Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 12

< February 11	February 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Wray's fourth studio album

The article provides unreliable sources about a future album. It should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC for albums. Victao lopes (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please, forgive me for not creating an edit summary for this page. Victao lopes (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page should be kept. This more information that is soon coming. Soccermeko (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page should be kept. I also believe it is improving with it own pace. Infostorm (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC) — infostorm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The essence of WP:CRYSTAL. This album has no title, no release date ... and is from an artist whose previous album was never released, thus underscoring the problem with pre-creation of this type of article. Serpent's Choice (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletefor reasons stated above(Lucknowite (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, fans can assiduously monitor this situation elsewhere. Midwest Peace (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, per serpent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeecat (talk • contribs) 03:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Content and refs are weak, and even her MySpace page offers nothing of substance, nor any idication that this as-yet unnamed album will be released anytime soon. Nothing here that can't be (and probably already is) covered in the main article. PC78 (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block recreation by CrazyCrackCool/Jayjay47/Nekoangel16/Nekoangel17/Soccermeko/etc. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Soccermeko#User:Soccermeko. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references are weak and speculative. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Kww (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block recreate as above. Also consider other related pages for deletion under WP:A. Cloudz679 (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkism

Unverifiable, likely hoax, deprodded. Accurizer (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This might be an attack page on the alleged "founder" of this "religion", if she actually exists, in which case the article could be speedily deleted instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The allusion that slitting your wrists as part of the relgion clearly puts this as an attack page against Nikkita. Nate • (chatter) 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as previously deleted material and block user for disruption and an inappropriate username. I just logged on to do precisely that. In fact, I'm going to be bold and put a speedy delete notice on this idiocy. I'll leave the AfD template, though. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Nakon 16:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of a Feather (computing)

This phrase for an informal meeting of computing practitioners does not rise to the high standard for neologisms required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Midwest Peace (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—This is now standard practice at most computer conferences. Some non-computer-related conferences also follow the practice. "BoF session" gets 68,100 ghits.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Rami R 19:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is essentially a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - plenty of links out there, but it would be better if there were a major, non-press-release article about this phenomenon somewhere. Ron Duvall (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -These responses do not address the need for the notability of the term as a neologism. Midwest Peace (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This appears to me to be an article primarily on the meetings themselves rather than the name for the meeting. More emphasis is placed on the characteristics and instances of these meetings rather than the origin of the term, for instance. Ron Duvall (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both the term and the practice are in common use, and have made it into the Jargon File. That's notable enough for me. --Itub (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State Patty's Day

Delete. A non-notable holiday made up last year by some university students. Polly (Parrot) 23:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another non-notable college culture article. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for “holidays” made up while trying to find another excuse for binge drinking. Besides, it fails WP:N. —Travis ^talk 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN "holiday". - superβεεcat 03:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete 16:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ramon Menezes Saraiva

Contested prod. Suspect article is a hoax as no google hits or anything to link him to FC Utrecht. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is a real player, according to the Brazilian Football Confederation database. Check this link. If he indeed played for Bahia, Vitória, Fluminense and Vasco, he is certainly notable. It seems that the article mixed Ramon Menezes Saraiva biography with Ramon Menezes Hubner biography. --Carioca (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems to be a composite of two Fluminense players; Ramon Menezes Hubner and pt:Ivan Saraiva de Souza although neither player seems to have played for FC Utrecht. I'm not sure about the Brazilian FA site all that seems to say is that he played for Associacao Atletica Aciaria which would not seem to confer notability. King of the North East 00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Brazilian FA site only indicates that there is a real player named Ramon Menezes Saraiva, which doesn't mean that the player is necessarily notable. --Carioca (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he is real, but not notable? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it seems that way, the only club he seems to have played for according to the Brazilian FA is Associacao Atletica Aciaria, so he is non-notable and should be Deleted. King of the North East 10:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be non-notable, but the Brazilian FA site only lists his last club, which is Associação Atlética Aciaria. --Carioca (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCabe villas

Fails WP:NN as a place (article is about a small housing estate) and as a community sports group (main content). Article has been flagged with "{{Importance}}" since Aug 2007, and assertion of notability hasn't been forthcoming under either category. Guliolopez (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete McCabe Villas is a street with a few branches off - appears to be no more notable than any other residential street and nothing in the article to suggest otherwise. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable enough for an article. Bláthnaid 13:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unfortunately, neither area or group are notable enough for an article in their own right. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Gillespie

Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTY/Notability as has never played in a fully professional league[1]. Am also nominating Jamie Duff for the same reason[2]. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No reason to create so early, no reason to contest prod. Peanut4 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability faliures, if/when they play at professional level the articles can be recreated. King of the North East 23:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Spam magnet, NN. This article, and all redirects, salted. Black Kite 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Paid to website

This article about an unestablished protologism says nothing that isn't inherently obvious in the words of the term itself. It is completely lacking in sources and is mere bait for Internet marketing spam. Reswobslc (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, along with the redirects GPT website, Paid to Read, Paid to Click, Gpt website, Get paid to website, Get Paid To website, Get paid to read. (Nominator) Reswobslc (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, spam-magnet. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spammy junk content Beeblbrox (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam advert. Also suggest salting this and the redirects per reswobslc. Doc Strange (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, along with all those redirects. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt What Reswobslc said. BusterD (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Cloudz679 (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect, (please note the closing admin is NOT performing the redirect). Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colley Lane Primary School

Non-notable primary school Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Halesowen, its town per WP:SCHOOL. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Cradley, West Midlands#Education where I have already merged the contents of what is a decidedly nn school. TerriersFan (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per TerriersFan. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per the others. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per TerriersFan. --Daddy.twins (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, nonsense, hoax, OR, plot, whatever. Black Kite 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hairy cyberman

Bio of fictional character from non-notable (unpublished?) comic. No refs. Failed CSD#A7 for unknown reason. Denied CSD#G1 based on earlier CSD failure. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Plot summary, no refs, no claim of notability; probably even a hoax given that there's only three ghits for "Hairy Cyberman", two of which are from Wikipedia, the other unrelated. Should have been speedied like the Cyber-9 Comics article, this discussion is a waste of time. PC78 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Character from a not-notable comic. Bláthnaid 13:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:RS, fails WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus cuz it's cool to go for Japanese stuff and what she does seems so like, zen. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magibon

Only claim of notability is the popularity among YouTube viewers (the Japanese ones, to be more precise). I'm not really sure if this is enough to assert notability per WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER, considering that the basic assertion of notability is the non-trivial media exposure. Article has been prodded by somebody, but another user declined it, stating that there was a "notability borderline". Victor Lopes (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - normally I'd agree but the appearance on Japanese television is just enough to warrant an article. Exxolon (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single appearance on TV doesn't make someone encyclopedic! The article's references are mainly blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's more that they considered her a big enough phenomenon to track her down, invite her on the show and fly her half-way around the world to appear just because of who she is. Exxolon (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'd say it's amazing how the Japanese flew her to Japan just because she said she wanted to go, and how she has gained a certain amount of notoriety in Japan (though how much seems unverifiable at this time). However, per WP:ENTERTAINER the only thing that would be there to assert notability would be the "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" which she may have as the article tries to assert, but as I said it doesn't seem like that can be verified with reliable third-party sources, and some coverage by a single TV station is not enough to assert notability on it's own.--十八 01:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think that all of this attention, including flying her out, and popularity of her online media/website/etc (millions) is evidence of a cult following. She's probably more well known to Japanese people than Americans, which is why so many people haven't heard of her, here. Can anyone look into more articles in Japanese and summarize them in English? One good source of media and links is this ED article (because of blacklisting I can't link directly: www.encyclopediadramatica.com / MRirian) --the website is satire in nature, but in this case, it provides helpful links, videos (including broadcast TV appearances and the internet TV appearances) and a list of factual information. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 05:09, 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 all 7. Fram (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Simpson (footballer)

Player(s) do(does) not meet WP:FOOTY/Notability GauchoDude (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because players do not meet WP:FOOTY/Notability:

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all plus recommend fellow Newport players Jacob Giles, ~~Craig Hughes~~, Lee John and Paul Cochlin for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIf it can be shown that Barry Town were fully professional in the 1990s there could be grounds for keeping Craig Hughes. None of the others seem to meet WP:FOOTY/Notability and should be deleted. King of the NorthEast 10:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. This BBC article suggests that they turned professional in 1995, and this one shows that they still were in 2003. I have denominated Hughes as a result. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paul Cochlin's article says he played for Carmarthen Town in the UEFA Cup. That would imply a first team appearance as well as Carmarthen Town being the top of the Welch Premier League. I will nominate the remaining two players. GauchoDude (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Carmarthen have never finished higher that 4th [3], and aren't fully pro (they only qualified for UEFA as runners-up in the Welsh Cup. Cochlin's article should be deleted. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have now added him. GauchoDude (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and number 57. John Hayes^talk 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Punkmorten (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with Orenthal James Simpson. Mandsford (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure no one is making that mistake. However, yes, this is not O.J. Simpson, lol. I'm pretty sure the decision was a resounding delete, not sure why this is up here again, but it's still a delete in my book since I proposed it in the first place. GauchoDude (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom BanRay 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Statistics on Football at the Summer Olympics

Contested prod. Even if it was cleaned up (introduction added, sources, etc.), the main premise of the article is that it is comparing results across a disparate set of Olympic football tournaments, using a point calculation scheme that was not used for many of those individual tournaments. Therefore, it violates WP:No original research. It also combines the results of non-equivalent nations (e.g. USSR and Russia, Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic, etc.), which directly contradicts the conventions for Olympic results. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps then recreate exclusively as a redirect to Football at the Summer Olympics. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and because of the confusion over non-equivalent nations. King of the North East 10:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The non-equivalent nations are now separated. (Maybe Germany/West Germany can also be splited.) The point calculation scheme looks good to me, because this is the only possibility to match all the stats from different years. (This scheme is sometimes also used for all games played in the FIFA World Cup finals.) This list is interesting because it shown how many games a nation played or how many goals they scored, and all the general stats are shown in one table. Such a list is unique and these stats can not be found within wikipedia, so maybe it is possible to improve it. (By the way the table only shows the years 1908-2004, the years 1900 and 1904 are not included.) Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Delete as WP:OR...though would be good to hear from the creator of the article as it was AFDed only a couple of hours after creation. Possibly salvagable if there are sources (preferably Olympic bodies) for such a compilation and the point calculation scheme and it was tidied to separate non-equivalent countries. Paulbrock (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not the creator, but maybe this is helpful [4] Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrwsc. Punkmorten (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note: While doing CSD patrol I noticed the original author had put a {{db_author}} tag and the article was then deleted. After being notified of the issue of this AfD which while working CSD I had failed to notice, I restored the article. Sorry for the mishap. Alexf⁴² 13:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Note this had been speedy deleted before.Black Kite 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habbo Retro

WP:NOT#OR. brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entire nomination is simply wikipedia jargon. Catchpole (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's that have to do with anything? It gives no evidence that they even exist, let alone proves notability. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly unnotable gamecruft from what I can tell. And yeah, using alphabet soup in nominations gets you that kind of reaction, so try not to. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ditto per Dhartung Beeblbrox (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next generation entrepreneurship

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

It is a blatant how-to advice article on how to inherit money and a company from a forebearer. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a quick look at the article and one will see this is blatant advertising. Victao lopes (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mkeranat (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a topic in business that no one has cover yet and possibly even overlook. It is not about making money or how-to article; it is compilation of factual articles from reliable sources. Please think again. This could be useful for someone else! Asyera (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)— Asyera (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This article does not promote any particular form of entrepreneurship, but is an informative source which provides the basics involved with next generation entrepreneurship. Information has been collected from various reliable sources and is topic that has not yet been touched upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ea0002 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC) — Ea0002 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This article has been written with no intention to promote entrepreneurship or give advice on inheriting a company. It has been supported with multiple strong and reliable references from other factual articles. It should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connolly86 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC) — Connolly86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This is clearly an educational article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.193.164 (talk) — 99.240.193.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEPCarmen00 (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.243.224 (talk) — 99.240.243.224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Reads like an advertisement and "how-to" guide. Somno (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with succession planning. "Next generation entrepreneurship" is a bit neologistic/buzzwordy, although I'm sure examples of using it exist. The formal term is, however, succession planning, and our existing article and this one both have some salvageable material; this one is marginally better and has decent sources and source variety. Combined, and with some judicious trimming, they could make a decent article we could be proud of. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; seems like a veiled advertisement for a consulting business. I see little of value to merge with succession planning here. Moreover, the title itself is too ambiguous and buzzwordish to support a redirect: if someone talks about "next generation entrepreneurship" it isn't immediately obvious that they're talking about death and retirement planning. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you honestly think it's spam then you should have some idea what company is being spammed, right? It would follow. I don't see that, though; could you clarify? --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Next generation" is an ad-style buzzword in itself; as such the phrase "next generation entrepreneurship" is vague, perhaps deliberately so. I think it's spam largely because I see this article as an attempt to publicize this particular phrase, and invest it with a meaning it does not carry on its face. That's why it strikes me as a marketing coinage: after all, getting business owners to contemplate the future in which they shall surely face old age, disability, or death is an uphill battle for anyone. Best to think up a "next generation" catchphrase to make contemplation of these inevitabilities more inviting. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to succession planning; if there is material worth merging, or citations here that would strengthen that, merge material appropriately; no evidence that this is a separate topic. - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Family Business makes up 2/3 of the businesses in Canada. It makes up a large part of the economy. There is no reason to exclude such a significant topic on a website such as Wikipedia. The collection of information regarding the continuation of family businesses should be made available in a separate entry as it deals with a more specific topic. In terms of the title of the article, "Next Generation" usually refers to "the following generation" and "Entrepreneurship", a business; however, if a general census shows it is still unclear, the title can simply be modified. Valid point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ea0002 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 16:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Stars (EP)

very non-notable record; "the Pork Dukes" "Pop Stars" gives only 77 hits in Google Rapido (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep incoherent nomination. Catchpole (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have expanded the abbreviation; but by the way "nn" means "non-notable" Rapido (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to be a notable EP given that it's by a notable artist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hi there, not sure how just because an artist is notable, that all their artwork can be considered notable by default. The Pork Dukes themselves seem only on the threshold of notability (personally I have been involved in the British music scene myself and had never heard of them before reading their entry, they seem more of a local band), and this particular record only gives 77 hits on Google. Rapido (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:A. Cloudz679 (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Relisted twice, no consensus. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Offs

No evidence of a charting single, radio play or anything else that would pass WP:MUSIC Travellingcari (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I will admit this band is largely unknown, they do pass point 10 on WP:MUSIC, for the inclusion on Not So Quiet on the Western Front, a notable compilation (an article which I plan to do more work on) and here, every review praises the band for being one of the frontrunners of ska-punk, a notable style. Ghostbear616 20:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Let Them Eat Jellybeans not Not So Quiet on the Western Front. Ghostbear616 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per what Ghostbear616 said. Still doesn't mean the article doesn't need a good tidy up though. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Russian aircraft losses in the Second Chechen War Nakon 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Urus-Martan Mi-8 crash

I doubt the article will grow. Its text is already included in the List of Russian aircraft losses in the Second Chechen War TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Russian aircraft losses in the Second Chechen War and also include the content in Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2004) per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urus-Martan ambush --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus reached, which defaults to keep. The article needs cleanup though, tagged as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin J. Badoian

This article has been previously speedily deleted. The editors (correctly in my opinion) recommenced creation in a sandbox prior to February 1 and then again moved it to the mainspace - but were cautioned by other administrators that the subject was unlikely to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. They placed an Under Construction tag to hold off deletion prospects. There are also major problems with the two images that are incorporated - being continually removed by Orphanbot (due to copyright problems) but then just being replaced by the editors. Having now waiting for several days for the article to meet guidelines - it still appears that this article is a form of student adoration relating to a good teacher but who probably does not meet notability guidelines. Comments and opinions from the wider community are sought. --VS ^talk 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that the co-director of ARML might be notable, but this article has serious problems and should not be kept in its present form. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge wtih American Regions Mathematics League. Most of his awards are regional/local or are among larger groups (e.g. 20+ each year for the Edyth May Sliffe Award[5]. Things like Tandy Scholar -- for which the top 2% of US high school students are eligible -- are not really claims to notability (no objection to it being in the article, though). Sounds like he's a great teacher but not quite at the WP:N level, sorry to say. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Note this read as Delete or Merge prior to an edit by Amelchenko Mstuczynski (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - My original wording restored. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. We have promised to work on it but after the first week of working on it we have both, the other editor and I, have been very busy. We will be able to work on it though starting on Monday.

Also the two pictures are: 1. Taken by a student of his that gave us permission to use it. 2. A photograph of a yearbook cropped.

When re uploading the images I was trying to put in the copyright information and believe that I have done it the latest time that I uploaded it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelchenko (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for a high school teacher, usually recognition at a national level is necessary. The Edyth May Sliffe Award goes to over 20 math teachers a year, and is borderline distinction. The "Presidential Award for Excellence "[6] goes to 108 teachers in the math or science per year, and is also only borderline the sort of national award that matters. The of Chief State School Officers goes to 1 teacher in any subject per state per year, and might be acceptable also--their national award [7] certainly would be. What I would certainly accept: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Lifetime Achievement Awards (2 per year maximum) [8] , or Editorship of the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education or President of the NCTM. or equivalents from other societies. (But some of these will be professors of education, not actual math teachers.) DGG (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't like confounder of ARML And other stuff.... truelly i don't fully know ALL his awards, he has other that werent listed...

Like serously you guys are mean. how is this artical hurting you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelchenko (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW... http://www.ccsso.org/Projects/national_teacher_of_the_year/state_teachers/1977/1386.cfm

he got that award from Council of Chief State School Officers... look at link above.

Comment It's not a question of being mean or the article hurting anyone. It is a question of notability, and other troubling points brought up by VS. Mstuczynski (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, Reluctant Delete, with my compliments to the creators' dedication. Mstuczynski (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly establishes the subject's notability. Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, I read "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The authors have cited multiple secondary sources, including the Boston Globe and its Web site Boston.com, the Mathematical Association of America, and the Council of Chief State School Officers. These meet the criteria as reliable, intellectually independent, and independent sources. Moreover, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria states that a person is generally notable who has "received significant recognized awards or honors." The article cites and sources several awards, including Massachusetts Teacher of the Year Award, Edyth May Sliffe Award, and Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (State & National Winner). The editors should not add photos that don't have licenses. But the article is separate from the editors and should be judged on its own merits. It shows that the subject meets more than one notability criterion and provides extensive, credible references. Fg2 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was having trouble with the copy write status but believe I now put it up. The first photo is a personal photo by a friend that let me use it and the second is a photo of mine that I took of a yearbook and then cropped it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelchenko (talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelchenko (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have the utmost respect for teachers like Mr. Badoian... in fact I'm sure a lot of people know and respect high school teachers that are very similar to him, that have multiple awards and are considered "important" in their communities... but that doesn't mean that he is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. The fact is, is that there really is only one Boston Globe article on him, the rest of the sources merely state his name as a recipient of an award or they are not strong enough sources. I'm sure he deserves recognition, but wikipedia is not the place for it... honestly this article reads more like a dedication than anything else. The fact is that he does not meet WP:BIO and therefore the article must be deleted.Rigby27 (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Didn't the other person just point out that he does fit?
- Considering the lack of substantial sources (that only mention his name and nothing else) and what Dhartung has stated about the level of significance of the awards that he has received, IMO he doesn't meet notability requirements. Yes he has received some awards and has been mentioned in some sources, but he is a high school teacher and not really encyclopedic. Rigby27 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note the Keep is an unsigned comment by Amelchenko Mstuczynski (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering he is a high school math teacher that got all those awards, a founder of ARML, GMBL, MML. And btw places like MIT know him personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelchenko (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The article also has some big POV issues, especially with the last paragraph, and if the article is kept or merged it would have to be either rewritten or edited accordingly. Rigby27 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The subject does not meet the basic criteria for being notable; most of the article is full of information that is not particularly notable and very strong POV. The subject's only claim to be notability is a laundry list of awards most of which are not strongly notable or widely recognized. The article reads like a resume rather than an article on a notable person. The subject has none of his own publications and is merely mentioned in passing in various newspapers. The fact that this person has been mentioned in a few news papers and academic websites by itself does not make him notable. Mentions in newspapers should be considered secondary criteria rather than basic criteria for determining notability. The only other claim of notability is relatively unknown regional awards with no nationally recognized individual awards (the awards he received on a national level are given to many people each year.) The article does not meet basic criteria, this article does not belong in an encyclopedia but perhaps academic websites where it is acceptable to post a resume.Rcurtis5 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the Wikipedia Boy Scouts that want this deleted deserve a page of their own. Like serously? He has done more than you. A founder of ARML should be enough to be notable, but he has all those other awards just o go along side with it. Do you also know that 99% of the people that graduate from his select math class now earn 6 digit salaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelchenko (talk • contribs) 00:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the initial proposer I have waited until now to consider the suitability of this article remaining in the mainspace. Having considered all of the information, and indeed having tried to assist in the article itself, I have now reached the view that it does not meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. In addition I make the comment - Not related to my deletion comment - that Amelchenko' broad brush general attacks on editors and their views during this process when others disagree with him are misplaced and should cease immediately.--VS ^talk 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a supporter of keeping the article, I agree that the behavior of editors in editing both the article and the Articles for Deletion page has been regrettable. It's difficult to continue supporting keeping the article when editors behave badly. However, like VirtualSteve, I separate my opinion on the article from my opinion on its editors, and support the article in spite of its author. Fg2 (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to think we all have tried to keep an open mind despite the creators' behavior. We all have access to wp:n, wp:bio, and wp:prof and simply choose to interpret these guidelines differently. At the end of the day we have to decide for ourselves what is notable and what is not. This is not a witch-hunt for two editors, this is a rational discussion about the suitability of an article for Wikipedia. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While most high school teachers wouldn't deserve pagespace, and even the few hundred teachers in the U.S. with over 50 years in the classroom wouldn't pass the notability bar, but I find it difficult to reconcile that every high school article seems to carry inherent notability, but by any measure one of the finest high school teachers in the country can't seem to buy notability with a properly cited article, partly because of the personal attachment one of his students, User:Amelchenko has brought to the process. BusterD (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete - just doesn't come up to the level of notability required. (If the article is not deleted, incidentally, it will have to be torn down and rebuilt from the stub up. The tone and style is not encylopedic; and a yearbook photo is not removed from copyright concerns by being photographed in turn.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Square Root of a 2x2 Matrix

Article explaining how to extract the square root of a 2x2 matrix. Half of the page is unparsed LaTeX code. In any case, this is most definitely not an encyclopedia article. Could perhaps be transwikied, say to WikiBooks, but I'm not sure they'd be interested to have the article in its current state of unreadability. Pichpich (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly a CSD A1, but that's questionable, so... Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find it, but I know a clause is that Wiki is not a how-to guide. Oh and what do you mean? You don't speak "\\\\"? Travellingcari (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like it's been copied from a maths textbook, but wikipedia is not an instructional manual in any case. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO; also, given that this is mostly code, I wouldn't object to an A1 for lack of context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See Square root of a matrix#Computing the matrix square root for a more encyclopedic (but also more general and vague) treatment of this subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I wondered if the LaTeX source could have been a copyvio, but it appears that the author just prepared the doc in LaTeX. The author also uploaded Image:Square Root of a Wiki.pdf‎, Image:Square root of a wiki.pdf, Image:Square Root of a Matrix.pdf and Image:Square root of a matrix.pdf. "Source: My brain" doesn't sound very encouraging (even if it's very much debated in case of mathematical proofs). I don't have time to check these out but they sound like they're related to this article. Looks like a little bit of a mess here... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I checked the pdf mentioned by wwwwolf, and it is about the same. Almost certainly not copyright violation (poor grammar, unfocused writing, etc. so probably not published). The topic could be notable enough for a section of an article, but basically the current content (after adding the math tags) is a very long solution to a homework exercise. I don't think numerically stability is addressed. JackSchmidt (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think AfD was the right choice, not speedy. The user is vaguely new (though this is not his first article by any means), and bit off more than he was prepared for, but that is no reason to WP:BITE back. He clearly put a lot of effort into bring the tex document into wikipedia format. However, I think the WP:OR and WP:NOT#HOWTO comments apply fairly clearly to this personally-authored-essay-turned-wikipedia-article, as well as its image counterparts. Should the images be nominated too? Can they simply be prod'd? JackSchmidt (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and poor quality. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Incoherent. Cloudz679 (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Fram (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care Failure

delete - nn soloist. fails wp:music & wp:band. her band may warrant a page, not her. Endless Dan 21:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage outside of the band, which already has an article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her band Die Mannequin, as her name is a plausible search term. Bláthnaid 13:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Man (Undead song)

Delete no indication that this is notable, no charting, no sourcing, nothing to show notability Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per WP:MUSIC#Albums_and_songs, nothing about this song merit's it's own article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible hoax. Gman124 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly exists [9]. However not enough to pass WP:MUSIC for songs, as it stands. Black Kite 00:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informal communication

I'm not entirely sure it's a straight dicdef, but it's more a dicdef than it can ever be an encyclopedic article because the concept of informal communication has so many uses. Travellingcari (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The concept is too vague to make an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to me to be crypto-spam of some sort, since the article seems to refer to vague titles like "Project Communications Management", of the sort I find tell-tale signs of spam and bad writing. Doesn't seem to even attempt to exhaust the subject, which would involve such things as linguistic registers and the like. There might be an article that could be written about this subject; this is not it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assemblies of God (disambiguation)

This article is poor and the information is already in the Article for the WAGF. There is no need to keep this page. Gabriello talk 21:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid and appropriate disambiguation page. It would be inappropriate to simply list them on the page for the organization to which they do not belong. --Dhartung | Talk 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The disambiguation page isn't optimally formatted in my mind, but it is completely correct to have one. GRBerry 23:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only should it be kept (and perhaps expanded) for the reasons mentioned above--that it would be improper to make one have to go through a page about an unaffiliated organization to find the proper article, but also the mere existence of the disambiguation page makes this clear--there are several different Assemblies of God organizations, each unaffiliated. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple unaffiliated organizations with a similar name create a valid need to disambiguate. --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An appropriate and helpful DAB page, I see no policy violation in this case.--Avinesh Jose T 05:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment maybe we should get disam pages into MfD instead of here. the criteria are really straightforward. DGG (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Huh? Surely a no-brainer. Dab page for valid and undisputed articles. Some weird stuff showing up in Vfd these days. c.f. [10]. Must be the weather. Jellogirl (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. (non admin closure)Pichpich (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical regions of Greece

Unclear what this was intended to be. What makes a region of Greece historical? The list is not placed into any sort of context and it's orphaned so we can't try and guess what the idea was. Pichpich (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't really have any context, just a list of a bunch of regions in Greece, and it doesn't say what makes these regions special. Hatmatbbat10 Talk to me 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it needs sourcing, historical is used here apparently for "formerly used" or "defunct"; it can be sourced, jut not pretty the way it is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add sources. Historical has an obvious meaning as pointed out. The list should be pruned of regions that continue to exist as political entities to make the distinction clearer, or should be organized in some chronological fashion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's as obvious as Carlos or Dhartung claim. I am not aware that "region" was ever an administrative subdivision existing in Greece and the term "historical region" could just as well be "region with a specific importance with respect to Greek history" or something of the sort. Note that there is a list of defunct provinces of Greece in this article. As I said, if we're speculating on what the article means, we just can't keep it. Pichpich (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My vote was not predicated on the assumption that each of these was once a formal political entity. The word "region" is typically vaguer than that. I can see how there is considerable overlap with the other article, but I'd like to be satisfied we aren't throwing away a useful list with a broader scope. --Dhartung | Talk 05:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can agree to that. My point is just that if we can't make anything other than an educated guess about its meaning, then there's no reason keeping the list. Pichpich (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone wants to do this right. it needs sources, and a map, or it's meaningless. As it is, it's a combination of regions of different types--with no indication of where to go for further information, as most of the names are not in WP, not even in List of Greek place names, and the few that are here, are not linked. As it is, it's virtually useless. DGG (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Provinces of Greece because that article de facto already includes a list of historical regions of Greece. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Andrzej suggests. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOR, a core policy, as per Mandsford. Sandstein (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of German Social-Democratic party

