Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 29

< May 28 May 30 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Singularity 07:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilium (song)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, unnotable song with all exceptional claims completely unsourced. Only sources are to Latin bible verses to support WP:OR claims. Failed PROD; removed by IP under claim of "Don't be sneaky, do a proper afd." Nothing in the article to merge into Elfen Lied, the series where it is used as a theme. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close). macytalk 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

AfDs for this article:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is blatantly biased. I'm sorry but it only talks about scientists opposed to the consensus, yet there is no page that lists scientists that agree with the consensus. Besides, it is a ridiculous list anyway: I mean come on a Solid State Physicist? And his relevance to Global Warming is? Just because he's a scientist doesn't making him relevant, else we may as well let in any politician, economicist, person-in-unrelated-career etc into this article. If this article isn't deleted, I think a lot of this list needs to be purged.

^That's what I wrote on the article's talk page (yes I was the IP sorry I wasn't logged in). Basically, that's why I think this article needs to be deleted. Deamon138 (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This nomination was malformed. I've fixed it. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry I'm a n00b at all this! Deamon138 (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps restrict to atmospheric scientists. A list of supporters would obviously be impossible to complete. This is not. WillOakland (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I definitely agree restrict to astomospheric scientists,that is a definite must. However a list of supporters is impossible to complete but so is a list like this, hence "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness." at the top of it. I assume you meant "A list of supporters would obviously be impossibly massive"? If so, a category would be much better, as then we could have both a for and against category, and not have to go into the detail about each. Deamon138 (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retitle and Strong Keep Titling it a "list" makes it fail on indiscriminateness, but "Scientific Theories Disputing the Existence of..." or something along those lines could work. I don't really get the stated rationale behind the AfD - is there an equal time requirement on Wikipedia I wasn't aware of? Townlake (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you suggest would duplicate the existing "Global warming controversy" article. I think a list is fine. WillOakland (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is an equal time requirement on Wikipedia: it's called WP:NPOV. Deamon138 (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The title alone is biased against this article, making it appear as a list of pariahs from the main scientific community, where opposing views aren't allowed. The title should be identical except in sense. The views expressed are as valid as those on supporting man-made global warming.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What title are you referring to that is biased? It doesn't really matter whether the opinions are valid or not, just whether they've been covered in reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see 58 references listed, is there a problem? Who judges reliability, you?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, don't divert this into a discussion of scientific merit because it isn't relevant. WillOakland (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Founders Intent, the views on here arent't all valid: I gave the example of the solid state physicist as an example. How is he relevant. I would be saying the same if there was a list of those supporting the mainstream views and he was there, but there isn't. And anyway, if these views are as valid as those on supporting man-made global warming, where is the list (or category) for them then? Deamon138 (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this nomination seems to be what is based on a bias. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article was nominated by a pretty green user (no pun intended). We need to keep this page. Besides, aren't lists supposed to go on WP:MFD or something? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Anything in the articlespace (ie without a prefix and a semicolon before the title) goes to AfD.137.111.143.140 (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry GO-PCHS-NJROTC but how is my nomination biased? I've nominated it not because of any view on the issue it's about, but because it isn't neutral (i.e. there isn't a counter list), and also because a lot of the names on this list aren't relevant to the subject. Besides, how am I "a pretty green user"? Where on Earth did that title come from? You are apparently accusing me of bias, with no evidence. Finally, did you just reply to yourself above? Deamon138 (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article is about a specific subject, people who disagree with the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. Each entry is referenced (otherwise it would be removed) and the article is NPOV in its own right. The absence of a counter article on people who believe the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming is not a reason for deletion. I'm not going to go into the blatant POV issues in some of the global warming articles because I simply don't have time and this is not the place. --Athol Mullen (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about people who disagree with AGW, it's about SCIENTISTS who disagree with AGW, most of whom I disagree over relevance/notability as mentioned above. It also isn't NPOV, since it's very existence without the existence of a counter-article is POV and is a reason for deletion. Why even say, "I'm not going to go into the blatant POV issues in some of the global warming articles" if you're not even going to expand? Regardless of the existence or non-existence of POV on related articles, this articles deserves to be discussed. What are you suggesting? That the existence of POV elsewhere somehow makes this POV right? Two wrongs don't make a right. Finally, a quick perusal of your talk page tells me that you hold a very skeptical view over the AGW consensus. Food for thought methinks.... Deamon138 (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The list meets WP standards and is impeccably resourced. It's inclusion here is confusing.

Ecoleetage (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure I agree that it is resourced well, however it does not meet WP standards so it's inclusion here is warranted. Delete Deamon138 (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no NPOV issue. The dissenters get this list, and the supporters get to be called "mainstream." WillOakland (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is exactly that: a NPOV issue. They are called mainstream not because of a POV but because that is what it is called. Look up mainstream in the dictionary. But this article in itself isn't biased I agree there, however, it's existence is biased. For instance, on the AGW debate, we have two balanced (or meant to be, I don't know if they are) pages entitled Global Warming Controversy and Scientific opinion on climate change which is fair enough. However, we have this article here as well as Category:Global warming skeptics, which are both articles about on solely skeptics, with no alternative lists or categories describing the non-dissenting views. Surely that, by definition is POV. Deamon138 (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I get it, there are mainstreamers and dissenters, but the dissenters are biased. So let's delete the dissenters so there is no opposing opinion on Wikipedia and only the pro-AGW view exists. And btw, you're a neutral person. Did anyone notice how quickly within like an hour the AFD on the other article was removed, by no less than a green administrator, but this article is still on the list the next day? Mr Schulz must have friends in high places. <<<Disregard, I should have known the why to this statement. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the disenters views are biased, whether they are or not is irregardless to this discussion. And I'm not saying that Wikipedia should only be for pro-AGWs either. The very reason I come to Wikipedia for information is so I can read a balanced, neutral opinion on a subject: this is not what I'm getting when there is no counter-argument article. And as to the stuff you insinuate, I have no idea what you are talking about. Who is Mr Schulz? AfD on what other article? I don't understand. If you are trying ti say I'm biased well I'm not (and remember WP:FAITH, you have no reason to assumen I am biased and am not acting in good faith). I hope you aren't either, though by the look of your userboxes on Global Warming it could be guessed otherwise. I am not whoever going to stoop and accuse you of bias, I will respect WP:FAITH and I hope you will too from now on. Deamon138 (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why should the list be restricted to the discipline Atmospheric Science? Mathematicians and statisticians are questioning the computer modeling used by pushers of the AGW paradigm. Geologists, oceanographers, biologists (both marine and land), volcanologists, botanists all have a dog in this fight. To arbitrarily restrict this to 1 specific discipline seems shady to me. L0b0t (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question. I think it's amazing that the AfD for the AGW page was removed within 50 minutes, but this AfD has been here for almost 22 hours. I think it's clear that this article should be kept. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 17:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This nom. seems based upon a misunderstanding of POV. Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight tells us: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." With that in mind, as long as the article makes note of the AGW view, there should be no problem. As noted here, POV is not a reason to delete but rather an opportunity to improve an article. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks dude, I can feel the difference already.  ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 19:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Having a "list of scientists who agree with scientific consensus" would be huge and almost possible to maintain. The notable dissenters, however, is easier, and probably more useful; by definition, there are less of them. Also, this is perfectly in line with UNDUE; I suggest the nominator review that particular guideline. Celarnor Talk to me 21:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No additional sources/references/coverage was added to the article or brought up here. Ultimately, the arguments to consider concern whether this topic is of sufficent note and whether the current content fails WP:SYNTH. Given that the article creator readily acknowledges the original research problem(s), and there lacks substantial evidence of noteworthy coverage, this article will be deleted. However, xoddam or any other editor is welcome to contact me to restore the article in userspace in order to salvage the sources or content for future work. — Scientizzle 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Base load theory

Base load theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is still a POV essay, despite efforts to fix it. Nothing appears worth salvaging to me. Allen (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, this article's purpose is to counter claims apparently made by the coal industry regarding renewable energy. The principal paper cited in this article does not seem to be peer-reviewed. --Allen (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very notable subject that is widely discussed. The nominator only gives reasons for editing, not deletion. How can you say "nothing appears worth salvaging" when the article contains loads of well sourced factual information about the subject. The only problem is with the way some of it is presented. And the article's purpose is not to counter any claims. That may have been the purpose of the original creator, but that editor does not own the article so does not have the right to define its purpose. As with any Wikipedia article this one's purpose is to present neutral, verifiable information on a notable subject. That purpose can't be fulfilled by deleting the article, only by editing it. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no evidence to substantiate this article's notability. The reference list, while on the surface credible, doesn't really address the topic. (The vast majority don't even mention Base Load Theory.) At best it's OR and a synthesis. Base Load Theory fails the Google Test with only 9 hits. Although the Google test isn't perfect, it does suggest a prima facie case against notability unless an alternative explanation can be provided such as inherent notability, predates the internet, specialised topic, etc. none of which apply in this case as far as I can see. Debate (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The references in the article are very much about this subject. Just because they don't use the exact phrase "base load theory" doesn't matter. Per WP:DICDEF Wikipedia articles are about subjects, not words or phrases. The subject has been shown to be notable - if a different title would be better then the change can be made by bold editing or talk page discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, where has the subject has been shown to be notable? All I can see is an OR essay consisting almost entirely of primary source references. WP:DICDEF is not a license to authorise the creation of material from scratch. Any coverage from a reliable secondary or tertiary source indicating that topic has a clear and consistent definition, whether under this title or any other, would be more than we have now. Debate (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "google test" would be best applied to the article's original title, "base load fallacy", since the rename appears to have been a clumsy if WP:BOLD attempt to address POV (turning the article from my original WP:POV essay into WP:SYN). A clear and consistent definition is lacking, though I didn't fully realise this when I created the article, since "base load" as a term of art apparently differs somewhat (in some documents) from the layman's definition (as presented here) and from the progressive (re-)definitions attempted by Walt Patterson and RMI. --xoddam (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if only so the references are readily accessible. I readily acknowledge it was originally POV and now it's mostly awful. I simply haven't had time to do the sane rewrite the topic deserves (haven't logged in for months). A full treatment in this article would necessarily be WP:SYN so approaching this in an appropriately encyclopaedic fashion entails a discussion from first principles under the title base load (which is currently a redirect to base load power plant). --xoddam (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - if reliable references can be found. If not, Delete as an unsubstantiated essay. J.delanoygabsanalyze 14:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Taeho

The result was Speedy Delete G10 per Rmhermen. macytalk 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to be a hoax/attack, it's unsourced. Re-created after speedy deletion, I think. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • G1 Nonsense. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If the administrator turns down my {Attack} tag. No information found supporting the definition supplied in the piece. ShoesssS Talk 23:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Recommend to merge to Jessica Simpson ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Simpson (album)

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

Non-notable unreleased album, only one source, can't find sources to verify tracklist Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UM - Than you really have me confused! In your nomination, above you state “…Non-notable unreleased album”. Now you are saying that it was released in 1994? Which is it? You know 99.9% of the time I trust – but verify what the nominator says. This 0.1% I trusted you without verifying! That will not happen again! ShoesssS Talk 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "The record company had financial problems and had to close down, still the Simpsons pressed the CD for their own money and sold it from the car." So technically, it was unreleased because the label went under before the album actually hit shelves. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the industry myself I have to disagree with your definition of a release. If it is made available to the public, whether through a label or independently, it has been released.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable and not notable (does not inherit notability from artist). Cquan (after the beep...) 23:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The album was simply called "Jessica". It was recorded by Proclaim Records before they went bust, and her grandma bailed her out so she could get the pressings done, as has already been discussed. I've got cover art to upload if you want it. There are a few refs to this bit of her life, like here, and here, but most sources seem to almost be a cut and paste of each other. She has done quite a good job of limiting the history of her "humble" beginnings in what I would consider reliable sources. But if that's good enough for you guys (and gals), I'll give the article a bit of an update.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on  Esradekan Gibb  additional information, and my carelessness in verifying information, I humbly change my position to keep. ShoesssS Talk 03:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so hard on yourself Shoessss, it was a bitch to try and find anything on this because of the title of the album. Oh gawd, I'm sounding like a Jessica Simpson fan. I need to have a shower now, unclean, unclean. I'll update the article soon.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to those in the know. Will it goof up this AfD if I move the article to its proper name of either Jessica (album) or Jessica (Jessica Simpson album)????  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 05:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok Team, I've had a bit of an attempt to piece a page together here User:Esradekan/Sandbox/Music2. No image as yet, I'll upload it when the article goes live. Now my grammar sucks, so if you guys want to have a go at tidying it up a bit, feel free. I'm away until late Sunday so I'll dump it across to the real article when I get back if there are no objections. Have a great Queens Birthday Weekend to all.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 19:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • yup, had that one too, just forgot to add it in. Just got home from 12 hour drive, need sleep, will update it after staring at the inside of my eyelids for a few hours. Good night.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok Team, I've given the page a bit of a tidy up.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as it has solid information, but is unlikely to ever to become a good article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The knotty question of whether it violates not or not was not agreed upon. Definitely could do with sourcing though to establish notability, otherwise it's likely to end up back here. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needle Through Thumb

Needle Through Thumb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

How-to article on magic trick (see WP:NOT). Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unfortunately it's not a "big" trick like the bullet catch that has a great history and a large amount of material written about it. Although known, its not WP:NOTABLE and as it stands its nothing more than a how to which fails WP:NOT LegoTech·(t)·(c) 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Cute piece, and would normally agree with nominator. But a little research I found that we currently have a piece called List of magic tricks that has been around since 2003. In other words, keep article and add to list. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. ShoesssS Talk 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hrm...a lot of the parlor magic tricks in that list are not even red link, but black as most of the articles about parlor tricks could never be more than a how to...I can poke around and see if I can find some history, but I would think that the history of all the parlor tricks would be repetitive through each article as they've all got pretty much the same origin. Even the Parlor magic article is pretty lame and needs help. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles may be lame, but that means they need to improved, not deleted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of sources is a concern, I agree. But a lack of sources is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve the sourcing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's at least a scruffy foundation of exterior reference to build off of. I think it'd probably be possible to demonstrate this as a notably universal magic trick. WP:NOT issue is a bit secondary. At worst, it could be alleviated by removing the Method section. - Vianello (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be (at least) marginally notable, and it may be possible to find sources to back it up. J.delanoygabsanalyze 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Clear consensus that the multiple sources that are available about subject are non-trivial and demonstrate notability per WP:N. Darkspots (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girl in a Coma

Girl in a Coma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article itself is clearly advertising and the first two sources are not reliable in the slighest (not indepenent certain;ly) and the third one isn't much either Weygander (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did anyone attempt to search for other reliable sources? Please remember that Wikipedia guidelines ask that we first do that before nominating an article for deletion. Here are a few: Dallas Observer Austin Chronicle Windy City Times Unrated Magazine Los Angeles Times L. A. Weekly Curve magazine. And so on. There's enough for a keep under WP:N or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability isn't the same as number of sources and is based on the candidate page not the deletion page. --Lemmey talk 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not quite in keeping with the guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. If an article can be improved, such as by adding sources, then it should be improved, not deleted. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a blog roll of sources will not improve the article. A presumption of notably can not be applied to obviously non notable subjects --Lemmey talk 18:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the extent of coverage in reliable sources (such as the newspapers and magazines I noted above) actually is how Wikipedia determines notability in a neutral way. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seem notable enough for mine given Paul Erik's sources. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taking the sources in the article and the ones provided by Paul Erik I think this band passes WP:MUSIC#C1, "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". Even found a few more (a couple are just minor mentions): [1],[2], [3],[4],[5] --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul Erik. --Bardin (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per Paul Erik. --xanderer (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know Google isn't the only indication of notability, but I saw too many reliable hits to discount this article as another "crappy Myspace band", as that one "summary of Wikipedia content" picture floating around calls them. J.delanoygabsanalyze 14:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nandesuka (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur King

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

This is an article about the main character of children's book. As best as I can tell this is the only related article on wikipedia, the authors page failed an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Wilkinson) and both books are red links The Legend Of Arthur King and Arthur King And The Curious Case Of The Time Train. I would say either this article needs to be deleted per WP:N or Dean Wilkinson needs to be restored. Jeepday (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It is perfectly possible for a character to be more notable its creator or any of the books it appears in, e.g. Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes. I don't have any opinion on whether that is true here, but the non-notability of the author and books is not on its own a valid argument for deletion of an article on a character. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable in the slightest. JuJube (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable character which has not received substantial coverage from independent sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The characters and the author is non-notable, per the author's AFD. — Wenli (reply here) 04:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment' a little unusual. The books are quite possibly notable in the UK, and the author has written nothing else. Maybe the character is the best place for the information.. DGG (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The author has also done some TV work [6] so if this is kept maybe it would be best to resurrect the article on the author and merge this into it. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and (eventually) merge and resurrect to book and/or author. Having book converted to BBC radio serial is notable. However, as neither of the others exist, this should stand currently. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge and redirect without deleting. Title characters are inherently notable and it's obviously a logical redirect to the book in the worst case scenario, but I see no reason for an outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Recommend to follow the advice by Peterkingiron to merge these two articles into one in which a full century is presented, alongside other material that may provide context about their validity. sources, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

80 in Ireland

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

The source(s) for these article are primary sources, specifically Irish annals, but there are not accepted as having much if any reliability before the 5th century at the very earliest, and more plausibly the 6th: "Irish annalistic records at such an early period are not to be taken as historically authentic" [Fergus Kelly, "Cormac mac Airt", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, here]. Any discussion of a "historical" Túathal Techtmar, always assuming that to be a good idea, belongs in a Roman Ireland article fenced around with if, and but, and perhaps, and with archaeologically imprecise dates, if any.

