titles of published papers, with nothing to demonstrate the importance or significance of his work, which would require some sort of commentary, coverage, reviews, etc., from an independent source. I think that Wikipedia's policies require that type of sourcing in a biography, not just a publication or citation count. --MCB (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but the significance in science is in the articles published: where they are published, and the citations. That's the way the subject works. That's the basis on which people are notable. A good article should have a commentary, but it isnt necessary for notability. We use the standards of the subject.i do not ask for citations to academic papers about athletes: I could say no athlete is notable unless his performance has been analyzed in peer-reviewed journals--it would be just as absurd. WoS is Reliable in the areas it covers (GS perhaps a little less so); it is not a derivative of the original paper or duplicative of other sources, and it is certainly independent of the subject. It has the additional advantage of being totally objective. I wish we had as good standards in other subjects. DGG (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that's sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Mere citations do not show anything about the significance or importance of the work cited nor of the prominence of the author. All it shows is that someone published a paper and mentioned their work; in the relatively closed and hermetic community of academics and researchers, that is exceptionally common and completely unremarkable. For someone to be notable for Wikipedia purposes, however, there needs to be some sort of actual, published, third-party acknowledgement of the significance or importance of the subject's work -- something that asserts that in so many words. A citation does not provide that -- it could be as little as a part of a sentence in a long paper, or a tangential footnote. To put it more directly, if this guy is so notable, why are there no biographical references for him at all, anywhere? Not a single mention I can find among newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, nothing -- just a list of papers read by a tiny number of specialist researchers. That's a big difference. --MCB (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While his citation counts are impressive, I think we really need some sources talking specifically about him. The problem is that he seems to be working for the military and there's no public information about him. This is similar to what happens with industrial scientists; unlike academics, they are generally not listed in the company website, they don't publish their CVs and research plans online, are less likely to be in the media, and to put it bluntly they are not "public persons" and are not notable by Wikipedia standards (with some exceptions, of course). When practically the only reliable information about someone is their publication list, we simply don't have enough to write an article. In such a case we would be playing biographers based on a pretty poor primary source. And this is not to mention that without a lot of research it is impossible to figure out what they really did. In some cases, a lucky summer student might end up listed as an author of an article that is cited thousands of times, but that doesn't automatically make him notable (I'm not saying that this is the case here, but just giving an example of how just looking at the author list is not enough). --Itub (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Citation counts are totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that he has authored books, is a Fellow of the APS, did his PhD under a noble prize winner, and is one of the world-leading nonlinear guys. Also the comment below saying that he himself wants it deleted is irrelevant. I'm sure the president of China would like his wiki bio deleted too. The answer is always a big no no... to delete the article just because he wants to is the ultimate in POV. Also the quality of the article will pick up in time. Rome wasn't built in a day. How are you going to build Rome if you delete it? WikiCrisis (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that the article should be kept, but I disagree with several things you say about notability here. Citation counts ARE relevant. Articles that have been cited hundreds of times by other researchers are a clear sign of notability. (Not necessarily the other way around: someone whose works have only seldomly been cited can still be notable on other grounds). Books need not be an indication of notability: if those books had never been cited or reviewed, then that would clearly be non-notable books. The fact that someone did his PhD with a Nobel Prize winner is not relevant either. Why should they inherit notability from their mentor? I know several such people and some of them are completely non-notable in an encyclopedic sense. --Crusio (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, I agree too that the article should be kept. However, I believe your reasons are specious. His notability is clearly via the fact he is a Fellow of the APS and they recognized his contributions. The fact he did a PhD under a Nobel Prize winner is also very important—the principle of "reflected glory" holds here...it's something akin to being the child of a king automatically qualifies you for a wiki bio. It's a well-known fact that the chances of you getting a Nobel Prize vastly increases if your PhD advisor was one also. The fact he is an author and has books is also very notable. I've never even met the guy, and yet his books are sitting on my shelf as we speak. That's notable. I don't care about the citations. People can have lots of citations in some obscure area of science, but if they never wrote a book, then they weren't really making a wider impact. Once someone writes a commercially published book they immediately become of interest for a bio, because of the breadth of their impact.WikiCrisis (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just for the record, I don't think working for a Nobelist indicates notability—most Nobelists run very large laboratories. On the other hand, having a very famous student is a is one of the factors in WP:PROF making for notability. DGG (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Disagree. I'm not talking about "working for a Nobelist." I'm talking about being the PhD student of one. A PhD that was "given birth" by a Nobelist is a very interesting beast to study. That person has a lot of reflected glory. That person has invariably contributed to the body of work that the Nobelist was known for. It's like a parent-child relationship. As readers we are fascinated to know what became of Einstein's actual children...and indeed they all have wiki bios. Likewise we are interested in the academic children of Nobel Prize winners.WikiCrisis (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WikiCrisis, Einstein's was a very different time. Einstein didn't have many PhD students working for him in his lab. Current Nobelists, especially in the life sciences, run huge labs, with sometimes 30 or more PhD students and postdocs working for them concurrently. Working for a Nobelist, not even as a PhD student or postdoc, therefore doesn't confer notability and these people will have to show what they're worth on themselves. --Crusio (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email from subject

This evening I received an email from the subject of the article (I have no reason to doubt his identity) citing factual errors including his date of birth, and saying, "I WANT that stupid page deleted. I did NOT authorize it, and whoever wrote it has totally screwed it up. I do NOT have the time to go in and fix it up, and I DON'T want to fix it up. I don't need a "vanity" page (I got this from the comments). So...I am requesting that you proceed with the deletion. Just do it!!!"

While authorization from the subject is never needed for a Wikpedia biography, and the subject's request is not grounds for deletion, I wanted to bring the email to the attention of the AfD, without further comment except to note that should the article be kept as a result of this AfD, WP:BLP would require removal of all questionable and unsourced biographical details. (He went on to clear up the record regarding his contributions to the authorship of papers credited to him, and I plan to answer his message emphasizing that none of the comments here should be construed as criticism of his work or of him personally. --MCB (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have seen vanity articles before, but this is not one of them. The factual errors noted should be corrected (or if no correct info is available about, e.g. date of birth, it should be removed). The subject clearly is notable, with papers that have been cited hundreds of times by his peers. --Crusio (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, this is an occasional response by eminent (and not-so-eminent) people when their notability is questioned at AfD--"who are those guys to judge me. I want nothing to do with them!" I hope this will decrease as the quality of work increases. DGG (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, agreed. That's a very perceptive psychological observation. The wish for deletion is nothing to do with the quality of the article....it is the nature of wiki that that improves over time. The real issue is eminence has been questioned. This is all the more reason to ignore the request and not delete the article, as it is only an emotional knee-jerk reaction.WikiCrisis (talk) 07:47, 16 January 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.

Lust at First Bite

The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lust at First Bite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pornographic film based on Dracula. Nothing to suggest its notable or worthy of inclusion here; just a list of differences from the book and some random trivia bits. CyberGhostface (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following Dracula porno film for pretty much the same exact reasons as Lust at First Bite.

Lust For Dracula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability not established. - JasonAQuest (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability is not established - Λua∫Wise (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_7&oldid=1081074248"