Essay more than article. Copy of this page although it would seem that the author is the owner of the website. Pichpich (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the copyright has been copylefted to us, then I think it's actually salvageable. But we already have a pretty good history at Social_Democratic Party of Germany#History. Maybe verify copyleft and merge that into this? --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay, apparently published somewhere else before now, and the subject is covered in Social Democratic Party of Germany. If it's not plagiarized, then the author is quoting out of a larger work. Any useful content (assuming there is any) can be merged into the SPD article. The essay closes with "August Bebel is a boring writer...Finally, Rosa Luxembourg, just like Bebel, is boring." Not compared to this. Mandsford (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful, factual and notable. Will change vote to delete if it's shown to be a copyvio, but apparently published somewhere else doesn't cut it without a reference IMHO. Jellogirl (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, "without a reference" may be the real problem. The author, Fractal-vortex doesn't appear to publish in books. You can enjoy more of his work by going to his webpage, which is linked from his user page User:Fractal-vortex. He states that "On this site I develop my theoretical views on revolution. I am mostly interested in social-political revolutions, but also study revolution in the sphere of productive forces and sexual revolution. Currently, I study the history and present day of the International Communist movement." I think it's safe to say that this is one of his essays. He's apparently very intelligent and well-educated, but even brilliant original synthesis is still original synthesis. Mandsford (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fareed N. Fareed

Nice resume, but there are lots of doctors out in the world with similar experience. The main claim to notability seems to be Global ACLS which seems to be a pet project rather than an established organization. —Noah 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons given above. There are many young doctors with very similar experience; he received his medical degree in 2001 and only started his project in 2007. Maybe in time his accomplishments will become more apparent. Mattisse 23:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a vanity page. A. Salih (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable,. Asst. Professor at Columbia, no publications in PubMed. DGG (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assistant professor, no research impact, founder of a not-yet-notable organization, no hits in Google news archive. I don't see anything here that would pass WP:PROF or WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rachel Mason Hears the Sound"

Article is about a children's book and no notability is asserted. Prod declined because author said he was working on it, but that was four days ago and the new user hasn't made any edis since. Zero pages link there. No references other than given book. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've done a search on this book and it seems very non-notable, the only references I can find to the book are just places selling it. -- Atama ^chat 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This book fails WP:BK Bláthnaid 13:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable book, fails WP:BK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Education (album)

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as an unreleased album it hasn't received any significant coverage and thus doesn't need a page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the above statement. I created it back when it was confirmed to be released, now it's probably not going to be released anymore, as she parted ways with her label. -- Luigi-ish (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is unreleased and doesn't have substantial coverage. Hatmatbbat10 Talk to me 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of the North Pole

Entirely composed of original research. There are no references here, and that's not surprising, because colonisation of the North Pole is a crazy idea; I don't think anyone has ever seriously proposed it, so this is not a sensible topic for an article. Terraxos (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research per nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Article is a personal essay. Practical issues aside, there is absolutely nothing to satisfy WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls under WP:Hoax. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay. I imagine that seasonal North Pole bases have been proposed before the current annual severe loss of ice, but this is about a fanciful SF concept of a permanent colony, which hasn't been feasible in human memory. Hoax is probably too strong a word; it's closer to WP:NFT. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because it falls under "hoax"-- it's just someone speculating about all the problems one would have of building permanent settlements on an icecap. As Terraxos says, it's all original research-- although I suspect there may be some unoriginal research as well, since this reads like something that's been published elsewhere. Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George A. Romero's Living Dead series characters

This is some 78 kilobytes of pure plot. We already have articles fully describing these films and their significance, but this article does not add to them in any way. It is simply a catalog of events that happen to characters in the films. Delete per WP:PLOT. Tony Sidaway 20:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the characters appear in more than one film, so anything relevant should be covered in the film articles. No refs provided that might suggest further notability for any of these characters. This much plot summary is just obscene. PC78 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and conduct a cruftrectomy. I can't overstate the influence these films have had within the horror genre and upon video games and other media. The films (and thus characters) have been analyzed not only in dedicated books but in horror books in general. For instance discusses how the nuclear family, the loving couple and even a child, previously sacrosanct, are killed. It shows some of the historical significance of these characters. That's not a book about these films or even horror films, but it gives that much coverage. this book discusses the usage of black actors to portray heroes and describes how this was used in the films. There are several books detailing that particular subject. Here's another (massive) potential source, another example of some tidbits that could be used to treat the characters from NOTLD in an encyclopedic fashion, there are several others. In this case I think the article has good potential and is much preferable to split character articles, but less space needs to be given to also-ran characters (like the different zombies from Dawn) and it needs real-world info adding and citing. Someoneanother 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry peeps, went into head for the sources mode without checking the surrounding articles. I see the point about the article as it stands being of no use, but that's something that can be sorted out by editing - providing there's a clear path for improvement and a purpose for doing so. In this case, the bulk of the important details would be about Night, already an excellent featured article which has these details already. Expansion of them would have to come from careful research and analysis in order to avoid duplication, ditto a seperate character article. With that avenue closed we're left with three other films of decreasing significance which could be dealt with in their own articles. Dawn is a significant film in many respects, but less so in terms of characters, Day much less so. Land is of no real importance outside of being a Romero zombie flick, the characters are of no more import than in thousands of other films. Bearing that in mind, there doesn't seem to be a need for this article. Someone another 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Someoneanother's advice, for the reasons he gave, and congratulations on a good neologism. DGG (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Someone another on the films' influence. This is explained in the articles George A. Romero, Night of the Living Dead, # Dawn of the Dead (1978 film), Day of the Dead (film), and Land of the Dead, and Romero's seminal influence is further explained in articles about his earlier films such as The Crazies. I propose that we keep those articles (their value is not in doubt and they were never part of this deletion nomination). I propose only that we delete the 78 kilobyte text dump in the page George A. Romero's Living Dead series characters, which does nothing useful. I've looked at that page and satisfied myself (and I hope you will also look at the page long enough to satisfy yourself), that the page is nothing except a very large copyright infringing heap of derived work from Romero's scripts. At the same time I think the sources User:Someone another cites might be useful in augmenting existing articles and creating new ones. But if you conduct a cruftectomy on this article you'll end up deleting the entire content. Not everything that some third party appends George A. Romero's name to is worthy of the man's name. --Tony Sidaway 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Someoneanother. Given the topic we can likely for most or all of these characters find real world analysis about the characters in question and their influence on other movie character depictions. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - correction - Huh? Someoneanother has decided to support deletion, not retention. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What Someone another is suggesting is, in effect, an entirely new article. If you cut out all the cruft from this article, there will be nothing left, so while I don't disagree with this argument, I also don't see it as an obstacle for deletion. PC78 (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists, and because it has notability to a real-world audience and is consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Tony and Someoneanother; pointless and duplicate datadump. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD

This article is not about scientists but instead purports to be about a book. It is a little known book, originally published in 1999 by a small British publishing house [11] and now out of print in the UK at least, [12] though possibly still in print in India. The article offers no commentary whatever from third party sources: hardly surprising, as a Google search brings up a mere 32 unique hits [13]; and they are only Wikipedia mirrors, automated listings at a few online bookshops and a couple of passing references from people who are happy about their own inclusion. The article can never conform to WP:BK, because (i) it contains nothing which is not apparently sourced from the book itself, and (ii) as a minor work published nine years ago (and out of print in most of the world) it is most unlikely ever to attract further independent commentary or reviews.

An AfD eighteen months ago closed as no consensus. Three main arguments were made for keeping the article; all are erroneous or else no longer relevant.

The first argument for keeping the article was that it served as a useful list of scientists, many of whom were still in need of articles. But since then, the vast majority of the redlinks have turned blue. And the article was always a poor to-do list, for reasons I'll come on to.

Another argument made for keeping was based on the incorrect belief, which had found its way into the article, that the list was the result of an important, authoritative survey of many academics, rather than the view of a single author, and was important because of this. However, the book itself (of which I have acquired a copy) makes no such claim. It makes it clear that this is a personal selection; commenting "While relying heavily on [three scholarly biographical dictionaries], the author has has attempted to extract the top 1000 names in science that should be known to everyone with a serious interest in the role of science in society" (Preface, page vii, emphasis mine). While it does add that "In this task, the author was assisted enormously by a survey he conducted in eighty university departments around the world" (emphasis mine again), this is all it says about the survey. There is no information at all on who was surveyed, what the response rate was, how many votes each scientist received, or even how much weight the author attached to the results in making his selection. This is in spite of suggestions to the contrary on the talk page. I will provide scans of the relevant pages on request by Email to confirm the book's actual contents.

I will add that, as others have pointed out on the talk page, the book's selection is quite bizarre. To list just a few of the missing names, there is no mention of Carl Friedrich Gauss, Christiaan Huygens, Leonardo da Vinci or Werner Heisenberg. Perhaps most astonishingly, on pages 88 and 89 the (alphabetical) entries jump straight from Paul Ehrlich to Willem Einthoven, without pausing to mention the German fellow with the funny hair and the famous equation. It's inconceivable that any well conducted survey could have missed so many greats from the history of science; a more likely explanation is that the book was completed in a hurry to cash in on the millennium (release date: December 1999). The haphazard selection further reduces the book's value as a to-do list.

Finally, it was suggested that the list of scientists was endorsed by the President of the British Society for History of Science, and gained notability from this fact. While it is true that there is a short introduction written by Ludmilla Jordanova, it is just a bland essay about scientific biographies. It makes no specific mention of Barker or this book, certainly does not endorse the selection, and seems likely to have been commissioned by the publisher before the content was available. It is unlikely that Barker collaborated closely with Jordanova, because he thanks her "for his (sic) helpful comments", apparently having failed to notice that she is a woman.

The list of scientists (essentially a contents page for the book) is therefore inherently unencyclopaedic; by including this list we give massively undue weight to a single non-notable person's view of who the most important scientists throughout history have been; and this POV cannot be fixed since names cannot be added or removed without traducing the book. The remainder of the article can never be much more than publisher's blurb and should be deleted.

In short the book fails Wikipedia's inclusion criteria on many levels; WP:N, WP:BK, WP:V and WP:NPOV to name just four. As an article about a book it is irredeemable due to the book's lack of notability, as a list of scientists it is something we have no need of. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete Wow, I don't think you really needed to write a book of your own, but your point got across. This book definitely does not have any individual notability, outside references, or a need to clutter our site. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have plenty better lists of scientists that our readers would benefit from examining. As a book article, it fails the threshold by quite a margin. As a list of important scientists, it is only notable in its incompetence. Sorry to those who have spent time fixing wikilinks or dates of birth and death, but I believe your time will be better spent elsewhere. Colin°^Talk 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if for no other reason than that it was extremely useful in creating cross-links between various forms of the names of these scientists. In addition, it serves the very same purposes as most other lists on Wikipedia. Actually, I thought this was long-gone ancient history. Was it deleted and re-created again? In fact, it must have been. It looks like I created the article; mine is listed after the first entry. But in fact, that was one of my last edits there; I only edited it one other day since then, but I probably had a hundred edits before the first one listed in the history. It was originally put here by someone else, not by me. If I did re-create it, it was inadvertent. Prehaps I was editing it at the time someone else deleted it, and my edit then started it all over again; that's the only thing I can think of. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is going to benefit from the "cross-links between various forms of the names of these scientists"? If some science wikiproject want to keep the list as a tool for naming/linking, then it can go into project space. We write articles in WP namespace for the benefit of our readers, not the editors. I'm sorry you've spent time on this but I rather think we were mislead on the importance or worth of this list and book. Now that a copy has been found, its shortcomings as anything useful to WP are apparent. To have editors waste more time on this would be a crime. BTW: the article was deleted due to copyright concerns and the history incompletely restored when those concerns were addressed. Colin°^Talk 21:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must have been your copyvio deletion and the subsequent restoration that lost all the prior history and mistakenly made it look like I created the article. See the logs for the page, and User talk:Gene Nygaard/2005Jul-2006Jan#Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP-address you mentioned there on my talk page was probably the original creator, though I don't see anything about it on User talk:202.138.112.252 before your copyvio notice. It had been discussed somewhere, most likely on the article's talk page, in more stuff that has vanished into the ether.

Curiously, if you go to the history of the talk page for the article, it shows 17 talk page entries which predate my supposed creation of the article on 31 December 2005. What is going on here, anyway? Can you figure it out? Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, even that first entry on the talk page is a pretty clear indication that the article had been in existence for some time before then (and it is likely before then that most of the editing I did too place). THat first talk page entry says:

This page was made into a redirect to List of scientists but I reverted it because this article references one particular book and so the content of the redirect and the content of the article would not be the same. Qaz (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The log shows that the article was deleted by User:Quadell on 20 Feb 2006 as a copyvio, then restored two days later by User:David.Monniaux when the author apparently released the list under the GFDL. However, for some reason David only restored the most recent revision (yours) rather than all the revisions, making it look like you created the page. Admins do have the option of selectively restoring revisions; it allows them to remove libel and whatnot from page histories without the need for oversight. Why David did it in this case I don't know - it might have been to do with the permission, or it might have been a simple mistake. You'd have to ask him.

On the main point though I agree with Colin; with the article's many inadequacies which I've outlined, I don't see that "useful cross-links" is a good enough reason to overcome WP:V, WP:N, WP:BK and WP:UNDUE. I'm sorry that the good work you put into cleaning up this page was in vain, but there really is nothing here to merit an article. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very simply as a non-notable book. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator, the book's not notable. I see the argument for keeping as a reference list of top-scientists, but no Gauss?! Heisenberg?! Einstein?!? It's a bit too controversial to be useful, bearing in mind that it's ultimately just one man's informed opinion. The Zig (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There are still some redlinks. I'm not seeing a good list to merge these into and don't think the list should be deleted until we've got them all. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick flick through some of the redlinks suggests that many or most are already redlinked from other lists; for example Thomas Lewis (cardiologist) is redlinked from these articles, Saul Winstein is redlinked from here; others only seem to be redlinks only because they point to uncommon variants of the person's name which nobody's bothered to redirect yet; for example I've just redirected Gerald Mayer Rubin to Gerald M. Rubin. Others might just not be very notable - after all, the author's selection is idiosyncratic at best, and a hundred word biographical sketch in an obscure book does not in itself confer notability, however grand the book's title. However, if anyone thinks the redlinks retain value as a to do list, it would be better to keep them on a Wikiproject's subpage than in article space, as the list has no inherent value as an article. In fact, the redlinks are already preserved at User:Lambiam/RedlinkedScientists, so the information would not be lost by removing this from article space. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty sure it started out with over 900 redlinks. A good number of them were just red because appropriate redirects hadn't been made; Wikipedia already had the articles, but the names were originally just blindly linked as they appeared in the book. OTOH, there were also blue links to inappropriate articles. But even with that, much fewer than half of them on the list had articles (whether they had been found or not) when this article started. This article ws one impetus for athe initial creation of a good number of articles, and for cleaning up a lot of the existing ones. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The multiple reasons for deletion have been amply explained. I note that Gene Nygaard says the article was extremely useful in creating cross-links between various forms of the names of these scientists. Pardon the personal note, but my room is full of things that at one time or other were extremely useful; plenty of them are now worn out, boring, mouldy or otherwise of no more than curiosity value, and the entire room is an unsightly mess. I'm surprised to hear that this article was useful, but if it was then let's be grateful for this as we put it out of its misery. ¶ Immediately above, the Colonel points out that there are still some redlinks, and is not seeing a good list to merge these into. A few seconds ago (and before reading Iain99's comment) I plonked a list of all these redlinks on the talk page of this AfD, so they'll survive the richly deserved deletion of this sixty-two kilobyte "article"; anyone is free thereafter to do anything with them. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and my own arguments on the article's talk page. One bias-revealing stat I once worked out is the mean number of wikipedia articles in different languages, a decent indicator of someone's international fame, for different groups of scientists on the list. In November, for British scientists this was 3.5, for the rest of the world this was 13... There is no need for a list like this to artificially boost the UK's superiority complex with respect to science, though it is fun to compare the greater merits of listed people like Herbert Brereton Baker and the delightfully named Sir Gordon Brims Black McIvor Sutherland with notable absentees like Avicenna and Heinrich Hertz. Afasmit (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To claim your original research here as evidence of bias is more just evidence of your own bias than anything else. Have you actually looked at the scope of most of the Wikipedias? Over 70% of them don't even have 1,000 articles. That "3.5" is about the total number who make any kind of a stab a comprehensiveness, isn't it?
- Or are you just complaining because Chemical Ali didn't make the list, when he has links to articles in 19 other Wikipedias? Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene, don't get upset about this. I've probably put at least as much time in cleaning up this list as you. I'll just save a copy for myself now. Other much, much larger projects have been deleted in the past, like the index of people by last name.

It's sad how "original research" has become a dirty word; the wikipedia rule likely should not be interpreted as "don't check on your facts before writing." If I were to make a wikipedia article entitled "Bias in Philip Barker's Top 1000 Scientists list" you'd have a good point.

Your claim that "since the other language wikipedias are not comprehensive, the numbers have no meaning" doesn't make sense; in fact, if each were indeed comprehensive all listed 1037 scientists would occur in all languages. As it is now (and always will be), all wikipedias contain samples of articles someone somewhere thought was noteworthy enough to include, and this sampling did the statistics for me. Undoubtedly, there is a bias there too (some systematic, like mathematicians around the world seem to have really jumped on wikipedia, countries with multiple languages like Switzerland have a small head start, British historical figures have a wider exposure through the dominance of English-language text books, because of the size of the English wikipedia, lesser known foreign scientists get the English entry "for free", etc.), but it's not my bias and it will never explain why half the British listees had 3 or fewer wikipedia entries, and half of the international had 13 or more. Afasmit (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, I'm just saying your methodology if flawed. For one thing, having articles in many Wikipedias is anot a reliable indicator that someone is a "top scientist", which is why I mentioned Chemical Ali. Then there is the question of the significance of numbers like "3.5" and "13" when they range from zero to 90, and when they are not by any mans independent, with articles from one often being translated into another; and the more closely related the languages are, the more likely this is to happen. Like from one Norwegian Wikipedia to the other Norwegian Wikipedia. And the wide discrepancies in the numbers of speakers of each of the various languages. The very limited pool of active editors on some wikipedias will skew the results greatly. The methods you use to determine nationality can skew the results too.

And nowhere is the methodology more flawed than in your talking about a "mean" above, and then talking as if it were a median in your last sentence. We don't even know what you were trying to measure, let alone how accurate the implementation of that determination was. Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC) originally posted not logged in, 69.57.91.185 06:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad. I meant to type median of course. Darn the nitwits that came up with those easily mixed up names. You could have just said "by the way, you meant to say 'median' " of course.

With respect to Chemical Ali, and I trust you're not implying that most foreign scientists are terrorists, I'm only comparing people on the list, all presumably there because they were noteworthy for their scientific work and not their notoriety.

It seems you think the English language is some four-fold disadvantageous for scientists to be included in foreign language wikipedias. I suspect it is rather advantage instead (e.g. the texbook issue I mentioned above, most foreigners will look in the English wikipedia to translate biographies from, as this tends to be the second language people know, etc.). Also, for scientists from the US, Australia, South Africa, Canada, etc. the median number of foreign wikipedia articles was 11, not that much different from the 14 for non-English speaking countries. I think Barker just had access to a British biographical dictionary. You seem very interested in this. I can send you the excel file if you like. Afasmit (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the content draws from one book expressing one man's opinion, it is a cite to a published source, and it's superior to an original research list of a thousand scientists. It's also the basis for adding other information. Though the author packaged it in a form that would make it more marketable, this isn't a countdown (although Casey Kasem could have sent out a dedication right before introducing #181, Sir Isaac Newton). It's a published list of persons, not all of them well-known, who made notable contributions to science. If someone else has published a similar list of 1,000 persons, merge the articles. It appears that 38 of these names are red-links, which means either that the entry has been misspelled or that there's not an article about that person. If Wikipedia has articles about the other 962, then that's pretty good. Perhaps it's not as popular an encylopedia topic as, say, List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, season three but there's room for all the disciplines in Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also the basis for adding other information. Could you elaborate? ¶ If someone else has published a similar list of 1,000 persons, merge the articles. It's highly unlikely that any such book (or web list or whatever) would have precisely the same title. Let's suppose that its title were slightly different but its purpose indisputably identical. We can also assume, I think, that this second person's top thousand would not be the same as the "thousand" (1037) here. Indeed, the union of the two sets would almost certainly exceed 1037. How might one title the resulting article? I can't think of anything neater than "Union of lists of top thousand scientists", but to me that sounds a distinctly strange article. (Actually the very notion of there being a "top [insert number here] scientists" sounds odd to me, but that's another matter.) ¶ It appears that 38 of these names are red-links, which means either that the entry has been misspelled or that there's not an article about that person. If you're looking at my derivative on this AfD's talk page, I didn't count them, and I can't guarantee that I didn't sleepily overlook something. (Simple to check: before the article is deleted, get its HTML source -- I don't mean the editable preprocessor source -- and grep this for the string "action=edit".) But however accurate or inaccurate the list, as it's on this AfD's talk page it will outlive the article and can be used in any way you wish. Indeed, any interested user or project could put it into a "to do" list elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a cite to a published source, it is an article about a published source, and there are different criteria as a result. If someone wants to use this crappy list to prop up the notability of another article as a reference, well, I don't think they'll need to for any of these scientists, but they can give it a go. That doesn't mean that the published source deserves its own article, though. There are no cites for this book to any other published sources at all. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note: we are discussing the deletion of a book article, not a WP list that happens to cite a book. The creation of such a WP list would either be POV or necessarily involve sythnesis of sources, and fail on that account. Colin°^Talk 08:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No one is debating that the people ON the list are notable or not; what is in question is whether the list and book THEMSELVES are notable. Therefore, we need third-party reliable sources discussing the list or the book and assigning notability to this specific list of 1000 scientists. Was this list debated in any scientific journals? Was it reviewed by the New York Times? Did anyone even notice that the book was published? You would think that if the book itself was notable, the exclusion of key scientists like Einstein would have been the subject of uproar, controversy, or at least simple observation by third-party media. The fact that it was not implies that this work is merely another insignificant book written by one man who happened to be lucky enough to con a publisher into printing it for him. The "useful" redlinks have already been preserved, leaving no reason for this regurgitation of a non-notable book's table of contents to remain in Wikipedia. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I decided to do a little research into what sort of company WOULD be conned into publishing this. It turns out that "The Book Guild Ltd." offers "partnership publishing"[14] which is a fancy word for vanity press. A Google serch revealed at least one writer's website that indicated that The Book Guild sometimes asked for "contributions" from prospective authors looking to have their book published. So it's likely that this author didn't even have the editorial oversight of a single editor, he simply ponied up some money and put his opinions into print. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before, ZERO external sources. This book fails the fundamental criterion of notability - that external sources of information exist. Even if it passes that criterion, there's no reason in the world for us to have an article that is merely some random person's list of scientists. --B (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless and until an independent review of the book, published in a notable journal or similar, is cited. dab (𒁳) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Said keep last time, but that was a year and a half ago and there has been no improvement whatsoever since then. Batmanand | Talk 09:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not sure where the worry about a vanity publisher emerges.The book has been published by Orient Lingman ,one of teh biggest and most respected publishing houses in Asia[15] The publication house has publishes many bestsellers including Wings of Fire by Abdul Kalam.And thsi is not a random list-it has been authored by a noted UK archaelogist.

And I do not know why the refernce to omision of Einstein is made-he is very much there!I know the earlier edition was recalled in the UK but the current edition does have all that.[16] and has a forward by a top UK historian of science[17]. Should that not be a reason enough? (Delhite (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Book Guild obviously dropped the book when the realised what a turd it was. Universities Press (India) Pvt. Ltd (an associate of Orient Longman) were somehow persuaded to publish a paperback, which may well have had Einstein inserted as its such an obvious gaff. Philip Barker (the archaeologist) is most definitely not the author of this book. See his obituary from 2001. The forward (available from Iain by email) is damning in its lack of praise for the book. I would think that Jordanova is rather embarrassed by it. Publication alone is not enough to get an article on WP. There are millions of non-notable books published by excellent publishers. Colin°^Talk 12:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein is absolutely not in the original edition, which I have sitting in front of me. If you doubt this, Email me and I'll send you a scan of the page he should be on. The Indian publisher might well have corrected this gaffe, after all, it's a glaring omission, even to a layman; but if the list was changed between editions this is yet more proof that it's an arbitrary, mutable selection and not the result of a comprehensive survey, which could hardly be changed after the fact.

The book was not authored by Philip Barker, the archaeologist. I found a single university press release which suggests it was [18], but I assume this is a simple mistake on behalf of the university's press officer. The minimal biography on the dust jacket describes the author as a scholar who lectures in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka and received a PhD in 1994. If he were a world renowned archaeologist, the biography would have found room to mention this. Furthermore, according to the OTRS ticket on the talk page, the author was apparently on hand in 2006 to release the list under the GFDL. Barker the archaeologist died in 2001. Ans as Colin's obituary shows, he was in a nursing home by 1999, and in no state to write a book.

As I wrote in the nomination, Jordanova's forward is a short (a page and a half), bland essay on the general topic of scientific biographies, which says nothing about the book itself. Notability is not contagious, and merely being loosely associated with a notable scholar does not make the book itself notable. If it were a genuinely important book, there would be a wealth of independent reviews commenting on it, praising or criticising its selection and contents, which would allow the article to grow beyond a simple text dump of its contents page. There aren't; it's never even had a customer review on Amazon. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable book. No reliable sourcing. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article about a non-notable book by a non-notable author gives vastly undue weight to the opinions of that author. The title of the article gives the impression that this is Wikipedia's list of the 1000 greatest, rather than an article about one random guy's favorite 1000. The book author did not include the fathers of scientific psychology, Wilhelm Wundt, Gustav Fechner and William James, along with the proponent of operant conditioning B.F. Skinner. He left out physicist Gustav Kirchhoff who pioneered the concept of black body radiation as well as his current and voltage laws which allow analysis of electric circuits. He left out Joseph Henry who was the co-discoverer of electrical induction. He left out Heinrich Hertz who proved the existence of electromagnetic waves. He included many lesser lights. He included industrialist/inventors George Westinghouse , Thomas Edison , and Joseph Swan , whose actual scientific contributions were minor. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable book, -- worldCat shows only 55 libraries, which is very low for a book intended as a popular-level reference book. The uselessness of the list for WP purposes seems to have been dealt with above. Would anyone be interested in a List of Scientists included in Dictionary of Scientific biography, however? It's several thousand, but I could do it gradually. it would be a good check list for WP bios. .DGG (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many comments above. It is not notable and has done its job as a list of redlinks. --Bduke (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oy vey! WP does not need this article on a not notable and deeply flawed "book". Pinkville (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rant OK, I spent a bit of time last night doing my own bit to kill off the redlinks, and I'm left wondering if I'm going slightly mad. While writing articles for James Walker (chemist) and Thomas Edward Thorpe, I noticed that Adolf von Baeyer, Rainer Ludwig Claisen and best of all, August Kekulé are missing from Barker's book. Now, smashing chaps as I'm sure Walker and Thorpe were, I confess that I'd never heard of them until last night, and having read their ODNB entries (and Barker's book, for that matter) I'm still in the dark as to what they did which makes them anywhere near as important, let alone more important, than those three German gentlemen, so can anyone, anywhere enlighten me? As for Thomas Melvill, he seems to be so obscure that I was a bit worried that an overzealous new page patroller would slap a CSD tag on the article, and had to think carefully about how to assert notability. His ODNB entry is three paragraphs long, and even Barker's book says he "had no impact on the scientific community" and ascribes his "lack of influence" to his early death. Even to a Brit like me with a superiority complex about science ;-), this is ridiculous. I now find it hard to believe that Barker did much more than paraphrase entries at random from an anglocentric biographical dictionary. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 08:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I think it is important not be to swayed by knee-jerk reactions.I am alluding in particular to Iain's comments:

1.Archaelogist Barker did not author the book.University of Rochester science portal suggests otherwise. [19]

2.Jordanova is "embarassed" by her forward;is there any evidence to back it up apart from one'sown hunch!If so,I shouldlike to see that.

3.I amas an Indian and a Tamil tempeted totakie very strong exception to teh suggestion that Orient Longman,one of teh top and most respected publishing houses in Asia published t---d once it was rejected!The use of that word I am not sure conforms to the standards required by the Wiki.And is there any evidence.Orient Longman has long been teh premier publishing house in this region.[20] I am not sure many readers and users of Wiki owuld find the comment in good taste.

3.The book was originally published by Book Guild!I have been though the book in the refrence section of Chennai Mathematical Society-going through it I notice tha this volume is a reprint and it syas that teh book was originally published by Orient Longman,later as a hardback by Book Guild which was recalled because of errors almost immediately.