Also included, since it's in the same era and equally implausibly dated and involves Túathal Techtmar:

There is little point in merging this material as it will be equally unverifiable if merged. The most recent source on Irish chronology is Volume VIII of the Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland and this contains neither of these items. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - "Roman Ireland"????? — iridescent 20:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, really, Roman Ireland. I've read Martino's book. It's not as cranky as you might think, although there's an awful lot of it is really stretching. More conventionally there's a fair bit on Roman contacts in Mytum's Early Christian Ireland and a page or two in Raftery's Pagan Celtic Iron Age. Roman Ireland would need ifs, and buts, and maybes, and very careful attribution, but it would be much easier to write than 3rd century in Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the article, as with other early periods in Ireland, Merge inot articles on entire centuries, which MUST be accompanied by an explanation of how much credence is to be placed on them, since historians regard the events and figures described as legendary (not historical). The legendary events are potentially appropriate for inclusion in WP, provided it is made clear what they are. As to Roman Ireland, I believe there is evidence of one Roman fort, and this and Irish contracts with Britain might make an article on Roman Ireland. However the archeological periods in Ireland are Iron Age and Early Christian, rather than (England's) Roman, Dark Age, and Saxon. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Unless every other country/region in the world has Year in articles then Ireland should be no exception. P.S. Roman Ireland is a non starter, don't even attempt to go there, it'll be AfD'd so fast....! Snappy56 (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an appropriate article about the period in Irish history. FWIW, the Irish annals are certainly subject to some commentary by historians. In one sense, their lack of corroboration by other sources makes them in some sense infallible. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per issues raised in the nom + no demonstrable need for this as a standalone. Eusebeus (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per all the above delete arguments, I do not want to repeat the arguments. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - "history" did not have the same definition in c. 500 A.D. as it does today. I support keeping IF we can get a cite from one of the annals. Otherwise, merge and redirect to Ireland in the 80s. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significance in real world and just note in article concerns over sourc reliability. We could say, some sources claim X about 80 in Ireland, but these claims are disputed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a reliable source, therefore not able to be merged. Malinaccier (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

322 in Ireland

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

The source(s) for these article are primary sources, specifically Irish annals, but there are not accepted as having much if any reliability before the 5th century at the very earliest, and more plausibly the 6th: "Irish annalistic records at such an early period are not to be taken as historically authentic" [Fergus Kelly, "Cormac mac Airt", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, here].

Also included, for the same reasons:

There is little point in merging this material as it will be equally unverifiable if merged. The most recent source on Irish chronology is Volume VIII of the Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland and this contains none of these items. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Gamma Kappa

Alpha Gamma Kappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be just WP:OR and I can't find any external sources backing up any of the content other than the fraternity appears to exist and be connected with podiatry. Contested prod LostOldPassword (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant delete. Surprised that I couldn't find any references to meet WP:ORG for a fraternity founded in 1939 and with multiple chapters, but I couldn't, at least in a brief search. Chuck (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay of Execution – I would hate to see this one deleted. It seems that a lot time and work went into the piece. However, like the nominator stated, I can find information regarding the existence of the fraternity. But can not find any specific information, to reference, concerning the claims made in the article. This fraternity is more closed lip than the Skull and Bones society. To the closing administrator, if the consensus is to delete, please send to my subpage. I’ll hold on to it and do some research the old fashion way, walk to the library :-) and see if I can verify the information. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 21:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ORG, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and may be WP:OR. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vegaswikian. 152.2.133.109 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete leaning towards Meh. I would have to agree with Chuck Carroll's sentiments, but I also have to note that there are almost no reliable sources about this subject. J.delanoy gabs analyze 14:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Orangemike. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuking the Fridge

Nuking the Fridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. A very, very recent neologism (the film came out last week) without enough time to build widespread usage or any notability, let alone reliable sources; as well, in the final sentences, a suspicion of a commercial interest driving the asserted acceptance. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Magna Carta. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magna Charta Sureties

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

content is almost entirely reproduced in Magna Carta, suggest merging anything that's not there and redirecting. Geoffrey Spear (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment a merge/redirect is not a deletion, so this doesn't need to be listed here. See WP:MERGE. Chuck (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to [[Magna Carta]. Besides using obsolete (and incorrect spelling "charta"), this article adds nothing to the suggested target. There might be a case for forking off the list of people, if that articel were very long, but it is not excessively long. I do not say "merge", becasue there appears to be no content to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Peterkingiron. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malinaccier (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

226 in Ireland

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

The sole source for this article is a primary source, the Annals of the Four Masters, written in the 17th century and not renowned for its reliability, including as it does myth, legend and folk-tales among other material. If there were a battle of Crinna, which is in itself unknowable, it cannot be dated to 226 AD: "Irish annalistic records at such an early period are not to be taken as historically authentic" [Fergus Kelly, "Cormac mac Airt", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, here].

The same is true of the events in:

There is little point in merging this material as it will be equally unverifiable when merged. The most recent source on Irish chronology is Volume VIII of the Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland and this contains no items at all for the third century in Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the source given by the nominator could a verifiable article about 3rd century Ireland be written that includes events that are sourced and a sourced explanation of why it isn't actually possible to know if they took place. Guest9999 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT says, "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." The answer is that no encyclopedia written by experts would have a 226 in Ireland article or a 3rd century in Ireland article, so the answer is that nothing should appear. There's no reason to write a non-chronology of non-events involving non-people when things are this simple. WP:RS says: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history ...". The RIA history fits this in every respect, random websites and primary sources do not. And this is not a case where "material may be outdated by more recent research". Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Seventeenth-century speculation about a few unverifiable events in 3rd-century Ireland. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from the well reasoned comments above, the current content of the articles and the (somewhat limited) research I have been able to do there is no apparent coverage of the topic by reliable sources on which a verifiable article could be based. Guest9999 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. There is no way to verify these kind of events Tavix (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Only one event, not historical, fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have to agree that as currently conceived this article fails WP:V. It pertains to a series of persons or events for which we have little or no reliable sources. Is it possible to turn this into a useful article as DGG suggests? Possibly, but not under this title. We are not losing any real content by deleting this. Anything here that is verifiable can be discussed in Early history of Ireland as noted below and expanded into a new article if that ever became necessary. Before we have the article Legendary History of Ireland in 3rd century (a plausible title change) we would first need Legendary History of Ireland. I'm sure we could construct a good article along those lines, but this article is hardly a good jumping off point. I don't see this article going anywhere or becoming verifiable any time soon which suggests it would be stuck in its current unencyclopedic state for some time which is not acceptable. Thus the delete arguments (which also outnumber the keep ones) carry the day here in my view. If any of this content would be useful in constructing a different article relating to the legendary history of Ireland I'd be happy to userfy it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd century in Ireland

3rd century in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article contains no credible content, nor is there any content which it could contain which would be verifiable on the basis of writings by modern historians.
The most recent source on Irish chronology is Volume VIII of the Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland. This contains none of these items, and indeed no items for the third century in Ireland. The only referenced entries are for events concerning the "life" of Cormac mac Airt, of whom Fergus Kelly in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, fairly representing the views of modern historians, writes:

Cormac mac Airt ... features prominently in early Irish tradition. According to the annals of the four masters, he became king of Tara in the year 227 and reigned until 266. However, Irish annalistic records at such an early period are not to be taken as historically authentic, and it is likely that Cormac was a purely legendary figure.
Here, not freely accessible.

The remaining material is unreferenced, copied from the Annals of the Four Masters.
WP:NOT tells us: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." The answer, based on the RIA history, the largest collective work on Irish history in many years, and perhaps of all time, is that you would not expect to find any article under this heading. This cannot be fixed by merging, or allowing time for sourcing, or otherwise rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but only by deletion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - This article is considerably better than the articles on particular years, but a mere list of dates can only be regarded as a stub. It needs an introduction, explaining that the material comes fro the Annals of the Four Masters, but is regarded by historians as legendary rather than reliable history. WP has works on fictional books, so I do not see why it should not have articles on legendary events, provided they can be included without any copy-vio. They are recorded in the annals, which is an authentic source, and meets WP:V. The problem is how far the annasl are to be trusted, but this can adequately be dealt with in comment, such as what Angus McLellan has quoted above. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources seems to suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for the Annals of the Four Masters, either summarised or complete, and with or without commentary. We don't write about fiction as if it were real and we don't write about legend as if it were real either. As for WP:V, that says: "[a]rticles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ..." (not the Annals of the Four Masters then) and "[a]cademic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history ..." (ditto). That really leaves nothing to say about the 3rd century in Ireland in an article like this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as using non-reliable primary sources, and all facts being in-universe or legendary stuff, which ought to be on an article about irish mithology, article about the annals book, or article about the particular legends. A "century in ireland" article is more for listing historical stuff that actually happened, with maybe a few very very notable myths. No need to merge or to preserve history, since it seems all info was copied from other articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails verifiability. Also mythological events are described as historical facts. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and clarify the nature of the evidence, and which things are legendary or semi-legendary. Legend is important, not just history, and in the case of this material a chronological presentation of the supposed dates is possible and appropriate. Of course we summarize primary sources when appropriate, but we should add secondary commentary also--there's quite a lot on earlier Irish "history", from various standpoints. Eliminating this is like asking us not to include a summary of the Magna carta. The opposition to this article is a carryover from the more reasonable opposition to the individual year articles. An all-or-none attitude to things like this didn't serve us well in dealing with modern fiction, and isn't appropriate here either. Every one of these can be sourced from both primary and secondary sources, though there are better people than me here to do it. DGG (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support this view - note I have already voted above. Possibly the title should be Legendary History of Ireland in 3rd century. I fear that some of those voting to delete may not understand the nature of the sources. The recording of the events is fully verifiable. What we do not know is whether the events did (or did not actually) happen. Terms such as "in universe" derived from Sci-Fi or video-gaming should have no place here. The tone of the article (implying that the events are definitely historical) is inappropriate, but that is not a case for deletion: it needs the inappropriate tone changing, or tagging for that to be done. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dagwoods. All info has already been merged. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiro Krallis

Spiro Krallis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment - I am just wondering if this person is significant enough to have his own article on Wikipedia. This person did found what is now a very fast-growing restaurant chain and has been explosive growth at all of its restaurants in recent years, hence the reason why I created the article. However, the restaurant chain is not popular nation-wide yet. What are your thoughts? Habs4ever (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've done much more than just re-create the article on Krallis, Habs4ever. You've a) been repeatedly adding spam about Dagwoods into Montreal b) created an article on Dagwoods which is very promotional in tone and I have tagged as such. c) possibly violated WP:POINT by anonymously nominating the article on multi-billionaire Subway founder Fred De Luca for nomination (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred De Luca) when one of your earlier articles on the Dagwoods founder was speedily deleted. That aside, WP guidelines require multiple prominent independent sources to establish notability. You've added a link to a Montreal Gazette article and that's one. But until I see multiple sources, my vote is to delete. Sorry, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason I added a link to Dagwoods on the Montreal page was because of the restaurant's chain recent success in attracting people away from the usual Subway and Quiznos because it promotes itself as a "Made in Montreal" restaurant. I included in a section that made reference to other Montreal-based companies...so it seemed appropriate.Habs4ever (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did much more than add a link. You rewrote part of the History section of the city of Montreal to expound on the glories of Dagwoods and founder Spiro Kralis (sic). Wikipedia is not a platform to publicize this company or its founder. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added to the history section, I did not rewrite it. Any ways, this discussion should be regarding this specific article and not any other. My concern is about this person's significance. I have explained why the person is significant, and I've also brought up why perhaps there shouldn't be an article on him on Wikipedia.Habs4ever (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Your articles on Spiro Kralis (one "l") have twice been deleted. Why did you spell his name differently this time? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the correct procedure would have been to take this up at Wikipedia:Deletion review -- not to create this article for the third time albeit with a slightly differently spelling of the last name, possibly to mask the deletion history. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You inserted substantial content about Dagwoods into a paragraph that was otherwise about Montreal's rate of economic growth in the 1990s compared to other cities in Canada. That's more than just "adding"; even if Dagwoods does get mentioned in the main article on Montreal that's not even close to being the correct section for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • - I changed the spelling because that's how his name is apparently spelled (i did not know that beforehand, I was positive it was with only one "l" but according to the article its with 2 "ll"s.Habs4ever (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Changing the spelling WAS NOT to mask anything, especially the deletion history. Go check out the first line of the source that was referenced and you will see how it is spelled. There was NO SINISTER INTENTION!Habs4ever (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Could find no information under either spelling. In that there is no information, there is no case for Notabilty. As a side note, the on going discussion above, though entertaining, is better served at Dispute resolution than here. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I found another source under the name Spiro Krallis. It is now provided on the article itself. It is in French, however it is obvious in the first couple of lines that his name is mentioned and it is spelled with two Ls, not one. Habs4ever (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Heck, here are some more articles with his name mentioned: http://www.fitforces.com/article-bringing-the-gym-home.htm and http://hbotmontreal.com/Events/2000/DEKA/recipients.asp Habs4ever (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am in agreement the restaurant does have a claim to Notability and should be included here at Wikipedia. My contention is that the claim does not extend to Mr. Krallis. The articles that you did provide, do mention Mr. Krallis. However, the subject matter covered in the pieces was primarily about the restaurant and not the owner. With regards, to additional information on Mr. Krallis, concerning Mr. Krallis, I could find none. Sorry, as everyone knows here at Afd I am always willing to say Keep! Just give me a good reason :-). ShoesssS Talk 20:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c)Comment - It seems that this spelling here is the right one, so that is okay as we should indeed not assume that it was previously misspelled on purpose. Bring up oneself as creator an article at AfD is also somewhat unusual but looking at the log for Spiro Kralis, I see that the first version was deleted as expired proposed deletion, which if challenged would have customarily been restored at Deletion review, sooner or later moved to the correct name and probably send to AfD anyways. In other words, we can now just asses the topic here as well. Above mentioned nomination and the name dropping wasn't helpful, though, but if still necessary it can be discussed elsewhere.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Dagwoods. Not notable enough for own article, but a plausible search term in relation to the chain. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Dhartung. With these two RS, I'd be fine with that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Dagwoods – While Dagwoods appears notable enough, the articles mentioned about Spiro Krallis aren't really about him, but instead simply mention him. There are two on the restaurant chain, that mention Spiro Krallis. There is an article on fitness that uses Spiro Krallis as an example, and there is an award for his restaurant chain that list him as proprietor. All of these indicate that he is not particularly notable on his own, but notable only in relation to the restaurant chain he founded. According to WP:BIO, the information on Spiro Krallis should just be merged into Dagwoods. If he later becomes notable for events outside the restaurant chain, or other reasons come up that the articles should be split, then the articles can be split at a later date. — λ (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. There is no reason why he can't be mentioned in the Dagwoods article, but his notability does not seem separate from Dagwoods. DigitalC (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, Krallis doesn't seem notable in his own right. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge. The other way around, so I'm not copying....IMHO, Dagwoods is not yet large enough to make its founder notable simply for founding the place. Sorry. J.delanoy gabs analyze 14:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per Vegaswikian, non-admin close. macytalk 22:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Berger

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

non-notable person A2Kafir (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first "Michael Berger" article was apparently about a different non-notable person. A2Kafir (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as the article doesn't even contain an assertion of notability nor a single link that can be used to verify the information. Also, by the creators contributions I suspect it may be a vanity article. —BradV 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 as per Bradv. There does not appear to be any assertion of notability or verifiability. Looks like a COI case, also. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Selket Talk 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bartosz Wiśniewski

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

Does not meet notability standards. Also, the page was established for another individual with a similar name (sports team member), but that original person is not listed on the roster of the team. — CZmarlin (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable per nom...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 19:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination does not say how it fails to meet notability standards and includes a bogus and unrelated reason that has nothing to do with an AfD and appears to be wrong. I don't read much Polish (okay, almost none, and there isn't an on-line translator for Polish that I could find), but a search of the web site for the team reveals Wiśniewski appearing a number of times on the team site. But what the heck does that have to do with the current article? Are you nominating a single page in the article's history for deletion or are you nominating the article for deletion?--Blechnic (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made a second article to take care of the issue about the two article, so which article are you nominating for deletion, if both, put 'em both up, if one or the other, post away. --Blechnic (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original article was posted about Bartosz Wiśniewski, an athlete in Poland Revision as of 18:35, September 20, 2007. It was apparently hijacked Revision as of 21:29, December 12, 2007 by someone else with a similar name (Bart K Wisniewski), claiming to be an architect. A quick check of the Polish language link on that article reveals that a Bartosz Wiśniewski does not exist in the Polish Wikipedia. He is not listed in the roster for the current club Znicz Pruszków in English or Polish Wikipedia articles. Therefore, I was not sure what to do with this messed up article. At that time, the page did not seem to qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
However, I have now found that Bartosz Wiśniewski is listed in the team roster for the Polish Wikipedia article: Wisła Płock (piłka nożna). Moreover, A Google (which translates from the Polish language automatically by clicking the "translate" button) finds a page where Bartosz Wiśniewski appears on the roster season and club membership. Thanks for correcting the page to reflect the actual individual. — CZmarlin (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was weird and confusing to figure out. I tried the google Polish translator but it couldn't get me past the same words I couldn't translate myself, so I needed an actual translator, and I couldn't get any of the rosters to show up with a search. But I didn't check the team roster on the Polish wikiepdia--good move. --Blechnic (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bartosz Wiśniewski (the architect) and move Bartosz Wiśniewski (footballer) to this title. I would expect a currently practising notable architect to have a pretty strong web presence but Google searches in English and in Polish find nothing. The footballer is notable as a player in a fully professional league. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That would probably be straight forward for now, but there remains confusion about precisely what is nominated. --Blechnic (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being precise, but the article was established for a football player (Bartosz Wiśniewski). The information on this page was deleted and replaced with some text about someone else with a similar name (Bart K Wisniewski, purporting to be an architect). When I noticed this messed up article, I nominated it for deletion because the subject (architect) did not seem to meet WP's notability standards. Purther investigation revealed that the original article was in fact a real sports person. This was corrected by Blechnic, by establishing a new page: Bartosz Wiśniewski (footballer). Therefore, the current Bartosz Wiśniewski article (about "Bart K Wisniewski") should be deleted on the grounds of non-notability. Thanks! — CZmarlin (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Can you relist and put just this up for debate for deletion to try to reach a consensus, as you seem to still think it fails notability, leaving out any discussion of the football, now that there is a discrete article on the architect? --Blechnic (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only mention I can find about "Bart K Wisniewski" and "Bart Wisniewski" on the Internet using Google is that he is listed as an employee of the "A Architects" firm (link here) that located in Woodstock, Illinois. The short bio does not have the AIA title listed by his name. In other words, the article about him seems to be a self-promotion piece that does not meet the WP guidelines. Because the article already has a "request for deletion" notice, I am not sure how to handle another request to remove it. Please do what is necessary to process this change! Thanks — CZmarlin (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I saw someone do something like that (completely replace an existing page with an article about someone else who is not notable) while I was patrolling for vandalism, I would have reverted and warned. If I saw the existing page be created while I was patrolling newpages, I would definitely at least PROD-ed it, and most likely CSD-ed it. J.delanoygabsanalyze 14:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably clarify. The page about the footballer is fine, the page about the architect should go. J.delanoygabsanalyze 14:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 07:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minnie Gertrude Matthews

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

I had originally deleted this speedily as CSD A7-- not notable bio. Then I saw where it had survived a prior VfD. Dlohcierekim 18:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – God bless her, but not even sure of the date of her death! This does not lend itself to the case of Notability. More so to the fact, that no one may have cared. Sorry. ShoesssS Talk 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry I missed the very old VfD. Even if we had proper sourcing, she certainly isn't notable by current standards, based on the article contents. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Being the oldest person in a particular place isn't quite up to notability standards, I'm afraid...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, oldest person of a mid-sized city isn't notability. Prior articles on supercentenarians (sp?) have been deleted without full sourcing and those are people with claims to being the oldest in a particular country. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per previous comments. Sorry, Minnie. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable WP:BIO; Google reveals many Wikipedia mirrors. — Wenli (reply here) 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily deleted as asserting no notability whatsoever. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Star Co-op

Black Star Co-op (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has little content and appears to be WP:SPAM promoting a business. Mh29255 (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I'm a member-owner of the coop, but this is not intended as spam. I believe this discussion is supposed to be held on the article's talk page though isn't it? I'm trying to put the page into a context that explains its relevance, but I am at work at my day job and really need to wait until I get hime to put some real work into it.chupacerveza 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry, didn't sign that comment. chupacerveza 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chupacerveza (talk • contribs)

  • Important Note Page was recreated after being speedily deleted using WP:SD#A7. Highly recommend that this page be deleted ASAP. Mh29255 (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Pure spam. Not enough here to merit keeping the article for potential improvement. Townlake (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loving More

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

Advertisement for a non-notable magazine. Damiens.rf 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – At first glance I was going to say delete. However, after a little checking I found quite a few articles on the magazine as shown here, [7]. Do I agree with the philosophy, No. But to each is own. And more importantly, I do think they meet the criteria for Notability. ShoesssS Talk 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The huge majority of those few articles on your link are not about the magazine at all. --Damiens.rf 14:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? There are over 600 hits. Even with a huge majority, though in my review I did not see that, of 90% not having anything to do with either the magazine or group (who by the way go hand in hand), still leaves over 60 cites from reliable – verifiable – creditable and 3rd party sourcing. Are you saying that is not Notable? Thanks, ShoesssS Talk 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: The article is about both a magazine and a non-profit group. In my brief search, notability is turning up for the group, but I'm not seeing notability for the magazine. I really have no clue if this means the article should be rewritten to focus more on the group than the magazine.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Time Magazine, The New York Times, the Toronto Star, the Times of India, the Washington Post and many others consider this to be a notable subject, so how can it not be notable for Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of the history can be seen in this blog entry at "Polyamory in the Media." The magazine wasn't being published for a while but is recently being relaunched. There was a mention of Loving More on the TV show "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" in two episodes. However it is not a fictional organization! See this article and this one for some background. Musqrat (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But rewrite to focus on the group rather than the magazine. The magazine is uninteresting compared to the other work the group does (media advocacy, run conferences.)151.200.149.157 (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both the organization and its magazine have been a major element of the polyamory community. Editing would make more sense than wholesale deletion. Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I copied PhilBridger's refs into the article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May be notable in the future (perhaps after it comes out), but not at present.--Kubigula (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POHMELFS

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V. No sources or references at all. Looks like an advertisement. Undeath (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 54,000 ghits (I know, I know) indicates it's at least worth the time to look into this and help develop the article if at all possible... seems like it should be. Townlake (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect – I am no software expert, but wouldn’t this be better served as a merge and redirect to File System. Seems like a natural fit as the system is well reported on Google with over 68,000 hits. On the other hand, don’t you thing a {PROD} tag would have been more appropriate to place on the article, since it was only created 16 minutes before first you tried to first speedy and than placed into Afd. ShoesssS Talk 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Give the article a chance to get started. Jkasd 20:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Did a bit of research, and it looks like this is a product that's still deep in development. An article can wait until either it's released, or there's been a lot more said about it. A merge or redirect would be inappropriate, as POHMELFS is an example of a file system (and an unusual one, at that), not a synonym for the concept of file systems in general. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep I did similar research and came to the same conclusion. All the high-level results seem to be tester-generated or message board posts, which don't get the topic past WP:N or WP:V. Townlake (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If/when the software comes out, we can determine it's notability. For now, this one should go. J.delanoygabsanalyze 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 first keep argument is not valid. Having a category and a list for X does not mean that every X is notable enough to have its own article. We have a list of Canadians and a category of Canadian people, but not every Canadian gets his or her own article, even if we can verify that he or she exists... As for the court case: the case is perhaps notable, but the mall is not notable because of the case. When your case is accepted, there will be documents. This is not the kind of reliable independent sourcing that gives notability (although it is obiously a perfectly acceptable source once you have an article where notability is established). Fram (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frenchtown Square Mall

Frenchtown Square Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This mall doesn't seem to be the subject of any significant reliable sources. Over a year ago I tried to fix this up with sources, but I ended up adding nothing more than:

  1. An article on Phar-Mor, which merely mentions a store in Monroe and says nothing about the fact that said store was in the mall);
  2. A PR piece about a second Elder-Beerman store being opened — the link wouldn't work when I tried to put it in, so that's just a bare ref)
  3. A (now dead) real estate listing for Office Max; and
  4. A court document pertaining to a case involving a couple gift shops in the mall.

While that court case might make the mall notable, I would say that the near-total lack of any other sources would indicate that there's nothing special about this mall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – In that we have a category and a list of Shopping malls in Michigan and this a a fairly large shopping mall in Michigan. I would figure the two would go hand-in-hand. But hey, that’s just me. ShoesssS Talk 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' – I am not trying to be argumentative – sarcastic or mocking, but I can’t believe you just made that statement. Please take your pick from the 45 reliable – creditable – verifiable – 3rd party sources as proved here, [8], that show the mall actually exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)
  • Most of those are just trivial mentions or press releases. I see no source, except maybe the one on the theater, which could be considered substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe the following links provide proof of existence of the Mall. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] Finally the actual mall's website [17] And just to make sure the mall really – really existed, I checked Michigan's Official Travel and Tourism Site which gave me this result, [18]. That should be enough proff of their existence. ShoesssS Talk 22:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All those do is prove that the mall exists. The first one is a press release, the second is actually about Fort Saginaw Mall, the third has no substantial content, and so on. If all you can do is prove that the mall exists, there's no real content, is there? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying! However, there does not have to be extensive - indepth coverage of the mall. In that we have both a category and a list titled Shopping malls in Michigan and the Frenchtown Square Mall is a mall in Michigan, the author has only to prove the existence of the mall to be allowed to write and post an article on the mall here at Wikipedia. If the category and list were stated as Important or Significant Malls in Michigan, I would agree with you. However, the way the category and lists are now structured and defined, I got to say Keep. ShoesssS Talk 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several others have been involved in lawsuits, yes. But how many have been the source of a legal precedent, that is what Case Law refers to. Being the source of a precedent that then carries on to affect all other shopping centres, makes for notability. How long ago it was makes for even more notability as testament that the precedent has stood that long, and is still valid and in use. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: So now we're going to set precedent that every mall that has ever filed a lawsuit is notable enough? That would probably be every mall in the country, older than a year or so. Bad idea - this one isn't notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere have I said that we are setting a precedent, as I have tried to clearly say above, This shopping facility set a legal precedent in Frenchtown v. Lemston. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere have I said that you said you are setting a precedent. It may not be intentional, but trust me, it happens. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludacious

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

Unsourced and unverifiable dictionary definition of a neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Mh29255 (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be an infrequently used nonsense term. Townlake (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Interesting story, but show me the facts. I certainly could not find any. Other than the possible misspelling of the word ludicrous, this seems to fit :-). ShoesssS Talk 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unverifiable article about a protologism, which is almost always deleted.--Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. US471776 (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete idiocy. JuJube (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a unsourced article about a practically nonexistent term. It does not exist on Wiktionary. — Wenli (reply here) 04:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly a made up word derived from Luddite. Isn't an admin going to close this already? M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola V60s

Motorola V60s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing unfinished nom for User:64.238.172.212; IPs can't finish AfD nominations. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – A product catalog or consumer reporting agency we are not. ShoesssS Talk 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shoessss. If we keep this article we should have articles on every telephone make and model. Not a good idea. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is that this family is not notable as such; all notable members have articles already. Redirected to Barack Obama to prevent drive-by recreations.  Sandstein  19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama family

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

The only notable people in this article (Barack Obama and Michelle Obama) already have articles written about them. Notability is not inherited. This article is no different than previous articles such as Family of Barack Obama and Malia Obama which were deleted after extensive discussion. All of the same arguments for deleting those articles are applicable here. Loonymonkey (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was ended early (due to the unrelated fact that the article was created by a sock) but the consensus was clearly heading towards delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malia_Obama where the final decision was to delete/merge.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The X family family of articles is typically more of the navigational list variety with an introduction than it is a topic requiring extensive separate sources. As such a rule of thumb similar to disambiguation pages is usefully applied, which is that they should only exist if there are at least three notable items. Once the article exists as such I have no objection to properly sourced inclusion of non-Wikipedia-notable members. This does not meet that standard. On the other hand, Obama does have arguably the most unusual genealogy of any major-party nominee (or presumptive nominee, to be precise), and that has been the topic of reliably sourced commentary, as opposed to his family members per se. --Dhartung | Talk 17:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – All the members listed in the article seem to have pieces on them already. So we do not even have to worry about redirects! Best case scenario is to merge any additional information this article may provide into the appropriate subject’s individual page. ShoesssS Talk 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. The notable folks in this article have articles of their own. The ones that don't... well, it doesn't really matter, does it? Kind of a pointless collation. - Vianello (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Any useful information is in Barack's article (or should be). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is NO DIFFERENT political families on wiki such as the Kennedys, the Tafts, or the Bush family. The only reason why this is even considered is because of political reasons. Not only are political families normal on wiki, but Obama has an unusually diverse family compared to any other presidential family in U.S. history. This is different than the other individual articles in that it specifically focuses on the ancestry of notable members in the Obama family. DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this article has not been tagged with {{afd1}} and the contributors to said article may not be informed of its discussion. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Along with all the reasons already stated, I should also mention that this article is not like the Kennedy's, the Taft's, the Bush's etc. The reason is because those family's have a collective legacy created by many notable members. This is something lacking in the "Obama family". QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Barack Obama. This article is redundant to other coverage of Barack Obama and his family which appears in other articles. As QuirkyAndSuch indicates, the Obama family is not yet a political family along the lines of the Bushes, Tafts, or Kennedys, because those families have had multiple members serve in high office. The Obama family has had only one member run for or be elected to any political office. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per nom. ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Therock40756. PoeticXcontribs 17:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Obama family is not currently an established political family. Barack is currently the only politically notable member of his family. Until that changes, this article is totally unencyclopedic. Thingg⊕⊗ 22:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and Keep Some of the sources do not actually contain information that can actually validate the article. Also, small bits and pieces from the sources have been taken and exaggerated. For example, "Her father had multiple sclerosis diagnosed when he was in his 20s." turned into "Instead of lulling in his misfortune, he woke up early enough each morning to hobble to work on crutches at the city water filtration plant". This article needs to be cleaned up, written in a neutral tone, and be properly sourced. — ThreeDee912 (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Obama might be the next US president and this article is referenced and verifiable. It also names Obama family and his less well known sister who is half-Indonesian. Its not unreasonable for Wikipedia to have an article on his family as long as it has no POV statements. Artene50 (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — everything that's notable about the family is already covered in Barack Obama, daughter articles spun out from that article, and articles about other notable family members (many of which are listed in Template:Barack Obama). I don't think that the family qua family is notable in the way that political dynasties like the Kennedy family or Bush family are. We don't even have an article on the Clinton family, which would have a better argument for being regarded as a political dynasty. I believe that the other articles in Category:Political families of the United States are all about families with more than one member in the political sphere. If Malia Obama runs for office in 2040, we can create this article then. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — an argument might be made for creating Category:Obama family, on the model of Category:Clinton family, as a navigational tool for notable members of the family even though the family qua family is not notable in the way that the Kennedys or the Bushes are. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Josiah Rowe and others above. A notable family requires more than one notable person. Truthanado (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Josiah Rowe and Metropolian90. The Obama family only has one major U.S. politician and isn't in the same regard as the Kennedys or Bushes. James Luftan contribs 20:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:NOTE (people): That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. —xanderer (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Chris! ct 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless/until Senator Obama is elected, they will not be an established American political family. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty notable family + add details about Obama's distant relation to Dick Cheney showing he is only part of a bloodline and was bred for a single purpose.[19] See his words-just like Bush [20] Sorry for soapboxing --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Numark

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

Nonnotable person, fails WP:BIO. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Glass Casket

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

Film not listed on IMDb, and nothing is listed on that site under either Dunst's or Coppola's entries. GHITS return 2 results (one being WP) [21] and [22]. Hoax? Lugnuts (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The other result is just a reference to Phone Booth (film). Nothing in Google News Archive either. If it isn't a hoax, it certainly fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 17:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - any movie to be released this year would already have entered some sort of production schedule and/or not just a rumour about a director and star. Probable hoax. Or project that fell through ages ago under a different unverifiable name. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was G4. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Gorgon's Head

AfDs for this article:
Order of Gorgon's Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A page with a very similar name to previously deleted ones. IIRC content is very similar. Again no references to establish notability (or existence even). LostOldPassword (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The entire article seems to be orginal research with no assertions of notability. Possible speedy delete, criteria G4. --neonwhite user page talk 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:SSP#Jlcruse may be relevant to this discussion. LostOldPassword (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and no 3rd party reliable sources Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I've put a WP:CSD#G4 tag on this as the notability issue responsible for previous deletions hasn't been addressed. The article author sums it up in the statement about the only source: "access is restricted to current or past members". That doesn't make for a verifiable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Orangemike (G4: Recreation of deleted material) (non-admin closure) LostOldPassword (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secret and honorary societies at the University of North Carolina

Secret and honorary societies at the University of North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

IIRC all articles for possibly existing University of North Carolina secret societies have been deleted over the past months for lack of references proving notability of even existence, apart from Order of Gimghoul, search AFD archives for Order of (the) Gorgon's Head (Lodge), Society of the Seven, Secret Order of the Circle, Order of the Cupola, etc. This page is just a merge of previously deleted content with no references, and Order of Gimghoul (which still has its own page). The alternative, if references could be found to establish notability, would be delete the secret societies content and move to something like Honorary societies of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as at least we know the honorary societies exist at that institution by the main article page. LostOldPassword (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: WP:SSP#Jlcruse may be relevant to this discussion. LostOldPassword (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think this page may also have been created by the same person as (or a sock of) at least Society of the Seven and maybe the others too. I guess an admin could check if it's relevant. LostOldPassword (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only one of these secret societies for which any reliable supporting evidence is provided is the Gimghoul, which already has its own article. Any significant honorary societies could be easily included in the university's own article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ellis (businessman)

Richard Ellis (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Odd one...According to the NY Sun article listed and some found here, the Ellis involved with Catequil (deleted, non-notable) was Robert, not Richard. It could be moved to the proper name, but there's no evidence he's notable simply for founding a hedge fund. The dispute about the company appeared briefly newsworthy but I don't think a co-founder is notable. Paul Touradji, the other founder is a re-direct to his new company. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Selket Talk 03:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Durham

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

Not notable per WP:BIO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiselfpromotion (talk • contribs)

  • Weak keep, sources probably sufficient but article needs more than one. Failing that, merge with CafePress, obviously. (I'm not sure that the nominator's username is appropriate. It certainly comes across as inflammatory.) --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to CafePress. The source in the article is not about Durham at all, and only half about CafePress. Gsearch not coming up with notability for Durham, nor is a gnews search. Most articles mentioning him are largely about CafePress, and only mention Durham in passing.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable per WP:BIO--Ave Caesar (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. NN former exec of an Internet vanity press. Qworty (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Related AfD at [23] Qworty (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to CafePress per the sockpuppet nomination.  ;-) coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to CafePress, insufficient reliable sources to establish notability as per WP:BIO. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Regarding the opinion of the participants in this debate, I see no consensus here for deletion, so any deletion would need to be hard-policy based. Regarding policy, my concern here is that the sole source cited in the article is IMDB, and that source is at best semi-reliable. However, that the subject is the twin brother of Brendon can be reliably sourced [24], and his career also appears to be reliably sourcable [25], and in line with the IMDB entry. There is also a tv.com source here. In my view, there does not appear to be any BLP problems which cannot be easily fixed. Regarding the merge suggestion, I will abstain from doing so, since that would mean redirecting Mr. Donovan to his brother's article. From a "respect the subject" perspective, I think it is more respectful to have a short bio on someone, than to define the person as nothing more than the brother of someone famous, but that discussion is for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Donovan

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

The twin brother of Nicholas Brendon, who played Xander on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Mostly worked as Brendon's stunt double, though he did appear in an episode where Xander was split into two identical people. All in all, though, he doesn't seem notable enough. Clerklines (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: individual appears to meet notability per WP:BIO. More information available at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0233010/. Mh29255 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I looked at the IMDB entry, looks like a brief succession of non-"featured" minor roles. Townlake (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete; Being a body double in a TV show isn't exactly notable, and it can easily be merged to his brother's article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: meets notability per WP:BIO. —xanderer (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APITI

Is this an ad? Is it notable? Adoniscik(t, c) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 07:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outrepreneurs

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

Non-notable neologism. Contested PROD. Google search turns up nothing. —BradV 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Article is WP:NEO and possible WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Non-notable, no sources of information and possible hoax.--EclipseSSD (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably not a hoax, just a punning neologism, likely in the service of selling the services of some consultant's advertising campaign. A non-notable neologism, original research, and an essay. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources. WillOakland (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searching for "Patrick O'Shaughnessy" Outrepreneurs -wiki did not give any results.--Lenticel (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable neologism, if it even is one. [26] reveals practically nothing. — Wenli (reply here) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily deleted as blatant advertising. Entirely promotional tone, no assertions of notability, poor/self-sourcing. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideablob

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

Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Mh29255 has nominated the article for G11. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed as SPEEDY DELETE, recreation of previously deleted material in violation of WP:SD#G4. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoshopContest.com

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

Fails WP:WEB. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY DELETE: tagged for speedy delete: article is recreation of previously deleted material in violation of WP:SD#G4. Mh29255 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • volkswes: Ok I now understand the deletion under the "recreation of deleted material" rule, but I am trying to learn why this website doesn't meet the criteria. I read that the site does not meet Notability. I have articles and sources I can quote where this site is mentions in numerous magazines, radio, and television broadcasts. This site has been around since 2001, one year longer than Worth1000, but yet worth1000 gets an article. Also the site offers wonderful free tutorials and sources to anyone. So maybe it's not the commercial money making site that worth1000 is, but it is equally notable. I appreciate any help you can provide or extra information on how photoshopcontest.com can meet the criteria....or if it will be impossible no matter what is included.