4.Einstein is very much there in the original volume [21]

Please note that his photo appears on the cover page!Clearly Iain has the recalledvolume in his hand!

To his credit he did leave a note on my talk page when he nominated this article for deletion.But I am afraid I cannot go along with unsubstantiated hunches.

(Venkat Radhakrishnan (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You raise various points. ¶ You say 1.Archaelogist Barker did not author the book.University of Rochester science portal suggests otherwise. [22] Iain99 has already pointed this out (see above). He followed this with various observations, among them that it seems that the author of this book contacted Wikipedia five years after the archaeologist had died. This raises various possibilities: (i) the archaeologist didn't die, (ii) the archaeologist's ghost contacted Wikipedia, (iii) the non-archaeologist author contacted Wikipedia, (iv) an impostor contacted Wikipedia. Let's take these one by one. (1) would imply an elaborate fraud behind such materials as this. (ii) is the kind of explanation that I for one generally tend to avoid; (iii) seems least problematic to me; (iv) would imply that the list within the article should be deleted as a copyright violation. Have I overlooked something here? ¶ You seem to appeal to this URL for the authority to claim both that (i) Orient Longman has long been teh premier publishing house in this region and that (ii) Einstein is very much there in the original volume. It's an article from The Hindu, titled Orient Longman, Trinity College tie-up on English language exam. How does it back up either claim? -- Hoary (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Being an author myself who has published several books,I can say that anyone with any knowledge of book publication woudl vouch for the very high standards espoused by Orient Longman as its published volumes woudl testify.Having grown up in Goa,I know I read sevral volumes published by them.

But I shall concentrate on two points:

a.firstly,if a book has been recalled for any reason,and then republished ,the judgement shoudl be based on the latest version and not the recalled version.I know how I had to force one of my publishers to recall a book of mine.I think we are judging the book on the basis of statements from a volume that has been recalled.I can see the photograph of Einstein in the Orient Longman volume cover.

b.I looked through the Royal Society Library Archives: [23] Somehow I do not believe the Royal Society would keep "turd' in its reference section.

Regards.Dinesh (Dineshdsouza (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)) — Dineshdsouza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

libraries keep a remarkable number of things in the reference section, including all obtainable biographic dictionaries, good or bad, because they might possibly be useful. that not our criterion.DGG (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I was fascinated to note a few names who I had never heard of-Zohary,Donders etc.Keep for the reasons stated by Gene(Banarsibabu (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)) — Banarsibabu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Oversimplification! User:Barnasibabu's list of contributions may be short but it is most interesting; it includes the editing of Dineshdsouza's user page -- Hoary 14:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some points raised by recent posts
- (1) The Book Guild edition is surely the original. The Indian publisher lists its edition's publication date as 2002. [24] Furthermore, the Book Guild volume makes no mention of any previous editions, as would be customary were it a reprint. And "...From the Dawn of Time to 2000AD" would be a pretty silly title for a book published significantly before December 1999!
- (2) As I already pointed out, the University of Rochester has made a simple mistake about the identity of the author. Barker the archaeologist was living in a nursing home in England by the late 1990s,[25] not lecturing in India as the dust jacket and Indian publisher claim the actual author was. [26]
- (3) There is indeed a copy in the Royal Society library. [27] Vr/Venkat has previously claimed to have consulted this copy, and said that it was the first edition [28] Yet the library lists its copy as having been published by Book Guild in 1999 - in other words, the same one I'm looking at now. Why has Vr failed to notice until now that it was actually a reprint, and if it was indeed withdrawn by the publisher (as opposed to merely sold out or pulped), why does the library still stock it? For that matter, if it was recalled, how did I manage to get a new copy from Amazon (I clearly have too much money) a week or so ago?
- (4) None of this addresses the primary reason for the deletion, which is that the book itself is utterly non-notable, and that the copy of its contents page is unencyclopaedic, and of no use to Wikipedia.
- (5) Why have so many accounts with even worse spelling than mine suddenly turned up claiming to know the detailed publishing history of this obscure book? Does someone know the author, perhaps? Is there a conflict of interest here? Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 13:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least I do not know the publication history of the book!But the question remains unanswered-was there a mistake committed by the University of Rochester?If so where is the evidence?And whatever I know about the book comes through the net!And I do not see any evidence of a "mistake" by the press officer!Should we operate on presumptions?Being in a remote village in India,I can hardly be expected to know the author!Moreso if he is dead!!But I do believe the contents of a recalled book should not form the basis of this debate-only the existing edition!Only Vr can answer the quetion you raise.But I do find your disparaging outlook towards a respected publishing house unusual to say the least.Hence I would go along with Gene Nygaard and vote Keep (Cbhatia (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)) — Cbhatia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Cbhatia, you ask But the question remains unanswered-was there a mistake committed by the University of Rochester?If so where is the evidence? as if this were a new and unanswered question. The University of Rochester has done nothing. Either (a) some careless writer(s) working at or for the department -- a writer who for example also wrote Contains a forward [sic] by former President of the The British Society for the History of Science Ludmilla Jordanova -- made some dumb mistake. Alternatively, (b) that writer didn't make a mistake, and the book was indeed written by somebody who was in a nursing home in Britain while he was roaming the Indian subcontinent. Other possibilities involve a ghost and an impostor. All of this is explained above, for those who care to read it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more calmly, all Rochester did was take advantage of an opportunity to give a professor there some publicity--that's what PR people at universities do, which is why we don't trust hem very far at WP about notability. DGG (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No meaningful evidence of notability and either way, the list itself doesn't belong in the article (it's a wanton WP:COPYVIO for starters). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a copyvio, but according to the OTRS template at the top of the talk page, someone (presumably the author) contacted OTRS to give permission for it to be used. However, I note the book's fanclub thinks that it was written by someone who died five years before OTRS was contacted. If I believed this, I'd ask somebody from OTRS to re-examine the ticket, as I don't think that ghosts retain the rights to the work they did while they were alive. ;-) Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 17:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO, the list is not a copyvio, its not a reproduction of the book, but just the contents of it. The book talks about the material, which is fair comment. The list of subjects covered in a book is not copyrightable except for arrangementDGG (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is long enough that it does represent a copyright violation as to content and arrangement, note also, someone else thought enough about it to get a copyright waiver (however uncertain) through OTRS. However, my comment on copyright was only an aside, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally deleted as a copyvio, so there seems to be some uncertainty on this point. [29] I'm not a lawyer, but I would have thought that in the UK at least, a list like this would be covered by copyright under the same principle which protects sporting fixture lists (see here for want of a better link in a hurry). I understand that US law is less restrictive, so I'll defer on this point. Regardless, it's a minor point - as you say, the book is very non-notable, and that's reason enough. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject of the article is the book. and that book does not meet our notability requirement. That it serves as a useful source for expanding our coverage of scientists is not relevant to its notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable book. --Itub (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vr. Colin°^Talk 18:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
final comment from me we are not asked to decide about the quality of the book--we are asked to decide on whether it is notable, and the answer is that it is not, because there are almost no libraries that have bothered buying it, or major sources reviewing it. End of story. Those who want to work on notable scientists, should join us on the History of Science Wikiproject. DGG (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG's variey of comments above. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI think it is a matter of opinion who should be there.I note the talk page whre on eperson wanted the infamous Abdul Qadeer Khan to be included!I concede that if Einstein is not there the list would have no credibility but it appears that he is there in the valid edition.I woudl like someone to look at the valid edition and see if Einstein is actually there-he appears on the cover though!I would change my vote to delete if he is not.And I do not agree with DCG's comment-the book appears to be in the Royal Society Library-and it appears in the IIM,Ahmedabad library as well.(Shonali2000 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This user account's contribution history began only yesterday. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book is not notable per WP:BK because it has received very little public notice. I have only found one review, and that one was only nine sentences long. Furthermore, even though the author apparently gave permission for his list to be included in Wikipedia, I would recommend against keeping the list even if the article is kept. Including the list would seem to give undue weight to the author's opinions, some of which are apparently idiosyncratic as can be seen by the prominent scientists who were omitted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with DGG that we are not here to debate about the merits of the book but the contents of the article nominated for deletion.But as the two issues have been so closely intertwined by Iain's arguments that it is difficult to sperate the two while deciding which way to vote.

I sincerely hope the voters would take into account some factors:

-that most of the arguments based on a recalled book are invalid.I do not know the reasons for the book being recalled but whatever they may have been,the book can be preseumed to be invalid.

-it does not matter at all whether the book was first published by which publisher or whether they were published by both simultaneously!The point is that contents of a recalled book cannot be considered valid.For that you need a current edition.

-the current edition has been published by Orient Longman:

[30]

And I would draw your attention to the following paragraph:

ORIENT LONGMAN is India's best known and most respected publishing house. Incorporated in 1948, the consistent emphasis of our publishing has been on quality

-Einstein appears on the cover page of the book therefore must be there. [31]

I agree with Shonali200 that wiothout him the list would be invalid and would probably change my vote.

-that Einstein appears in the very first list when it was first created-thus the list was never attributable to the recalled edition. [32].'I note that his name has been deleted now!Why so!It only conveys misleading impression and I am sure those who voted negatively were influenced by it and in some ways misled into voting the way they did.I cannot but wonder if they would feel differently if this fact was known to them.'

Certainly if someone was to establish conclusively that the valid edition does not have Einstein,I would agree that the list carries no merit!

-that it would be unwise to rely on someone's intuition uncorroborated by evidence-we have no conclusive proof that a.Jordanova was duped into writing the forward and is embarassed now!

b.University of Rochester made a mistake.

c.Royal Society made a mistake by placing a volume(Albeit the recalled one) on its shelf!

d.someone who disagrees with him is necessarily having a personal agenda anymore than someone who agrees with him does!(and I sincerely hope I would be spared the nasty messages that I have got)

And I for one am hesitant to rely on Iain's intuition alone when he says so authoratatively that leadng Indian publication houses publish "turd" rejected by UK publishers!!!!!

I would therefore hope that in deciding ,the administrators would take all this into account.

(Delhite (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. If you want the list to stay, prove the book is notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps with hindsight I shouldn't have put quite so much emphasis on the book's many deficiencies in my nomination statement, but last time round a number of excellent contributors argued that the list was useful or important in itself; and out of respect to them I wanted to address these arguments directly, rather than give them links to WP:USEFUL or WP:INTERESTING, which I could have just as easily done. But since we're on the subject, I'll happily concede that Einstein was probably added to the Indian edition - after all, he's on the cover, and even a poor publisher would check that people on the cover photo were actually in the book. So the list as originally written was sourced to the Indian edition. But I could find only find two discrepancies between my edition and the original list; and Einstein is only the most glaring of many glaring omissions: according to the original list and thus the Indian edition, James Walker (chemist) and Thomas Melvill are still more important figures in the history of science than August Kekulé, Werner Heisenberg or Carl Friedrich Gauss. I didn't call the book a "turd" - Delhite's confusing me with Colin there - and I have no particular opinion on the merits of Orient Longman because it really doesn't matter - even good publishers publish non-notable books, and the bottom line is that this is a non-notable book. The article fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BK, so even if it were a brilliant book, there would be no reason for it to be kept. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Delhite says (after a little reformatting): The point is that contents of a recalled book cannot be considered valid.For that you need a current edition. ¶ -the current edition has been published by Orient Longman: [33] ¶ And I would draw your attention to the following paragraph: ¶ ORIENT LONGMAN is India's best known and most respected publishing house. Incorporated in 1948, the consistent emphasis of our publishing has been on quality ¶ -Einstein appears on the cover page of the book therefore must be there. [34] ¶ Uh-huh. That paragraph about Orient Longman is by Orient Longman. Delhite (D) seems to be saying that because Orient Longman says it's India's best known and most respected publishing house, we should believe it is. I hope D is saying something else, for if I do understand D correctly such an approach seems stunningly credulous. ¶ Let's turn to what's said about the book in the page D links to. It clearly says that Territorial Rights: India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, The Middle East. Europe and the Americas are not included. We should therefore not be surprised if Amazon (for example) sells something different. It also describes the author: Philip Barker is a scholar of the history of science and lectures in Nepal, India and Sri Lanka: archaeology is still not mentioned. ¶ Further, the earliest version of the page now on display both (i) lists Einstein, and (ii) gives the ISBN of the Book Guild edition. (The ISBN of the Book Guild edition had been added in this normally hidden version on 08:06, 13 October 2005, by User:Qaz. Perhaps Qaz just guessed it.) ¶ Incidentally, the article was originally created on 5 October 2005 by 202.138.112.252 (talk), who has a fascinating list of deleted contributions. ¶ But all of this is by the way. This article is about an obscure book that outside en:WP does not seem to have generated more than the most minor reaction (let alone any discussion); most of the article consists of an extraordinarily long list that is of no demonstrable significance whatever, and that may have been useful to en:WP in the past but is no longer useful; the remainder of the article says virtually nothing. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look into this, the less encyclopedic it looks. The author is definitely not Philip Barker the archaeologist. I think the mention of this book in a bio for Emil Wolf at the University of Rochester was indeed nothing more than a very careless mistake after a quick Internet search, it may even have been pulled from this Wikipedia article, all the more reason to delete it as so nn as to be misleading. Meanwhile I agree there is more or less zero critical commentary to be found on this book: It has been ignored, even its existence is only sparsely acknowledged. Meanwhile a "ghost" author releases the list (whatever that means) under a GPDL, maybe only to get it into a Wikipedia article. As an aside... Top 1000 Scientists: From the beginning of time...? How could such a sweeping title ever be supported by any careful researcher? Now, when I read the name "Einstein" (or say, "quantum mechanics") outside of a book by someone who at least has a clue about where Albert's algebra took him for a few years almost a century ago, like maybe Max Born (who Wolf co-authored a book with), Steven Weinberg or Leona Woods, I can only roll my eyes. Einstein (and whether or not he is clumsily mentioned in some odd-seeming book) has nothing to do with this AfD. Lastly, Orient Longman seems notable in India more for their foray into English language proficiency testing than for their publishing catalog. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delhite and Shonali200's "without [Einstein] the list would be invalid and I would probably change my vote" struck me as odd. Iain99 reacted to this already, but, for the fun of it and because it seems to be my job, here are some scientists, the absence of each of whom should convince a person with those thoughts to go along with the "delete-crowd": among polymaths and astronomers Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Omar Khayyám, Da Vinci, Huygens (for crying out loud), Cassini, Hooke, and Lomonosov; among mathematicians Fibonacci, d'Alembert, Lagrange, Gauss, Cauchy, Niels Abel, Galois, Boole, Cantor, and Gödel; among physicists Ørsted, Lorentz, Hertz, Chadwick, De Broglie, Pauli, and Heisenberg; among chemists Liebig, Kekulé, Otto Hahn, and Debye; among physicians William Harvey and Edward Jenner; and among naturalists Humboldt, Haeckel, Piaget and Rachel Carson. Not to mention a bunch of inventors and engineers and leaving anyone younger than 100 out. Notice that for most you only have to type the last names to link to their articles (for some this doesn't work because they have units named after them ;-). For me, the book's lack of notability may be the legal, but the list's warped selection the urgent reason for removal. Afasmit (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, if this book seemed overwhelmingly helpful~and had a reasonable provenance, it may not have been nominated for AfD, whether or not it was notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not the only ones perplexed by this (these) Mr (Mssrs) Philip Barker. From the Library of Congress Authorities:

Barker, Philip

[Author of Life in the aquarium]

Life in the aquarium, 1960: t.p. (Philip Barker)

[Author of New Testament lesson of evangelization]

New Testament lesson of evangelization, 1862: t.p. (Philip Barker)

[Author of Top 1000 scientists from the beginning of time to 2000 AD]

Top 1000 scientists from the beginning of time to 2000 AD, 1999: t.p. (Philip Barker) BL AL sent 22 Mar. 2000, no reply received

[Author of Diatom analysis in the East African Rift Valley]

Diatom analysis in the East African Rift Valley, 1989: t.p. (Philip Barker)

[Subject of Philip Barker, founder of Willaston School]

Philip Barker, founder of Willaston School, 1915

This is an authority for one person who published New Testament lesson of evangelization in 1862, founded a school in 1915, published Life in the aquarium in 1960, published Diatom analysis in the East African Rift Valley in 1989, and published Author of Top 1000 scientists from the beginning of time to 2000 AD in 1999... at which point someone noticed this remarkable career and - probably with the intent of congratulating his longevity - tried to contact him but received no reply. Tant pis! Pinkville (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been wondering if "Philip Barker" truly wrote this book, or if the name was only chosen as a pseudonym which might likely be carelessly mistaken for someone else. The more one looks into this, the more questions come up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A little summary to support my "delete" vote. The book has an insubstantial pulication history; its authorship is dubious, to the point of being on the edge of non-verifiability; the contents of the book are faulty and less than banal; the article provides a very thin, essentially useless introduction to those contents, which (again) are faulty and useless. We already have Lists of scientists... I cannot see any reason (except very bad ones) to keep this article. (If this were a hoax it would be a pretty lame hoax.) Pinkville (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not only are many notable scientists omitted, but many mathematicians are included who did no particular scientific work. It did not claim to be a listing of "Top 1000 Scientists and mathematicians..." The two fields are not the same. Should a listing of "Top 1000 Mathematicians" include scientists who were mathematically challenged such as Michael Faraday? I would hardly think so. Edison (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

On googling I discovered that at least teh following libraries have a copy of this book:

a.University of Cambridge [35]

b.Harvard University: [36]

c.University of Alberta: [37]

d.University ofMelbourne: [38]

Therefore I venture a suggestion:

Suggestion

I think it has become very clear indeed that the conetnts of the bok that is avialbale NOW need to be verified before any reasonable decision can be reached.There is a major dispute whether the artcles as it stands after the latest editings is the one that is actually in the book that is available now!

In particular I think it is central to independently verify if the articles as presented for Afd is the one that exists in the book in the market!

It is crucial to verify if Einstien for one is in the book available now.

My suggestion therefore is that before deciding on this issue we should get a senior respected India based administrator like Bhadani to independently verify if Einstien is there in the book as some votes hinge on that!I think it would be a pity to rule on this issue until this issue is settled as it is not just number of votes that should decide .(Delhite (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Lots of libraries have lots of copies of non-notable books. Meanwhile, whether or not Einstein's name (or anyone else's) shows up in some edition of this book has aught to do with its notability, which can only be established by citing independent sources with content such as reviews, industry sales and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Comment. An AFD is never decided simply on the number of votes, but mostly on the strength of the arguments that back them. In this case, even if you satiate the concerns of many editors that the book in its original form was simply awful (and thus unlikely to be an authoritative opinion), you still have to deal with the issue of notability, which alone is enough to delete this article. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG said Worldcat showed 55 libraries with the book, and from his experience that was very low. Whether Einstein is in or out is irrelevant in a book that clearly lacks so many other big names. I don't think anyone disagrees with you that the Indian edition almost certainly has Einstein. I agree with the others here that notability is the main objective test that demands deletion. The content is being criticised because several editors claim (or claimed in the previous AfD) that the content is useful to WP in some way. Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (books) and see if you can find anything to justify this book's inclusion. Colin°^Talk 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sigh. I see it's been dealt with, but just to reiterate; it matters not one whit whether or not Einstein and Dirac were added to the Indian edition; if they were (as seems likely), all this would do is further establish that this is a subjective list which can be changed on the whim of the author, not the result of an authoritative, one-off survey. Even in the Indian edition, the author (whoever he was) has omitted Christiaan Huygens, Edward Jenner, August Kekulé, Robert Hooke and Ronald Fisher in favour of John Sibthorp, James Walker (chemist), Thomas Melvill and some other rather odd names. Regardless, the primary reason for deleting this article is that the book has no notability. A secondary reason is that with or without Einstein and Dirac, calling this list The Top 1000 Scientists of All Time is inherently ridiculous, and giving it prominence makes Wikipedia look silly. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restructure Remove the list and add more meaningful info. Maybe leave the top ten from the list.--The Dominator (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no top ten (it's just presented as an alphabetical list), and there's no more meaningful information to add due to the complete lack of secondary sources. Even the book's preface doesn't say much more about it than I've already quoted. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

In response to Iain's point,I agree that the sole criteria for judging the merit shoudl be the

Value of the list.And I think if one looks at the talk page there is enough material to cover the concerns.As stated any list of thsi nature is bound to have ommissions which maight appear unforgiveable to some

Let us take the Nobel list

Do the names Fibiger or McLeod maen anything to anyone!

And let us remember Edisaon and Tesla are missiong from the Nobel list.Besides relativity was not considered good enough.

The concenrns I have is with undue emphasis on teh book teh aguments got defleted!Mnay votes were cast presumabley for taht reason alone.And it is still not clear what teh acyual contents were.Absence of Einstein of course would make it untenable but if he is thre I might add we came to know of names like Alter,Zohary,Klingenstierna who are giants but not pouplarly known-and we came to know only after the lst appeares.

Besides most would consider a book that:

1.is published by a notable publisher 2.has a forward by aleading historian 3.is on the shelves of Royal Society,Cambridge, University,Harvard

not totally devoid of merit.

iIf there was a mistake by

historian of science

Rochester University

I shoudl like to see the evidence.

Let us get independent verification whether Einstein is there as votes hinge on that.

(Delhite (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No, with all due respect, the value of the list has no sway as to whether the article might be kept here. The only meaningful criteria is the notability (not helpfulness) of the book itself, along with some lesser questions about its provenance and some ambiguity having to do with the author's background. There is no need for any verification of detail about the book's editorial content. Moreover, there is no evidence the Rochester University website page was prepared by a "historian of science." Gwen Gale (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delhite, you are repeating yourself. No, sorry, you're repeating Venkat Radhakrishnan (10:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)): I'm afraid that for some reason your rhetorical resemblances make it hard for me to remember which of you is which. You raise various points. They've all been raised above and answered above; still, I'll take one. You say I agree that the sole criteria for judging the merit shoudl be the Value of the list. It's unclear who it is that you're agreeing with here. Still, let's look -- yet again -- at the value of the list. And let's suppose for a moment that yes, Einstein was in a corrected edition of it, as were the various other eminent scientists whose absences have been noted above. And let's also suppose that this really was compiled by the archaeologist Barker, who was miraculously teaching in India while he was in a nursing home in Britain, and who even more miraculously contacted Wikipedia to authorize the reproduction of his list several years after he had died. Right then: we've posited a super list of scientists as personally created by an archaeologist of note, all within an article on the book. The list shows who this archaeologist thought was of note. But why should anyone care about this? It's not obvious that an archaeologist (let alone one busily shuttling between a British nursing home and the Indian subcontinent) is likely to be an expert on physics, for example. It might be notable if the book were demonstrably notable: it's imaginable that an archaeologist could labor for years on this task, releasing the book to a surprised and grateful public. (Consider the cartoonist Nicolas Bentley's posthumous Dickens Index.) But no such reception occurred. The book is utterly unnotable. Yes, some libraries possess it: libraries buy huge numbers of books and can't vet the quality of each one. The only person (outside the tempestuous teapot of Wikipedia) who seems to have written up this book is Jordanova, but actually it turns out that she (per Barker, "he") didn't write it up either. The redlinks do seem to have been of some use for some Wikipedia editors; what were still redlinks a few days ago are now on the discussion page of this project page, and they will remain there. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would someone please put this article/AfD out of its misery. No new points have been made for days. This is like a washing machine: a pile of socks going round in circles. I hope the closing admin pays more attention than some folk here and notices that this is a book AfD, not a list AfD. Most of the Keep comments have been made by the same person. Colin°^Talk 12:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please. WP:SNOW. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it is neither good nor a complete list and it is basically a copy from a questionable book it can go.--Stone (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated fiction

In addition to the wonderful sentence in the article, illustrated fiction is also a dicdef and belongs at wiktionary, if anywhere. Travellingcari (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sure this could be expanded with some effort, using sources like this, this, this, this, this, etc. Seems like historians and literary critics have written extensively about the subject. Zagalejo^^^ 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily expandable stub. DGG (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I will expand this article, but I probably won't have time to do this until after the AfD closes. Bláthnaid 15:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to use some of the text for a smerge with the University article, feel free to contact me.--Kubigula (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois State University Bus System

I thought about a merge, but this doesn't really belong on Illinois State University as there's nothing encyclopedic about it. It's going to change more than anyone can keep up with it, and it's something you look up on ISU's website, not in an encyclopedia. Needless to say, nothing notable about this campus shuttle. Travellingcari (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COncur with nom. MBisanz ^talk 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Urban transit systems are generally notable, and this system is very much like a municipal transit operation. --Eastmain (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it compares to a municipal transit operation; even on a university campus, there's one continuous route with no need for transfers, and a shuttle to ferry people between student parking and the campus. Mandsford (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge an abbreviated version with Illinois State University. Parts of the article are written in the style of "why write it short if you can write it long", for instance "available for all students and faculty at no cost as long as you have an Illinois State University Redbird Card" under "the NiteRide" was readily apparent from the lead section. A paragraph which goes "A local bus system consisting of the Redbird Express Campus Shuttle, the NiteRide, and the Late NiteRide provides free transport for faculty and students on regular scheduled class days. The Redbird shuttle consists of two routes from East Campus. One route runs to the residence dorms at Tri-Towers to East Campus, while the other route runs to the central dorms at Atkin/Colby. The NiteRide, operating during every evening from 7 to 1, operates around campus and to various locations in Normal. The Late NiteRide operates late evenings on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays between Normal and Bloomington." with a link to the website, sums up all the important information, and can be comfortably merged. Services like this form a small but significant part of a university system, and are worth some coverage somewhere when it can be verified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or mention in the main article. the paragraph cited is exactly the sort of material which should not be in WP, but on the university website. It is subject to rapid change, is unlikely to be accurate in detail (does NiteRide operate during holidays?) and is just the sort of thing for which the university has a website. DGG (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DL Productions

Non-notable web production company, absolutely no sources to verify any notability. CSD and Prod tags have been removed, sending to AfD per procedure Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ohnoitsjamie Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A quick Google search indicates there are several firms called DL Productions, but no search results yield coverage on the subject of this article by reliable sources. --Sfmammamia (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup (and tagged as such) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igus

No evidence of any notability and trivial ghits. Doesn't pass WP:ORG Travellingcari (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The problem is LTD, which is the name of a UK subsidiary with only 66 employees. Company headquarters is in Germany. See http://www.igus.co.uk/default.asp?PAGE=ABOUTIGUS. Among the tens/hundreds of thousands of google hits you will find a number of industry news, reviews, articles about the company and its product lines. A sample article here, [39]. Plastic ball bearings and connectors is not the most exciting subject in the world, but within manufacturing industries people do seem to care. As a large production company that manufactures tens of thousands of products from factories around the world, well over 1,000 employees, and worldwide distribution, it's rather notable within its field. For another source see the profile in Fast Company magazine[40]. Wikidemo (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Igus is indeed a big company in its field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.41.91 (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - really in bad need of improved (indeed, any) references. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Food freedom day

Contested PROD. Akin to the well-known "Tax-freedom day" of Canada, except that this one is not notable even within Canada. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Food Freedom Day has been noted in Canada since at least 2004 and has been noted annually since then (2008, 2007, 2006, 2005). The appropriate American date for Food Freedom Day has also been reported in an independent news site. Just because it is not yet widely recognized or reported, doesn't mean that it should not be included. The author heard about the day on a popular local radio station. The function of the day is similar to that of Tax Freedom Day, which has only gained popularity recently. --Veenix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veenix (talk • contribs) 03:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Food Freedom Day has not gained any popularity yet. Wait till it gains enough popularity and then create the article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are you suggesting that popularity should be either sufficient for notability, or required for notability? I don't think WP really accepts either of these rules, though I am prepared to argue that it certain cases it might be sufficient. DGG (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am from Canada, and this article is the only instance in which I have ever heard of this concept, so it can't be too notable. Unlike tax freedom day, which we hear about year after year. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly an argument for notability. Canada is a large country and obviously parts of the country that have a higher population of farmers (as opposed to Quebec, which I believe is where you are from) have a bigger stake in this "day" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veenix (talk • contribs) 05:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recent non-trivial coverage. Travellingcari (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Travellingcari's news hits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to NSA cryptography, with the merge already in progress. Tikiwont (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NSA Cryptography

Duplicated by other pages; orphaned Mmernex (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into NSA encryption algorithms. It's like one article defines the terms, and the other article lists examples, no clue why. -Verdatum (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The new name should be NSA cryptography (have the other article redirect to it). The reason being that cryptography is the broader term. The "encryption" page is actually misnamed as it has hashing and signature algorithms in addition to encryption algorithms listed on it. —Noah 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igbo keyboard

I'm sure this is a wonderful piece of software, but it doesn't appear to be notable at all. Travellingcari (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete isn't notable and doesn't really tell why it could be notable. Hatmatbbat10 Talk to me 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isshin-ryū Hall of Fame

Non-notable web "Hall of Fame" for a specific art, not given by an intl. group, with only a single, primary source. JJL (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find some more online links to justify the notable value of the IHOF. The Isshin-ryu Hall of Fame is both a list of inductees and an annual tournament of Isshin-ryu practicioners. The list is well respected among all groups of Isshin-ryu in the US as it was started by some of Master Shimabuku's most notable students (Harold Long, etc.). Master Shimabuku was the creator of the Isshin-ryu system and he was the first inductee. There is no other list of notable Isshin-ryu practicioners in the US, which is why the IHOF is so highly regarded. I request that some more time be given for me to prove the worth of this wikipedia entry. Noxia (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no objection to you having time to do so! If it's well-regarded and notable then that's great. The AfD will run for at least 5 days--is that a reasonable period of time? JJL (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. JJL (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep Needs some more/better sourcing but has potential to be a good article if this is added (see above) if not probably not worth keeping --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Week Keep~~ Needs some more sourcing but has potential: it would be nice to find a link from the international Isshin-ryu community to this organization (although the Isshin-ryu article states that the 336 branches of Isshin-ryū are concentrated in the USA.) jmcw (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an international [41] and a US organization [42] that have a 'pedigree' back to Mark Bishop's Okinawan Karate book. More Isshin-ryu research is needed; if there is a need to quickly dispose of this article, it could be merged to the main Isshin-ryu article. jmcw (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have collected some information about history/notability: please see Talk:Isshin-ryū#to do: Document the Splintering of Isshin-Ryu. IHOF appears to represent many Isshin-ru groups. jmcw (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a difficult time finding sources for information on the annual event of the IHOF (other than just the list of inductees). I know that it is both a tournament and a fellowship gathering. They also present many different awards, like sensei of the year, most improved student, etc. However, everything I am finding is just someone who has won an award. Noxia (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this article does not survive the AfD, I think it should be merged into the main Isshin-ryu article. -- Noxia (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zones of EverQuest

AfDs for this article:

Ever since the previous AfD, only two sources have been added. Despite the three months allotted, ever since the previous AfD was closed, all attempts at fixing the issues presented in the previous AfD has been dropped, suggesting that editors are only willing to fix it when the article undergoes an AfD. Alongside this the article still remains unnotable gamecruft likely to attract original research.