Thanks, volkswes 5/30/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkswes (talk • contribs) 13:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice to any future merge proposal. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation

Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable, third party sources. Withdrawing nomination, see discussion below. --Explodicle (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep True as it may be that this article contains not one single source that isn't self-published by the Witnesses themselves, I think the Watchtower publications serve as a good enough source to back up any claims on their own beliefs and, therefore, falls within the acceptable use guideline of WP:SELFPUB. The article itself makes no mention of anything factual that absolutely requires a reliable third party source. All it talks about is a belief held by the religious followers and that belief is outlined in their own publication. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please look at item #7 of WP:SELFPUB. --Explodicle (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read point #7 and you definitely bring up a valid point but I think that the article can still fit within SELFPUB. Like I said, the Watchtower or the article report only on their own beliefs and their beliefs are really only governed by themselves and the Watchtower. I find it reciprocal enough that self-published material can safely be used in an article such as this one. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that these direct sources are useful in establishing the accuracy of the article, I don't think they establish the notability of these beliefs outside the Jehovah's Witness community. If the discussion with Shoessss below yields some third party sources with which an entire article can be written, then I'm all for using the Watchtower sources to supplement them. --Explodicle (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as this may be of use on the main topic page. Lunakeet 14:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Did anyone do a Google News search? If they did they would have found over 7,000 hits under "Jehovah's Witnesses" Salvation as shown here [27]. Likewise for Google Scholar with hits in excess of 3,000, as provide here [28]. Lastly, how about checking on Google Books which just happens to show over 700 as listed here [29]. Why on earth, would we nominate an article that has been around since 2006 – is referenced (though you may not agree with Watchtower, they are a respected publication) – and clearly written? I guess it is just easier to delete than improve is the only rational I can come up with. ShoesssS Talk 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which one of those hits is a reliable source? --Explodicle (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe your first question is the relevant one. The rest are totally up to personal interpretations. So here you go! The second one down is the USA Today. The third one down is the Miami Herald the forth one is the New York Times the fifth one down is the Sun Herald the sixth one is from the Buffalo News. Do I need to continue through all 7,000? ShoesssS Talk 15:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which search are you talking about? Please provide the direct links here. --Explodicle (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Comment I must interject here just to say that the Google search as you performed it does not offer concrete proof of availability of sources on this topic. Using "Jehovah's Witnesses" Salvation as a search string brings up a lot of hits that have nothing to do with this subject rather it brings up many articles that contain the the words "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "Salvation Army" in the same article, such as the first hit in the link you provided. The Google search is inconclusive. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not a problem - What you suggest is a valid question. In the first 10 hits, out of 7,000, at least 6 dealt specificly with the topic we are discussing here. Two dealt with the ongoing fight with the "Salvation Army". And the other two, i did not even look at that closely. Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 15:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So... Exactly which sources do you think we could use? The burden of proof is on you; I'm not going to go on what might be a futile search for good sources I couldn't find in the first place. --Explodicle (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes articles that shouldn't exist slip through the cracks for a while. I don't think article age should be a factor in deletion discussions. --Explodicle (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter how much you respect the Watchtower, they are not a third-party source. --Explodicle (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also don't know how "clearly written" an article is has anything to do with a topic's verifiability. --Explodicle (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shoessss' thorough analysis. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The lack of third-party sources is clearly problematic, but the subject matter has value and would be better served in the context of the Jehovah's Witnesses article. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as appropriate to Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. As pointed out the lack of third-party sources is troubling, and the content is more appropriate for a religious tract than an encyclopedia entry. A brief summary in the main article is more than sufficient. Arkyan 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. When discussing Jehovah's Witness beliefs, official publications by the movement are probably the most authoritative sources for describing those beliefs. No strong opinion on whether this should be merged into Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses or not, but there appears to be enough material for a stand alone article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the Watchtower establish the notability of their beliefs on salvation outside the Jehovah's Witness community? --Explodicle (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the same reasoning, you'd have us delete an article on transubstantiation on the grounds that it has no currency beyond the Roman Catholic Church. If the Jehovah's Witnesses are a notable community, as they are, then the organization of articles about their distinctive beliefs is purely a matter of convenience and readability, with the only caveat being to fork out detailed sections about particular doctrines if it seems that otherwise they would receive undue emphasis. The detail here seems long enough to support a separate article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Actually, several other viewpoints are described in that article, but that's not what we're discussing anyways.) Notability is not inherited just because it is part of a series on a notable topic. WP:V, one of the core policies Wikipedia is built on, clearly states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (my italics) --Explodicle (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that you're questioning the reliability of the sources in this article. But, since you italicized the words third-party, are you suggesting that the sources in question are not third-party sources at all? Or did you just mean to italicize the word reliable? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-Comment - My two cents! Explodicle does make a valid argument, in that a vast majority of the references, both in the article and the Keep positions expressed here, are from Watchtower, which is the publishing arm of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, (thereby being biased in the fact that they are the publishing association for the Jehovah's Witnesses’s). However, the contentions I pointed to earlier, even discounting Watchtower, who I personally have read and found no problems with regarding reliability and creditability (within reason), was that there is more than enough independent – reliable – verifiable sources to pull from. Which would than make this piece suitable for Wikipedia, with some additional references, cited within this article, from these additional sources. ShoesssS Talk 02:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not exactly sure what the main argument for deletion here is (whether the sources don't qualify as third-party sources or if they are not reliable) but, according to WP:RS, a reliable source is one whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I think there may be disagreement over whether or not the authors of the Watchtower are trustworthy or authoritative in the field of medicine but I would really hope that their trustworthyness or authority are not questioned when it comes to the religious doctrine of the Witnesses. If not the Watchtower, who would we consider the ultimate authority on that? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My claim is that the Wathtower, Awake!, etc are not third party, and thus are not a suitable basis for an article. They are only suitable for verifying or clarifying claims made by third party sources. I will drop the whole thing if either of you post the URL to a reliable, third party source that addresses the subject directly in detail right here. Not a search where I have to find the source myself, not a passing mention, not an opinionated blog post, but something that could be used as the basis for a quality article. --Explodicle (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to jump ahead SWik78 Here you go Explodicle [30]. ShoesssS Talk 14:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I guess that's what I asked for. It'll be hard to make a neutral article out of that, but it's at least an indication of notability. As promised, I'm withdrawing the nomination for deletion, and now think we should merge to Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. Once that section is well-referenced, I think it has the potential to be its own quality article. --Explodicle (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to differ. The Watchtower and Awake! are most definitely third party sources. Issues of reliablity and self-publication notwithstanding, those two publications are separate from material existing on Wikipedia (1st party), they are not original research by the author (2nd party), rather they are separate from both of those parties and, thus, constitute the 3rd party. I think you may have made a very fundamental mistake in your reasoning for the unsuitability of the sources in question. "Third-party" and "reliable" do not mean the same thing, hence WP:RS specifically mentions both terms in its description. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not you think something written, published, and distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses is seperate from them is now moot, as Shoessss has fulfilled my request. --Explodicle (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Chrislk02. -- KTC (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mugwum Card Game

Mugwum Card Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No significant coverage reliable sources. Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Allen3 under WP:CSD#G12. -- KTC (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-release english 2008

Pre-release english 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Personal essay. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY DELETE: article is an blatant copyright violation of http://www.jacobite.org.uk/maccaig/xpoems/julia.html and several other webpages in violation of WP:SD#G12. Wrong speedy delete tag was placed onto article. Mh29255 (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Chrislk02. -- KTC (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Accountants

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

Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Real Estate

Epsilon Real Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bit self-promotional. Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad. munchman | talk; 14:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY DELETE: article is blatant advertising. Article should have been speedily deleted under G11. Mh29255 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is that the band is notable, this album is not (yet, perhaps).--Kubigula (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upravleniye Otbrosami

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

Per WP:MUSIC, requires substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. (One blog from September 2007 had the album coming out in November 2007, but they needed a label...) Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: band is not notable per WP:MUSIC. Mh29255 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think you misspoke. The band seems to be notable, this vaporous album does not. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not asserted in article, nor could any be found in a gsearch (both web and news). Once it's released it might become notable, but it's not there yet.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:N Artene50 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: This isn't just "some band", this is a band that has gone platinum with multiple albums.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - That's not the issue. The band is notable. Per WP:MUSIC this album is not. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is an upcoming album, Michael Jackson has an article about an upcoming album, if you delete this article, feel free to delete his too because t.A.Tu. and MJ are both platinum awarded singers/groups.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 June 2008
        • Comment - First, WP:WAX is a bad argument. More to the point, this album is not notable because it is an upcoming album that is not the subject of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Michael Jackson's forthcoming studio album already went under my microscope. It is heavily sourced, citing the NY Daily News, E! News, Access Hollywood, Billboard, SOHH, MTV, New York Post, etc. This article, on the other hand, references the band's website and nothing else. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge and redirect to John Burdett. Non-admin closure per total consensus (including nominator) and the uncontroversial nature of this topic. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok 8

Bangkok_8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a stub and I think always will be. The three novels together in toto are discussed under the author's page John Burdett section Work and I think always will be. It works out better that way I beleive and no one (aside from me) has seen fit in recent months (many of them) to contribute except by me to the latter article. No doubt a Bangkok 8 (film) will arise if and when the film is published but that will be a different article although someone else may see fit to create a detailed novel then but given its age - author is now up to his third in the series - I say delete this exisiting stub for now. As right now it is just an annoying say nothing link from the John Burdett article proper.

An administrator might like to take care of this for me as it is a no brainer. Regards, Mattjs (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect/Merge - To authors page. ShoesssS Talk 13:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to John Burdett, per User:Shoessss.  Frank  |  talk  13:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 07:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creswell Hall

Creswell_Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - not notable. Material not encyclopedic. Not footnoted. Bloggish. Not of general interest outside of this dormitory. Student7 (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to University of Georgia. Not notable, not even interesting. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred De Luca

Fred_De_Luca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment Is this man really so important?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Habs4ever (talk • contribs) 2008/05/29 06:30:59

  • Keep Co-founder of a multi-billion dollar restaurant chain. #242 on forbes 400 richest americans. I'd say notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Does Mr. DeLuca deserve an article here? A definite yes, as shown here [31], with over 600 Google News hits and his affiliation with Subway. Should this be the article? Probably not! I can understand why the nominator brought this to Afd. However, an article needing drastic rewrites to bring up to Wikipedia standards is quite different than an article needing to be deleted. ShoesssS Talk 13:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES, HE FOUNDED AND OWNS SUBWAY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.29.248 (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but source better. Next time, if you have just a doubt please use a notability tag. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment This appears to be a bad faith nomination or a violation of WP:POINT. The unsigned nominator has been creating articles on the founder of a local Montreal sandwich chain "Dagwoods" (founder article twice deleted), the sauce used on its sandwiches (deleted) and has been warned about twice adding spam about Dagwoods to the Montreal main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe the article as it existed at the time of nomination read differently, but you'd think being the founder of Subway would be more than enough. The comment by Shawn in Montreal casts doubt on the good faith of the nomination. 23skidoo (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Appears to be nominated to make a point. —BradV 20:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Bad faith nom. Person meets WP:BIO as he founded one of the most successful resturant chains in the United States. Nom is trying to make a point. Possibly someone connected to a competitor, like Shawn in Montreal mentioned. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and Snowball Keep utter waste of time. JuJube (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sort of sorry to say this because it does look like a WP:POINT but, my thinking based on the article is Merge or Redirect. It has nothing in it that shows him as notable separate from the the fast food chain he co-founded. It doesn't have multiple 3rd party sources to show said notability separate from the fast food chain. And the other co-founder doesn't have an article of his own despite having founded one of the most successful resturant chains in the United States. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Subway (restaurant). When I came across this AfD, my initial reaction was "of course he's notable!". But I can't find evidence of that in a gsearch or in google news, nor do the refs in the article make a clear case for notability. If someone can dredge up some refs that show notability, I'll gladly change my !vote.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Try this link, [32]. I think you will find that they due substantiate Notability for a stand alone article. Cheers. ShoesssS Talk 20:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had done a gnews search, and unfortunately almost all the hits are pay or register sites. :( I did go back through the first 6 pages of hits and looked at every freely available one; of the 4 I found, one wouldn't load, two were really about the company, not the person, and one focused on Fred De Luca. I added that last one to the article, but I'd really love to see a couple more.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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); nomination withdrawn. I was not aware when nominating this that introductory articles like this were allowed. Apologies. tgies (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Systolic geometry for a beginner

Systolic geometry for a beginner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sort of a how-to article. Don't think there's anything to WP:SPEEDY this under. tgies (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A number of people have mentioned to me that the article Systolic geometry is too fast-paced and does not provide an introduction that is elementary enough. What I had in mind was something that would be accessible to a non-mathematician, without burdening Systolic geometry with details that a more advanced reader would find tiresome. Katzmik (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: an article being poorly written is not a valid reason for deletion. The article requires cleanup and clarification, preferably from someone familiar with the subject. Mh29255 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it would really be much better to raise issues about an introductory article on its Talk page. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article's aim isn't really as a how-to. From start to finish, it's simply for a beginning audience. All too rare on wikipedia. Often important math aritcles end up being merged monsters that are holistically incomprehensible. Not this one though, which is nice. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introductory articles directed at the layman, are legitimate in principle and kept at Category:Introductions, so this one should be renamed to Introduction to systolic geometry. Compared to the others in that category, however, this seems to be already a rather special topic and I am not sure if there are already some general publications explaining systolic geometry for the layperson as e.g as for Introduction to M-theory. Such publications would be the kind of references justifying and outlining a possible article here as it would synthesize existing introductory literature. As long as sources of a corresponding introductory level aren't available and this amounts to just a modified version of our own article or some entirely new introductory article by a subject expert, I'd say delete. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm puzzled as to how this can be viewed as a how-to article. Unless maybe you view all Wikipedia articles as "how-to" articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename Clearly needed given the difficulty of systolic geometry. However, it should be renamed "Introduction to systolic geometry" as is our usual practice for introductory articles. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per JRSpriggs. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, but elementary introductions to complicated mathematics topics are of course more than welcome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a duplicate. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a textbook. 67.170.13.119 (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn. See above. tgies (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to delete the article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Matthews Band yet-to-be-titled album

Dave Matthews Band yet-to-be-titled album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL, the album hasn't yet been recorded, and it's not known if or when it will be released. There is of course no issue with recreating this article if and when it is actually released. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Mh29255 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Per nom and all comments above (WP:CRYSTAL) ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The potential for an upcoming album is already mentioned on the main article, and anything else (as seen in this article) is pure speculation. As an avid Dave Matthews Band fan, it pains me to see relevant content deleted - but then again, none of this is relevant until it's more than crystal ballery :) Arkyan 16:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my own law: if the album name isn't known, it's not likely to surive AfD due to lack of info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Speedy delete, author has blanked the page. Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's been a few hours and no one has either objected or gone ahead and speedied it, so I'll take care of it. Parsecboy (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, as there certainly is no consensus to delete or merge. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bossy (Lindsay Lohan song)

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

Per WP:MUSIC#SONGS, this song is not notable and should redirect to an appropriate article. Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is nothing significant about this song that warrants an article. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment have we had a consensus yet on whether iTunes constitutes as a "real" chart???  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - WP:MUSIC is far from clear. WP:CHART, however, unequivocably says "Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer (such as iTunes, Amazon.com or Wal-Mart) should not be used." Thought the context is different, it would seem that charts that shouldn't be used in articles shouldn't cover notability. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps merge relevant material into Lindsay Lohan, independent article fails WP:MUSIC though. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:MUSIC#SONGS, unless this article can verify through reliable sources that this song will be release as a single, there may never be enough verifiable and reliable information for the article to grow past stub status. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - What is wrong with you people, the song has already been released on May 27, 2008...and is the first single off the album.....its 10000% notable....im very shocked your all saying "Delete"......instead of wasting ur time trying to delete on OFFICIAL single, you should go try and delete pages that are worthy of deletion and that are truly not notable ex: Mariah Carey's song Migrate -Migrate is not even a single and has a page, and not body is saying anyhting about it or nominating it for deletion, while Bossy is an official single form lohan's upcoming album....and it has already been released...and ur saying u want to delete it?? im very shocked.....KEEP KEEP KEEP......OOC OCD (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Would an administrator please review OOC OCD's contributions? This editor, who clearly is obsessed with Lindsay Lohan and anything related to her, persists in vandalizing articles and using foul language on discussion pages. His immature rant above alone should warrant his being blocked. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment OOC OCD, in my opinion, is a sockpuppet of banned User:Brexx. There is currently a CheckUser request in place at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it. The editing patterns of OOC OCD are very similar to the aggressive and uneducated edits of all of the previously confirmed socks of Brexx as well as Brexx's confrontational attitude to other editors. Once the RFCU confirms the identity of OOC OCD, his/her vote will be deleted per WP:BAN. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Though not released as a single, Migrate charted on the Billboard Hot 100. It passes WP:MUSIC. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to album. Charted on the Billboard Hot 100, but seems to be insufficiently notable for a standalone article (i.e., no real significant sources). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into album until such time as it gets on to a proper chart, and then meets WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esradekan (talk • contribs)
Oops, thanks for that.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article has seven refs. I think that is enough to establish notability. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 13:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The number of references is irrelevant if they're not reputable. In this case, one of them is Lindsay Lohan's My Space page! 209.247.22.161 (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is clearly established by the references, which include Billboard.com and People.com. Everyking (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It provides information on a current single released by Lindsay Lohan. It is recognized by both Billboard and iTunes, therefore making this page a credible source of information. It was officially released and the page should be kept - ckmaharg (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It is a current single and it is recognized as so by Billboard, iTunes and more. Notable recording artist, notable song. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 20:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article is based on reliable sources (Billboard.com, People.com) that manage to establish notability. Europe22 (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There is no reason why this article should be deleted. It's the lead single and whether or not it flops should not have bearing. The article currently seems large enough to me to warrant its own page.Zaque 24 (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Along with having some notable sources, the single is performing considerably well compared to Lohan's previous singles and is expected to make an impression on other charts in coming weeks. The single has only been released for less than a week therefore chart placements seem unlikely at this time. Also, the single was released exclusively to iTunes which is why it has not shown up on any preliminary charts anywhere else. Komsr (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - notable song, which I would keep. I'm not going to "vote" or close this due to a conflict of interest. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nova fractal

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

Article on non-notable fractal without reliable sources, which consists of unsourced OR claims and pretty pictures. Variation on the Newton fractal, on which we already have a substantial article. Author removed prod tag and promised to provide evidence of notability over a week ago, but has failed to do so. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

author's response

I would like to see some more input about the lack of notability of nova, why did you decide it wasn't notable? is it just because it didn't google very well?

I don't feel that just one objection should be enough to have the article removed, just as no doubt you don't think that my own input is enough to show nova's notability. So, how do we ultimately decide whether the article is kept or not?

I genuinely felt that I was adding something that is really out there when I created the article, it is not a selfish thing in any way, it's not advertising, I don't gain anything from sharing this information, it's just a formula after all. I do feel that it is relevant information about fractals and that others could benefit from it.

I would be willing to accept that this article be reduced, my interest in nova could be argued to be original thought. But the fact remains, that Nova is out there: there are implementations of it in most major fractal rendering applications, it has been explored quite a lot by the fractal art community, and I think that this is enough to make it a distinct entity of its own that is just as notable as its relative the newton fractal.

  • This article is not in violation of NPOV.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, Danwills (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision on whether the article is kept or deleted is made and implemented by an uninvolved closing admin who determines the consensus of a 5 day period of discussion between interested editors at this page - see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure. If you have reliable sources that support your assertions of notability, you still have an opportunity to add them to the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not a variety of the fractal newton it is very much it's own fractal, that is like saying that phoenix is a type of the Mandelbrot fractal. If you don't like the article then tidy it up, It does have notability, it is used prominantly in prahaps the most notable of fractal software Ultra-Fractal and in the less known fractal extreme Alan2here (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable third-party coverage establishing notability. A short mention in another article about fractals may be appropriate, however. Arkyan 16:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arkyan Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.TheRingess (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Newton fractal, it seems like it is worth mentioning, but not notable enough to warrant its own article. Jkasd 05:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems notability, if any, would come from it being well-known in the fractal art community, not from mathematicians. Dan Wills has said that it is implemented in most of the fractal rendering programs. I'd like to at least ascertain if it's implemented in the most popular ones. How do we tell which is the more important fractal rendering program? I'm guessing Dan will say UltraFractal is a pretty important one. But since fractal art enthusiasts seem to be basically hobbyists who do this in their spare time, it's difficult to determine these things. They don't have a peer-reviewed journal (I think). Are there any famous fractal artists who say, yeah nova fractals are notable? Who are the famous fractal artists anyway? That's the problem with this kind of thing. I don't wish to come off sounding like I think the professor in some Ivy League math department who writes about some arcane math formula is somehow "better" than the hobbyist who putters around with some fun computer program. I don't think that at all. But it's certainly much easier to figure out if that arcane math thing is considered notable in that professor's academic community. They have journals and well-documented standards. Wikipedia has pretty clearly established standards also that says part of its mission is to preserve such academic knowledge. Is it part of Wikipedia's mission to also preserve whatever some group of people think is fun and cool? It'd be nice if that were so, but unfortunately the answer is "no". --C S (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It is less than a variation; it's a special case of the Newton fractal. (It has an obvious symmetry, when the power is rational; that's nice.) The section on UltraFractal need not be merged; it reads like spam, as does that article itself; we are not an advertising service, even for pretty products. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep As I said on the talk page there are quite a few fractal articles that have similar notability problems, but I still agree with merging this article into the Newton fractal article and making a redirect. Thanks for the comment CS, I agree that it's hard to establish notability for this type of thing. It does seem a bit unbalanced sometimes when you see how certain video games get such massive articles up about them - as they are similarly just "what some group of people think is fun and cool". I also agree we should reduce the references to UltraFractal, though I think the main reason for this objection is that UF is not free software. All the same, I think UF is the software that has the biggest community of fractal art practitioners around the world at the moment, so it should at least be mentioned. Danwills (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is a class of matehmatical formulae, which should be per se notable. It has some cites, but could use more. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. – viciarg ᚨ 11:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even discounting the IP's and SPA accounts who showed up here to !vote (which I did), I don't see a consensus to delete here. There are some available sources (the most detailed being the PhD dissertation) which suggest that we might be able to maintain an article based on verifiable information. Many (or perhaps just one or two) of the partisans of this article did themselves no favors here with their pile-on votes to keep and the article still needs work. Future AfD's are not, I would think, out of the question.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grama Vidiyal

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

Article is mostly advertising and all of the sources point to company websites. TN‑X-Man 11:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki does not seem to focus anymore on advertising than any company's wiki. There are as many references as other corporate websites. Most financial information, of course, comes from the company.

Please reference specific areas of controversy...your post is rather ambiguous. 125.22.250.12 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 25.22.250.12|125.22.250.12]] (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interesting diff FelisLeoTalk! 12:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (Blanked the Page)[reply]
please note (in case it is improtant that it is the talk page that was blanked and not the article itself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom (which isn't ambigous at all)and Per CSD:G11 (Blatant Advertising/SPAM)FelisLeoTalk! 12:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent evidence of notability. Lexis-Nexis turns up no mention of this company in any major news or business publications. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I do not see how this is blatant advertising. The listing of products is useful information for anyone interested in microfinance. The people that receive Grama Vidiyal's services do not even have access to the internet, so this is not being aimed at them. The information is useful for anyone trying to get a rough sense of what Grama Vidiyal does. Other banks websites, e.g. Goldman Sachs, offer a listing of their financials and profits (this information comes from their website for most part) and no one objects.

It does not show up in Lexis Nexus because it is a small company located in rural India. Check out www.mixmarket.org and you will find a listing. I simply think you guys are not familiar with the microfinance industry, which is quite small and developing. However, it is notable as many academics are studying the field as a means to alleviate poverty. It is comparable to other microfinance firm on Wikipedia, SKS microfinance. 125.22.250.12 (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it didn't show up in Lexis-Nexis: I was able to find its press-releases easily. It is not, however, mentioned in any major news or business publications. Can you find reliable, independent sources that cover this institution? Kafka Liz (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the mix market global 100 ranking of microfinance institutions. It is the #4 MFI in the world and leading MFI in India. www.mixmbb.org/Publications/001-IND/01-IND.ANLS/02-IND.ANLS.MFI/Global%20100%20Final.pdf. 125.22.250.12 (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grama Vidiyal doesn't appear anywhere in that pdf reference.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 13:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's the "GV" in India listed in the report several times. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is fine as is. It simply is telling us what this firm does. Since its microfinance, it obviously is not advertising because its clients do not have access to electricity, let alone wikipedia Ted46530 (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC) — Ted46530 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. TN‑X-Man 13:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep if the claim about being the leading microfinance company in India can be properly sourced and verified it would meet notability requirements. The article does need significant work in improving the tone and removing some "advertisy" language though and the author needs a warning about removing AfD tags while the matter is still in discussion. The article would also need to be renamed to Grama Vidiyal Microfinance which seems to be the fuller and more used name. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The claim about being the leading microfinance firm in India can be found in the mixmarket report I linked above. 125.22.250.12 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non notable company doing important work. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If an admin can check the history of the deleted version, he or she would see the battle that took place in the wee hours of the morning today with all the sockpuppets of the article's starter. Also see the long discussion on my own talk page about it. So the starter finally requested it be deleted. I CSD tagged it with author's request for deletion. Now I see author recreated the article with exact copy. Besides all of the sockpuppets issue, the sock can't seem to understand what verifiable resources or Conflict of interest means, as evidenced by his actions and it having been explained to him on my talk page. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I strongly sympathize with you on this (if you note the history, I was the one who originally tagged it COI and dealt with the socks), we really should be debating the article on its own merits, rather than the antics of its creator. We don't "punish" editors for their behavior by deleting their articles, since they don't own them anyway. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources show a sufficiently large and important company, so it is notable. the unfortunate editing history does not invalidate the article. DGG (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having said the above (that we should be debating the article on its own merits), I can't find much reliable third party coverage of this company. I'm easily able to find their press releases regurgitated in various forms, but nothing in the way of independent third party coverage. What little bit that has been presented (like that PDF) only mentions the company incidentally. In fact, as Orange Mike points out, it only refers to the company by its initials. This is hardly the extensive coverage needed to meet WP:RS and WP:V. Because of the above, I'm afraid it does not meet WP:CORP at this time. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly comparing this little company to the likes of NASA and IBM? Very large organizations are often referred to by their initials, especially when their full name is unwieldy. However, by no stretch of the imagination is Grama Vidiyal a "large organization with an unwieldy name". The use of their initials in the Mix Market report was ubiquitous. EVERY company listed in there was referred to by its initials, because the report was a summary report on the industry. Nearly all of the additional sources you found using the GV name are either the Mix Market report we've already seen or their own press releases, which we've also already seen. A mention of this company in a single book doesn't really make for "multiple" sources. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking though a few of those Google hits its still looks like mostly primary sources. (press releases) and publications that are directly based on those primary sources, which are also not independent because the are all by sources that are affililated to microfinance in general. This is also the big difference between the SKS Microfinance article and this one. That being said, the Grama Vidiyal could stay if some secondary sources are introduced to establish notability. FelisLeoTalk! 08:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As mentioned in the article, the company currently registered as an [NBFC] and henceforth goes by its full name. You will find many other companies of similar size and scope as Grama Vidiyal on wikipedia. For instance, [SKS Microfinance]. I don't think being a Fortune 500 company is a requirement for having a Wikipedia page as some of you seem to be proposing. The business does significant work in India, and most people with knowledge ofa microfinance have heard of the compny. No offense to anyone in particular, but a misfortunate practice of wikipedia is to allow administrators with no knowledge of a subject to control the information that is presented. I have studied microfinance, and Grama Vidiyal is certainly a notable name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie1858 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment I probably would say that too if I worked there. I think its better to leave the editing of an article about the company you work at to other editors, but that's me. FelisLeoTalk! 08:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As I have said many times, I do NOT work there. There was a miscommunication that fails to go away. Charlie1858 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you said so yourself, at least that is what it says when you follow the diff I linked before. (this one) And to be honest I do not care if you work there or not as long as your edits dont reflect this. (WP:COI). FelisLeoTalk! 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What, then, did you mean when you typed, "This is an organization I work for and am creating the wikipedia page for"?--Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made that up since I thought you had to be someone with direct knowledge of subject to write a wikipedia page...obviously it's the exact opposite :) charlie1858 76.208.60.114 (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. I am the COO of the Organisation. I have modified the page notes to reflect relevant external links. Hope this would suffice to prove our identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramavidiyal (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC) — Gramavidiyal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


  • Keep:- After some search & research, I have found one Dr.Gaamaa Hishigsuren, a fellow of MicroFinance Management Institute and an expert in microenterprise development finance. Intrestengly, she has presented her PhD thesis on Grama Vidial and ASA. You could take a look at her thesis submitted at Southern New Hampshire University in Aug 2004. I have requested her help concerning this issue.

[http://www.snhu.edu/files/pdfs/Hishigsuren.pdf] dilli2040 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This organisation is definitely the largest in Tamil Nadu and provides good services to the poor and the downtrodden. I dont find any concrete reason on why the article is not fit to be hosted in wiki. I just checked the SKS microfinance page hosted in wiki and has similar information even of lesser quality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS_Microfinance
  • Comment what is mentioned here in the grama Vidiyal wiki page is a very balanced information which is provided to any person who is interested to know about the organisation. There is no bias towards anyside and every information is definitely supported with the relevant note document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.248.29 (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did some further research and found that ASA and Grama vidiyal has been featured in ING and microfinance page. There were only two institutions featured and it has many details of ASA and Grama vidiyal. Also it has a case study video. Kindly refer to the following links. It definitely proves what is stated in the wikipage is true.

the page is in a different language click the EN link in the page to view it in english

http://www.ingmicrofinanciering.nl/home/index.php?a=YTozOntpOjM7YToxOntzOjQ6InBhZ2UiO3M6NDoiMjU4MSI7fWk6NDthOjE6e3M6NDoicGFnZSI7czo0OiIyNTgxIjt9aToxO2E6Mjp7czo0OiJ5ZWFyIjtzOjQ6IjIwMDgiO3M6NDoicGFnZSI7czo0OiIyNTgxIjt9fQ==&child=2&mlinkid=2579&2linkid=2581

Video case study of a Grama Vidiyal client

http://www.ingmicrofinanciering.nl/home/index.php?a=YTozOntpOjM7YToxOntzOjQ6InBhZ2UiO3M6NDoiMjczMyI7fWk6NDthOjE6e3M6NDoicGFnZSI7czo0OiIyNzMzIjt9aToxO2E6Mjp7czo0OiJ5ZWFyIjtzOjQ6IjIwMDgiO3M6NDoicGFnZSI7czo0OiIyNzMzIjt9fQ==&child=3&mlinkid=2579&2linkid=2581&3linkid=2715&4linkid=2733 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.248.29 (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Check this link it has the insurance information of GV as mentioned in this page

http://news.planetfinance.org/documents/FR/Nominees_MIA_270725_ppt.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.127.142 (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment All Most of the unsigned comments and comments coming from IPs are from Anons with very few edits which are all related to the Grama Vidiyal article and therefore are likely to be connected to the Grama Vidyal company. FelisLeoTalk! 09:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment As FelisLeo states, all the contributions and support to Grama Vidiyal comes directly from that company resources. I believe that guys from GV, instead of simply posting more scattered references, take some effort by involving contributors and neutral wikipedians from around your area. dilli2040(Talk) 13:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is clear that any contentious information is corroborated by outside sources. Other information (especially information provided by the COO and others within the organization) is noncontentious -- we should be happy that they are adding such specific operational information to their articles. Microfinance is a field that could use more information and internal transparency, not less.antonber(Talk) 12:00, 6 June 2008 (ET) — antonber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Antonber makes a good point. This company seems to be run by a charitable trust; i cannot see how this is a matter of conflict of interest or some kind of advertising stunt. They should be able to leverage the wikipedia platform to inform 1)other MFIs who are looking to understand how a successful MFI works and 2) viable candidates for their services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.163.95 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC) — 85.107.163.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. TN‑X-Man 18:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was to delete the article.

Freddie Mercury Duets 08

Freddie Mercury Duets 08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax based on you tube video. Already denied by former Queen member Brian May [35], so sanity check please and speedy close. Tikiwont (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G3 - blatant and obvious misinformation. "This Wikipedia entry is complete and utter rubbish. And the 'quote' from me is completely made up." - Brian May, link above. JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G3 per JohnCD & nom.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real democracy in america

Real democracy in america (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research political essay; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The author objected to a PROD on his talk page here and asked for "some brainstorming on this", so I bring it here. There is an existing article National initiative about a similar proposal by Mike Gravel, a former US Senator and presidential candidate, which sets out the facts: I do not think this adds anything except the author's opinions. He wrote another short article National Initiatives and Referenda which defined the terms and said that they "could become part of the American system of government soon"; rather than include that, I have redirected it to National initiative. JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to Sewing machine. --jonny-mt 01:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needle guard

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

Page was created 4 years ago with the comment "This is an educated guess (I have never used a sewing machine}". Since then, edits have consisted largely of altering pronouns and there has been no attempt to expand the article. Hardly surprising, since it would seem to be capable of no more than a dicdef anyway. Emeraude (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a very short article, and indeed it looks like a dictionary definition. I'm not even sure there's anything worth merging here, but again I'm not an expert in the area so I'm not going to go for a keep or delete here. I'm not convinced, though, what Google turns up could provide us with sufficient reliable in-depth sources for a standalone encyclopedia article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Sewing machine and leave page as redirect? Not sure its worth forcing a deletion decision on.-Hunting dog (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is lots to be said about needle guards which are important safety feature in any context in which needles are used. Also, it is not a dic def because the title is a phrase, not a word. It's a stub. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But that link refers to guards for hypodermic needles, not sewing machines. Also, look in any good dictionary and you will see definitions for two or more word usages: The OED for example has a defintion of "needle in a haystack". Emeraude (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sewing machine, short, not notable and easily merged. --neonwhite user page talk 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the needle guard ith a thort of thimble-ism. Mandsford (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google search suggests that needle guards are also employed to protect from Hypodermic needle and catheter related injuries. Maybe a dab to these articles and thimble is better.--Lenticel (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Love the thimble-ism comment - had me in stitches. But, let's be clear here; this article is not about a thimble (I not suggesting that above editors think it is) but about a very small part of a sewing machine. Just so we don't get sidetracked. Emeraude (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hypodermic needle or keep, rewriting to reflect use with hypodermics. Gsearch showing the major use of this term is with hypodermics. Please do not redirect to sewing machine -- I am a professional textile artist, and I can assure you this is not a common term in sewing (by machine or hand), or a common accessory for a home or industrial sewing machine.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See search. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, we may be having the old "divided by a common language" thing going on here. Just about all the pictures I saw in your UK list would be called a "finger hook" here in the US.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article meets the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian (band)

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

No claim of meeting WP:Notability or WP:MUSIC in article. No professional reviews found at metacritic or allmusic; albums have not charted. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the guidelines I use for myself, if nothing decent can be found online, does the record label have its own article and have a "decent amount" of blue links to bands. If it's notable to have its own article then fine, however if someone then decided that the record label article is a load of crap too, and puts it up for AfD, then like a house of cards, the whole lot should fall. From what I've seen in these discussions, there seems to be no consistency in what makes a record label notable or not, especially when it comes to fringe type music like metal and classical, who don't typically get main stream media coverage (ie Google), but who maybe big in their own genre.
    (pauses for breath) With all that said, my preference is to try not to use the term "weak keep", you're either for it or against it. Although, by my own guidelines this one is a case of a weak keep. All IMHO of course.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely something to think about. However, I get leary about using blue links (or red links for that matter) as a guide, because all it means is that someone did or didn't make an article, not that notability for that link has been established. I do wish there was more consistency (and a better guide) for what makes a record label notable. It would be a big help. --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree totally on a guideline for the labels. With every band and his dog starting their own labels, including my own band, it's not going to be an easy job coming up with something fair.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of parents who homeschool their children