There are only two sources on this article, one coming from a fansite about the topic and another comes from a third party source in which hardly mentions the subject of this article, as suggested as that source is footnoted to merely two lines.

With such lack of third party sources, it is still assumable that the topic and article is unnotable to non-EverQuest players and the real world.

This article, as before, still contains a large number of gamecruft that is only likely to attract original research, something unwelcome to Wikipedia.

This article reads like both a list of game locations and a game guide, both of which are what Wikipedia is not.

With these same issues since the previous AfD and the lack of attempts to fixing them after the end of the previous AfD suggests that editors are most likely not willing to place such improvements onto this article. IAmSasori (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage for WP:N, and anyway Wikipedia is not a game guide. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia ain't a game guide. Judgesurreal777 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An excuse to put more gamecruft in. User:Krator (t c) 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge, NOT performed by the closing admin. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Maguire

Originally nominated for speedy deletion, which I have declined and replaced with proposed deletion; the PROD tag has been removed by an unregistered user. Infant character from Shameless series. I don't think she deserves an article for herself; at best, as a brief mention at Mandy Maguire. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "parent" article. JJL (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JJL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per JJL. Gman124 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge suggest a rapid close, because it is quite obvious. DGG (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge relevant content to EverQuest. Please note, I will be performing a data dump momentarily; the section I create will require serious cleanup (and will be tagged) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerafyrm

Poorly sourced, unnotable gamecruft which may have already attracted original research.

The article only has two sources, neither of which are third party nor valid. One source links to a web archive back to a Sony webpage and the other is a link to a post on a forum. Sources must be appropriate with a number of third party sources and correctly footnoted in order for it to be considered notable, especially to non-EverQuest players and the real world.

The article itself appears to be gamecruft, which is likely to attract original research and has already been tagged for it, something Wikipedia does not welcome.

An article about a video game boss monster with little sources and lack of real world notability, along with the chance of having already attracted original research, have too many issues for it to be fixable. IAmSasori (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Probably lacks support for a standalone article, but as a significant character throughout the Everquest franchise, might find a place in a list article somewhere. As an additional note, depending on how broadly it is interpreted, deletion or redirection of this article about a fictional character at this time might fall under the request for a halt to activities called by ArbCom. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and there is insufficient sourcing to establish notability.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere This is probably excessive detail, but a briefer summary would be appropriate. DGG (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere but not a separate article, per DGG. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to EverQuest, which is the game the article claims the character came from. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into EverQuest. Largely unreferenced and N/N in itself.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 22:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sources exist, in dead trees no less that discuss this entity in some detail. See [43] and [44]. Someone with full access to the books should use them to source the article but the basic material looks completely sourceable just from those two pages. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - that second link is to a gaming manual; doesn't count, even if trees did die. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what you mean by calling it a gaming manual. The book is a general book about games not a specific gaming manual for any game. It discusses a variety of different things including the history of this wee little beastie, not how to beat it or anything like that. And the first source is in any event impeccable. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a book titled Gaming Hacks: a collection of hints and hacks for various computer games, from a publisher of computer manuals. There is one, count 'em one, passing mention of Kerafyrm in the entire volume, on page 104. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It says "Gaming Hacks is the indispensable guide to cool things gamers can do to create, modify, and hack videogame hardware and software"- that doesn't make it a game manual and the book doesn't talk about specific games. Furthermore, the "passing mention" is a full paragraph devoted to the topic noting that it made the people who defeated it "famous" to "thousands of people". That's a pretty decent claim of notability (and again, that's aside from the many mentions in the other reference). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the gaming manual not withstanding, the article still is in violation per WP:FORUM as over 95% of the article is the author's thoughts (i.e., original work). The article by itself lacks notability (that is, outside of the parent article) and is definately not a Mario. --Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one is claiming this is Mario. Removing the OR you can do at any time. An article in bad shape is not a reason for deletion but a reason for clean up. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then clean it up and save it! You seem to know a bit (or have a vested interest) about the subject matter. The AfD is not to recruit people to fix articles, it is designed to determine what to do with the article as they stand. If someone feels the need to clean it up (as you seem to do and I have done to a few in the past), then they fix it. So fix it, so it meets WP criteria for inclusion! :) --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Everquest. Non-notable at current page. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - 2 cites does not prove notability, but it's probably good enough for inclusion in the parent article. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus. Please note-the arbcom injunction sited here is specifically for television episodes and characters and is irrelevant. Consensus here says delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norrath

Unsourced, unnotable cruft that reads like a game guide.

There are no sources whatsoever on this article. Simply, an article must have third-party sources in order for it to be notable, in which case, it would have little to no notability to non-EverQuest players and the real world.

It contains cruft which is likely to attract original research, something not welcome in Wikipedia.

It appears to simply be a list of locations in a video games similar to a game guide, both of which are what Wikipedia is not.

There are too many issues in this article, and with the lack of activity on it, gives it little likelihood to survive. IAmSasori (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inactivity is hardly a criterion for deletion. That said, the article does need some extreme cleanup, but AFD is not article cleanup, either. Google Scholar returns 290 hits for "Norrath" [45]. At least several appear to discuss the interplay of real-world people and the fictional geography directly. Often, 10% of Scholar hits are applicable to a topic. In this case, if even 1% apply, there will be ample sources available. I'll see what I can do, but many other fictional countries and places have ample references and support for articles. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to get more later, as I've become involved in a sourcing effort tied to another article's dispute. However, there are a number of sources that discuss characteristics of this fictional country in more or less direct language. There are discussions of its population, economy,[46] law,[47] and language.[48] [49] There has even been discussion about gender valuation in Norrath [50] and mention of changing social structures as the available zones and geography change.[51] Clearly, the massive zone listings will need pared (as WP:NOT a game guide), but that does not invalidate the significance of the topic, or its presence in reliable sources. Serpent's Choice (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage so fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep The community of players of this game is large than that of many small cities, and so media devoted entirely to the game would seem to be as usable for information about it as would a small city newspaper. DGG (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1) all of the sources pointed out above and found by myself only mention the subject "Norrath" in a trivial way (fails WP:N), i.e. do not mention "Norrath" as being Norrath, but refer to it in such-and-such a context. 2) All of the information that could be obtained from such sources is better presented in the parent article EverQuest, for example in making the section EverQuest#Addiction a better section. User:Krator (t c) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOR, WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:N. --MrStalker ^(talk) 08:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per MrStalker's list of reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe Merge into a related article since there seem to be so many other EverQuest articles. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge (with OR taken out). Although well-written by many wikipedians it still fails to provide any basic referenced and third-party criteria, as well as the following: WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOR, and WP:GAMEGUIDE--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 22:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep the sourcing by Serpent's Choice looks sufficient to me. Obviously, OR should be removed. But the article itself appears to meet WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everquest is a fictional game. it is therefore similar enough to the other material covered by the injunction at arb com to be included under the injunction, which the arb com has stated is to be interpreted broadly. . The discussion here ought therefore to be suspended for the interim, so it does not get involved in things that will need it to be done over. DGG (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:A. Cloudz679 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jae Chul Shin

Not notable, primary links, no sources, removed some of the more outrageous claims e.g. 'Best known master this century' as simply wrong. Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of article appears notable [52] but article itself needs much work. JJL (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A decent amount of relevant ghits suggest notability, though I have no idea how many (if any) would be regarded as reliable sources. PC78 (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 15:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is much that is wrong with this article - unsourced, incomplete, no real world context - but these are editorial, rather than AfD, matters. The overriding policy consideration is WP:V. However, the information can be verified since it is available on various listings sites, for example here. Since the content is verifiable we next turn to the debate. Here there was a balance of views between those who consider that the page is unencyclopaedic and unnecessary and those whose view is that it is notable and should be expanded. In my judgement, neither camp won the day on force of argument. The Arbcom injunction quite clearly does not apply in this instance, however there are analogies and the Arbcom decision may contain guidance that could be indicative. Consequently, I suggest that any relisting await the Arbcom decision. Meanwhile, one possible editorial action would be to boldly merge the page into The Steve Wilkos Show where it would fit well and enable the list to be read in context. TerriersFan (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes

Has no source of where the episodes come from, this will just be cruft, most talk shows dont have list of episodes as it will be a very long list. Usually talk shows have recurring episodes not a list of all their episodes. This is an on going show that will have more shows in the future and will be hard to list them all. Should be deleted, and/or sort of merged into the article. TrU Co ⁹31¹ 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is verifiable, as sources for the episodes are out there and easy to find, which brings into question whether the nomination is being made in good faith. It's a nationally syndicated show, and therefore not cruft. Other talk shows' coverage on Wikipedia don't dictate coverage for this one. Being "hard to list them all" is both false and irrelevant. Nominator doesn't seem to be familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and he really shouldn't be nominating things for deletion until he is. It is clear that the nominator doesn't like the list (or the show? And neither do I), but that doesn't matter. I suggest the nominator withdraw the nomination. The Transhumanist 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I am not nominating this because I dont like the show or article. I just think that listing every episode since its debut till present is redundant, this will be like listing every episode of Jerry Springer till today. TrU Co ⁹31¹ 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)*Comment/question I thought pending the outcome of the ongoing ArbCom discussion on TV episodes and characters, that an injunction was in place for NO deletion of these articles until the ArbCom decision was finalized? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this falls under the injunction, yes. I've so flagged it. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arbcom not withstanding (and since this deals with a talk show with real people as guests I don't think it should be applied to this article), this is talkshow cruft. It also goes back only to November and is just an indiscrimiate list of titles without show summaries. There is no reason for this article to exist at all and no one remembers a talk show topic even days after they've watched the show. Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
_{(Arbcom application has since been reverted) Nate • (chatter) 02:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Umm. So what if the article does not have summarys. People can build it up eventually, but that most likely won't happen. Mythdon (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of talk show topics right now. They pretty much rotate every three months and then blur together after awhile. There is no need for an episode guide for a talk show. Nate • (chatter) 09:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no policy or guideline that prohibits talk show episode lists. Mythdon (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there is no need for a policy because of common sense. If we had List of The Montel Williams Show episodes, List of The Phil Donahue Show episodes, List of Nightline episodes or List of The Jerry Springer Show episode articles, they would easily each top over a MB of content; note that 32kb is the limit of an article that though not enforced, is advisable for article length. TV shows (or weekly talk shows like Real Time with Bill Maher)work because there's 22-30 episodes a year, but talk shows just do not work at all as far as episode lists. Just imagine four years from now if we had this article up with all of these topics; it would be way too long and uncontrollable to deal with. Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then when the show gets bigger, why not make 6 seperate episode lists per season like this List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 1-50, List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 51-100, List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 101-150, List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 151-200), List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 201-250), List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 251-300). Is that good. Mythdon (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is redundant. Talk shows aren't really suppose to have a list of episodes, just a section in the article with recurring theme of shows as sometimes the episode names/themes repeat like on The Jerry Springer Show and on Maury (TV Show). TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six differing articles for one season of the show is exactly why it's cruft, you can't control this list. Better to just describe the basic topics the show covers within the parent article in an overview rather than listing each topic in this article. Nate • (chatter) 02:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but from a cursory glance, the arguments above seem alarmingly close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't watch Jerry Springer, or Oprah, or any show like that. But, the arguments that this will taked up too much disk space don't really wash with me.

The real question should be, I believe, if this list is verifiable and maintainable.

Proponent says it is. I don't see the opponents offering any reason to believe it isn't.

I think Iridology and homeopathy are nonsense. But I don't dispute that verifiable, neutral, maintainable articles can be written about those topics. Similarly verifiable neutral articles can be written about TV shows. All kinds of TV shows. Even those that some people think are beneath notice.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Transhumanist. And reguarding the comment above, we should not have that many articles. This one list will do just fine. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete and total talkshowcruft. A mention of frequently covered topic might be a good idea, but not a list of EVERY episode with a short summary. What's next a list of NBC Nightly News shows with what was covered on each day? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per current ArbCom injunction. --Willow Wait (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was confirmed that, that injunction does not apply here. There is no sentence that says "list" of episodes, only articles of "an episode".--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 11:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Mrschimpf, Mythdon, and Wildthing61476 --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until current ArbCom injunction is resolved. --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC) if that is the case (as I should be more diligent when researching these afd's) then I change my vote to Very Weak Keep as I have scanned WP:NOT up and down and can find nothing specifically against keeping this. Personally, I want to say, "DELETE" as I agree 100% with user:Wildthing61476 but per WP, I must say keep.--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- sidenote-this article still needs references (as that may be an inclusionary deal-breaker) because all we have to go on is the good faith of the author.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - it has already been established that the injunction you cite is not relevant to this topic. It is about articles on specific episodes of programs. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Transhumanist. The list needs expansion and summaries but that is an incidental issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as explained above. Geo Swan (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TT/JoshZ. Clearly a notable and relevant topic. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wildthing61476 above. Cloudz679 (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I was going to close this, but really, really can't bring myself to, as it would kill me to close an article this rotten as a keep and nobody identified wholly why it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a directory of episode titles. Wikipedia is not your TV Guide. This list of titles has no encyclopaedic value; it is wholly useless, and does not aid understanding of the show. Note the Arbcom injunction is not relevant to this AFD (it's referring to episode articles, not pointless lists of talk show broadcast dates) so anyone saying "keep" because of that isn't really making a strong argument. Neıl ☎ 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is no more related to the arbcom injunction about fictional characters and episodes than I am. (Because we are both non-fictional). That being said, it is utterly unmaintainable and very much a TV guide list that simply doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no consensus here. Anybody else? Bearian (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no consensus at the moment. I would of course favor a relist instead of a close, but I'll admit I'm biased and won't be relisting myself... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 -- since the film is being "released" only on YouTube, it counts as nonnotable webcontent under a7. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conctuio

Independent film for future release. Says it will be a direct-to-Youtube/Myspace film. Fails WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF. Redfarmer (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete and close of this afd why was this AFD'd? this is a straight forward DB delete. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion do you think this falls under? Because fiction doesn't normally fall under Speedy and notability is never an issue in Speedy. Redfarmer (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course fiction falls under speedy - read what is actually been said - whatever they call it, it's a home video, they admit as much in the text. In regards to notability, Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. This actually goes one stage further in the other direction and ASSERTS it's not notable. The article explains it's two friends with no money who are going to stick up their film on youtube. If we had AFD's for every home video that someone stuck up, the whole system would grind to a halt! --Fredrick day (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I beg to differ. I can't count the number of times I've been denied speedys on fiction in the past. ;) Once again, I ask, which criteria do you think this falls under? I'm more than happy to tag it if you think you can find a criteria. And as for notability, Speedy does not determine notability. AfD does. If there's even the slightest suggestion of importance, it does not qualify for Speedy. Redfarmer (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is advertising. It is no more advertising than other big films like Cloverfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield). This article shouldn't be deleted as is encyclopedic, it is informing people about the film just like any other film on here does. If you feel the need to delete this, maybe you should consider deleteing all other movies- how are they different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul-clifford (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn film - a Google search for Concutio and one of the "main actors" returns only one result - the Wikipedia article. Article name is incorrect - should be Concutio. Would recommend speedy delete (criteria G11 - article is an advert for a film). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: now the talk page makes it clear that it is a promotional article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was endai of article. DS (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endai

Made-up nonsense as far as I can tell. None of the references provided mention Endai. Sole contribution of creator: not a good sign. Pichpich (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BOLLOCKS. hateless 17:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can confirm that none of the references provided mention "endai", so this is unverified at the very least Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CB and WP:HOAX. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 13:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Grago

NN, no sources minimal assertion of notability Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete some minor accomplishments but can't find evidence of WP:N for him or his univ. [53]. JJL (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable bio --Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, see the AfD talk page for analysis. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous (group)

I'm nominating this for AfD to get the inevitable debate out of the way and to stop the unilateral deletion by redirect. I think the article should be kept, in the recent weeks Anonymous has gotten hundreds of articles, radio interviews and TV segments on it from all over the world. Before that a Fox station did an entire investigative segment and other raids have gotten minor press. The group has also had a widespread effect on the internet that can't be so easily documented. Sceptre is attempting to redirect the article to 4chan, which plays a very minor role in all the cases where Anonymous is documented by the media. The article was created in response to Project Chanology not having enough context to really understand who the group is and I think it serves its purpose well. BJ^Talk 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to massive media attention and having a mention in several articles, such as 4chan, Hal Turner, Habbo Hotel, Fox News, imageboards and of course Project Chanology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.220.254 (talk • contribs) — 72.205.220.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom and per the floods of media references. The article is new, needs rewriting, and needs all the media references in there, which are presently lacking. William Ortiz (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP1E applies here. Anonymous normally refers to /b/ from my experience. Will ^(talk) 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment /b/ is the largest board but Anonymous doesn't solely apply to it. Also, most of the sources are referring to the actions of /i/, which is not hosted on 4chan. BJ^Talk 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Until Project Chanology, Anonymous and 4chan were synonymous, such as the FOX report. Now, it refers to the protesting collective. The current Anonymous is notable only for Project Chanology, and BLP1E suggests a redirect/merge to there. Will ^(talk) 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Fox report was referring to the actions of 420chan's /i/. BLP doesn't apply here and even if it did 1E doesn't apply because this is a new and different usage than before and it needs to be properly explained. Saying that Anonymous is and always was a protest group is just plain wrong and is a disservice to the project and its readers. There is no suitable place to merge that will cover all current and past events and usages. BJ^Talk 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - To Will: I made the same mistake but BLP1E only applies to living persons. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Last I checked, all of the protestors were living. Will ^(talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But the article is about the group and hence not a BLP any more than say Office of Special Affairs is a BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocopocopocopoco (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a simple mistake to make, however members of Anonymous hail from not only 4chan but 7chan, Something Awful and eBaums World too. (Robomilk - currently logged out) 80.2.179.82 (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BLP1E does not apply, as Anonymous is not a living person, and has notability for more than one event. See the sources on the article talk page for more context (Fox11 story, Chris Forcand). Your experience that Anonymous refers to /b/ is both irrelevant and incorrect. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)— 202.161.71.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Anonymous is in no way limited to 4chan. 4chan is not a subset of Anonymous, nor is it the other way around. They simply have a great deal of overlap. Anonymous includes parts of 7chan, Something Awful, 711chan, 420chan, 12chan, YTMND, Ebaumsworld, and thousands of independent sites who cooperate towards a certain goal. Very few people in this debate have any idea what they're talking about. User:Ziggy Sawdust/Sig 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep per nom and as a useful subpage to the notable, well developed article Project Chanology. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom and because Anonymous has become a large internet phenomenon, spanning well beyond 4chan. Due to the flurry of media coverage, it deserves an article. RevenantPrime (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Specifically, several users have expressed the need for the composition and former activities of Anonymous to be mentioned. CounterFX (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on the Project Chanology talk page directly relevant to this article include (feel free to add more):

Anonymous essay, mentioning a userspace essay (by the nominator) on Understanding Anonymous
Anonymous, requesting the creation of this article
Hal Turner?, more information on former activities of Anonymous
4Chan, on the need to give the composition of the group

Keep per nom and significant media coverage now, especially following the 2/10 events. Morhange (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is already adequately sourced, but over time it could be expanded from most likely hundreds more WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has many reliable sources to establish ~~reliability~~ notability. --Explodicle (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Two months ago this would have been arguable, but notability and verifiability have been firmly established by Project Chanology and surrounding media coverage. This article can certainly be tightened up, as happened with the Chanology article, and this one is already in much better shape than that one initially was. --Kajerm (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Before Chanology their notability may have been tenuous but now their notability is undeniable by Wikipedia standards. The subject is unclear enough that a lot of questions are asked about them, further justifying the need for an article. --AlexCatlin (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I'd consider that since Chanology, Anonymous now has a sufficiently established presence to justify a wikipedia article; although I feel the quality of the article needs to be improved greatly. Lmaowitzer (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the society of Anonymous has an active presence on the internet, complete with a speech community, code of conduct, and rituals which are all elements that make an interesting article that I would want to read about. Today the information is out there from WP:RS and the article itself has a great start.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rules 1 & 2, gb24chan -- RoninBK _{T C} 20:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rules 1 & 2 (of anonymous) do not apply to Wikipedia, nor to Non-Anons. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article doesn't make its case for inclusion, doesn't stand on its sources, lead reads like nonsense (to paraphrase, anonymous is anonymous people on teh internet), first cite says 4chan made Chocolate Rain popular, without so much as using the word anonymous. Article has one half-decent source: Sarno's Webscout blog at the LA Times, a passing reference about a unique event which contains the info that they are a "loosely bound group of net activists who've got a beef with the Church of Scientology". Is that really enough? The Fox11 "report" could possibly be used if cited properly, though it really be about anything. The youtube link to it is a copyvio. ROFL at it, though, unbelievable. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Or face the wrath of god upon us. Also, anonymous has been around for quite some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowToddSomeLove (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notability and sourceable mainstream media coveragerage is considerable. Anonymous is legion. Anonymous does not forget. They do not forgive. Expect them. Eleven Special (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs better sourcing, but some are notable enough to warrant keeping the article. Also the only other place most of the information can go is Project Chanology, which is already quite a long article.--Kip Kip 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is this AfD different from this one? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it addresses Anonymous dealing with other things as well as Scientology. DiamondDragon DESU 23:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article should describe what Anonymous is, not just its relation to Scientology which Project Chanology already covers. BJ^Talk 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anonymous has been around for sometime, and various news and media have covered them and their controversial actions. Before Project Chanology, there was not enough coverage by secondary sources to crate an article; now, Project Chanology brung a lot of information to support the article. DiamondDragon DESU 23:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it just barely passes WP:N, but in my opinion 1/2 of the article should be removed, including the unsourced lede. We can wait until people have done some real scholarship on it (not the trivial, hysterical tv news reports) before we get into details. Right now, the term anonymous just sounds like a synonym to me, an internet mob stated in different terms. hateless 23:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - adding the !vote template was out of line, IMO. At the time it was added, and even now, there is no evidence of editors voting without expressing a reason. Torc2 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's about 4chan. There's a good possibility that there maybe a flood - lesser forums have had such. Will ^(talk) 00:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:N, especially in light of recent events. If it fails to pass WP:N however, I believe it still improves Wikipedia through inclusion. As far as I know there has never been a reliable source to find unbiased information about Anonymous. Thus, even if it fails other policies as mentioned in delete comments above, it qualifies under WP:IAR. I for one have felt that we needed an article on Anonymous since before Project Chanology began. scetoaux (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - considering the amount of attention Project Chanology has garnered from the media, it seems fitting to have an article about the group behind it. Almost every article that I've come across that mentions Project Chanology also mentions Anonymous, which, in my opinion, means there's not much of a notability concern. And it's not just Chanology that they're responsible for. This article could be the perfect place for other activities that don't warrant their own articles. So long as this article is properly sourced, it should stick around. --clpo13_(talk) 01:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Anonymous has had substantial media coverage with project chanology, but they are not limited to project chanology. Secondary sources ARE available to create the page, and they have had media coverage on other occasions than project chanology (Global news re Forcand, fox11 news). Overall, it is a notable topic with available sources. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)— 202.161.71.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As it stands right now, this group is receiving a lot of media attention, virtually all of it under this name. It may well be that, in hindsight, Anonymous will be a flash in the pan, but for the moment it seems to be more than notable enough. We can always delete it later. —Brent Dax 01:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Neutral. ~~Per WP:BLP1E.~~ Anonymous is notable for Project Chanology. Other events that anonymous has been involved in do not meet notability criteria. Switching to neutral as I incorrectly referred to BLP1E and that only applies to living persons. Anonymous is not a living person. I'm still not convinced with the notability of this article and whether a separate article for anonymous is needed when Chanology is the only notable thing they've done. I'll go with the consenus. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the google search anonymous scientology mask (the last term there included to exclude previous discussions of Scientology and anonymity online, as people tended to not wear masks) returns over 49 000 results. It is important to have a good article here separate from the Project Chanology article, as Anon does exist outside the context of Chanology. Leigh Honeywell (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS. Also, it's not a matter of whether Anon exists outside of Chanology but whether it is notable outside of Chanology. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Having looked over WP:GOOGLEHITS I also read this section [54] of WP:Search engine test and think that my comment stands, though I will spend some quality time with goog and figure out a better search string. Leigh Honeywell (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - From my read of the link you posted, I think what is meant by "examining the type of hits" is not about creating the right search string to generate the hits but examing the type of articles that come out of the hits. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're real, they're notable, they do do other stuff, and they're a pretty large group of people. All of this combined gives them notability. Indeed, they're considerably more notable than a lot of stuff on Wikipedia, ranging from minor hamlets to various random other articles. They've got thousands of news articles about them and have made the evening news on at least two seperate occaisions. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per nom. Habnabit (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per nom. SciurusCarolinensis 10:06 13 February 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.73.209 (talk)
Keep Anonymous has become very notable with recent events. I think it was probably notable enough after the Fox 11 thing, and it certainly is now.--Theymos (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but Project Chanology alone establishes notability. Anonymous has become a major part of internet culture, and encompasses more than just 4chan. Xandercoon (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)— Xandercoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep needs work and more information on past actions attributed to anonymous. i feel article is relevant in consideration of project chanology and ongoing scientology criticism. "...a group of protesters calling themselves anonymous..." who are these people? why do they call themselves anonymous? robotpandazombie (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.64.254 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC) — robotpandazombie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 63.95.64.254 is a shared IP, and robotpandazpmbie dosn't have an edit history, hence the decision to tag this comment with a SPA tag.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per nom. Anonymous has been covered now in a whole bunch of national and international news services. While there are issues with sourcing for sure, I think that the articles topic is way past the non-notable point now. ChronoSphere (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is news worthy material, and this article can be devloped to show that. But it must start somewhere. Sgt Simpson (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Will Q ^{T C} 05:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They were able to get together several hundred people to protest the Church of Scientology in many cities around the country. Their protests were mentioned in several places including the BBC[55] and the LA times[56] so I think they're notable. WinstonKap (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)WinstonKap[reply]
Keep only if improved per coverage by the media and the organization of worldwide demonstrations (for notability), but only if the article is improved. Right now the context is very shallow. --Ubardak (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because User:Scepter deleted most of the content from the article; I'm filling back in a lot of content he deleted without any discussion with better sourced material, but some of the deletions make no sense and it appears he made no attempt to look for any source for some of the more obvious material (such as the reason for the masks). Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd also like to note that this almost qualifies for a Speedy Keep, and fails the criteria by one (and a half, for the weak delete) wikipedian(s). The news coverage they've been getting lately is crazily high. Were this the worst written article on wikipedia, I'd vote keep. Current quality of the article doesn't effect notability. Fieari (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The group is clearly notable, and a number of reliable sources are available. I'd be more inclined to merge the project article into the group article than the other way around. --jonny-m t 08:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With Project Chanology gaining all the media coverage, I think the people behind it are notable. --Koheiman (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news coverage of their former actions and especially that of the current bout of protesting indicates that this is worthy of an article.Jonk382 (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. Needs improving. We may need to revisit this in the future, because I have strong concerns about the sourcing... I can imagine the problems of sourcing something if the nature of the group itself defies systematic analysis. (So what is this thing really? It's a bunch of people who don't want to register their names on a bunch of web forums.) If there's not that much sourcing, we probably should just mention the group in the articles about stuff we can verify from news reporting (like Project Chanology), so this may be ultimately merge material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:N (multiple independent reliable sources), marginally, and seems distinct enough from all of the suggested merge targets that a merge would be awkward and unhelpful to readers. Agree that it needs improvement, but it is already better than most stubs. I don't see any WP:BLP problems. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Page has been protected to prevent vandalism for three weeks, if there are any questions redirect them to my talk page. Thank you. Rudget . 16:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Certainly notable. Surprised not to see more Clam Sock-puppets voting here. They must be losing their edge. Jellogirl (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets notability easily. Indeed, was arguably notable even prior to the Chanology matter. Now has many distinct sources about it. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am not part of Anonymous, nor do I condone most of their actions. However, with Anonymous being covered on a number of news stations, many people will be interested in what the hell Anonymous is. Wikipedia is a source for a lot of people, and a NPOV article on Anonymous is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDClock (talk • contribs) 21:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add more references and perhaps a look into Imageboards if at all possible to the origins of Anonymous.--Cesario (JPN) (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep unless improved. The article only documents their recent actions against Scientology and none of their more controversial ventures in the past, including attacks on Habbo Hotel, Second Life, the furry fandom and various other websites. (Robomilk - currently logged out) 80.2.179.82 (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If half of the people who voted on this AfD worked to improve the article, including using sources mentioned on the talk page that have gone unused, this article would be much better. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)— 202.161.76.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a member of anonymous, I say KEEP KEEP KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.126.162 (talk • contribs) — 209.204.126.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above shared IP adress, hence tagCoffeepusher (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anonymous is and idea and a group. The fact that they came out in multiple place all over world, proves that there is a set idealogy and philosphy minds. The page is badly written but it is worth working on. Anonymous is not much a group though, but a collective idea of people who believe in neutral Internet etc. To say that their is not enough 'people' or publications or even sites about the Anonymous is a lie. Anonymous is a presence that must be talked about properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.154.140 (talk • contribs) — 68.106.154.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no-brainer, keep it, they are growing more renowned each day. Saw them protest in Seattle, about time someone did something. Also I believe that deleting this will just make it come back until it stays up.--Link25 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve writing so subject is more clear. 71.139.27.148 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)— 71.139.27.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rules 1 and 2, gtfo the internet Mike (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rules 1 and 2 do not apply unless this is a raid, and from what I can see here, it's not. I suggest you get more acquainted with rules 1 & 2. InsaneZeroG (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Rules 1 and 2" state that one is not supposed to talk about 4chan. As Wikipedia does not recognize 4chan rules, this delete vote is obviously meaningless. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep there is a lot of interest in what this group is right now and people are going to find out abotu it, so it may as well be from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.94.108 (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC) — 206.47.94.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anonymous has been getting quite a bit of media attention lately, and Wikipedia is one of the primary places many people go for information. While the page could use improvement, it's important that this article exists. --Murgatroyd (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Project Chanology. Nothing independently notable apart from that media event. Also, beware of large number of SPAs in this AfD. - Chardish (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tagged all the SPA's in this AfD, and as you can see, there arn't a whole lot.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true there are probably SPAs in here, it really doesn't matter; there's like four people voting for delete and dozens of wikipedians who are voting keep who've had accounts for a good long time. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anonymous has had media attention before project chanology (ie Fox news broadcast). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree that "Anonymous" is not synonymous with the users of 4chan - it covers a wide range of imageboards, wikis and other sites. The anon-IP who posted at the top below the nom highlights that this group is notable for more than one event.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Project Chanology. Nothing independently notable apart from that media event. -DMC— David Miscavige (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong keep, highly important and notable group. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we just keep the article and get on with it? Clearly WP:SNOW applies here. scetoaux (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not a WP:SNOW issue, and your comment there is an example of the overuse of WP:SNOW, which doesn't apply here as more than one established user has suggested to delete.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This IS clearly a WP:SNOW issue, as this doesn't have a snowball's chance of being deleted. Furthermore, it is speedy keep, not snowball keep that doesn't apply when more than one 'established' user has suggested to delete. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with those who say this isn't WP:SNOW, for the reason stated by 202.161.71.161 above. This article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. It doesn't matter if there is an argument for deletion from established editors: they are clearly in the minority and will not win over the majority who believe this article should be kept. Therefore, it is clear that process for the sake of process is irrelevant. This article clearly will not be deleted. scetoaux (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with parent post. WP:SNOW is a guideline, not a rule, and does not even deal with what to do once an article has already been proposed for deletion. Furthermore, stop talking about "majority" and "minority" opinions. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and admins are free to ignore all our discussion and delete the article anyway if they so choose. To put it more succinctly, lurk moar. —RickrollTheSuperbowl (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — RickrollTheSuperbowl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Nom doesn't even believe the article should be deleted. It's alright for you to disagree with me, just be a bit more tactful next time. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 20:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, RickrollTheSuperbowl, please refrain from personal attacks, as you made in your edit summary, "Lame user is lame." Your use of this meme also indicates to me that you are a member of Anonymous, and therefore have personal motives for deletion of this article. This appears to fall under WP:COI scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 21:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated below, there is no such thing as Anonymous, therefore I am not a member. Also, my next edit summary can fall under reductio ad Hitlerum if you would prefer. —RickrollTheSuperbowl (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — RickrollTheSuperbowl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