List of parents who homeschool their children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivia list. Only one attested example is some guy called Jimmy Wales. Troikoalogo (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the "parent article" was up for deletion previously but, I'm not sure of the outcome. I believe lists with only one entry fall under the speedy criteria for lack of content as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no particular reason to expect parents who homeschool to have Wikipedia articles. WillOakland (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this could easily have been PRODded. Only one example, and even if this were well-sourced and expanded, I would consider it indiscriminate information and since it's also cruft of a kind about living people (and their presumably non-notable children), it's not the sort of list we should have.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is about the notable parents not the non-notable children. Zginder 2008-05-29T13:31Z (UTC)
  • Delete: Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Jimmy Wales article. Kidding. Delete as per all those good reasons above.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otolemur. Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate information, and based on the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of homeschooled individuals (2nd nomination). If having been a homeschooled child is not considered worthy of a list, I don't see how being a homeschooling parent could be worthy either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only three people on the list. While this information could be included in a larger article (such as the main Homeschooling one) if given sources, it's sadly incomplete as it stands. FusionMix 13:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—The article now has five well sourced parents and has room to grow. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of homeschooled individuals (2nd nomination), does not set precedent because the main objection there was a dearth of reliable sources, which is no longer a problem here. Zginder 2008-05-29T15:02Z (UTC)
  • Comment if the article is kept List of homeschooled individuals needs to be turned into a redirect with the history restored to comply with the GFDL. Zginder 2008-05-29T15:15Z (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A wildly incomplete bit of trivia. (Though I wonder what Tom Cruise is teaching his kid.) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, the very few examples are of notable people and sourced, but does home schooling play any role in the notability of these people? I think not. The examples and sources can perhaps be transferred into another article on homeschooling, but there's no need as I can see for a list, especially one with a pretty broad criteria for listing. Home schooling isn't considered a particularly unusual form of schooling these days. I agree with Zginder that if this article is kept, then the list that was AFD'd last week may as well be put back, too and maybe merged with this list. 23skidoo (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm afraid this looks like an indiscriminate collection of information. In the end it would become unmanageable, as there are potentially millions of people that would be on it. Dlohcierekim 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I find the list interesting, educational - and bordering on fascinating. Kingturtle (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you may want to have a look at Wikipedia arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 13:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 07:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PxSpot

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

This page looks like spam; content does not seem to meet Wikipedia standards. It contains numerous typos and even shows another photo sharing site "Zooomr" in the Infobox (cut and paste?)Photoact (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable; no secondary source coverage. Most Google hits are press releases (aside from other primary sources) and only one brief mention in a Google News hit. —97198 talk 09:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Photoact (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I agree with 97198 above and couldn't say it better myself; I'm just adding to the consensus.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this page was SPEEDY DELETED twice before //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=PxSpot Tutankabron (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I find no verifiabile, reliable sourcing, no assertion of notability. We must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this appears to too indiscrimnate for inclusion. I would also like recommend WP:SALT given the tenacity of the subject's creator. Dlohcierekim 22:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE I have found this service to be very useful and it is a legitimate business that deserves representation on the wikipedia. They are working with large radio stations and syndicated shows such as Ace & TJ. (http://www.acetj.com/photos/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistolhip2 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional references to this service to meet the needs of noteworthyness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistolhip2 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use this service and I think it's great. It should not be deleted. --Chad M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.133.72 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle vic tap

Uncle vic tap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No results, therefore possible hoax. Fails WP:N anyway.  Asenine  08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete article doesn't assert notability or and the content does not appear verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. Unsourced original research that appears unsourcable.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\talk 06:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, either a hoax, unverifiable, or a neologism. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, I really don't see how this could be notable enough. --Roisterer (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Honestly ... -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A million miles from notability Murtoa (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete under G7 - only author blanked the page. --Oxymoron83 08:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Aquino Concepcion

Andrea Aquino Concepcion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of the repeatedly CSD'd Andrea Concepcion. Fails WP:BIO both external links provided are dead with marginal Ghits – Zedla (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Original author blanked again so in my opinion there is enough reason for a CSD:G4 or G7(blanked).FelisLeoTalk! 07:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haperlosertamostifal

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

Non-notable, and a protologism. Fails WP:NEO.  Asenine  07:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as soon as practicable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy as nonsense or hoax. Beach drifter (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (ec) Fails WP:N and violates WP:NEO. It is possibly a WP:HOAX. It is a poorly written article with no reliable sources.--RyRy5 (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Conor Oberst#Conor Oberst & The Mystic Valley Band (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Oberst & The Mystic Valley Band

AfDs for this article:
Conor Oberst & The Mystic Valley Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band that lacks outside sources or critical commentary. No indication of contributions to genre. MBisanz talk 07:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 07:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollin C Thomas

Rollin C Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rollin is not (yet?) a particularly famous astrophysicist. (I'm sure he will be someday, but not now.) He doesn't even have a tenured position. And he himself has expressed the opinion that he's not really worthy of a page in Wikipedia. (While it's true that he loves his Chumby, he considers the persistence of this statement on his page as proof of the previous statement.) So we should probably delete this page. No offense intended to the original author . . . I know both of them. Mk421 (talk)

  • Speedy Keep Delete per Rcthomas3000. Seems notable enough. If there is misinformation in the article, the article should be improved, not deleted. FelisLeoTalk! 07:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Define "notable enough." I am not saying there is misinformation. I'm saying that Wikipedia will grow a lot if we make a page for every postdoc. Mk421 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't come close to satisfying WP:PROF right now. (He may do at some point in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Scog (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROF.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the discoverer of several supernovae he is notable. Dloh cierekim 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC) <<struck per comments below.>>[reply]
  • Switch to weak keep per DGG Dloh cierekim 14:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article says he discovered several supernovae, but this isn't verified (where are their names even?). In an age when supernova searches are increasingly automated and depend on high performance computing, collaboratively-written software tools, and international collaborations, who in these groups can be credibly credited as "the" discoverer of a supernova? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.142.242 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He works in a collaboration on an experiment that discovers many supernovae -- that's the point of the experiment. It's not like he's out discovering these on his own, there's a long list of contributors credited on each one. Search ATel or IAUC for a list. This does not make him notable, it's his job. Mk421 (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I am a little bothered by this article also, & the photograph gives an unfortunate impression, but there are a good many papers for a post doc, the work seems not all just descriptive, there are a reasonable number of cites, and I think this is over the bar. The relevant link for his actual peer-reviewed papers is [36] That we do not make an article for every postdoc does not imply that we do not make an article for any of them. DGG (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if you decide to keep the page I'll have to take a better picture. Mk421 (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dear all, please let me comment on several of the points adressed here. It seems that this article has to be kept if R.C.Thomas is "notable". within the bounds of what defines someone as notable for wikipedia, I think that he is clearly "not notable" enough (yet) for a wikipedia page.
    • He fails WP:PROF test
    • Being in the same field as R.C. Thomas, I concur with Mk421 that being part of a collaboration he can not be counted as "the" discoverer of several supernovae. Shall we make one wikipedia page per postdoc who was in any particle physic experiment that discovered a new particle? I think not: if you count postdocs and grad students, that's probably over 1000 persons, and will soon be an even larger number.
    • DGG says that he has a "good many paper for a post doc" and that there is "a reasonable number of cites". Since this statement is not really quantitative I am unsure about how over the bar is defined. Nevertheless, if you compare to other astronomy postdocs, even if he is not bellow average, I don't think that he can be qualified as special.
    • The bar above which someone is notable should be thought carefully: do you think wikipedia is the place for any single postdoc, grad student, etc, to have his vita. If wikipedia is an encyclopedia, R.C. Thomas should wait several years before getting his article. On the other hand, if we are talking about a collaborative yearbook, matters are different.

SZF (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm the subject of this article.
    • Strongest reason seems to be Wikipedia's own standards in WP:PROF.
    • The claim that I "discovered several supernovae" is just inaccurate, and so that probably should be removed from the article, and also therefore the "keep" from Dlohcierekim is non-sequitir. To be clear, since our project is a group effort I can't claim sole discoverership of any supernova, it's a team effort -- and that discussion belongs in another article.
    • I find DGG's comments on my publication record a little generous -- especially since the list wasn't restricted to first-author publications. In general I'd caution against using citation counts as a metric of notability -- at best it's valid only in a relative sense, and that analysis hasn't been presented.

Rcthomas3000 (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • ::Comment A plate of cookies to Rcthomas3000 for his humility. Very refreshing.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to agree with Fabrictramp! Rcthomas3000 deserves at least the plate of cookies. Wonderfully humble response. (Perhaps that, in itself, is worth an article!) Tim Ross (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rcthomas3000. A relatively junior academic (was a postdoc as of 2007, PhD 2003); will probably merit a separate WP article in a few years but not yet. Nsk92 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:PROF yet, by the subject's own comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Rcthomas3000. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Utterly fails WP:PROF. Qworty (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eve of Dreams

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

Non-notable book by non-notable author. Possibly a hoax. AniMate 07:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Normally, I would !vote "keep", but as this article was created by a new user WHO I think wouldn't improve the article and it is a hoax, I am !voting delete. It's non-notable per WP:N.--RyRy5 (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: article may be a hoax and is not sourced per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia, I have no intentions of displaying inappropriate content. Being that the article about Eve of Dreams is entirely factual and inspired by many fan's interests, I hope that you will reconsider allowing the article to remain. I will be more than happy to continue to update the article with references. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdog717 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non notable and non verifiable as I found nil on Google web/news/scholar/books relevant to this. No mention of author on my library based bio resource. Dlohcierekim 23:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable; virtually nothing on Google and fails WP:BK. — Wenli (reply here) 02:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11, blatant advertising: Protector Plus Antivirus Software is the ideal antivirus protection for your computer. . . - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protector plus

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

Non-notable, advert article about a company. No coverage in critical sources. MBisanz talk 07:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article itself has no reliable resources, The external link isn't a reliable resource. Fails WP:N and WP:CORP.--RyRy5 (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: article is spam with no reliable sources. Mh29255 (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agreed; not notable and spam. -- Saaga (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as blatant advertising Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdraw nomination (non-admin closure) following the very recent decision to merge. WilliamH (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pup-play

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

Article contains original research in violation of WP:NOR, is inadequately sourced and much of it is a direct copy of the more generalized & previously created page Human animal roleplay. Mh29255 (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request Close When I nominated this for deletion or merger, I had not seen that it had been previously nominated for deletion with a decision to merge with Human animal roleplay. I respectively request that this AfD be closed. Mh29255 (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nvision

Spam for a non-notable (or not-yet-notable) event which relies solely on primary sources, providing nothing but forward looking speculation based on said sources. Crystal ball gazing and nothing more. --Carlos Herradura 06:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: seems notable and established, even if in the future. Still needs cleanup, though. -- Saaga (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Crystal, non-notable, no reliable 3rd party sources. Lots of ghits for "Nvision" but, the ones I saw were about companies or software and not about this event. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be very notable. --EclipseSSD (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: spam. ENeville (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:CRYSTAL; of course the article can be created if the Guinness World Record is achieved and/or it receives substantial press attention. Marasmusine (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Alex Muller 08:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cohler

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

I believe this does not meet the standard of WP:BIO. The subject's company obviously does, but not someone who's just an early employee who now works as a vice president. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: article fails to establish notability per WP:BIO. Mh29255 (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO and no 3rd party reliable sourcing to verify notability Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a {{{reflist}}} to make the references easier to see. Dlohcierekim 23:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. Not independently notable.--Ave Caesar (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's worked for a lot of well-known companies, but he himself has not achieved notability per WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Selket Talk 03:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Adjusters

United States Adjusters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP notability standard. References presented are in regard to "public adjusters" in general or other public adjuster corporations, they don't concern this specific corporation. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, promotional/advertising; user has an obvious conflict of interest (and has a history of promoting his company/ideas). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: I have semiprotected the article for a week. Socks from User:Bet1973 (who created the article in the first place) keep on removing the AFD notice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • redir to Claims adjuster or Public adjuster(closers choice). But as is stands now it is just corporate spam available from any number of press releases. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 13:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & salt, it's advertising by a user with an obvious conflict of interest and a history of disruptively promoting his company. Redirection isn't appropriate here since the title is the name of a company. --Versageek 12:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sources do not appear to be reliable, nor show notability. Is there anything from a major daily paper about this company, not just a press blurb that shows how it helped some city in Florida? Bearian (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, then create a redirect (no need to keep the history, not merged). Fram (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'ni Guilds

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

Fails to meet wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. Article is not notable because there are no reliable third party sources to show this is a notable topic by wikipedia standards. Randomran (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can only find primarily sources by Googling, so apparently no reliable sources to assert notability. Una LagunaTalk 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Asserts no notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Myst canon. Article is not notable enough to warrant its own page, but it definitely has some bearing on the fictional Myst universe. — OranL (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After inadvertently typing "D'ni guilds" into WP search, I realized that the information contained on the page "D'ni Guilds" is actually already part of the Myst canon page. The article "D'ni Guilds" is mostly a redundant copy of "D'ni guilds" which has already been merged and redirected with Myst canon.
Redirect this page to Myst canon, as has already been done with D'ni guilds. — OranL (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Number of editors is not a reason to keep an article, and the fact that it is not a hoax but fictionally exists is not a keep reason either. And the general consensus is that the subject of articles does have to be notable... Fram (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahyoheek

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

Fails to meet wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. Article is not notable because there are no reliable third party sources to show this is a notable topic by wikipedia standards. Randomran (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- both a google search and ProQuest archives search failed to turn up anything. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Myst Online: Uru Live. Articles don't have to be notable. And once merged into another article, text doesn't have to be notable either. --Pixelface (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we're not a game guide. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is consistent with what we, i.e. Wikipedia is and is an acceptable spinoff or sub article according to multiple editors, verfiable word that in a worst case scenario could be merged and redirected without deletion, but no reason for an outright deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fails several Wikipedia guidelines. There is no Wikipedia:Reliable sources to establish Wikipedia:Notability. A Google search only provides 1,200 links to Wikipedia, forums and unreliable sources. The current article amounts to a game guide, something that Wikipedia is not, and cannot stand as a spin-off article. Kariteh (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MCB (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorian Hemingway

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

I noticed today that an anonymous IP had removed the claim to notability on this article--specifically, that the subject (the granddaughter of Ernest Hemingway) was a Pulitzer Prize-nominated author. Upon doing some digging of my own, it seems that this edit was correct and she was not a finalist in the nomination process and is thus not officially a nominee. (Information on the related work can be found here.)

More digging, including standard Google searches and looking through the news archives, revealed a lack of significant coverage--the most prominent mention I could find of her was here, when she is quoted in an article about her late father. Given this lack of coverage and absence of other verifiable claims to notability, I am not convinced that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines for biographies and creative professionals, and so I am nominating it for deletion. jonny-mt 05:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep per January Magazine Article and Article which sources the prize nomination statement. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability is not inherited from the grandfather, and there just isn't enough out there to convinve me she is notable on her own. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has plenty of coverage at Google News that confers notability. Much of it is about her eponymous prize, which maybe should have its own article, but it does include several reviews of her her work. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is, though, that I looked through those as well. Most of the articles on the first page of search results are only passing mentions (see [37] [38] [39] etc.); while I'm kind of on the fence about whether the prize is notable, I'm not sure that the reviews are enough to pass the notability guidelines for creative professionals. Naturally, you're more than welcome to disagree, but I just wanted to note here that the news results were considered before I nominated the article. --jonny-mt 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, makes false claim of being a Pulitzer nominee. All the citations you can find on the Web are merely repeats of press releases sent out by the author herself. Yes, she seems to be a granddaughter of the great author, but that's it. No reason to think the prize is notable, either. Also, note that the January Magazine article was written by her publicist!
  • Comment. Of course for any subject that gets 237 Google News hits you'll find plenty that are only passing mentions, but after discarding those there are are still loads left which give substantial coverage, and are certainly not written by her publicist, in publications such as The Washington Post [40][41], Time [42], The New York Times [43], The Dallas Morning News [44], The San Diego Union-Tribune [45], The Orange County Register [46] and The Spokesman-Review [47]. I've also found some book coverage of her [48] [49]. I agree that having a famous grandfather doesn't make her notable, but it also doesn't mean that we should impose higher notability standards on her than on other writers. A Pulitzer prize nomination isn't needed to make a writer notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phil Bridger's comments. It now seems clear that the author and her books have been the subject of multiple independent articles in prominent, reliable sources. Klundarr (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and Redirect (Non-admin closure). Seddσn talk Editor Review 18:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISS Enterprise (Star Trek)

ISS Enterprise (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of several mirror universe episodes. As this information is already covered by those episode articles this is duplicative and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yeah, no. If the creator of this had even bothered to read up on his science, he'd know that you could be setting off sun-sized nukes on one side of a black whole and they couldn't ever pass through the event horizon. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow hole

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

Most likely a hoax. Anyone want to defend it? 650l2520 (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete; no Google hits aside from mirrors. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks2: Master of Blocks

Blocks2: Master of Blocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged as {{future game}} but in Category:2007 video games. Last non-bot edit was on February 1, 2007. Zero sources to establish notability. Comment on talk page reads "Upcoming game for Dreamcast WTF???", casting doubts on the article's factual accuracy. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayzad

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

Article fails WP:BIO, WP:N. There are no sources and the only external link is to the author's website of dubious quality. Millbrooky (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Per nom.  Asenine  08:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetorical Strategies Of The Reproductive Rights Agendas

Rhetorical Strategies Of The Reproductive Rights Agendas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

OR Essay, the original editor made it easy with this edit summary "(A work in progress. This intentionally unfinished outline is part of a graded university project.)" LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Essay, necessarily unencyclopedic, even if interesting. Wikipedia is not a publisher of your paper. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though the edit summary quoted in the nom is ROFLMAO. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and WP:OR. It is truly an essay. Happyme22 (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as uninteresting essay. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above also ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wonderful essay, but alas, not an encyclopedia article. Dlohcierekim 23:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely an essay, fails WP:NOT#OR. — Wenli (reply here) 02:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; unsalvageable essay. Khatru2 (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 07:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Galerkin

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

Contested prod.non-notable designer, no secondary sources offered or easily found, possible WP:SPAM.(According to the article's talk page,the creator of the page interviewed Galerkin and used this for the article) Paulbrock (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science

Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

After an extensive search, I could not find significant discussion of this article's subject, "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Zero hits in an index of book reviews in InfoTrac. Zero hits in (3) different databases of archived news articles, save for 2 which were advertisements put out by organizations affiliated with the book's publisher and the Church of Scientology. No significant discussion in scholarly works. Mentions of "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" in books do not discuss the book or review it in any sort of depth whatsoever, but only briefly mention it in a list of Scientology-related publications, or briefly note the date it appeared as an article in Astounding Science Fiction in a passing mention. Virtually all of the hits from a simple Google search lead back to Scientology-affiliated websites or booksellers, not to any sort of in-depth analysis or discussion in secondary sources. Whatever brief discussion of this there is (as I was not able to find significant discussion in secondary sources) should already be discussed in the article Dianetics. As it is extremely unlikely that individuals would be searching for "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science", there is no need for a merge or a redirect IMO but rather recommend deletion. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (or merge & redirect to Dianetics) – This is notable enough to be linked from (and the original source quoted in) several other articles on Wikipedia, as well as having several hits on Google Scholar (though I haven't had a chance too look at how extensive the discussion is in those sources). I think that this is a worthwile article to have, that between primary and secondary sources has enough verifiable information to be worthwhile as a separate article. — λ (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No significant discussion appears to be given in those scholarly sources, as I had already mentioned in the nom. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's really nothing more than passing mention of this in any of the sources, then I'd be willing to support merge & redirect to Dianetics. As 23skidoo points out below, the author is notable, the publication is notable, and the church/cult founded on the principles introduced are notable, so there's adequate notability to keep it as a separate article, but as such a small stub without much more to say about it, merging is fine by me. — λ (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Extremely important milestone in the history of Dianetics. Don't know why the nom say it is not mentioned anywhere, probably because the full name is rarely used. However Google Books shows 184 hits for "Astounding Science Fiction" + Dianetics. That is hits in books not web hits and by a quick scan it seems many are relevant. A very nice article could be made here but meanwhile certainly notable. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect Google Books search, which yields results not directly related to this book. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" at Google Books gives 61 hits, and as I had already stated in the nom, most are only a passing mention, included in a list of works published by the Church of Scientology, and are simply not enough of an in-depth discussion of the book "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" itself. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, we are not talking about a book here, we are talking about a magazine article. There may be some confusion there. If this article is intended to be about the first exposition of Dianetics in Astounding then it is notable indeed and my search was fine and shows notability. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" is the title of this article, and "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" is the book that this article is about. And I was unable to find any book reviews of either the article or the book. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is the article named correctly? What was the title of the Astounding article introducing Dianetics to the world? That article is extremely notable even if the later book is not. That article is what the 184 Google Book hits are about and seeing as Dianetics was incredibly popular in the 1950's I am sure that press from that era would mention the Astounding article also. There is no question as to the notability of the article - much more notable than, say, the 1991 Time article that you did so well with. I am sure that you could make a nice article here instead of AfDing if you cared to. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:FA-rated article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" has been discussed in-depth and in significant detail in numerous secondary sources, book, etc. "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" has not. I don't see how we can have a stand-alone article on "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" when there are virtually no secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that discuss the work in any detail. Cirt (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IDK, did you look at the 184 books that Google came up with? The Gardner book looks interesting. How about Google Scholar? 74 hits there. 26 hits in Google news archives and that is only recent. What about news from the 1950's? Here is one hit from the NY Times, July 1950. All due respect my friend but I think you are not trying. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is going in circles, and thus I will refer to my first reply to your initial comment that your search terms are incorrect and do not go to this specific article about "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science". You can have the last word. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I can have the last word then why did you take it by repeating your argument. But go ahead, you take it. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have faith in Cirt's ability to research properly and recommend we take his advice. Privatemusings (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge and redirect to Dianetics - it's important in coverage of the subject and needs at least a mention of verifiable information about it - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of any reliable sources regarding the contents of the article or the book, as opposed to their mere existence. WillOakland (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly redirect. Importance is not of primary importance, significant coverage in reliable sources is. So far, there has been no indication that such significant coverage exists. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being redundant . . . IDK, did you look at the 184 books that Google came up with? The Gardner book looks interesting. How about Google Scholar? 74 hits there. 26 hits in Google news archives and that is only recent. What about news from the 1950's? Here is one hit from the NY Times, July 1950. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I gave your searches the benefit of the doubt, and gave them a look-over. They are all of the type Cirt mentioned. They typically don't contain much more than a statement of fact that the first Dianetics article appeared in Astounding, even that Gardner book you mentioned. None of them go into any detail about the contents of the article. I happen to agree with you that the article is important in Scientology, being the first introduction of it to the world, but it's only notable for the fact that it was first. That's a notable fact for another article, but there's just not enough content in reliable sources for it to merit an article of its own. --GoodDamon 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mon. My point is simply that the article in Astounding is extremely notable and the numerous mentions of it speak to its notability. Certainly some off-net research would be needed to make the article into much more than a stub but that is not reason to delete it. There is no real reason to delete it. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that an article like this could ever become much more than a stub. Everything about the subject's content is covered elsewhere, and while I agree that the fact of its existence is notable, I'm not sure it should be a separate article. It's part of the history of Scientology, and perhaps deserves the first spot on any Scientology time-line. But there's not enough material about the article subject itself to expand it beyond a stub, at least that I can find so far. My suggestion, if you'd like to change my mind, is to dig up some of that "off-net" content and get it into the article post-haste. --GoodDamon 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I'm open to being convinced. --GoodDamon 16:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable article by a notable author in a notable publication, which is linked to the founding of a major (if controversial) movement in the US. Plus it was expanded into a book later. It can always been expanded, but I feel this is viable as a standalone article. 23skidoo (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep as the original article on the subject. "not more than a stub" is not a reason for deletion. We do not reject short articles. DGG (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Skidoo. Everyking (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crit and WillOakland. Gamaliel (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archimania

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

Nonnotable architectural firm, no independent sources cited, reads like an ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete g3 vandalism, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Thompson

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

Contested prod. Cannot find a evidence of this person, appears to be a complete hoax. TN‑X-Man 03:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete; article is notable. Malinaccier (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featherproof books

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

Non-notable vanity press; Zach Dodson is up for AfD as well.

Also listing the cofounder:

Jonathan Messinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, neither is notable enough for inclusion - Dumelow (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to both. Mr mark taylor (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be enough sources to support the article, meet guidelines.John Z (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ORG, WP:CORP. And while we're at it, don't forget to vote Delete on all of the associated AfDs, which should have been bundled to this one, Zach Dodson and Jonathan Messinger and Brian Costello and Todd Dills and Samia Saleem and Susannah Felts. Somebody--probably associated with this Featherproof micro-press--has been going around spamming Wikipedia with articles about every non-notable person ever associated with Featherproof. Qworty (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Featherproof is not a vanity press, no one other the AFD initiator has (per Google) ever described it as a vanity press, and nothing on its website indicates it to be a vanity press. It's a new, small, independent publisher which has attracted a nontrivial amount of attention in the media which focus on small presses. This jihad conducted by a number of meanspirited editors against the user who created this and related articles violates WP:BITE, not to mention Wikipedia's policies regarding good faith, personal attacks, and civility, as well as the policies regarding campaigning on matters like this. This sort of contagious, poisonous behavior has nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been a notability tag sitting on the page since September last year, I think that enough good faith has been assumed. The first [Special:Contributions/Justinhoffman editor] to edit these pages has contributed nothing outside these pages. The same is true of the [Special:Contributions/MegBaker second editor]. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that justifies lying about the press and abusing people associated with it? Thats a disgusting notion. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Featherproof seems to have a licence to work out of someone's home [50] Doug Weller (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The links that you provide resolve to a page that does not mention Featherproof books and to a "page not found" entry. Perhaps you should ether provide working links or withdraw your comment expeditiously. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very interesting--thank you for digging up this information. Obviously, any "publisher" that's actually working out of somebody's garage or basement or off a kitchen table is not notable in the publishing industry. This is undoubtedly why this "company" so thoroughly fails WP:CORP. Qworty (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally wrong. There are notable indie movie, music, and video game creators who self-publish, especially now with digital distribution, who work out of the owners' homes. No reason why not the same in books. Working out of one's home has nothing to do with notability. (Tolstoy worked out of his home.) I'm voting delete below but definitely not for this fake reason. Tempshill (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI am definitely not withdrawing my comment. I know about the dead link, but I don't think Google's search engine made up the text about a 'home licence' and I carefully qualified my comment with the word 'seems'. Doug Weller (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. More than passes general notability with multiple, nontrivial mentions in verifiable, reliable sources. It doesn't even require extra research; the information is right there in the article. It shouldn't matter where it operates from or whether or not it is an incorporated company; mentions in RS are all that matter, and the subject has those. I don't find the deletion arguments very persuading since they seem to disregard that. Celarnor Talk to me 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for both. Fails notability. Shovon (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the books listed in the list of published books are red links. Tempshill (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really mean anything, for multiple reasons. First, that could be because no one's bothered to write the articles yet; it isn't necessarily indicative of a lack of notability per se. Secondly, the notability or lack of notability of a product doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the notability of the producer. The company could be the subject of multiple independent pieces of coverage, as this one is, while their product is not. Celarnor Talk to me 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've cleaned the Featherproof books article up a bit, and added a couple more references. The red links are gone. :) My feeling was that it did an ok job at asserting notability previously, with the Poets & Writers reference among others, but the desperately needed cleanup probably hid some of that. It should be a bit better now, so hopefully it is good enough to warrant keeping. In regard to Jonathan Messinger, the article really did need a lot of work, but I've added some references and rewritten it a bit. He's been reviewed in a number of independent publications, including Booklist, Chicago Tribune and The Portand Mercury, as well as being interviewed here and there. His stage show was also mentioned (although it wasn't much more than a mention) in The New York Times. So I would definitely recommend keeping him. - Bilby (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, With the work done by Bilby I feel that this article passes the basic criteria in WP:CORP. I found another reference but only have access to an abstract in the EBSCO database through my library. Title is "the indie initiative: our annual look at small press success" from Poets & Writers; Sep/Oct2006, Vol. 34 Issue 5, p58-68, 11p. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a feature on the subject, but its more than a trivial mention; it discusses the subject for about 6 sentences. Celarnor Talk to me 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements made by Bilby that appear to satisfy WP:CORP. --Oakshade (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Dodson

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Primary claim to notability is writing a graphic novel, but it's published by his own company (AFD) and apparently not due until Fall 2008. His company may, may, be notable, but Dodson himself is given only passing mentions in reliable, independent sources. —Cryptic 02:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. Assertions of notability may not be supported. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, company is barely notable and he is less notable than that. Mr mark taylor (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any news coverage of Zach himself. — Wenli (reply here) 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and others.--JustJimDandy (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only real reference appears to be his college newspaper.DGG (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google News and Google News Archive comes up with nothing on him. [51] Sources seem to be lacking at this stage. If his graphic novel is reasonably successful, we can reconsider the matter then. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Fails every policy and guideline invoked in this discussion. And while we're at it, don't forget to vote Delete on both of the associated AfDs, which should have been bundled to this one, Jonathan Messinger and Featherproof books. Qworty (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. May be worth an article once he expands beyond the local scene. Gamaliel (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hullah

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

No apparent notability; sources don't seem substantial. Related to Teenage Dog Orgy AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not really significant coverage in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. There might be something out there to suggest the guy passes WP:BIO, but as of yet I haven't found anything. Of the books mentioned, I can only find a library catalog entry for one of them, and that includes a note that only 250 copies were printed. Wishing him the best of luck, in his career, but not sure if we can authoritatively cover the subject with so little information available/verifiable. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice the article's seen improvement while this discussion was ongoing (very much appreciated). If not notable, Hullah does seem to be approaching that benchmark. I notice replies made later on are more likely to favor keeping the article. Might be a no consensus close? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Well, I don't think this article meets WP:BIO or WP:BK or WP:MUSIC at all. Apart from those policies, I just don't think that any leading literary critic, short-story writer, poet, or musician needs to make ends meet by going halfway around the world to Japan to teach EFL. Most writers who are successful in literary criticism, fiction, and/or poetry are able to find teaching jobs much closer to home, as are most musicians who want to teach to make ends meet. Also, we are dealing here with a WP:Single-purpose account that also wrote an article about this same guy's non-notable band, Teenage Dog Orgy, which is going down in flames on AfD itself at this very moment. I'm really close to slapping both articles with WP:AUTO and WP:COI tags, though I suppose it's possible that there might be one person in this world, apart from Hullah himself, who is passionately interested in Hullah as a literary critic, poet, short-story writer, musician, EFL instructor, etc. But I think it's highly unlikely. I think what we've got here is a guy who's dabbled in a lot of the arts without really making a mark in any single one of them. It's possible that some kind soul will come along and try to patch together a bunch of questionable sources for this guy as a combined literary critic/short-story writer/poet/musician, but I have to say that notability is not an aggregate of being non-notable in four different fields. He would have to be notable as at least one of those things to be notable at all, and the way I read WP:BIO, WP:BK, and WP:MUSIC, he doesn't satisfy a single guideline we have. Qworty (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Qworty, is it possible to critique an article without being so unbelievably rude about it? Maybe the man fell in love with and married a Japanese woman. Maybe he heard a calling to do something different with his life. Whatever the reason, surely you could have judged the content, rather than disparage the person. --Faith (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Being the editor of the author/estate-sanctioned edition of the collected poetry of a major literary figure like Iris Murdoch, coupled with a reasonably sigificant publishing history, ought to be sufficient to demonstrate reasonable notability to anyone moderately familiar with English-language literature. This AFD is a sad display of the meanspiritedness, ignorance, and incivility of the several of the editors involved. User:Qworty's comments violate Wikipedia's policies on civility, against personal attacks, requiring an assumption of good faith, and otherwise indicate deficiencies in basic human decency. To post a disparaging rant against a living person based solely on the nonsensical idea that an English-language academic who has chosen to teach in Japan is inherently incompetent, second-rate, etc., is vile behavior, well below Wikipedia's standards of civility. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Agree entirely. Qworty's is an uncivil and unreasonable personal attack on the subject of the entry, not the entry itself. --stupelo
  • Strong Keep: Author/Editor of several books, one of which has been cited in articles published in oxford journals (Google search), including "Yorkshire Landscapes in Wuthermg Heights" (http://eic.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XLVIII/1/13.pdf in Essays in Criticism 1998 XLVIII(1):13-34; doi:10.1093/eic/XLVIII.1.13 1998 by Oxford University Press) and "XII The Nineteenth Century: The Romantic Period" (http://ywes.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/79/1/443.pdf in The Year's Work in English Studies 1998 79(1):443-545; doi:10.1093/ywes/79.1.443 1998 by English Association), which in itself is enough to make him notable. --Faith (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources beyond the subject's resume. Insufficient independent secondary sources to establish solid notability. Lots of people are cited in other publications; I don't think we should have an article on all of them. Gamaliel (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is incorrect, as my post immediately above this one shows. One of the books was cited in two different journal articles; it was also cited by the Australian government (http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/pubs/convict-sites.pdf) in "Convict Sites". WP:ICANNOTFINDIT isn't a good reason for deletion, as someone else has found it. --Faith (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment (since the text was edited): Subject also has two eleven journal entries and several respectable books, all sufficient for notability per WP:NOTE. --Faith (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Qworty. ~ Ameliorate U T @ 03:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears notable, the Iris Murdoch poetry editing seems to clinch it. PamD (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He seems to be notable, discussed in several sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: per PamD. Definitely notable. The edition of Murdoch is a very significant publication, the only available complete collection of that major author's poetry, cited in Peter Conradi's biography of the writer and discussed in several sources. Essential source for Murdoch researchers/scholars worldwide (of whom I am one, hence my accessing Hullah's Wiki entry).stupelo
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 07:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty of the United Nations

Sovereignty of the United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A personal essay, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, should be discussed instead at main article United Nations, but no need for a merge or redirect here. Cirt (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article is by respected early contributor Ed Poor (talk · contribs) (though touched up by others, it remains in essentially the condition he left it). This is clearly an important and thorny topic that cannot possibly be sufficiently addressed by the main article. This should be sourced and expanded. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant content into United Nations. I'm not sure that this deserves its own article because it is not that elaborate of an issue. But the content can certainly be merged into that of the UN because it is relevant. Happyme22 (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article fails to provide a source, 3 years on, for the assertion that the UN might have any "sovereignty" at all. Insofar as it is sourced, it duplicates the existing article on "United States and the International Criminal Court". WillOakland (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge where appropriate ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the author is a "respected early contributor" is not only no reason to keep, it just goes to show how much standards have changed since 2005. There was a time that Wikipedia would take just about anything, and this dates from that time. I imagine that, like the rest of us, Mr. Poor has developed a writing style that keeps up with Wikipedia's expectations. He may even have forgotten this early contribution. Mandsford (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge where appropriate It is essentially an essay. While it is an issue that is bound to cause the US more indigestion in the future, this is not the place to explore it's intricacies and ramifications. The dispute between the US and the ICC is covered at United States and the International Criminal Court. Cheers Dlohcierekim 00:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (sorry Ed) This is an essay about the issue of how much "sovereignty" the UN should have, but not an encyclopedia article about what it does have. Both topics should be covered in United Nations instead. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unsourced WP:OR, and conflates the United Nations with the International Criminal Court. HrafnTalkStalk 16:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Article speedied by User:Cobaltbluetony, blatant advertising TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-IN²

C-IN² (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be advertising. No third-party sources given to establish notability. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 06:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Dog Orgy

Teenage Dog Orgy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

After a brief discussion with DragonflySixtyseven, neither of us has been able to confirm this band's erstwhile existence as of yet. In the article, the group is described as a four-person group active in 1985 and 1986 which produced no albums and gave a handful of live performances (at unspecified venues in Scotland). Of the listed members, only Paul Hullah has an article, and that article happens to be the only other major contribution of Blescoe (talk · contribs) (who I believe claims to be Hullah himself while uploading Image:Redshirt.jpg); the Hullah article itself might also be a candidate for an AfD.