If you are not a member of Anonymous, then what are your motives for denying they exist? scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, discussed numerous times in the mainstream media (in Australia, anyway), definitely notable. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as above. Chump Manbear (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think that Anonymous needs to be on Wikipedia. The article needs more sources, a few changes in what events were really Anonymous, and a bit more length, but otherwise it is good. Also, Anonymous is nearly undefinable, so any attempt to define it will be nowhere near perfect. Nuck Chorris (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill with holy fire. WP:NOT an Internet directory. Wait until dust settles. Media fad. I suggest deletion and salting, and the protection of this page per WP:SNOW. User:Ziggy Sawdust/Sig 21:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Anonymous does not exist; it's just an adjective. --RickrollTheSuperbowl (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — RickrollTheSuperbowl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Anonymous does exist. It's a noun in the sense that this is a real group. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The entire "Anonymous" concept is an important aspect of Project Chanology, but by no means exclusive to it; even beyond that, it is a notable social phenomena (a lot more notable than some of the Internet Phenomena Wikipedia has articles/sub-articles on). Readers looking for information, however, will be unable to understand Anonymous beyond the Chanology context if it is restricted to that article. And shouldn't Wikipedia inform where information is needed? Where are they supposed to look for a neutral, rational, informative source on the topic? Everywhere else is inside jokes and hardly outsider-friendly. Besides, the protests are continuing, this is not just a "fad" that will soon fade to nothing among the "real" media sources. Feebas_factor 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per User:Ziggy Sawdust/Sig's comment: "WP:NOT an Internet directory. Wait until dust settles. Media fad. I suggest deletion and salting, and the protection of this page per WP:SNOW." —oac old american century ^talk @ 21:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is not a "media fad". Anonymous has been around for years before project chanology and the media took notice - and though it may not be entirely relevant to this article's validity, I can tell you that Anonymous is not going anywhere either. Furthermore, the protests were not a one-off thing; project chanology is continuing. It's highly likely that media coverage will continue as well, particularly with respect to Anonymous - and I know "WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL", but then don't go predicting with such certainty the absolute opposite either. Feebas_factor 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, what? How does WP:SNOW apply to deleting? Have you even looked at the AfD? And how does WP:DUST apply? The group has been around since ~2003 and isn't going anywhere. I suggest you read policies/guidelines before you cite them. BJ^Talk 01:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It didn't make much sense to me either. :) scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 01:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. high notability as mentioned above. --Mattmedic (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additionally, as pointed out before Anonymous is mentionned is several other articles at Wikipedia - 4chan, Hal Turner, Habbo Hotel, Fox News, imageboards and Project Chanology. Where do readers go from those articles looking for information? Some Chanology subsection within a highly limited context? Anonymous is a group with notability and activities relating to many topics, not just some Project Chanology "media fad" thing. Feebas_factor 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lack of article here would lead to more people using that other, nasty wiki. --Wikinterpreter (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - It seems that this group is fast becoming a huge interenet meme that actually is relevant. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Here's hoping it'll be deleted on the first try and not the 18th, Mfko (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackson Report

I would guess that there's an assertion of notability in the sense that this is a "news" report (otherwise I would have speedydeleted it), but there's absolutely no way that this fulfills WP:N. Nyttend (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Self-promotional page that fails WP:N in every imaginable way. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable "news." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete "non-notable news" should be the show's tagline! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete non-notable at all, it's just for Youtube! Warrior4321^talkContribs 00:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 7600

Non-notable commercial product. Completely unreferenced and all OR presently. Wikipedia is not a mobile phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. There are too few substantial references to build an article that is not, itself, a review or an advert. Mikeblas (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate sources to establish notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although they have not yet been added, there are plenty of sources available. This is a perfectly notable phone in its own right, along with the fact that it was the first 3G phone released by Nokia. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Warrior4321^talkContribs 00:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. This was a messy nomination. The statement by the nom that this article contains information that is also covered in other articles and does not go as indepth is silly. Look at Science, Philosophy, Tools, Music etc. This discussion, which was not going anywhere, did not arrive at a consensus which made deletion the proper course of action. It was more of a collaborative discussion of highly-technical content points, the kind of thing that should happen on a talk page, not in a deletion process. So my choices were no consensus or keep, and the very weak nomination leaned me over to keep. They are essentially the same thing anyway. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Register (phonology)

Delete This article contains information and is on a topic that is on several other wikipedia articles including Tone (linguistics), Tone language, and Vocal registration. The information presented is not as thoroughly or precisly presented as in the other articles and there are no references cited so any merger would be pointless.Nrswanson (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to merge the info you deleted. You claimed the Burmese example of creaky high tone is wrong, because vocal fry is low tone. However, in Burmese it is high tone. We should also bring Khmer back. Unless we keep a separate article, the Vocal registration article needs to be rewritten to cover register languages. It wrongly defines 'registers' as tone, and then lists phonation as examples, while 'register' is something else again - a conflation of tone and phonation. If the term is used to mean phonation in speech pathology, then we need two sections for these contradictory definitions. kwami (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are incorrect. The register page is correct and the information is well sourced. Vocal fry and creaky voice are the same thing. The references on both the phonation pages and vocal fry page says that, including the ones you listed on the web. They also state that creaky voice is low tone. And pitch is a factor in phonation as certain kinds of phonation can only be produced at certain pitches. The laryngeal function of creaky voice can only be phonated within a certain pitch or tonal area which is low. The term register is closely associated with tone. As the article states, "Registers originate in laryngeal function. They occur because the vocal folds are capable of producing several different vibratory patterns. Each of these vibratory patterns appears within a particular range of pitches and produces certain characteristic sounds." Read the creaky voice (aka vocal fry) article. Furthermore, I have no problem with the inclusion of this information if it is cited from reputable sources. But as it is not only contradictory to the well cited information on other pages and currently is not sourced I have removed it. Also the issue here is not only content but the fact that this page is redundant as the topic exists on the other pages listed above. It seems to me that you are trying to divorce tone from the term register which is not a correct approach from any source listed on the phonation pages that I have seen. Furthermore, although phonation is in a sense seperate from tone they are overlapping subjects that sometimes effect each other. You are trying to draw boundaries where none exist. Show me some references and I will support it but as of right now every reference I have seen doesn't support your hypothesis.Nrswanson (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, I believe the terms tonal language and register language are used interchangably. And that article is lot more detailed. If there is a difference let me know but the article contains some of the same information that is on the register (phonology) page. What makes this topic unique? Also, I have no problem with a section on register languages being added to the vocal registration page but the information on this page has no sources and presents highly individualized information that really doesn't explain the broader topic well.Nrswanson (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just found a definition of a register language in the American Heritage Dictionary. "Register language-A tonal language that uses different voice registers." It seems to me that this topic does belong on the tonal language page. It is my understanding that a register language is a certain kind of tonal language that is concerned with specific types of phonation as well as pitch. A language that only used the modal voice but had different meaning based on pitch would be simply a tonal language. A language that employed other vocal registers (aka vocal fry, falsetto, whictle, etc) would be a specific kind of tonal langauge know as a register language because it uses more than just the modal register. Understand though that those other registers have certain pitch areas. Creaky voice or vocal fry can only be phonated at low pitches as the voice is physically not capable of creating those sounds at higher frequencies. That was why I didn't like your chart. There is no such thing as a creaky voice with a high pitch level. Check out the source you cited in the phonation article. It will prove my point. [ click here http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/phonetik/EGG/page10.htm]Nrswanson (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm a total non-expert but based on the discussion above, and the WP{ article, it seems that this is a particular subtopic, that would be worth an article, if it were developed and sourced. How accurate it may be is for the article talk page.DGG (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, I agree completely with DGG, as I too am a vocal layperson. However, the lack of any reference sources is a deal-breaker for any WP article (All WP articles need reliable, verifiable sources for notability and everything else come second). If someone with an interest in the article puts references in it, then I will change my vote to KEEP.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge.

'Register' is not used in phonetics the way the the term is used in the Vocal registration article. Rather, it is a conflation of tone and phonation. I think Nrswanson and I have come to something of an understanding at Talk:Register (phonology).

We could merge under 'tone', but note that the reason there is a separate word is that some argue that these are not tonal languages, or can't agree as to whether they are phonemically tonal, phonational, or a conflation of the two.

I agree that refs are needed. Unfortunately I am not at home and don't have anything available. I'll see what I can swipe from Google Books. kwami (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to West St. Paul, Minnesota. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joseph's School (MN)

Elementary school with no claim of notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge a basic entry to West St. Paul, Minnesota under "Schools" or "Education". Alternately redirect it to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. Beyond that the article text is largely copyvio of their About Us page. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken out of the article for now, what appears to be copyvio. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Note: no AfD is needed for redirections. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without a merge or redirect. West St. Paul, Minnesota doesn't mention any other schools, and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis doesn't say anything about parish schools or anything other than the high schools (which are reasonably well-known around here). --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West St. Paul, Minnesota - If no other article is appropriate, schools should be redirected to the article of the local area, as standard practice. Redirects are cheap, I see no reason why this article cannot have one. If the article redirected to has no information about the school - then it is worth considering adding some. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to get rid of the non standard article name. If there is anything worth merging it would be just as easy to recreate, from the sources, in the district article. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been renamed to get rid of the postal abbreviations, I don't see anything non-standard about the current name. There is more than one Saint Joseph's School, so the disambiguation is correct. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ1

AfDs for this article:

{{prod}} removed because this article previously survived AfD.

In the 20 months since the AfD, the article has not been improved at all. There is no new material, and no claim to notability. Most importantly, it hasn't been referenced.

This is a non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a Panasonic catalog. Wikipedia is not a digital photography guide. The material in the article is wholly unreferenced. Mikeblas (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's stellar reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Persia: Ghosts of the Past

There is no sources, no links or any references to confirm that the video game is even in production. The whole article is made up of rumours, and until Ubisoft confirms the game's development, it really doesn't warrent it's own article. Another option is merging the page or redirecting it to a more relevant article, until the game is confirmed. We should get an administrator to delete it, because some unregistered user keeps removing the deletion tags, so if anyone can contact an admin about this, that'd be great.--EclipseSSD (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any reliable source aside from rumors and the leaked pictures. If there are still no offical annoucement from Ubisoft then this article violates WP:CRYSTAL.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's pure fiction, AND terribly written. It's hard for me to think of rules this article doesn't break. --Impossible (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found nothing on the Ubisoft website. This is WP:CRYSTAL all the way through Doc Strange (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unsourced speculation -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL. --MrStalker ^(talk) 08:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SFML

It's an open source software, so not sure it can be speedied, and my prod was removed and questioned on its discussion page, so listing here. I can see no notability at all. Minimaki (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: i recommend to keep this article - i think it will come back. It is a useful library - user that found it, was interested to use it - plus this software is stable (and not a beta). 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.138.48 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Nothing speaks against it coming back. Just let's wait until it is notable enough. Right now all it does is set a bad precedent for an article not claiming any notability. Whether it's useful or not is besides the point here - what is needed is sources. --Minimaki (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - SFML as an acronym brings up lots of search results, but there are multiple things called SFML. Qualifying the search with "Simple And Fast Multimedia Library" filters the results but they appear to be blogs and forum posts. No reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. I think this would have qualified for the db-web speedy; and WP:ILIKEIT, as always, is not an argument for notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Courage

Hoax article. I tagged it for CSD but someone removed the tag. Ascidian (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:V for sure not satisfied. Does look like a hoax. Did multiple searches, different locations and different combinations and nothing that looks like a band called "The Courage" other then the Wikipedia article its self. --Pmedema (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree this looks like a hoax. I can't find any verifiable sources either. --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Shame as it is quite well written. Rogue Trade is a pun on Rough Trade Records. This is in the style of Spinal Tap (band). Nimbus227 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite multiple people seeming to edit the article, no pointers to any online-verifiable material. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crusher (band)

Fails WP:MUSIC. No sources. Nothing to establish notability. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Searching for the band yields a lot of French websites which support the information given in the article. If it were cleaned up appropriately and sourced, it might be able to stand on its own. Red Zion^X 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two minor albums, one of which the article maintains is non-original, no awards, and band members who have not gone on to any individucal notability means that this group fails WP:BAND. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claiming to be one of the first French metal bands puts this one just shy of an A7, but there doesn't seem to be anything else to support any possible notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found to substantiate notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Mei

Article for non-notable wrestler...he hasn't won any major championships or wrestled in any notable promotions. Only major editor of the page was Garym619, so it probably is a vanity page. Prod removed by IP as their only edit. Nikki311 14:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable wrestler in non-notable federation. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable wreslter. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, as per nom. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and all above. Tiptoety ^talk 18:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstances of the Revenant Braves

Contested prod. Non notable webcomic. One online review, and that's it. 6 Google hits, including WIkipedia and its homepage.[57] No awards, reviews in mainstream media, or other indicatiors that it meets WP:NOTE Fram (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:N --Pmedema (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Kristof Serdynski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to this nomination, sole claim of notability is as creator of this webcomic. the wub "?!" 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no suggestion (via sources about topic's importance) that this webcomic or its creator belong in an encyclopedia. --Dragonfiend (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete no assertion of notability. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E.P.I.C

Non-notable band not even coming close to meeting WP:BAND. CSD notice removed with the summary ""Notable performances" = assertion of notability." It seems that these days simply putting the world "notable" is now an assertion of significance or importance. WebHamster 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Claiming "notable performances" is barely an assertion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, borderline notability, but enough to keep the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Potter (makeup artist)

Makeup artist. Decent career but not iconic enough to have been the subject of sufficient third-party coverage to create an article. The fact that the article is the sole contribution of the creator makes it also likely that there is a conflict of interest. Pichpich (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This and that are soe examples of articles which seem to have been about his work on Hedwig. I've tagged the article as unreferenced. He appears to be notable within the field of makeup. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep meets WP:BIO per the articles found by Whpq. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about merging to Hedwig and the Angry Inch then? Pichpich (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the article isn't about Hedwig. The article is about Mike Potter. Since he meets notability criteria, he then should have an article. -- Whpq (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At best, his fame is questionable. The articles above are not so much about Mike Potter himself but about his work on Hedwig. This is an important difference: the articles are not about Mike Potter, they're about the make-up on Hedwig (which, if you've seen the movie or show, were indeed fairly interesting). There's not much available to create a true biographical article and if we're going to stick to significant third-party coverage, the article will read "Mike Potter is a makeup artist which did a great job on Hedwig and the Angry Inch. He has also worked on other things, see imdb." In other words, a piss-poor perma-stub. Pichpich (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touchstone Technologies

No independent sources, created by an officer of the company (CEO, apparently, which may indicate the significance of the firm since I don't see much chance of Bill Gates editing the article on Microsoft). Cruftbane 14:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Cruftbane: another unsourced article about a tech business. Also, they refer to one of their products as a "solution", without being in the chemistry business; this is a per se neutrality problem, and tainted English usage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands, the company is apparently not notable. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a borderline WP:CSD#G11. It reads like it came right from the company's brochure. --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless sourced). The tone problem could easily be fixed and there's encyclopedic content in the article. But alas, there are no citations to back up the article's notability claims and I could find nothing on google other than a few articles and buying guides that list it among many other small companies.Wikidemo (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vian State Bank

contested prod. Impossible to make much sense of this article - it's basically just a dump of some random material on the author's personal archive site. It consists of an out of date news item about a bank name change eleven years ago, some irrelevant info about other banks and an irrelevant link to a minor court case in 1931. Not speediable but it fails every measure of notability I can think of and is useless as an encyclopedia article. andy (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and fairly nonsensical as well. Alberon (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I might reconsider if the article received a complete rewrite during the AfD period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but given the author's attitude to problems with previous articles that's pretty unlikely. Anyway there are pretty few ghits for the subject and none of them look like evidence of notability. andy (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the author has made a huge number of recent edits in response to this afd and many, many comments on his talk page, but I can't see anything that changes my opinion about the grounds for deletion. andy (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no evidence of notability. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as passing WP:V and WP:N. More cites need to be added from the ones found. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Washington Lewis

Delete not independently notable per WP:BIO. Veritas (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There used to be profiles of her in old books like this but she was just a wife and mother. She's known to historians through her correspondence with her brother and Kenmore House, but not for herself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung's ref & similar. If she was discussed in any detail in history books she's notable. The immediate family of presidents usually is considered so, for the good reason that people typically want to know something about them--which is why they are in fact covered in history books, and that coverage is our definition of notability. DGG (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is not substantial and is not independent of her relationship to her family. She accomplished nothing of any note in her life. Although I do find the logic of arguing inherited notability for its own sake to be interesting. People in a country who fought a revolution to throw off the titles of aristocracy seem to be quite quick to embrace the institution. --Veritas (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I tried to be generous; I read the whole thing, and it is substantial -- there's just no there there. "She kept the home fires burning" seems to be the theme, perhaps as an inspiration to patriotic wives in the next war. Possibly it's some sort of reactionary thing at the height of the suffrage movement. I'm just guessing. But the only thing she really did of any significance was sewing socks for the troops. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. John254 00:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I note that per the general notability guideline

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

a standard which appears to be satisfied here by substantial coverage in history texts as described above. Per WP:NOT#CENSORED, we don't delete articles because we disagree with the manner in which their subjects' notability has been achieved. John254 00:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point - there is no significant coverage, only brief mentioning. --Veritas (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the coverage is significant, as even supporters of deletion acknowledge. "The Pioneer Mothers of America", for example, devotes 6 and 1/2 pages to Betty Washington Lewis -- see pages 72 through 78. John254 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, significance in quality not quantity lest we set our standards so low. Hell, it's barely significant in quantity (6 or 7 pages might be a lot for a middle school paper, but not a manuscript). Mind you, it's a subsection of a chapter in a book that doesn't even cite its sources! WP:CENSOR has absolutely nothing do with this. The reality is that, in this situation, notability comes through the individual's relations with a notable individual. Notability, however, is not inherited. While she might be of minor importance in a notable person's life clearly does not qualify her for notability herself. She is merely an unimportant sidenote. Moreover, there is no way to expand this article outside of stub status due to the availability of so few sources. And, why are there so few sources? Oh, right, because she's not notable... --Veritas (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the book doesn't cite its sources -- it is a source. If we required that every source itself cite sources, then required that each source cited in the source cited in the article cite additional sources, etc, then we obviously would never be able to find any acceptable sources. Furthermore, I contend that articles should not be deleted on the basis of purely subjective assertions of non-notability, such as the claim that an individual is notable only in the context of another notable person. John254 05:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a work of history, a secondary source, which - in the historical field - must cite its sources (primary) in order to considered reliable thus establishing provenance. This source itself could never be included in the article because it is not reliable. I never said that an individual is notable in the context of another individual. In fact, I said the exact opposite. The only way this supposed "source" even mentions her is because she is related to a notable person. This is why I am saying she is not notable herself. Hence why my nomination stated, "not independently notable." --Veritas (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it would be nice if every secondary source we employed cited relevant primary sources, this is required neither by Wikipedia:Reliable sources nor by actual practice. For instance, we generally accept articles in respectable newspapers as reliable sources, notwithstanding the fact that the original notes and tape-recordings of interviews employed to assemble those articles may never be published. We're not going to hold this article to a higher standard of sourcing than would be employed anywhere else on Wikipedia, merely because some users would like to have the article deleted. John254 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll give you that Wiki has low standards in some areas, but even if its usage were permitted it still doesn't begin to establish notability per my comments above. --Veritas (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Still a relevant figure in Americana, apparently. And I'm sure that enough information can be culled from various reliable sources to make a decent article out of this. For example, Kenmore and the Lewises probably provides some good biographical information. Zagalejo^^^ 06:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Veritas's cogent arguments. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't regard misrepresenting both the availability of source material and the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources to be a "cogent argument". Opinions appear to differ with respect to that question, however. As described above, Betty Washington Lewis is the subject of extensive coverage in "The Pioneer Mothers of America" -- see pages 72 through 78, in Kenmore and the Lewises, and is even mentioned in contemporary news coverage. Veritas appears to be arguing that

(1) Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires that secondary sources cite primary sources to establish reliability, a requirement that exists nowhere either in the policy itself or in actual practice -- indeed, as described above, we consider sources such as newspapers, which rarely cite primary sources, to constitute reliable secondary sources.

(2) There isn't substantial coverage of Betty Washington Lewis in reliable sources, which has been shown to be blatantly false, hence number 3:

(3) He doesn't personally believe that the coverage of Betty Washington Lewis is high-quality, which amounts to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument.

(4) He doesn't think that personally believe that Betty Washington Lewis is really that important, another WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument.

Note that per Wikipedia:Verifiability,

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

If third-party reliable sources endorse the importance of the subject of an article by providing substantial coverage of it, we should not determine the subject to be non-notable anyway on the basis of an original research reassessment. John254 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'comment why historians think a subject worth discussing is not our concern--it is enough that they do. To the extent that precedent matters, we have always considered the immediate family of heads of state notable--in our time, there is always sufficient coverage, and this goes for the earlier centuries also to the extent there is material. The assumption is that knowing about someone's parents, spouse and children gives some information about one's life and character---and that for sufficiently important people, this is worth the knowing. DGG (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The present article is a stub, and needs expanding. From what is said above about her correspondence, I assume that this is a significant historical source (though possibly a minor one). That would certainly be enough to make her notable. I agree with the principle that relatives of notable people are not necessarily notable, but from what is set out above, it seems to me that her notability is widely accepted. Mind you, I know little directly of the subject, but hope that enables me to offer a more objective opinion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only question is whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. There is. Whether she did anything notable is irrelevant. Whether the sources should have covered her is irrelevant. The coverage does not have to be "independent of her relationship to her family", merely independent of the subject. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there isn't "significant" coverage in sources. --Veritas (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, objectively passes the PNC, but this is pretty weak tea. Every reference I find to her is just as "Betty Washington, sister of George" or "mistress of Kenmore" or "wife of Fielding Lewis". Some epistolary companions become notable, sure, but her correspondence is only studied for hints about George. The only thing saving her, I guess, is a tradition well into the 19th century of honoring her as a distaff Founding Father. For what, exactly, I still can't figure out. Biology is destiny and, well, we do have Line of succession to the British throne, and we may elect the wife of a president to follow the son of a president, but now I'm treading on the grounds of personal prejudice or ideology. --Dhartung | Talk 09:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Feng

Delete Not NN enough to warrant his own article. No content. Endless Dan 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The subject is a Hong Kong film director of the 1970s and apparently directed Sammo Hung in the majority of his (Huang Feng's, not Sammo Hung's) movies. Arguably notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator fails to make a case for non-notability, and a sizable filmography suggests otherwise. Lack of content isn't reason enough for deletion, though clearly this article needs work. PC78 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Has been here two months and notability has not been established.--The Dominator (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Change to Keep based on his filmography, the article needs to be expanded, though.[reply]

Keep - filmography suggests notability, especially when we have articles on 7 of his films. matt91486 (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had started this article because of the number of articles linking to this name. Now I have expanded it a bit. Information in English about this Hong Kong film director is quite hard to find on the internet, but he was the director or scriptwriter of 9 films which have a Wikipedia article. More information about him would be very useful though, and that would be one of the very few places on the internet where it could be found. The AfD nomination could be replaced by a request for expansion. olivier (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Directed Sammo Hung in his first leading role and we have articles for 8 films this individual has directed. Notable. --Pixelface (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 06:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Sichel

Attention has been drawn to the fact that this article seems to be a self-promotion page on behalf of the author, over which an edit war seems to have started. Je sais! (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC) — Je sais! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Please don't accuse me of edit-warring. I have simply been removing the prod tag which an IP editor keeps insisting on reinstating even though it's contested, and reinstating references from the Sunday Times and the BBC which the same IP editor keeps removing. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It takes two to edit war! Je sais! (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the two news articles on him about the same event there isn't nearly enough notability to justify this page's existance. Alberon (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:BIO by competing at the top level of his sport, and by independent references in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Has competed at a high level, but has attained no results which indicate notability. First person writing and extensive career notes are also a problem. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article now asserts sufficient notability. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First person writing and extensive career notes can be fixed by editing. You will still be left with the verified statement that he has competed for his country eleven times, and the fact that two of the most reliable of reliable sources have chosen to publish articles about him. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a runner myself, and while most of these results are results I or any other runner would be pretty proud of, there aren't many significant international events where this person has actually placed well. The Sri Chimnoy Basel race and 7th place at the Badwater are the only things that push in the direction of notability, and the rest is just spam. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. My reading of this is that he is an athlete of local interest only. As for competing for his country, I do not believe he was selected by his country to compete, rather that his nationality was simply noted by the organisers of the races in which he participated. Not notable nationally. 86.148.193.7 (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nor has Je Sais who has presented this deletion. 20 edits or so--MacRusgail (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Poster should do this with relevant articles in future. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he has coverage through multiple independent sources, including the BBC. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international competitor. Any self-promotion can be edited out. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He won the Across The Years run in 2004, see ARRS. Notable? -- Hunding (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Fisher

Advert, cailms lot of associations to well known names, no sourced Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless claims are backed up by RS. JJL (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is sourced properly. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like original research, no assertion of notability is made. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hwang

Advert, one primary source apparently he was taught by a ronin in the 1930's. Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no clue about that, but I'll certainly teach him a thing or two about Wikipedia policy... -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete --Tone 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Master of Voviology

Looks like an advert possibly a cut & paste either way not an encyclopedia article. Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps a case for speedy delete as a blatant hoax. I don't know where to begin. "Voviology" seems to be a non-notable neologism; we fortunately lack an article about the subject whose grandmastery is proposed here. The article's text —

Voviology is present across the globe and its ideology has slowly permeated into people’s daily lives. Voviology influences and changes people in living a more effective and well-rounded life by preserving moral values.

— seems to be a murky mix of martial arts and pseudophilosophy likely to be of interest chiefly to old school David Carradine fans. Original research, and given the grandiose claims made by the article, a likely hoax as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's not a hoax, but there are fewer than 200 non-WP ghits for Voviology, most of them directory listings etc. Utterly non-notable fringe religion. However the article itself is a copyvio so I've marked it as such. andy (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't think it's a hoax [58] but nn subject and atrocious article. JJL (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo Manago

Was listed at Deletion review by User:Beatmakerz. Reason for deletion is 'Article appears to be written by it's own subject, ("Wikipaeton" appears to be Manago himself) Article is not at all encyclopedic in nature, full of self-egrandizing. He includes an "interview" with himself. Language is ego-centric, not objective. Sources he lists do not actually support information in the article. If not deletion, article needs substantial editing. Wikipedia articles should be written by someone objective and not the articles subject himself' I have no opinion. Davewild (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's hard to tell if he is notable or not. He does get a few Ghits from others talking about him. What this page needs is someone who is familiar with the field the subject works in and knows how notable he is or isn't in the community. Whatever the case this page needs a lot of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberon (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article is a (highly unencyclopedic) "interview", and what's left is both poorly-sourced and doesn't pass WP:BIO anyway. Add in a fairly blatant WP:COI/vanity article too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero news hits. Anyone with a few blogs and sites can get 1000 Google hits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Punkmorten (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Fuller

As per WP:Bio#Athlete, he has not played in a fully pro-league Jimbo^[online] 13:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they too fail to meet the criteria:

Keep both Fuller played for Cambridge United F.C. in the fully professional League Two [59] and Roache played for Barnet F.C. also in League Two [60] Struway2 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per Struway2. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above King of the North East 14:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per above. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Added soccerbase link to Lee Roache to assert notability. Peanut4 (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both under current reading of WP:BIO for sportsmen. - fchd (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katarina Walker

This is an autobiography by Iezegrim (talk · contribs). The only claim to notability was the assertion that she was "recognized as the foremost authority on the American casino game Spanish 21, and its Australian analogue, Pontoon." The referenced article, however, only thanks Walker for correcting some minor strategy errors, and doesn't make any claim that even comes close to calling here "the foremost authority" on the subject. When that unreferenced, unverifiable claim is taken out of the equation, nothing remains that might make her meet WP:BIO. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, apparent vanity, primarily a link to a self-published book on lulu.com. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A self-published book that has appeared the day before yesterday, btw. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ^ plus this article only has sentence --Cradel 14:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be introduced to verify the notability of the subject. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN and autobiographical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaguely (talk • contribs) 18:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because (a) this is possibly not a real name but the nom de guerre of a casino games player and student, (b) the subject of the entry has not yet contributed anything in written form which was worthwhile or well known about gambling, and (c) the information is not supported --and cannot be supported, most probably-- by independent sources. -The Gnome (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OR or vanity entries promoting this article have been added to Pontoon_(game) and Spanish_21. It would seem sensible to revert those, especially if this is afded. 2005 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Mathew Ayling

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Article was created by a WP:SPA. Baldrick90 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notice how every time his name is mentioned, it's a link to his website? Spam, and non-notable spam at that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, non-notable and the link - every time - on his name is annoying. I'll go pull that from the page. Alberon (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-- Delete - doesent seem very notable and the only references are from his website --Cradel 14:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am new to Wikipedia and ask that the page stays. It is not spam and I would like to ask that the page is not deleted. If things need editing, I would appreciate your help in fixing them up for me or letting me know what needs to be changed. Thank you for your time. Jenny cooljen30 12:21, 14 February 2008
Have taken out any content that could be perceived as spam, and added two more references. Also links from his name to website have been removed. Comment added by Cooljen30 (talk contribs) 08:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seacrets

Contested prod, concern is that this is a non-notable local nightclub, and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Prod removed by an IP, who added this link [61], which as far as I can tell, is either broken or doesn't mention the venue, and even if it did, is just a listing in a travel database. Jfire (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - The venue seems to be prominent locally, and the source of some coverage of varying reliability, but nothing farther than blogs outside of Ocean City. Jd027^chat 13:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -We cant have an article about each night club in the world --Cradel 14:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's prominent locally but that's about it. Most of what I found when I considered listing this earlier in the month was travel-guide esque reviews. Possibly belong on Wikitravel, if anywhere. Travellingcari (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable outside its immediate area. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cate Edwards

AfDs for this article:

I am renominanting Cate Edwards for deletion. I am nominating the article on the basis of WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. The opening sentence reads "Catharine Elizabeth "Cate" Edwards (born March 4, 1982) is the elder daughter of John Edwards, the 2004 nominee for Vice President of the United States from the Democratic Party, and Elizabeth Edwards." Relationships do not confer notability, as per WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. If you read the article, no single thing, or even the sum of the parts, asserts notability, as a person that would not be related to a well-known person would not have the right to this article. I'm worried that the only reason that this article is being kept is on the basis of invalid criteria. Jd027^chat 13:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to John Edwards - as nominator. Jd027^chat 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that I am not nominating this on the base of lack of reliable coverage, as the facts are verifiable, but not notable. Jd027^chat 13:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Smerge to John Edwards. Other than being her father's daughter, she is a non-notable student. Notability does not automatically propagate from a politician to all his ancestors and descendants who get mentioned only in connection to their notable relative. Edison (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the immediate family of the most notable politicians ,such as serious presidential candidates are notable, in the sense of the general WP:N criteria. They get extensive coverage in the media, because people want to know about them. As a encyclopedia, that's sufficient justification to cover it also. We recognize what the world rcognizes as notable. DGG (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no WP:N criteria that justifies the article. Also, WP:N also states that "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." John Edwards was, although a Democratic primary runner for president, never a serious presidential candidate, only a failed vice-presidential candidate. Jd027^chat 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not contagious. I will gently disagree, however, with Jd207's assertion that John Edwards never was a serious candidate. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Previous AfD's on similar articles. For the record I have also discounted the two keep comments as not providing appropriate argument to do so - on that basis consensus clearly shows a delete response. --VS ^talk 09:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elektric Blue (album)

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased album is not notable unless there is substantial coverage in reliable sources. There isn't. Oh, and this one's been deleted several times before. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artist has charted in this past, so this information should be kept, possibly at Nicole Wray. Catchpole (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a question of whether the content of the article belongs somewhere in some form on wikipedia, it is a question of the article's failure to meet notability guidelines. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Larkin might have said, "notability guidelines are a load of crap". Catchpole (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nicole Wray. This one seems to have a bit of coverage, but not enough for a full page. Since it wasn't released, a merge would be in order. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artist has charted in this past, so this information should be kept, possibly at Nicole Wray. I would agree on this but disagree for it to be merge seeng as it will be released in the future as confirmed by Nicole Wray herself. Soccermeko (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:All the information needed about an unreleased album is already present on the Nicole Wray page. No need for more, no need for this article.Kww (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Kww. This "album" wasn't released and there is no need for this page. Cloudz679 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous versions of this article were deleted:

Elektric Blue Nicole Wray (Soccermeko)

Elektric Blue Sampler (Soccermeko)

Elektric Blue (album) (Crazy Crack Cool, suspected sock of Soccermeko)

Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowy delete, obvious OR. Black Kite 16:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr who and harry potter

A proposed deletion which has been contested. This is an essay on coincidences in casting and the like between the Harry Potter films and the long-running science fiction drama series Doctor Who. As both of them make extensive use of British actors and locations, there are quite a few coincidences... --Tony Sidaway 13:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random information and original research--Doc^g 13:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for such an essay. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR essay. No place for it here. Alberon (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not OR as there's nothing new here, but not really anything exciting, either. And the title is all wrong both in terms of capitalization and in using "Dr. Who" but that's just me being anal. 23skidoo (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources to verify any notability criteria. — 72.75.72.63 (talk) _{15:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Speedy Delete, no way this piece of Original Research is of interest to either two of those subjects above mere trivia. TheLetterM (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but WP:SYN. -Verdatum (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'delete Unless evidence of reliable sources making this connection can be found. Serious OR issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while arguably interesting, the casting coincidences are not enough to warrant an article. Looks too much like WP:OR. Bilby (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary comparison without sources to justify such a match-up. WP:SYNTH problems. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally original research Doc Strange (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stupid show

I tagged this for speedy deletion, but it was declined, so I'm bringing it here. Simply put, theres four maintenance tags on here, one source, and barely any context. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Unless the local cable access show is Wayne's World it's probably going to be deleted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete public-access shows are non-notable by definition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable show. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the aboveBeeblbrox (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus between merging and keeping, so default to keep. Neıl ☎ 13:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playscape

Neologism and unwanted fork of the playground article. The author Gardens for Living is a "landscape architect". -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Playground. I agree with the assertion that it is an "unwanted fork" of the playground article, and a lot of it seems to be written w/o NPOV, but the concept shouldn't be ignored. Move the basics into the Playground article and redirect Playscape to playground.--Nkrosse (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - per Nkrosse's suggestion. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect- Nkrosse said it all. Very cut and dry, actually.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just don't see what you guys are talking about. This is a well-written article with numerous sources. And is a playground really that contentious an issue that we have to be on high alert to watch for factions who try to undermine the global playground community with their radical dangerous natural playscape talk? I mean cummon! Might as well try to find some way to call this a coatrack! It's just an article about a notable term which describes the term encyclopedicallly and provides loads of sources. It has pictures, and should even be linked on the mainpage. This is nuts. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as for myself, I'm not saying that it's not well-written, unreferenced, or anything else. I feel it is simply a redundant article. If Playscape were a better article than playground then it would become the parent article and playground would probably be merged. As a sidenote, I've never even heard of the word playscape (but that is irrelevant to its inclusion). Cheers!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jerry. Sourced, notable, not the same as a Playground. Merging would seem silly. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While maybe a neologism it points at a clear and referenced concept, namely that of a place to play that looks and feel like a natural environment. I found also another journal source [62] that actually uses the term. -Tikiwont (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TS Krishnamurthy

Non-notable translator, by the looks of it. Note that this is not the same person as T S Krishnamurthy, who certainly is notable. I was not able to find anything more than trivial references on this person (cross referencing for "Vishnu Sahasranama" and other things), that would indicate that the translation was "critically acclaimed". The rest of it is a thorough biography, that does not highlight any particular notability. Article is not sourced. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged the page as unreferenced prior to nomination by LV. Could stay if references were added but as it is this article has to go. --Greatestrowerever (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. He is non-notable even locally. A. Salih (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owner earnings

someone defined a term once, but there is no assertion that the term became notable or significant in any way. This is just a bit of a book.. A best a dicdef Doc^g 12:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending further sources. I've certainly heard the term before, but agree that further citation is needed. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "I've heard of it" isn't good enough. Have we sources to write an article or not? Further, there is an unfortunate tendency for us to concentrate on questions of notability. Even if the term was though notable, is there an article that could be written here that would not be a dicdef? If you think there is, can you explain what?--Doc^g 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have further sources been requested first, or not? Or has it been thrown straight into deletion? Why not merge it with free cash flow? Tim (Xevious) (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google search has turned up examples of it being referenced, and explanations of how it would be used. Yes, it's typically referenced in terms of Warren Buffett's definition. To me, this makes it notable. And it is NOT a dictionary definition. --Docmgmt (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it shouldn't just be merged into Free cash flow. Because it is purposely different, in that it doesn't offer "deceptively precise figures." Failure to be easily calculated, or failing to conform to a precise tidy mathematical model is not a weakness.
- What Buffett means by owner earnings
- Digging into Buffett's numbers]
- Buffett's 12 Tenets
Keep, add in cites, which I'll add in as external links for now. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. --Angelo (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Electricity F.C.

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brighton Electricity F.C.

Non-notable football club. Never played above level 12 of the English football league system, when by precedent only clubs at level 10 or above have been deemed notable. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I would suggest deleting Hanover F.C., Master Tiles F.C., Montpelier Villa F.C., O & G United F.C., Ovingdean F.C., Portslade Athletic F.C. and Real Brunswick F.C. (all members of the same league) for exactly the same reason and this precedent. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion of those listed by пﮟოьεԻ 57.~~, except perhaps Portslade, who I believe historically may have played at a higher level, although their article does not seem to indicate this.~~ Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Strike. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - there's nothing on Portslade's website to indicate that the club has played at a higher level..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I will have to go with Number 57, there are all pretty low level, if we are deleting this, all have to go also. Govvy (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per all above. John Hayes^talk 23:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per all above and my previous nomination of American Express F.C., who were very much the same. And apologies if I mislead anyone about Portslade, it was a different club from the same place that I was thinking of who had previously played in the Sussex County League. - fchd (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced here, courtesy of FCHD. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could hardly quote my own site as a WP:RS, could I? By the way, the domain is now www.fchd.info! - fchd (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HometownQuotes

Non-notable insurance quotes website. Article written by an SPA. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-notable" is a subjective phrase. The fact that RHaworth perceives HometownQuotes as a non-notable insurance quotes site shows his lack of investigation into the matter. The company has been recognized by several business publications for its growth and entrepreneurial spirit - including the Nashville Business Journal, The Tennessean, BusinessTN magazine and Inc. magazine. Non-notable companies do not earn the attention of such publications. --Kristahtq (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note above is article creator and possible COI (name ends in htq - hometownquotes). Travellingcari (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - one source is a blog, the first is a trivial mention. Third *might* pass WP:ORG but otherwise I see a lot of PR fluff and not much coverage. I'd change my vote if someone can find more as I don't think the local awards make it either. Travellingcari (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. However, the blog author who is referred to above is a credible source as her financial column is syndicated and appears in Seattle Times and the Miami Herald. The changes have been made to reflect that in the entry. Regarding more coverage, outside of local - see the Inc. magazine entry. Again, I appreciate all suggestions to improve. Thanks. --Kristahtq (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Direct link, OK he was profiled but does this make it in any way notable? He didn't appear to win the award, and if he had that might make him notable but I still disagree that the company is any more notable than any other local insurance agency. Let's see what others have to say. Travellingcari (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Elon Musk of SpaceX won the award. HometownQuotes' CEO was in the top 10 entrepreneurs behind Elon for Entrepreneur of the Year. Ingram (HTQ CEO) was in the top 10 entrepreneurs out of hundreds across the country who were nominated for the award. --Kristahtq (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks again for your response Carianne. I understand both the WP:COI and WP:ORG and consider myself the liaison between the two parties (HTQ and wiki). If I were simply here to advance one point of view, I wouldn't be doing my best to understand, accommodate and enhance the other. So again, I'm very grateful you're taking the time to help me. HometownQuotes is not an insurance company or agency - no one there writes insurance. The company connects consumers with insurance agents. It helps insurance agents find consumers they otherwise might not have found...and helps individuals get multiple insurance quotes to help them comparison shop for insurance. HometownQuotes works with consumers and agents across the country, so it is beginning to earn national recognition - like the Inc.com mention --Kristahtq (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

- I apologize. I'll keep this conversation here. As I keep mentioning, I'm new to the Wikipedia environment, so I'm still learning about message notifications and such. Sorry. I will comment here. Thanks. --Kristahtq (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence provided of WP:CORP or WP:WEB notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the entry does meet the WP:WEB notability criterion...those guidelines state - "web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria..."

The content meets all three of the criteria. The company itself has been the subject of several published works whose source is independent of the site itself. HometownQuotes has been covered by the Nashville Business Journal - a subsidiary of American City Business Journals. The company has also been recognized by The Tennessean - a Gannett newspaper. Most recently the company was recognized by readers of Inc.com - through which the HometownQuotes CEO was voted a reader favorite. Hundreds of entrepreneurs across the country were nominated for the award. He was one of ten to be recognized for it. HometownQuotes' VP of Technology has also been referenced by one of ComputerWorld's senior writers in an article about Adobe ColfFusion.

The company has won a well-known (in the business world) and independent award from a publication - the Nashville Business Journal's Best in Business Awards. Each year the Bizjournals across the country award the fastest-growing, brightest companies in their regions.

The content of these publications were distributed in print form via newspapers and magazines as well as online - independent of the creators or anyone affiliated with the company itself.

Thanks. --Kristahtq (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The quality of the sources given is not really enough to establish notability: local and industry awards are very much like directory listings; few are well known enough outside their niche industries to really meet the business notability guidelines. The bulk of the article text is strictly about the business, and rather proposes the benefits its service offers to insurance shoppers and insurance agents: these section is strongly non-neutral, in a manner that suggests advertising and a conflict of interest by the article's initial author. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated previously, I am a new user. The first few folks who flagged this entry as an advertisement were very helpful with their feedback. They provided suggestions to improve the entry and I've made those changes. To be a new user who is sincerely trying to contribute to this environment, I haven't received much positive reinforcement, nor have I received much constructive feedback - with the exception of the first few folks. (Thanks again!) It seems, however, that many are quick to judge an entry before actually digging deeper and investigating the subject of the entry.

I find it interesting that Inc., the magazine that recognizes the Inc. 500, is not a quality source. I think many business owners and company executives would disagree. Also, if fellow debaters claim Inc. is not a credible source, why do they have a Wiki page?

Also note that the articles listed in the entry are not strictly about awards, nor are they all local pubs. One is a business story about Internet businesses and another is a story about technology issues in Computerworld magazine.

Again, I appreciate any help for how I can continue to improve. Thank you. --Kristahtq (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I haven't had as much time as I would have liked to help here. I'm not sure if you're speaking of me when you speak about Inc. My issue was not the source but rather that he didn't win the award that year. And the award, if anything, would show the CEO's notability -- not the company. I realise you're trying very hard and that should be commended but the COI and the fact that this company may just not be notable are hard to overcome. I haven't seen evidence yet that they've done anything that any other similar business hasn't and that's where I say it's not notable. Travellingcari (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Travellingcari. I wasn't speaking about anyone in particular. I appreciate your clarification.

Would it be recommended to include a brief, neutral of course, history of the company? There are other things that could be included, but it's difficult to back up the facts because HTQ is a young, private company. What information is not included that would improve the perception of the entry's validity? I suppose I'm just not understanding how other Internet companies in the U.S. like HTQ have wiki pages, yet it's being argued that HTQ should not. Thanks. --Kristahtq (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to look at those at the moment but other stuff exists is generally not a good reason to assert that a particular article should. Try and look at this from an outside point of view --- and I know know if there are answers, but it's what I think of. Why should a non-customer/user care about this company? What's special (notable) about them? I don't know if there are answers to these, but perhaps they'd be a step in the right direction. Travellingcari (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I knew that was coming. :) There are certainly answers - the thing is, there are so many neat things that could be mentioned about HTQ, but those things cannot necessarily be proven by secondary sources. For example, HTQ is the largest independently owned company in its industry. Because it's a private company, however, the public doesn't have access to that information.

I will add a brief history to the page. Please let me know if it adds or detracts. Thank you!--Kristahtq (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Two "delete" opinions advocate merging, which does not only not require deletion, but actually precludes it due to licencing issues (see WP:MERGE). Sandstein (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terran Federation

AfDs for this article:

This article should be deleted mainly because it can never ever be verified, as a fictional government from one book, the only information that can be drawn from it (and I do mean "drawn", see WP:OR) is open to wild interpretation (which has been seen in previous versions of the article, I'll post links if someone asks) and as I said before there is no way these "interpretations" can be verified Ryan4314 (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a lot of this is WP:OR, and the rest is really fancruft. Mainly merge anything particularly pertinent to Starship Troopers? Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep or move to an article on the writings of Robert A. Heinlein or similar. As to verifiability - just take a glimpse at Google scholar - [63]. Catchpole (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment A carefule examination will reveal that a lot of those are false positives, Catchpole. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Catchpole (re: verifiability).Sbowers3 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly violates WP:OR. Merge anything which is sourced properly into the main article about the novel, as Lankiveil suggests. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starship Troopers - Original research, not notable. --Explodicle (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a better article can be written. Though central to Starship Troopers, the concept is present in a great deal of Heinlein's fiction, and the criticism will talk about it. alternatively, merge to the novel. DGG (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think a better article can be written, we're talking about a subject that can never be verified. I mean even if we followed the Style Guide to the letter, what's to stop one guy saying "I think Terran Federation is Socialist!", then we'd have a debate (all discussing our views of the book), then form a consensus... and that's the problem, that's original research :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: There's a thing called "Starship Troopers Wiki" (http://starshiptroopers.wikia.com), which deals with everything relating to the Starship Troopers universe. Maybe these debates on the Terran Federation can continue there on a much larger scale. Just my two cents. --86.121.58.215 (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starship Troopers to allow interested editors to merge some factual tidbits, or weak delete. Many voices in the VfD three years ago preferred to "cleanup" the "fancruft" instead of deletion, but all that's happened since is the addition of more unsourced in-universe material (WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR). It is unlikely that (1) reliable source for real-world content exist, or that (2) editors will include them, so even if (1) and/or (2) turn out false, it's better to start new. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main argument of those who want to delete this article is that articles about fictional governments are inherently original research. We have dozens of articles on fictional governments and many of them actually refer to secondary sources. I think Terran Federation is notable enough, so it should not be so difficult to verify the article. The only question is who will be willing to do it... Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Never said "fictional governments are inherently original research", this one is though, as it is only mentioned in 1 book, it can't be verified therefore is vulnerable to interpretation. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not an expert on the Terran Federation, but a short survey of Google Books shows more than "one" secondary source that can be used in this article: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]. Someone with more time and commitment to this article would surely find even more secondary sources. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - All those sources merely prove that there is a thing called the "Terran Federation" in a book called "Starship Troopers". We all know it exists, were having an AFD about it lol. Our problem is people interjected their own ideas into the article, and us without any sources to prove them otherwise Ryan4314 (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not really. For example, some of the sources claim the regime of the "Terran Federation" is fascist. Some other describe the Terran culture of militarism. I believe many other claims from the article can be found in these sources and the article can be eventually verified. On the other hand, I am not sure if anyone is up to this task. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's the problem; "some of the sources claim the regime of the "Terran Federation" is fascist. Some other describe the Terran culture of militarism." it can't be verified! Unless we have a séance with Heinlein, this is all interpretation of his work. Even if we had sources from litery scholars about there views on the federation, the article would then need to be changed to "Interpretations of Heinlein's Terran Federation". Unfortunately, no amount of effort or work can solve this fact. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We can verify what the the sources say. There is a substantial literature regarding Heinlein and his works. Catchpole (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think you guys understand, there are no sources to refute ludicrous ideas (like this), that people wanna add to the article. I love Heinlein's work and that's why this article needs to go, we (the users) should not be able to interject our own opinions and if we simply just had the text the from the book... well it might as well just be a copy of the book, which we have the book for lol (not to mention the copyright infringement). Ryan4314 (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am afraid I do not fully understand your point because the same comment can be made about any article devoted to a piece of art. However, we have tons of articles about novels or even imaginary objects from novels. And many of these articles are protected quite efficiently against ludicrous original research. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's ok mate, I wanna draw an end to this thread anyway. Some poor admin has gotta read it all and were starting to repeat ourselves. I think we probably got our points across for the others to read by now n all :) Ryan4314 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brood (album)

Article makes no claim of having charted, and no sources are provided, such as the usual reviews. Band itself is of questionable notability. Blast Ulna (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and songs certainly allow for Wiki articles on albums by musicians that meet the basic criteria at WP:N. My Friend the Chocolate Cake has its own Wiki article and has a series of albums that were released by a major Australian label. The band is critically acclaimed, has its own reference in Ian McFarlane's Encyclopedia of Australia Rock and Pop (ISBN 1 86449 768) and also has strong links to Not Drowning, Waving, another important Australian musical act with a series of major label releases. The nomination suggests My Friend the Chocolate Cake has "questionable notability", but offers no support for this suggestion. The AfD nomination seems to have been sparked by my removal of an obsolete sources tag on the Brood entry. The nominator has chosen not to engage in discussion on the talk page for the article. Grimhim (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the band having their own Wikipedia article (unsourced but for their own website), and also have no sign of a song that charted hardly seems proof of notability of one of their albums. If the tag is obsolete, you may propose that it be deleted so people won't be confused into using it. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, official albums by notable bands are notable. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- I disagree, and how do we define official? Blast Ulna (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn, sources now provided. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus was clear for keeping the article. Inappropriate content issues are not issues for WP:AFD, they should instead be referred to WP:Edit. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contract year phenomenon