The article does cite three sources, but beyond confirming the existence of such publications I can't speak to their contents just yet. I'm a bit torn, here. Am I not finding confirmation because I don't know where to look, or because it's not so much there to be found? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article states that they were active '85 and '86 but the live reviews are dated 1988 and 1989? Makes me doubt the WP:RS LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Luna Santin (talk · contribs) and Legotech (talk · contribs), and even the sources given doesn't really seem like a significant amount of coverage. Cirt (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to point out - although there are a lot of Google hits for the string "Teenage Dog Orgy", it is a... shall we say, a noisy search. DS (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure this even asserts notability. There are many Google hits for "Teenage Dog Orgy," yes. Many are for Keyword strings including those words but having nothing to do with the subject. Notability/verifiability is not based on Google count for a string of text. The essential test would be for national tours, records/CD's on a suitable label, scoring well on the charts. I have not located any Google hits that support meeting WP:BAND. I find nothing at Allmusic. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC... Qworty (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per Qworty. Gamaliel (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Qworty and WP:V etc. ~ Ameliorate U T @ 03:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --Faith (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I dug around a bit too, and couldn't turn up anything useful. While there may be print sources that would help, I'd be surprised if there was enough to justify keeping. - Bilby (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Not an easy one to close, admittedly. Wizardman 15:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soundview School

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

The notability of this school does not appear to be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of School-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was able to find a few mentions in secondary sources, but not of any real significant discussion of the subject. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article makes specific claim of notability, supported by reliable source. Will consider upgrade if some of the additional sources available are added. Alansohn (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability has not been demonstrated; the article reads like any other school. (If significant reliable sources are found, I'd appreciate a ping on my Talk page so I can reconsider.) Alternately, merge if an appropriate target is found. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lynnwood, Washington#Schools. No need for this article at this time with its problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Vegaswikian. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability shown. Perhaps a merge per Vegaswikian's comment. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Certainly being "the first independent school to offer the IB Primary Years Programme in Washington, Oregon or Alaska.", is a reasonable claim to notability. However, there is some doubt that there is sufficient material available to develop a full page so I would not object to a merge to the locality. TerriersFan (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per contested notability, but seems like a likely search term. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Culture

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

Obscure band with no obvious notability Ecoleetage (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solage (poetry)

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

Notability for this style of poetry appears to be lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • neutral rename I changed my vote after a little thought. A search for the poet Cameron Semmens returns a few pages which reference him, though no actual article. What should be done is to make a page for him (since he's notable enough to be referred to a few times already) and put the content in there. -- De Guerre (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment By the way, this is my first ever deletion discussion, so apologies in advance if I accidentally break etiquette. Please AGF. -- De Guerre (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bon jour, De Guerre! Welcome to the AfD orbit! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't winning an Australian state prize in poetry make you at least stub-worthy? I would have thought so. Anyway, I'm actually more concerned about losing the edit history (for GFDL reasons) than losing the article, which is why I proposed a rename (it would be a merge if he actually had a stub) instead of a delete. Still, I'm happy to go with the consensus. -- De Guerre (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response In concept, yes. But you need to add that information to the article. Mr. Semmens is not represented here, unfortunately. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Cheers, LAX 15:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE wins top 10

WWE wins top 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unnecessary page that will almost certainly be out of date frequently. It also contains no content except for a poorly formatted table. Mblumber (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm not sure if this can be speedied by A7 - it's a list. Not only is it formatted incorrectly, it makes absolutely no assertion of notability, provides absolutely no context, and is generally terrible. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs). Poor formatting to boot. Cirt (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources; looks like WP:OR to me.  Frank  |  talk  13:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unsourced list with no information. — Wenli (reply here) 02:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is unsourced, it's cruft. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (are we getting close to WP:SNOW?) I'm not sure how having a list of winning percentages from April 1, 2007 to May 29, 2008 (an arbitrary date range with no stated rationale for this decision) would benefit the encyclopedia. No sources, so I imagine we are just supposed to assume that these numbers have some basis in reality. A textbook case of original research. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced and OR. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - WP:SNOW and this was already deleted once before under another name which elludes me at the moment. -Djsasso (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NHL Quarterfinals Riot, Montreal

2008 NHL Quarterfinals Riot, Montreal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not the news. This riot isn't notable, it sounds like something typical. Also it seems like an attack page: "were commited by those who weren't necessarily fans but also by social deviants such as Communists, Anarchists and Punks." and "the city looked upon itself in shame considering that it was only the Quarterfinals and celebrations such as these shouldn't be normal until a Stanley Cup victory" Coasttocoast (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the one cite in the article is from 2005 and doesn't (can't?) mention this 2008 riot.  Frank  |  talk  01:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Frank. WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V and poss WP:BOLLOCKS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The best I can say about this article is that this riot did in fact take place. [52] [53] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happened, but unsourced and unlikely to have any long-term notability. And furthermore, the statement "social deviants such as Communists, Anarchists and Punks" (because there are so many of those running around downtown Montreal in 2008 *eyeroll*) is particularly unlikely to survive any WP:NPOV review, and neither can I see "the city looked upon itself in shame considering that it was only the Quarterfinals and celebrations such as these shouldn't be normal until a Stanley Cup victory" surviving even the most cursory rewrite for WP:V. A genuinely encyclopedic article about this incident might be possible, I suppose, but this article certainly isn't it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to have been discussed in secondary sources in enough depth or detail to warrant an article. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there was a LOT of in-depth press coverage, as one might expect with this sort of thing. Still, it may well fail WP:NOTNEWS and I'm not at all convinced there is lasting notability, especially as it's written now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shawn in Montreal, and WP:NOTNEWS. I don't think these riots by themselves are historically important, and therefore are not encyclopedic content. If anything, an article could be created for hockey riots, incorporating this and other riots, such as the 1994 Stanley Cup riot. DigitalC (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More sources have been added. All information has been backed up by news articles or other bits of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habs4ever (talk • contribs) 05:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single event and a POV/OR article. Did anything change in the world because this happened? No, just one in a line of sports fans (or non-sports fans as the case may be) going nuts. Not encyclopedic. Franamax (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into 2007–08 Montreal Canadiens season. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree - Merge This merits one sentence in a larger article about the team's season. Definitely not a standalone entry that seems intended to scold the city's fans. Townlake (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Might as well delete all riot-related material with the logic being used. Not all material on Wikipedia was "world-changing". This was a significant event that was covered in Montreal for days after the game, and arrests were being made even 3 weeks later.Habs4ever (talk)
You can have that viewpoint, and you're free to nominate for AfD whatever articles you choose. Do you have examples? What made this riot particularly noteworthy? Contrast for instance with the Richard Riot, which was significant in the franco/anglophone Canadian context. Franamax (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This riot was one of the first in Montreal's history to be captured not only live, but also by fans capturing the event on their hand-held portable devices such as videophones. 56 arrests were made thanks to videos that were put on websites such as YouTube. This was the first sports-related riot in Montreal since the 1993 Stanley Cup Riot and was the first riot to put on YouTube, where the (majority?) of criminals were identified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habs4ever (talk • contribs) 15:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A pretty minor incident. The much larger 1993 Stanley Cup Riot does certainly deserve an article, and I'm surprised it's only now been created. - SimonP (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary coverage is there; had the article been written in a more encyclopedic, non-POV way, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Habs4ever, you might want to check the Wikipedia style guide for future reference. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the article does not necessarily relfect my point of view, but the POV and general feeling of the city at the time. I have provided a number of news articles that back up what was written in the article. Feel free to message me and leave your input.Habs4ever (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - the sentence about "communists, anarchists, and punks" is certainly not validly sourced. That article does mention "anarchists" to some degree, but actually a counterpoint in the same article is that it was NOT anarchists because the perps were not hiding.  Frank  |  talk  15:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - another article has been sourced that specifically mentions the actions of the anarchists and punks.Habs4ever (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of seeming tiresome (which I'm really not trying to be), can you explain why that source is not a WP:SPS?  Frank  |  talk  16:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I guess it has been explained below.Habs4ever (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe mention the riot in 2007–08 Montreal Canadiens season. I've delete communists/anarchists/punks for a couple reasons. First, neither mentions communists (why would communists riot over hockey?). Second, the Metro is a rag and isn't a real paper. Third, the second source is a personal website, probably blogish, and therefore doesn't meet WP:RS. Fourth, the Metro even disputes that they were anarchists. Just drunk hockey fans, just like in Calgary and Edmonton. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Fair enough, but care to elaborate as to why the Metro Newspaper can't be used as a source?Habs4ever (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given Metro is published by a reputable newspaper conglomerate in Canada, I would say that it is a valid source. In my very-POV opinion however, I've found that Metro is built around sensationalism and the passing off of opinion as fact. I personally would never use Metro as a primary source on an article. You would be better off seeking the original stories from mainstream Sun Media papers. Resolute 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to 2007–08 Montreal Canadiens season. The riot was a minor national-news story related to the Canadiens season. That is the most logical place for the information. Resolute 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sports-related riots are a dime a dozen and there's nothing in the article to suggest this one is in any way notable. And it's not even a "finals" event. I'm in Calgary and this thing barely even rated a mention on the news out here. At best, this rates a paragraph in the main article on the quarterfinals, if such an article even exists. In response to one of the comments above, the capturing of an event like this live or via cellphone cameras, etc. is not notable and hasn't been for about 10 years. 23skidoo (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would it be considered a major event in the history of Montreal? I doubt it. It rates a mention in the article about the Canadiens. I like the moral of the story: "After all, this is a city where the Habs had won 24 Stanley Cups, so winning shouldn't have been anything new." I don't think they'd made it that far in the playoffs since winning the '93 Stanley Cup. Not that that's any reason to burn cars. Mandsford (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as obvious hoax per lack of verifiable sources, though the pseudo sources add to the allure. Dlohcierekim 01:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joquiste

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

This looks like a hoax. A google search for the term turned up nothing. —BradV 00:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted (G7) by User:Gwen Gale (non-admin notice). ~ Eóin (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kory Robertson

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

Player was undrafted in the 2008 NFL Draft and signed with the Dolphins in May. He has decided to retire as indicated here. I will admit I created this article too hastily, and seeing as how Robertson has never played professionally and merely taken part in some practices in the offseason, he is not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can this be speedy deleted, since the author (who's the only who has made a significant contribution) requests its deletion? Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Weaver

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

Seemingly non-notable actor. No reliable sources present for article (just a lot of claims). "Most notable role" was as a recurring on a TV show produced by a local network that only aired 14 episodes total. Declined speedy. Also, probable COI. Cquan (after the beep...) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonnotable per nom and per WP:COI issues, reads like spam/advert. Cirt (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promotional CV for non-notable actor without an imdb page (not that having one is by itself near the minimal requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER). --Dhartung | Talk 04:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is promotional material and lacks reliable sources; the claims being made cannot be verified per WP:V. Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreeing with above points on WP:V; once you strip out the unverified/unverifiable stuff, there's a whole lot of nothing left. Even the image (Image:Jason.jpg) has a copyright warning on it (though it'd likely get dropped considering it's almost surely his own). --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On close reading, not sure there's a assertion of notability in the article. Once again, there is a problem of verifiability even for that which is asserted. There is no significant media coverage that I can find. Unable to locate reliable sources supporting a claim of notability on reviewing about 90 Unique Google hits. I did find information about Roman weavers, that is weavers in Ancient Rome, who were apparently a highly skilled lot. Search for the full "Roman Jason Cory Weaver" came up empty. There was a handful of hits for "Roman Jason Weaver" that did not look like they fit the bill. They did not seem concerned with the content of this article. A search through Allmusic did not support notability. He is not mentioned on the Allmusic page about "Fusebox". I found a "Jason Weaver on IMDB, but I think it is someone else. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone who is not at work might want to consider retagging for Speedy Deletion. I do not see where the speedy was declined. I only see that it was dettaged by the creator of the article. Cheers,
I took it as a declined speedy when an admin (User:DGG) didn't restore the tag/delete the article, but restored the COI tag. Cquan (after the beep...) 07:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. He's pretty thorough. Macht nichts, in the long run. Maybe something will turn up that changes my mind. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did see that the website links refering to him as Roman Jason Weaver are correct. The Jason Weaver on IMDB is not him. There seems to be some confusion with the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.146.124 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did notice that the fusebox that is mentioned on Allmusic is the christian band fusebox. the fusebox he refers to in the prick magazine online article seems to support the claim that the band actually exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.146.124 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deleted already by A7. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Dukes

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

I created this article when Dukes was signed as an undrafted free agent by the Miami Dolphins in 2007. However, he left the team shortly after signing, returned to school at Clemson and has never been heard from since. As you can see here, left the squad last August and was let go from the team this year. I admittedly created this article too hastily, and Mr. Dukes is not and likely never will be notable enough. He has never played in the NFL, played in the preseason or even taken part on training camp. I think this is an open and shut case. ►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pats1 has deleted, can someone close?►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 06:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Danish Hasan

Syed Danish Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rather good high school math student. Significant independent sources do not exist for the subject. The best I could find was this. Does not satisfy notability, delete. ~ Eóin (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm sorry, but I think a high school math competition is pretty much trivial. Delete per nom. Cquan (after the beep...) 00:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —~ Eóin (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —~ Eóin (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparent WP:COI issues. Winning a test like this is basically not enough to be notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self promotion by the subject himself--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:COI, and per nom. Congrats on the win though, but sorry, it still fails WP:NN.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just as a note, COI is just a factor and NOT a deletion criterion. Notability is the main thing. Cquan (after the beep...) 02:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obviously nonnotable, and obvious WP:COI issues. Cirt (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these are obviously much more important in certain Asian cultures than in the West, but I still don't really think we should consider this sort of award notable due to the sheer number of competitions and awards. --Dhartung | Talk 04:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Created by User:Danish14011992, so there are obvious WP:COI issues. Anywars, it is non-notable; I couldn't find any reliable sources. — Wenli (reply here) 02:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sorry to disagree, but if the international competition was notable (which I am not sure of) , then being the first place winner in it is notable. Most high school competitions of course arent, but the first international place in a subject is. That wont come to many high school students.DGG (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The author left me a message on my talkpage. I'll paste his comments here as they are relevant to the discussion. ~ Eóin (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respected Sir,
First of all I am Mr. Rakesh Singh. I am writing it because some of the people on my wikipedia talk page have claimed that I am Danish myself. This is definitely untrue else this would have been self promotion. I am the current P.A. of Mr. Jagdish Gandhi(article on him is already present on wikipedia), the founder manager of City Montessori School,Lucknow.
This article has been added to wikipedia to present forward the achievements of Danish Hasan who has been the most commendable student of the institution itself. His achievements are present on the article itself.
Besides, as a reference, I would like to state that Danish is now well known in India and abroad for several reasons.
(1) To be in the ICSE (Indian Certificate of Secondary Education Examination) prescribed Merit List is not a joke. He has secured 9th position among 1,586,547 candidates appearing for ICSE 2008 Examination.
(2) He is Gold Medalist at International Mathematics Competition 2007, Singapore.
(3) He secured All India 1st position in AAT 2006 in the subject Commercial Studies.
(4) On 20-5-2008 Danish's interview was tsken live on 'Sahara Rastriya', Indian Hindi news channel.
(5) His ICSE achievement was published in over 15 newspapers.
Sir if you still hold any doubt about the reliability of the text, I can email you all his certificates & cuttings from newspapers at your email address. So kindly send me your email address on our account for Danish - [email protected]
Lastly, you can check out the official website of CMS- www.cmseducation.org/
City Montessori School(CMS) is itself the Guiness Record holder for maximum number of students in a single college. Rest you can check out on the website.
Thanking you,
Rakesh Singh.
--Danish14011992 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC) (diff)[reply]
  • Delete. A Gold Medal at an international mathematical olympiad is quite impressive but it is still, neverthelesss, a high school level competition and, IMO, is not, in and of itself, a sign of notability. Similarly, most National Spelling Bee winners do not get separate WP articles and I feel that the same principle should be applied here. He may well go on to become a notable scientist in the future, but for now, does not satisfy WP:BIO (and certainly does not satisfy WP:PROF). Nsk92 (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was A7 by Gwen Gale , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Jefferson

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

De-prodded by IP address, who based off the articles history appears to be the articles creator. Unsourced non-notable poker player with no substantial accomplishments or independent coverage. –– Lid(Talk) 00:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker

  • Delete Vainity vainity...Balloonman (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability; lots of poker players win big but that doesn't automatically make them notable. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Greenwash. Incidentally, pure transwiki and merge discussions don't require AfDs, so feel free to be bold in the future. --jonny-mt 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic detoxification

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

Several reasons to delete:

  • This is just a specific form of greenwashing. If you strip out the purely definitional language (which probably should be on Wiktionary?), hardly anything stands to dramatically differentiate it from greenwashing.
  • This word is so non-notable that the term doesn't even appear on the wiki page of the guy who supposedly thought it up, Barry Commoner.
  • The use of "some environmentalists" in the opening phrase is suspicious use of weasel words, possibly to overstate importance of word.
  • Only 619 Google hits[54], compared to 499,000 Google hits for greenwashing[55]

My recommendation: move to Wiktionary and merge leftover content to greenwashing.

Novasource (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, has been discussed in multiple WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Why is this an AfD rather than simply a {{mergeto}} tag, or action on the part of the originator to merge this into greenwashing? It seems that there is a useful distinction to be made between linguistic detoxification and greenwashing (greenwashing is a more general term, and linguistic detoxification is a specific kind of greenwashing), even if linguistic detoxification may not be notable enough on its own to warrant its own article, so merging and redirecting would be more appropriate than deleting. Remember to be bold and simply make the edits you'd like to, rather than just asking about them. — λ (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At the very least, it whould remain a redirect. Merge and redirect discussions belong on the respective articles' talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A definition only. And green propaganda at that. 81.149.250.228 (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly merge to greenwashing, phrase is not terribly common but has some currency as in this link. Gatoclass (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Greenwashing. If the term gains sufficient use, the article be recreated. Now it is little more than a DICDEF. As a phenomenon, it is best discussed in a section of Greenwashing. Dlohcierekim 14:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Greenwashing. It's still information relevant to the topic, just perhaps not strong enough to stand on its own. - Vianello (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to greenwash because it's an example of that broader concept. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable neologism, lack of evidence of wide use in any reliable source I could find. It turns up in a few environmentalist blogs, but does not seem to have made it into the mainstream. --MCB (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It scores a number of hits on google books, so it's clearly not just employed in "blogs". Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the majority of those results are scholarly research or testimony, that actually buttresses the idea that this is not a common term. That means it doesn't need its own page. Novasource (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I suggested a merge :) Gatoclass (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per minimal amount of secondary sources. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to greenwashing. I doubt that even a university student would search for such a long term, but if they do, they'd be redirected to greenwashing. However, I'm a bit unsure of this because greenwashing seems like mostly for corporations, while Linguistic detoxification is for government. DA PIE EATER (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_29&oldid=1081072802"