It is a buzzword, and I am not sure it warrants an article of its own. It also was a magnet for WP:BLP-violating abuse, because users would just list their favourite hate player on that page. I would either delete or merge with some more relevant article relating to sports contracts. Onomatopoeia (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep I'm finding articles supporting the term, (and I will add them in presently,) so it seems to be worth a valid stub. Besides, according to WP:VANDAL deleting an article because it's being vandalized is not wise, because it emboldens the terrorists. -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking back through the history of the page, I do not necessarily agree that all the claims you edited out rise to the level of a BLP violation. While there were certainly some claims that were not sourced, others were. BLP is not to be used to remove sourced claims, no matter how unflattering. I'm posting a comment at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for another set of eyes. -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point, but an entire section of the page was called "Erick Dampier", as if Dampier's only contribution to NBA history was his overpaid contract. That needs to stop. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if rewritten and referenced - As it stood, the entire article was a string of logical fallacies and unsupported bald assertions of bad faith behavior. Iff the article is rewritten and referenced to refer to the probably-encyclopedic accusations that some players engage in this, then it should be kept. But if it's refilled with said logical fallacies and pissed-off-fan accusations, then it must be nuked. FCYTravis (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. I'm not defending the status quo diff per se, and I certainly don't object to removing unsourced claims. I just prefer the surgical scalpel to the AfD cleaver. I've tossed in the {{rescue}} donut, to see if someone is willing to help this one out more than I already have. -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment We had a similar discussion with Ball hog. IIRC, Kobe Bryant was called a "ball hog" by ESPN.com in one particular game, but his detractors used it to justify putting in a pic of Bryant with the caption "Kobe Bryant is considered the prime example of a ball hog". For similarly flimsy reasons, Dwyane Wade and Allen Iverson were listed. All are obviously incorrect. In the end, all names were kept out but the article remained. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another whining sports-fan buzzword, and one I doubt has risen to the level of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Transwiki to wiktionary.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn Knight

Delete this article on non-notable self-published downloadable comic with no suggestion of any importance or reputable independent sources. Note that the talk page says that "The prod tag has been removed on the basis of the strip being distributed by FlashbackUniverse, which seems to qualify as an independent online publisher as per WP:WEB." A look at http://www.FlashbackUniverse.com/WhoWeAre.aspx shows that FlashbackUniverse isn't independent from the comic as FlashbackUniverse is run by the comic's two creators. Dragonfiend (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Tikiwont (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, technological gimmickry aside, this appears to be a non-notable webcomic. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

JimShelley (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think its difficult to measure the impact my comic has made on the current trends in the comic world, so I'm not sure how I would prove its notability. I also think either I or Dragonfiend misunderstand what is meant by Independent Online Publisher (in the print comics world, that is a loosely defined term usually meaning not Marvel or DC), but as I don't really have time to debate the merits of my projects here, feel free to merge or delete the article as you wish. --JimShelley (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. And a hearty thank-you to Torc2 for the in-depth anaylsis and neutral presentation of the content of the sources in the article. This debate came down to 1 issue: is there substantial non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to support context for notability? This was clearly shown to not be the case. I was convinced that parties on both sides of the debate made extraordinary efforts to locate sources. Perhaps the subject of this article will have sufficient sources available in the future to rewrite the article, if the claims of his sucess and influence are anywhere near accurate. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Bertorello

This is a tough one.. the vast majority of the editing seems to have been done by a single use account, who has been adding a massive amount of sources. Perhaps trying too hard to prove a point? Does 28 sources (mostly blogs?) and make someone "notable", and "entrepreneur", and "inventor" and "famous"? Maybe I'm being pedantic.. Rehevkor (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not looking through all of these right now, but a blogspot blog, and especially a self-published one, is very far from being a reliable source.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article on "Pablo Bertorello" by an SPA named Pmrbertorello? Clear COI and violation of WP:AUTO. Even putting that aside, there's no notability established and the sources are almost all blogs, trivial mentions, or make no mention of the subject at all. There's a little bit of material on what he's done, but really nothing about Bertorello himself.Torc2 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 12 patents verifiable at US Patent Office make Bertorello a notable inventor; articles in Wall Street Journal, Career Journal, and several other print magazines (that could/should be produced if notability is still an issue) should remove any doubts; multi-million user adoption verifiable at skype.com for products created by the company founded by Bertorello make him an entrepreneur to watch. Your careful edits of the entry to remove lesser blogs is appreciated. Please note that SkypeJournal is a reliable source, as are others taken out. Are more feature print articles necessary to address notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmrbertorello (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The patents themselves are irrelevant; anybody can file them and their acceptance does not establish the inventor as notable. Reviewing the current references one by one by WP:N (and WP:V) standards:
  - The WSJ article is a trivial mention in an article about a different subject, not significant coverage.
  - The Nividium.com PDF (which, incidentally, is marked "confidential") seems to be an internal memo and doesn't mention Bertorello at all.
  - YouTube cannot be used to establish notability as it is not independent and not a reliable source.
  - Download counts of a program do not establish notability for the developer; it's not independent coverage of the topic.
  - The patents are not independent coverage and do not establish notability of the inventor.
  - The second WSJ article is also a trivial mention and only mentions Bertorello's name once.
  - The Spanish links:
    - The first is an interview on a webpage. This is probably the strongest source, but still looks like it's some form of blog with a minimal audience.
    - The second is just a translation of the second WSJ article.
    - The third is a snippet that mentions Bertorello. It has no byline and doesn't appear to be anything more than a press release.
    - The fourth is a brief mention in a some kind of government newsletter.
  - Gigaom.com is a blog and not a reliable source.
  - This looks like an email or press release of some kind, and isn't about Bertorello himself.
  - Gigaom.com is still a blog.
  - The Oracle press release doesn't mention Bertorello at all.
- In other words, there's a lot of trivial mentions about products and companies Bertorello worked with, but not about Bertorello himself. And none of this addresses the WP:COI issues and that this article seems to be little aside from self-promotion. Torc2 (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One significant Wall Street Journal reference, and another using him as an example, which implies he is notable enough to use as an example. Should be enough to satisfy notability concerns. The main issue is content, and specifically avoiding the problems of WP:Autobiography. I think if User:Pmrbertorello will agree to make further suggestions on the talk page rather than edit the article directly (except for typos and WP:BLP issues, of course), there shouldn't be any problems. As for SkypeJournal, you may be right, but the one I looked at could really be used only for background information. Gimmetrow 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are non-reliable, the rest are trivial mentions. Patents are irrelevant. --L. Pistachio (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This isn't Bill Gates, but the two WSJ mentions are enough to establish notability. The other refs don't need to establish notability, and may or may not be useful background info. Gimmetrow 06:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each article only mentions his name once. One seems to be a blog or blog-type article at that. They are both trivial and do not establish notability. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which WSJ article are you claiming is a blog? One WSJ article mentions his "remarkable achievement". The other uses him specifically as an example of an Argentinian launching a startup. If he weren't notable in some degree, that wouldn't be a very useful example, now would it. Gimmetrow 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Career Journal" one. And no, it doesn't matter if they say that he's made "remarkable achievement"; the article isn't about him, and his name is only mentioned in passing. It isn't "significant coverage" as required by WP:N: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail" - Does either WSJ article do this? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 09:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see how the first one is a blog. And the second one, despite your assertion that it "only uses his name once", seems to have some extended discussion, and seems to use his name three times. Gimmetrow 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about this being the second WSJ article, right? I only see his name once. Neither one is addresses the subject directly in detail; only some of the work with which he is associated. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the first one has his name three times, quickly in succession. The only thing actually about Bertorello himself though are the words "Argentinean-born inventor". That's not sufficient detail to meet WP:N. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read this carefully. Name is there three times, including quoting him. Seems a non-trivial mention to me. Gimmetrow 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, they don't use "Bertorello ". This still isn't non-trivial coverage of the individual, and is definitely not "significant" by any stretch of the imagination. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Again, this isn't Bill Gates, but the one WSJ article addresses the subject in some detail, giving where he worked and his wife's name. Would it matter if this were an article about Verosee (the company) rather than him? Gimmetrow 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←"Less than exclusive" means the coverage can be about more than one topic; the example given in the footnote illustrates what they mean. If this article had "significant coverage", it wouldn't be excluded just because it also covered another party. I'm not saying that the reason the coverage is trivial is because there's more than one person mentioned; I'm saying it because the coverage isn't about Bertorello personally to the level required for WP:N. The WSJ articles, which seem to be the only ones that are being considered, and which actually are only linked to in reprinted form (they're not on wsj.com), include this as their total coverage of Bertorello personally:

"Argentinean-born inventor"
"...Broadreach chief Pablo Rodríguez Bertorello to return home after nine years in the U.S. and launch a start-up..."
"...who launched Broadreach with his savings from six years as an Intel Corp. engineer and that of his wife Elizabeth..."

That's every word of personal coverage. I'm sorry, I just honestly don't see that as "Significant coverage"; I don't see that as "addressing the subject directly in detail". The Verosee question is less clear, but I'd still lean towards 'no' - the second WSJ article doesn't mention it at all; the first one does, but is it enough? I don't think so. Another relevant quote from WP:N is in its definition of 'sources': "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." That says to me they're expecting either greater detail or a lot of different articles if the coverage is this brief. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article called "Argentina's High-Tech Chance". The first example given is "Broadreach Software", including the statement: "The factors that allowed Broadreach chief Pablo Rodríguez Bertorello to return home after nine years in the U.S. and launch a start-up are the same ones leading many technology companies to Argentina." This is followed by citing two of Bertorello's opinions: one as a paraphrase and one as a direct quote. It seems to me that he's not just someone random guy being quoted, but an Argentinian businessman notable enough to quote. The other WSJ article (by a different author on a different topic) refers to him as "Argentinean-born inventor", which seems to be what he's known for, and describes his "remarkable achievement". These are more than the "one-sentence mention" described in the footnote of the WP:N guideline. Gimmetrow 04:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "one-sentence mention" isn't a minimum threshold; it's an example of the extreme. It's a "well, obviously not this" example. That same footnote states that "the 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial" - you don't think the real aim is somewhere in between? That maybe notability doesn't require two full-length books, but it might require more that three dozen words total? I don't think there's much more point to us debating this; we obviously disagree over what constitutes minimum independent coverage. This as coming anywhere close to what the minimum requirements are; coupled with the clear self-promotion and WP:COI and WP:AUTO violations, I really don't see how this could be kept. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 04:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are accusing me of COI and AUTO, it's not an issue. I suspect there is systemic bias at work against non-English sources. The nomination and the first comment pertain to an article in a bizarre state. You've done nothing to improve the article, and you didn't even read the two WSJ articles correctly. Two mentions in the Wall Street Journal are quite enough for a stub. Gimmetrow 07:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear I'm not, and although you have edited the article since it was posted, I still think its creation represents COI and AUTO violations. I've "done nothing to improve" an article I believe has no place here. Is that supposed to be criticism? It's not even accurate. I did search for other usable instances of his name and found none. I took the time to review each link one by one to see if they met WP:RS and WP:N. And it doesn't matter how prestigious the WSJ is, or that I didn't notice that one of the articles referred to him as "Rodríguez"; what matters is the content of the articles themselves and the nature of the material. What matters are mentions are scarce, superficial, and trivial. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I see two WP:RS articles with two or three paragraphs on him, and I consider that enough for a stub. (P.S. I'm the one who converted Verosee into a redirect.) Gimmetrow 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that should be redirected and mentioned in Skype instead? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not-yet-notable businessman. Maybe in a few years he'll become notable; but at present, he simply doesn't qualify. (I've also given the author the standard COI warning.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have given the COI warning. That issue was pointed out to the user quite a while ago. Gimmetrow 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I see through this conversation is that you are arguing whether or not he was mentioned in a significant fashion in a news article or not. As far as I see, whether he was mentioned once or twice in an article or whether he had a whole article to himself, the only notable thing he did is the Skype file transfer program. Unless I missed something about some hidden patent amongst his twelve total, he does not seem notable, regardless of his news coverage. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if he was discussed in 20 articles, it wouldn't matter? No point discussing this further. Gimmetrow 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete there WSJ mentions seem small and don't quite WP:BIO but I'm really on the fence on this. If anyone can find other sources that would likely make me change my mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Changing to weak keep the Spanish sources seem to maybe be ok although one of the three appears to be more or less simply a translation of a WSJ article. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This version included some non-English sources. Gimmetrow 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can you translate them for us possibly? I see his name mentioned. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)~~Nevermind, Babelfish gave a decent approximation. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with the foreign-language links were discussed above in my post of 07:23, 7 February 2008. One is a WSJ reprint, one is not from a reliable source, and two are trivial mentions. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that now. I agree that the WSJ translation isn't helpful (as I remarked in my comment above)- I'm afraid that the other mentions while arguably trivial are enough to push me over to weak keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, speculation of whether this is a self-written article is a irrelevant. Although I personally feel this person is non-notable, he does barely fall within the guidelines at WP:BIO#Basic criteria. --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Reso lute 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hella (word)

I don't beleive this word really needs it's own article, perhaps it could be merged and redirected into the Slang article as that article contains a list of slang with short descriptions. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with California English where I believe it's mentioned. JuJube (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like OR and is definitely a neologism. --L. Pistachio (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with JuJube , merge to California English --Cradel 14:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge - Delete, as it's OR and fails WP:NEO. Definitely do not merge because California English focuses on what California English is (e.g. its lexical characteristics, its history/evolution, phonetics, etc.), not a dictionary of California English. Also, do not merge because of WP:DICT; the first sentence of WP:DICT is "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide." Wiktionary may be a more appropriate place, but I'm not familiar with their policies. Jd027^chat 14:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The major differences, roughly, are that Wiktionary only needs sources showing usage, rather than defining/discussing the term, and they accept a broader pool of sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a major generational slang term (although I personally wonder whether it peaked about five years ago). It is in dictionaries now including The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and even Random House Dictionary of Historical Slang (1994). This takes it off the WP:NEO plate as established slang and subject to normal notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it take it off of the WP:DICT "off the plate"? Jd027^chat 23:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added references discussing the cultural aspects of the word, proving an encyclopedic article is possible. --Dhartung | Talk 01:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, and change of stance to Neutral. When I nominated this article for merge and redirect it was a very short article. Since then it has increased in size 20 fold, so I am not sure merging it into a list with short descriptions would be appropriate anymore. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:HEY. I don't know how much I like it, but it seems to satisfy WP:NEO right now. -Verdatum (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so it's a word used a couple of times, primarily in an episode of South Park. Still leans towards not much more than a dictionary entry to me. - fchd (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buklod UPLB

non-notable Philippine School organization (no reliable ghits). Note that the creator only edited on this article and the University's article Lenticel ^(talk) 09:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Article is mostly a giant list of non-notable people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew. --Jojit (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Angelo (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Robertson

Non-notable player, never played in a professional league. Jimbo^[online] 09:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTY/Notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom & No57s comments. King of the North East 09:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY notability recommendations. Peanut4 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GL Biodiesel Processor

Non notable new technology. No independent reliable references. Four Google hits for "GL Biodiesel Processor"[69]. No Google books, scholar or news hits. Changing the search to "Graham Laming Biodiesel processor" gives the same result. Splitting the searchterm in two gievs a fw more general Google hits[70], but still no indication that this new design has received any attention in reliable sources. Fails WP:NOTE completely. Fram (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The only external links seem to be a personal website and a forum, no published sources. Originally planned on AfDing this, but my strong inclusionist philosophy stopped me. I can now just see that this is a self-promotion article. -- penubag (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Bláthnaid 13:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.rite

Non Notable Musician, artist and related albums have nearly zero ghits, lack of mentions in any sort of publication. Q ^{T C} 08:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen bee (subculture)

AfDs for this article:

The present article is simply a dic def and an unencyclopedic essay.

However, I'm nominating for deletion as I do not believe that this article can be written. There is no encyclopedic topic here. This is just a word that can have different meanings, but we don't do word definitions. If anyone thinks otherwise, please in a sentence or two outline what they think can be written here. Doc^g 08:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to parent article. If there's any suitable material that isn't OR, it can be merged in. Black Kite 00:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna Tell Everybody

Delete - A cancelled single by Christina Milian, it didn't chart on any official charts and it doesn't need its own article. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 00:53, 02 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent article, is not notable on its own.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viridae ^Talk 07:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge per WP:MUSIC. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SorryGuy Talk 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redflecks

Article was tagged for CSD A7, but I've declined speedy (even though I could have deleted it myself) and send it at AFD as I don't think it meets quite enough speedy deletion criteria. The main concern for this article (and based on the tag) is the lack of notability per WP:MUSIC. JForget 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a scattering of things here and there, but nothing that seems to indicate that they meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources, appear to meet music notability guidelines through extensive touring. Catchpole (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems to fall JUST short of WP:MUSIC. Jonathan (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Delete concur with Jonathan. If the author (or interested party) can find one of 12 criteria for WP:BAND, I will change to KEEP. Well-written article.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viridae ^Talk 07:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Just barely fails WP:MUSIC. The article mentions significant tours, but I was unable to find any reliable sources. If such sources are found, this would meet the criteria. --L. Pistachio (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canyouhearmenow (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BootB

Reads like an ad, the company was only launched on Nov 27, 2007 (can it possibly be notable by now?), and there are no reliable sources telling me that it is notable. Has been speedied then undeleted to allow for expansion, but I just don't think any is forthcoming. ♠P M C♠ 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail WP:WEB. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fascinating that an advertising firm fails so badly at advertising that they don't have any notable mentions out there... -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All irony aside the company seems non-notable, and I think all its sources (plus any I could find on google) are press releases. Perhaps some day if they get some real press, but the whole thing is an advert too. Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 02:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Away (Christina Milian song)

Delete - Yet another cancelled single by Christina Milian which has no sources. Yes a music video was made for this song, but it doesn't need its own article. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 01:08, 02 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums_and_songs. Pairadox (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect to Christina Milian (album) per Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums_and_songs.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few songs merit an article, let alone ones that were never even released. --L. Pistachio (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Note that this applies to Iribarren only, not the other players mentioned by Bat ears. Every player's career is different, and should be looked at independently. Reso lute 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hernán Iribarren

This person is nn. Never a MLB player. His highest level reached was AA. Bat ears (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not only Iribarren, but others non notables in the Milwaukee Brewers org. that have usless Wikipedia articles such as: Alcides Escobar, Steve Bray (baseball), Joe Bateman, Vince Perkins, Jeff Housman... and there are a bunch more (trust me). I will compile a list and nominate them all as soon as I find some time. Bat ears (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, you'd be better off nominating them seperately, because all baseball players have had different careers and should not be a grouped nomination. --Borgarde^talk 00:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Minor league baseball is professional baseball. While most coverage of the individual appears to be game-related, I believe there is enough out there to establish notability. (Mind meal (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Minor league is far from Major League, and there's plenty of precedent for minor leaguers being considered nonnotable. Moreover, I believe (not sure though) that minor league isn't fully professional. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think youre right. Ive always heard of minor leaguers as being classified as "semi"-pro. Bat ears (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment League minimum in AA (in 2005) was $1500 a month, generally for a 5 month season IIRC. That translates to $7500 a year -- not what I would call "fully professional", which I take to be a position where you wouldn't need another job.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. AA baseball doesn't meet my def of "fully professional" (see comment above); ghits and google news are coming up with only passing mentions, fan blogs/forums, and official team web sites.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep based on info given by Spanneraol.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iribarren played in the 2005 All-Star Futures Game and was a Florida State League All-Star in 2007 as well as being the Arizona Fall League Most Valuable Player in 2004. Baseball Cube site has info on him. Seems to have enough sucess at the minor league level to meet notability requirements of WP:BIO and WP:BASEBALL. Spanneraol (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having an information profile on baseballcube.com does not establish ones notability. Baseballcube is a wonderful site that has information on virtually every person that has EVER played Minor League Baseball, (even at the lowest levels possible). In fact, Baseball-reference.com has this information as well. Here is the bio for Iribarren from Baseball-reference.com: [71]. Iribarren is on milb.com as well. However, this still does not make him notable on Wikipedia at this stage of his career. Bat ears (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment -- I understood it that Spanneraol was giving Baseball Cube as a reference for MVP and All-Star games, which it does.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability by playing in a professional league, and meets Wikiproject Baseball's more stringent requirement of having "won a notable Minor League Baseball award, or been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues." Kinston eagle (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all minor leaguers are notable, but as an All Star and Futures Game participant, Iribarren pretty clearly is. He's also a member of the Brewers' 40-man roster. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be a bad idea to nominate Perkins or Escobar for deletion, since Perkins played for the Canadian national team in the 2006 World Baseball classic, and Escobar played in the 2007 Futures Game. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider Buddhism

Article appears to violate WP:NOR and is also not referenced. Mind meal (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting, but appears to be a neologism of the author's own making, per google and his talk page comment. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism/original research -- zero Google hits other than those directly derived from this article on Wikipedia and its mirrors, and no supporting cites given. -- The Anome (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above - appears to be original research --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dim Mak Films

Non-notable company. Article reads like a possible advertisement. Google search on "Dim Mak Films" yields only 28 unique returns, none major third party sources - most are user-submitted or general directory listings. None of the films listed in company filmography appear on the IMDB, which backs up idea of non-notability. Maked for speedy delete earlier today. Recommend Delete. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the talk page, this film company is responsible for one of the only existing documentations of the Prophecy festival, the topic to which I ultimately plan to build on. The Prophecy festival was a hugely important cultural event of which I'm amazed that I can find so little on either english google or english wikipedia. It is to this end that I wish to include Dim Mak Films, and hope to (if indeed there was ever a need) eliminate any advertisement flavor. This page is a work in progress, as I am still learning wikipedia tools. The lack of notation on IMDB is due to the majority of this company's productions having been produced in Israel. This is not a sign of unimportance, but rather obscurity. This is indeed a notable company, and the Prophecy Festival is a notable event. I hope to prove these things if you give me time. Thank you for your patience with me. As MikeWazowski mentioned, there is little information about either the event, the documentary, or the film company (the three topics which I endeavor to discuss) readily available on the internet. This makes research slow-going.

Sweetsyrinx (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Sweetsyrinx[reply]

Delete. Sweetsyrinx, importance is of no matter to Wikipedia, but what does matter is if whether there is sufficient coverage of the subject on or off the internet, which, until you provide some citations, this subject does not pass. Don't worry about our tools, someone else can always format them properly, but do look at our policies: No original research, Neutral point of view, and the one most applicable to here, Verifiability. hateless 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have worked on the formatting, unfortunately I couldn't find any outside sources, therefore I believe it fails notability, it also contradicts itself, where, first it says that it was founded in Israel then it says "...moved to the US and founded Dim Mak Films." Anyway, delete as failing notability guidelines.--The Dominator (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daedalus Encounter

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nominator concurred. Non admin close. Xymmax (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Daedalus Encounter

This is just the plot of a video game, in loving detail. Delete per WP:PLOT. Tony Sidaway 05:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article on the notable video game, but delete the excessive plot summary. Jfire (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looks like it was a finalist (didn't win) for an award called the Codies some times in the mid-1990s. Precious little else about it, except the hiring of actress Tia Carrere (later known as the woman from Relic Hunter). Is this enough for an article? Maybe a redirect to Tia Carrere's article? --Tony Sidaway 07:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was reviewed by Entertainment Weekly[72] and got 4 stars in Macworld[73]. I've read it was reviewed in the July 1995 issue of PC Gamer magazine and also in the November 1995 issue of GamePro magazine. Help could be enlisted at WP:VG/M. --Pixelface (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I seem to remember reading about this in some gaming mags when I was a kid. Coverage certainly exists. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Full-motion video (FMV) games are sort of the genre that time forgot, as unlike adventure or fighting games they never really picked up much of a cult following among retro games enthusiasts and as a result don't get talked about much anymore. But this was notable in its day as a big-budget example of its genre, including starring Tia Carrere of Wayne's World fame. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think I'm convinced. Would somebody like to snow this as a keep? Who was she in Wayne's World? ....Garth, is that you? --Tony Sidaway 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable game with notable cast members, award finalist, groundbreaking game for its time. If the plot summary is too long, that's a content issue, not an AFD one. 23skidoo (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion (film)

~~Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards re-creation if it goes into production.~~ Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The film has started filming and doesn't fail any of the rules. Universal Hero (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A quick search of Google News provided ample sources, and it's clear that filming has already begun [74]. A little bit of research by the nominator wouldn't have gone amiss, though the article could certainly do with a little more content. PC78 (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although to be fair, the article did state that the film was in pre-production prior to the AfD. PC78 (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as sourcing has been provided. I know Universal Hero is a diligent editor of articles on upcoming Indian films, and hope that he will remember to provide sources so as to avoid AfDs like this again. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Girolamo, I'll make sure I will. Universal Hero (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 02:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ildiko Reisenbigler

Subject does not appear to be notable. The single reference no longer exists, and while a separate bio can be located through a Google search, the subject's notability based on that bio is questionable. Most other Google hits were generated as a result of the article's presence here. May qualify for speedy deletion, but proposing here to be safe, in case disagreement exists and discussion is needed. DavidGC (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article created by a one edit SPA with no claims that meet WP:BIO let alone any references that approch that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see much of a claim of notability in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 02:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CubeDesktop

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Well, actually, there was as assertion of notability on the grounds that it was "the first program to offer a... cube-style realtime virtual desktop management feature on Windows operating systems". The trouble with this assertion is that it (and other parts of the article) was blatantly copied and pasted verbatim from the Yod'm 3D article, so doesn't exactly ring true. -- simxp (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after the plagiarised claim of being first is removed, there ain't no notability. JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SeaGreen

Fails notability requirements for inclusion, likely promotional. slakr^\ talk / 04:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sea green. Corvus cornix_talk 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to being almost entirely promotional. It reads almost exactly like their website. --Ig8887 (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely CSD G11 candidate. Jfire (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable software that has apparently just been released. Article appears to be promotional. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. While it is true that Seagreen is new, it is notable in the respect that it is the first software to present professional-level developers with the opportunity to create online forms & automatic database creation, without using online services. Product is significant in that, until this point, this service has largely been monopolized by online providers. Seagreen is a "DIY" software, friendly to web developers who are not familiar with coding. In fact, untried, untested, and unknown products such as Zune and iPhone (remember how it was kept under wraps?) were most certainly featured in Wikipedia prior to release. Suggestions are most welcomed as to how to redevelop article to satisfy Wikipedia conditions and ensure life of this article. Thank you. --TulipCat (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet WP:N? JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:TulipCat is the creator of the article. Corvus cornix_talk 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. Internet communities such as Wikipedia are supposed to level the playing field. This company may not have the deep pockets of Microsoft or Adobe, but just because the software is new, doesn't necessarily mean it is "not-notable." I suggest we provide feedback on how to make the article less "promotional." Iwebbed (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Iwebbed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix_talk 22:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is an encylcopedia, not a source for "leveling the playing field." We're not here for free advertising. Corvus cornix_talk 22:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (A7) MKolt now 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return to India

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Corvus cornix_talk 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there is no possible article that could be written on the declared topic that wouldn't be essentially a how-to guide or an essay. --Ig8887 (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackblack

Deleted twice as a7, once as prod, notability issues. The prod was contested so I am putting it here as a standard procedure. No opinion from my side. Tone 11:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC, then suggest redirection to Black Black. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC and because notability is not inherited. Redirection as above could be fine.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ for lack of notability. Redirection doesn't make sense to me, the subjects are unrelated. — X S G 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I was unaware of the Alex Greenwald connection, which is pretty clearly a criteria for notability. — X S G 23:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the band is notable for containing guitarist Alex Greenwald of the notable band Phantom Planet. According to WP:MUSIC, this is grounds for notability. Also according to WP:MUSIC, the band page should redirect to Greenwald's page, but I believe this is not necessary because Blackblack have enough achievements of their own to at least make them above "side project" status. In the event that the page is deleted, I think redirection to Black Black is really not necessary because they are completely unrelated. I think if the page is deleted it should redirect to Alex Greenwald and a section should start on his page about the band. -Lamarcus (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Blackblack had a tour in a sovereign nation (Japan), which is under the notability rules as well. -06:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamarcus (talk • contribs)
Keep. WP:MUSIC criterion #6 clearly applies. Given there is a reasonable amount of cited material here, I would agree with Lamarcus that a merge with Alex Greenwald would not be a good idea. However, a merge would be more sensible than deletion. WP:MUSIC criterion #4 may also apply, although the article does need more citations. Bondegezou (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author or interested party can find notable references (someone's blog doesn't count as notable) and third-party citations.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 09:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and place {{Verify}} tag at the top of the page. If no sources are added within the next few months I suggest re-AFD'ing it. D.M.N. (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:MUSIC. matt91486 (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This doesn't fail WP:MUSIC, it explicitly meet criterion #6. Keep it tagged per D.M.N. --L. Pistachio (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for passing criterion #6 of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Two tours and a semi-notable member is just enough for WP:MUSIC, isn't it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge, NOT performed by the closing admin. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Falcone

Minor character in The Godfather novel, and no role at all in the film. Not notable enough for a separate article. Blueboy 96 17:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without getting into deep literary criticism I would say he is an important character in a major novel. (What's "No role in the film" got to do with it?). Is sub planning to dismantle the comprehensive coverage of the Godfather in WP? Which character will be next? Annamonckton (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete if no merge target can be found. No context, does not meet notability guidelines by far. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for literary criticism. The question is are there multiple independent WP:RS about this guy? A sentence on the books page is fine.Obina (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect, I think that the character is notable enough to be merged into the parent article. Deleting is a bit much.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 09:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment I also think a lot of the articles located in this template should be deleted too. D.M.N. (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a suitable article for the minor characters; construct one if necessary. It does appear that nothing specific has really been said about him as yet. DGG (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect; concur that the whole template deserves a closer look. JJL (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JMC Blue Dwarf

AfDs for this article:

OK, so this is essentially a piece of cooperative Red Dwarf fanfiction posing as a game that has been played by no more than 100 people since its inception in April 2000. Why does this belong in an encyclopedia, exactly? There are no references beyond links to the Blue Dwarf website. A Google search for "blue dwarf roleplaying" provided nothing relating to this game beyond simple links in directories of other Play-by-E-mail games. Further, the audio recording mentioned is simply a recording made by someone who plays the game and then posted it to the site, rather than, say, the story being picked up and used by a third party media outlet. This might be entertaining for the 30 people involved in it, but it simply isn't notable by any definition, and lacks any pretense of reliable third-party sources as well. Fails WP:WEB and WP:NOTE. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And when I started this AfD, I didn't even realize this was a recreate of an article that was deleted as non-notable in July 2007. Well, it hasn't become any more notable in the intervening months, and a bunch of references to its own homepage doesn't establish third-party coverage. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation of a previously deleted article, or as a second choice delete per nom and WP:WEB due to lack of a clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly nn. JJL (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Maxa megalon 2000 06:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially fanfiction, doesn't pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable very small fan run email game. Alberon (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7: "Article about a [...] club [...] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." and per CSD G4 Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tippinators

No claim of notability. They claim to have written articles for various paintball magazines, but doing a little research on the web and on Wikipedia, this team fails the notability criteria. They're not "professional", unlike Team Dynasty who, apparently, have won competitions in their sport. Smells of advertising spam too, no doubt written by one of the team's members. Montchav (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 03:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the content largely mirrors the team's website. The amateur league they're in has only three teams. No claim of notability, and the long list of articles written about the team are all unverifiable. – jaksmata 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as borderline notability has been shown. Please start a merge discussion if you wish to merge this article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Baechle

Seems non-notable to me. Anyone else agree? Tavix (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough to me. He's the primary subject of a New York Times article (already used as a reference), plus he's been featured in at least two articles in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. That should be enough to satisfy WP:N.Zagalejo^^^ 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of local interest only. Human interest stories don't provide notability, just "it was a slow news day." Corvus cornix_talk 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is Baechle "of local interest" if the New York Times writes an article about the guy? NYC is not even in the same time zone as St. Louis. Zagalejo^^^ 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into St. Louis Blues (hockey) just as Fireman Ed (a roughly analogous fan for the Jets) has a four-sentence bit at the end of the New York Jets article. --Ig8887 (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Delete now that all information in this article now exists in the St. Louis Blues (hockey) article. Effectively, this is still a merge, but one that, it turns out, had already mostly been done before the AfD existed. --Ig8887 (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As per Ig8887's recommendation.BWH76 (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does seem short on facts, but could be expanded based on the NY Times source already there and others that exist. He passes WP:BIO's basic criteria: he's the subject of published secondary source material, etc. – jaksmata 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on your criteria, we could have articles on Rasheda Browne, Efrain Velazquez, Yeji Jung and Albert An. Corvus cornix_talk 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not true. Those people were mentioned in one article - they weren't the subject, they were incidental to the subject, which was commuting to school. Those people could be substituted with any one of the many other students who commute. The towel man was the subject of multiple articles in the NY times and in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Also, it's not my criteria, I'm using Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic_criteria. – jaksmata 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can support a merge to St. Louis Blues (hockey). Corvus cornix_talk 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Corvus cornix unless we are capable of writing more than a couple of sentences. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, he already has a two sentence section in the Blues article, under St. Louis Blues (hockey) #Traditions Tavix (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then--I've added the NY Times reference to that section in the Blues article, along with another sentence about how long he has been doing it. That article now has more info on this guy than his own article, and I am changing my vote above to Delete. --Ig8887 (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, borderline but appears to meet WP:NOTABILITY based on the press coverage. JASpencer (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synchromysticism

Neologism, notability, no meaningful content, list of links, etc etc etc. Author contested; changed to afd superβεεcat 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking appropriate steps to address your concerns. megadoom.

Delete - per nom. Jd027^chat 14:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability is dubious at best and article is unencyclopedic and largely devoid of content. --Kajerm (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a mixture of original research and nonsense. – jaksmata 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources appear to be unreliable, editorial comments on them notwithstanding. --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete (Non-admin closing debate). Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 10:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional barefoot characters

Listcruft at perhaps its worst. An indiscriminate list that cannot possibly verified accurately. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see List of Fictional Barefoot Characters, and I suspect other capitalizations will be added. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - superβεεcat 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silly list. And it's missing Tom Sawyer. Pburka (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless list, probably unlikely to be more than 10% complete. I mean, would Garfield count? Bugs Bunny? Etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Useless, and where is Snuffy Smith? Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably off stealing a chicken, or in jail for the same. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate. hateless 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above comments, a useless list. Does the insistence on the barefootedness of fictional characters ring a bell with anyone else with respect to a banned user named User:Creepy Crawler? I wish I could remember what I read somewhere about this. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- No, I'm told it's probably a sockpuppet of User:BorisTheBlade. FYI. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for complete inability to be maintained meaningfully; a lot of fictional characters go barefoot from time to time. Where do we draw the line? Janet Leigh's character in Psycho was barefoot for her most famous scene (being killed in the shower). Does she qualify? Who can say? --Ig8887 (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly pointless. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose it could be done right, taking account of the various possible roles (for example, most of the people here are barefoot as part of their fight styles); but a list of famous barefoot characters that omits the hobbits isn't worth the effort of saving. DGG (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely useless and random intersection of attributes. Is any character who ever took off their shoes gonna be here? If they ever put shoes on do they come off? And what about "Diddle, diddle, dumpling, my son John?" Could he be halfway on the list? But, if we do keep it, we must include Raindancer Smurf and Peace Pipe Smurf. Oh, and what about porn stars who play a recurring fictional character? I mean they are barefoot, after all.JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the list constitutes original research unless a third-party source can be provided for the entries. The inclusion criteria are also unclear. I don't see this ever meeting the three core Wikipedia content standards (V, NOR, NPOV). *** Crotalus *** 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this doesn't make sense from an organizational standpoint, a navigational standpoint, or a content standpoint. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as an indiscriminate list. No more needs to be said. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block user for pretty much saying he will get the article in no matter what (check his edit history). JuJube (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be fair, it does give a criteria of sorts: characters known to walk barefoot--so those not wearing shoes in shower or bed scenes wouldn't apply. That said, I don't see this as a particularly encyclopedic list, although possibly not totally out of the question as a category. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Utterly purposeless. Is there an advantage to this organization of this facet? No. Is there a movement toward barefoot writing? No. Is there a hidden social construct visible in the little piggies of Tom Sawyer and Jim? No. Should we keep this? No. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW. I have to admit that it's entertaining that this list ever existed to begin with, but there is absolutely no reason why this belongs on Wikipedia. --Kajerm (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate the author's work in assembling this, but it's one of the stranger lists I've ever encountered here. If all else fails, merge to foot fetish, where it might be inspirationsl Mandsford (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for so many reasons already mentioned. Besides, where are all the cavemen and Hobbits? (It's a silly list, so it needs a silly reason to be deleted). – jaksmata 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless cruft. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Walking barefoot" is not a common theme which makes characters remarkably similar to one another, making a list like this rather arbitrary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007-08 Rogue Valley Wranglers hockey team

Nominated for deletion as per consensuses on junior and low-level professional ice hockey seasons. Flibirigit (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000-01 Huntsville Tornado Season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 Alexandria Glens season
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A league where, apparently, some games can have attendance as low as 59 obviously does not deserve individual season articles for its teams. Skudrafan1 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and yeah 59 in attendance seems to indicate it is not significant enough to warrant individual season articles per team. -Djsasso (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is just as pertinent as other lower level sports team seasons. This team comes from a lower population area in which the nearest metropolitan area in 300 miles away. There is no major sports in the Rogue Valley, just a small college and a Junior level hockey team. Deleting this article would be ignorant toward smaller markets and would attempt to show that Wikipedia is only interested in things that are important to major regions. Aplaceicallhome (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Other lower level sports teams shouldn't have seasons either, and usually don't. This isn't being ignorant toward smaller markets, its deciding whether or not something is notable rather than being locally notable. -Djsasso (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The main article for the team is completely encyclopedic and should remain. An article specifically for one season in this team's history, though, is completely unnecessary. If Wikipedia were "ignorant," we would be arguing to delete the team page and the league page. But we aren't, because the league is, in whatever small way, notable. This is just a case of too much information. While people might be interested that a team called the Rogue Valley Wranglers exists, and can get that information on team's article, not very many will care to search Wikipedia to see what the final score of every one of its games in the 2007-08 season was. Skudrafan1 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment By the way, not that it matters, but the team plays in Medford, Oregon... which, according to its Wiki page, is a metropolitan area of over 200,000 people. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Unfortunately, simply because Medford is considered a "metropolitan" area, does not mean that it is such an area. The Medford area is made up of far more rural cities and towns than actual metropolitan areas, such as Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco. The games in Medford average 200 individuals in attendance, making it far and above the most important sporting events in the region. The information provided by this article is just that information, which is what it means to be encyclopedic, something that I was told Wikipedia was. But then again I could be wrong, or maybe it is simply because a few are interested in a subject and many are not. Which does not make ground for deletion. The information in this article is just as important to some as a year by year synopsis of the New England Patriots is to so many. I would not have thought to create this page if I was not certain that there are those who are interested in the team and its information. Much of the information on this page is not available on the team's main page, such as personal stats, scores of past games, and recent team activity. Deleting this article would be a poor step for Wikipedia, which as I understand stands for the preservation of knowledge for the whole, and the users donate what knowledge they have to the community. I certainly didn't expect the community to tell me what information I had was important or not.Aplaceicallhome (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment A page you might want to read about wikipedia is what wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of statistics. If we were to let in the statistics of every team that has ever played hockey then we would not be disciminating as is required. Also there is a site where this would be appropriate, its the Ice Hockey Wikia. -Djsasso (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I understand what you are trying to tell me, however the article that you sent me to does not address the article in question for deletion. This article is not an unwieldy collection of statistics, it is an article with a specific purpose. However I completely understand what is meant by the title "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I am just disappointed that this information is not "important" enough to be included on the Wikipedia main site, and now must be kept on a separate, more obscure site. Aplaceicallhome (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient reliable secondary sources found to provide notability. --JD554 (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the main team article. Sorry, but this is not even AHL, much less NHL - it is just not notable. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both, taking into account the advertising aspect for the less discussed one about the mermaid. Tikiwont (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Rascals: the musical

Contested PROD: tag removed by editor with no explanation. Musical with no assertion of notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it appears to be another unproduced musical from the same stable:[reply]

Delete as most likely a hoax -- no GHits whatsoever, and the image looks like an MSPaint job. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless it can be verified - no verifiable sources per Hammer above, therefore delete per WP:VER unless the problem can be solved. The Transhumanist 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. And Mr. Stamos, just in case you do produce a Little Rascals musical, it's based on Our Gang not Old Gang. And it wasn't a comic strip. Other than that, the article is very accurate. Mandsford (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search shows this article fails musical notability. Canyouhearmenow 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the link inserted into Our Gang. Pburka (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mandsford. I see no evidence that this musical has been produced anywhere or is scheduled to be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I do love a good musical with music, lyrics and book all by the same person. I've taken the liberty of deleting the reference slipped into Our Gang's section on new Little Rascals productions, too. --Ig8887 (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edits above made before addition of The Little Mermaid (musical 2008) to this AfD. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still a Delete: The fact that the Little Mermaid article includes a section on Set Ideas just confirms that this has never been produced, and thus lacks any notability. The heavy edit history by one user whose name matches the supposed creator puts this squarely in the realm of WP:MADEUP. --Ig8887 (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 02:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autopano Pro (software)

WP:COATRACK to disguise the fact that the article is in fact about the "second largest" photograph, not the software, and there's no independent sources to verify the claim anyway. Pairadox (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And where is the source for your claim? Roguegeek (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should also be noted this is the second request for deletion of this article by Pairadox after their first request was already denied. Roguegeek (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he took it to AfD after a speedy was declined. Big whoop. That happens a lot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snide comment from Roguegeek aside, the "source" for my claim is the article itself. Pairadox (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Once we ignore the part of this article that is about a photograph it created, there are only three short sentences left, none of which address the program's notability. There may be something here, but it's hidden by the coatrack issues. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once you get rid of the coatrack stuff, there's nothing there about notability or anything else. --L. Pistachio (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete weakly: It sounds like the event was something, alright, but only in an "in the news" sort of way, or a bit of trivia. The product seems to be yet another program. I'm sure it's good. I'm sure I'll never need it. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless secondary sources can be found. The software appears to fail notability requirements and the article was created as spam (see the original creator's comments here). It has been speedy deleted three times already as spam (logs). The photograph mentioned in the article was created as a promotional stunt for the software, as mentioned here (click on "about"). – jaksmata 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, article was redirected, which appears to have been nominator's intent. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hit 3 Pack: Underclass Hero EP

This is my own article but I merged it with another. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or I could just redirect it. --Thebluesharpdude (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Harper

Non-notable long-shot Republican candidate for governor of Kentucky in 2007. Never ran for office before and has said in news accounts he would never run again. He is the owner of a non-notable business. Fails the criteria for politicians at WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; simply being a candidate isn't enough per WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm a candidate for head of the Aesir. Being a candidate is like being at the try outs for the contestants. If he succeeds, he'll be in. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the record, he lost by a wide margin in a three-way race during the primary last year. Redfarmer (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His mention at Kentucky gubernatorial election, 2007 is sufficient. By the way, he wasn't a Republican candidate for governor, he was a candidate in the Republican gubernatorial primary - I know it's splitting hairs, but if this afd fails, the article should be corrected. – jaksmata 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tdl1060 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, previous precedents about minor politicians. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Eisner

Fails WP:BIO and WP:V, can not find any sources to confirm this person was in fact the COO of Microsoft Tiptoety ^talk 01:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm finding a couple of marginal sources that at least state that he worked for Microsoft, but nothing yet seems to assert his notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, marginal notability as an executive with various companies, but needs sources desperately. He was very clearly never COO of Microsoft. --Dhartung | Talk 03:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, especially given that this article was started by User:Jacobeisner and thus is almost certainly a WP:COI. --Ig8887 (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong deleteThis seems rather hoaxy to me as there is no mention of Seth Eisner and "Inrix Inc." Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not a hoax but he was probably not COO of Microsoft. He was "Senior Vice President, Operations and Supplier Services" (see Expedia annual report [75]) and "corporate director" for Expedia.com and "director of capital markets" for Microsoft. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:BIO basic criteria even if it is all true. – jaksmata 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Working at Microsoft does not automatically make one notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 02:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of German and Austrian composers

This page is pointless. It only serves as a link to List of German composers and List of Austrian composers, which are both listed in this page's title. bse3 (talk • contribs • count • logs) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yup, delete. Useless disambiguation page, has no incoming links[76], can be deleted.~~ I'm neutral due to the historical issues raised below; it may be reasonable to merge the two lists into one list of German and Austrian composers, or do something else altogether, but I'm not a history expert. -- Lea (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and the incoming redirect List of German language composers should be deleted along with this. Since telling a composer's language by their nationaly isn't possible, this is not a particularly reasonable redirect. -- Lea (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure about that: at least as far as operas go, language is significant. Such a list might do better as a category, but it surely would be useful to list composers by what language they could use in such a way. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless disambig page with no incoming links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the sillier ideas for a disambiguation page. Maybe "List of American and Russian composers" can lead us to "List of American composers" and "List of Russian composers". Mandsford (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally pointless disambig page. I'm tempted to call for a snowball speedy here because this really is the sort of thing that falls within the category of indisputably bad ideas. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems like this page ended up being turned into a disambiguation page after a tortuous history. But the original intention was not that crazy, it was an (unsuccessful) attempt to account for the complication that the countries today known as Germany and Austria didn't exist as such during the lives of most of these composers. --Itub (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the history and I see what you mean. Some well-meaning soul either decided that this would be a great improvement, or vandalized it. If anyone wants to restore it to the pre-reformed content, I would probably change my vote. Mandsford (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that this seems like a good faith creation to begin with. I still think the current page is a bad idea and even if restored this would essentially be redundant now. I think what happened here is that some well-meaning soul decided to split the list thus a)creating a useless disambig page and b) possibly removing a valid point that these composers were not living in the countries that we now know as Germany and Austria. European history is a tricky thing and this may not have been obvious to whoever did this. If a solution can be worked out I'm willing to change my opinion about this. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Wikipedia page for the Kingdom of Germany says "there is general agreement that the German identity is firmly established by the eleventh century". The first composer on List of German composers was born late in the eleventh century, while the rest were well after this time. As for Austria, the Austrian Empire page says it was formed in 1804. Only the first four composers on List of Austrian composers died before this. I think it's safe to say that these composers are safe where they are. If we want to get all technical i guess all the composers before 1806 (the last year of the Holy Roman Empire) from both pages could be put on a List of Holy Roman Empire Composers. I think that would be unessesary as most of the Austrian composers were near the end of this time or much later and the German composers could all be considered German even though the Kingdom of Germany was a part of the Holy Roman Empire. Can we delete it now? —bse3 (talk • contribs • count • logs) 04:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - even if someone "fixed" this article , there are two separate articles for german and austrian composers . It seems to me quite pointless to have three articles, one for austrian composers , one for german and one for both --Cradel 17:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see a reason for this page to exist. The two links listed are already disambiguated by their titles, and there's a List of composers which serves as an index for all composer lists on Wikipedia, upon which these two links are already included. The Transhumanist 19:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless disambig. page Warrior4321^talkContribs 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get The Fuck Up Radio

I'm questioning the notability. Sure, they had "big name stars", but I'm taking this to AFD just to be on the safe side. ViperSnake151 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you dude. THis has Innaproprite Words and is like a add.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt the Doomed (talk • contribs) 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah, it reads like an ad, but I don't think Inappropriate words are a problem since Wikipedia is not censored. ViperSnake151 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~(e/c) Delete Not quite G11 spammy, but still advertisement-like. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Weak keep per addition of sources, now seems at least somewhat notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert, non-notable. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to use any foul language other than the name of the show itself. It is legitimate and has been around for a while now. So, take it easy. Kids can find foul language if they look for it. Look up the "f" word on Wikipedia, or any other foul language for that matter, and tell me what you get. -- Destroy1998 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about language. Wikipedia is not censored. See also WP:PROFANITY. --L. Pistachio (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Weak assertions of notability are given through unsourced statement that they "recently won the “People’s Choice” award for Best Radio Show by the LA Record" and through the list of notable guests (unsourced, too). (I doubt that's enough though.) Can't find secondary sources on Google/Google News. -- Lea (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There you go. It's all cleaned up and I sourced everything that I could. Tell me it's not legitimate now. -- Destroy1998 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources seem to be sufficient. --Eastmain (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indecent name, decent sources. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Keep, but clean it up, yes I know {{sofixit}} Q ^{T C} 07:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the sources there now, it looks like a legitimate stub. --L. Pistachio (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be notable now that's it's sourced. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: two of the sources in this article are blog entries from laweekly.com - I can't tell if they are legitimate secondary sources written by real journalists or if laweekly just hosts blogspace for whoever. Does anyone know which it is? I'm leaning towards "keep," but knowing that these sources are legit would cinch it for me. – jaksmata 20:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a similar concern, but it's the former. Ryder is a "proper" journalist [77], and that blog, The Style Council, is basically the Weekly's fashion, music and nightlife column. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, keep (thanks, by the way). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaksmata (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Warrior4321^talkContribs 00:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced now, asserts notability. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 10:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. - Dravecky (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mary programming language. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kvatro Telecom

Delete unsourced article about a nn company, no indication that it has any significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mary programming language. JJL (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, redirect. I cannot find any coverage on Google. We're only deleting a sub-stub here, so if someone finds coverage, the article can easily be re-created. -- Lea (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see a reason to redirect, as there is no evidence that this is a common or useful search term, and I cannot see a reason to preserve a speedy delete candidate (A3) in edit history. There is no article present. If it were true (and we don't know), then it would be a fact, and not an article. AfD is for articles. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mary programming language. The lack of information on this company may be because it is from a non-English-speaking part of the world (India?), so I think the redirect may be useful to some people. If it is redirected, the Mary article needs to mention Kvatro Telecom, otherwise the redirect won't make sense. – jaksmata 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Link TV. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Spencer

No comment on Link Media's notability, but Kim Spencer's work doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO as he doesn't appear to have been much of a groundbreaker in the fields he's worked. This reads like a resume with a touch of Wiki is not LinkedIn and there don't appear to be many sources available to re-write, hence my doubts on notability. Travellingcari (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Link TV. I added a source there that mentions him. Jfire (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jfire. D.M.N. (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, a cursory web search seems to show that it meets basic and additional criteria through WP:BIO. However, there has been allegations that the text was cut and pasted from the Link TV website; if this is true, then Speedy Delete.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't care that the person has a high profile: the "biography" here is a curriculum vitae, and Wikipedia is not Monster.com. We do not house CV's. If this were a biography or about the person, then it would be written like a biography or a discussion of a person. Instead, it is a business listing. Nor is there some point in saying, "Leave it alone and wait for a biographer to emerge in the mists of time," because every day that it sits like this is a day that another executive gets the idea that he should enter the same bland boasts into Wikipedia. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Link TV. There don't seem to be any secondary sources that mention him non-trivially. – jaksmata 19:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Warrior4321^talkContribs 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as outcome of AfD, and Speedy delete as copyvio anyway. Fram (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mishmahig

This is a copy of an article deleted by prod last December by User:The Behnam (since departed). The original prod reason was: "This article is mostly just a copy of a POV article from CAIS. Not only may this have a copyright issue, but this also provides a strong POV in both content and style. Any suitable facts should be relegated to the History of Bahrain article, and this Mishmahig at most remain a stub. In any case, this alternate, POV history of Bahrain should not remain." I'm inclined to agree but since this is a repost it's apparently a (belatedly) contested prod, I'm seeking suggestions here, and appreciate any opinions on whether this topic deserves an article and what it would consist of. Rigadoun (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Bahrain - non-notable (i mean, it's just the geographical area that makes up Bahrain). If anything, should be merged into Bahrain or History of Bahrain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin 1998 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, but this is an oddity. I gather that this article exists to give prominence to a subgroup? There doesn't seem to be much rationale for the article, which claims to be about "an island" that it says is made up of hundreds of islands. I.e. it claims to be about another name for a particular area of land, but then it's really about the nation of Bahrain. Something very fishy is going on, and possibly a POV fork. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - seems to be a copyright violation. Compare content and observe the copyright notice at the bottom of this page. – jaksmata 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - and fast, per Jaksmata above. Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 02:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probie

Dictionary definition. Unreferenced for more than a year. Mikeblas (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add to Wiktionary. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten and move to Wikitionary. Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#DIC, WP:NEO. ~~move~~ merge with (expand upon) wiktionary [78]. Tiptoety ^talk 01:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but rename to probationary firefighter to make it more than a dictdef. Google hints that "probationary firefighter" might be a notable term — it's certainly in use, and there might be substantial material to add to the article. -- Lea (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The newbie/apprentice/probationary phase of a particular profession should be covered in the appropriate article for that profession. It's likely that probie could be merged with a term like rookie if that one weren't devoted entirely to the athletic variety. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dictdef, and the features of being a probational officer are relevant to the articles on the professions. This seems to be in existence for a lexical purpose -- so folks watching Stargate can look up what the word means -- i.e. the "in popular culture" drives the article, and that's backwards for an encyclopedia article. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This already exists in Wiktionary, but it could be expanded there. – jaksmata 19:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to go considerably beyond a dictdef to me. A dictdef is usually a one-line sub-stub that is nothing more than the title's definition. This is, excluding the trivia section, a nice three paragraph stub article that goes well beyond a dictdef. I'm unmoved by the "unreferenced for more than a year" argument. AFD is not cleanup, and Wikipedia has no deadlines. I don't think this should be merged into firefighter, given that "Probie" is not used throughout the world. Putting it there would introduce a geographic bias to North American firefighters. I agree with LeaW that this could (and maybe should) be renamed to probationary firefighter-- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Workbench

Delete unsourced article about a software program without any indication that it is notable or why it is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't assert any significance. jj137 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - find references and keep as stub. If you can't find any references, then WP:PROD it.Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Going from AfD to Prod is, process-wise, the wrong way round. ;-) If the AfD has been started anyway, there's no point in going back to Prod. -- Lea (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Previous AFD nominations are, in fact, excluded from PROD. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Google Scholar finds a paper about it[79] (added to external links). Might be notable. -- Lea (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It would be a speedy deletion candidate as A1 or A3. "X is Y" is not an article. To say that the program has evidence of existence is kind of weak. Things advertised on the Internet are going to have evidence on the Internet, just like things mentioned in the newspaper are going to have newspaper attestation. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article doesn't seem to assert notability and there are no reliable sources to prove otherwise. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, what about the paper I added? We're talking about coverage in reliable third-party sources here, no? -- Lea (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines. – jaksmata 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As confirmed by the above mentioned source, the tool is closely related to Jackson Structured Programming and mentioned there and the author id listed among the active members of the Jackson Software Development community.[80] Even if we count it as third part source, it's just one. So I'll move the ref the JSP article and then we can delete or redirect.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close since the article was never never correctly tagged nor was was the discussion listed properly, checking with the nominator and author whether to properly relist.Tikiwont (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckart & Pimp

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fuckart & Pimp

I agree with the deletion of this article as no-one has added anything to substantiate the events mentioned.I also do not see why the article should be included in wikipedia as it the facts are debatable with many insinuations which may be inflamitory or false (Philip G Hunt (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to yet insufficient in-depth coverage to write biography.Tikiwont (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barron Nicholas Hilton

Being arrested for a DUI doesn't make one suddenly notable. Hey may eventually become as notable as his sister, but isn't there yet. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Relationships doesn't necessarily make one notable. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Hilton family. He is personally unnotable, and at present the article is used only to mention his DUI. --Golbez (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deelete. A DUI in and of itself does not make someone noteable.-FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with Hilton Family Warrior4321^talkContribs 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To quote the BLP policy: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid". Wanderer57 (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, press coverage of DUI alone establishes notability. Everyking (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not unusual for a bad DUI accident to get significant coverage outside the local area. That doesn't make the driver or the victims automatically notable. Descendants of Hiltons are not automatically notable as soon as they get arrested. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe that substantial press coverage devoted to an individual always makes that individual notable. Everyking (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since I keep CNN on almost all day long, and I have not heard a single mention of Mr. Hilton's late legal troubles, I would challenge that the coverage is anywhere near substantial enough to qualify. --Golbez (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, the AP had a story on it. Everyking (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you proposing we maintain articles on every individual the AP does a story about? Is that what alone passes for notability these days? --Golbez (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not automatically, but if combined with other sources, yes, absolutely (and of course if the AP has a story on someone you can bet there are other sources as well; in this case we know there are). Everyking (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails almost all of the criteria at WP:BIO. Being arrested for a DUI doesn't suddenly change that, despite the media coverage. Altairisfar _talk 06:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you list the criteria you believe this article fails? Everyking (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not Wikinews.- Gilliam (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete There appears to be little coverage about him and the DUI is a definite NOTNEWS issue. I'm not sure if when using the other sources that one can get with googling enough to make him notable. Trying to find sources is complicated by the fact that the family scion is Barron Hilton but right now, I'm not seeing notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Note changed my attitude to full delete after unable to find sources. Every source I have found simply mentions him as one of the kids and doesn't give any other info JoshuaZ (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, you don't think his DUI should be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, regardless of whether this bio exists? Everyking (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any compelling reason to describe it anywhere. He is a private citizen who has avoided the limelight. I fail to see how his DUI is substantially encyclopedic. And if we don't have an article on him, then mentioning him solely at say Hilton Family as the Hilton who isn't known well and got a DUI seems almost worse from an NPOV undue weight / BLP perspective. This appears to be a private citizen who happened to have a DUI and had the misfortune of having a family that is in the public eye with siblings who like to self-promote themselves. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is apart of the hilton family and receive considerable press coverage beyond just the DUI. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' Can you provide any evidence of this press coverage beyond the DUI? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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