Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 25

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< February 24 February 26 >

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 IAR to speedy close as delete. WP:OR like other articles created by author.. Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (1966) - Sadeer Nasser

William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (1966) - Sadeer Nasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay/review of the movie. Original research. Justin Eiler (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn per nom. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mashad Carpet Company

Mashad Carpet Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Uncludes no external references to indicate Notability. Claims are only backed by the companies website. Without proper sourcing, this is just a Non Notable Corporation Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • References added - The references have been updated and more have been added. Would like to know if the article could now be taken off the "articles for deletion" list? Thank you. Aliazimi (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was kept. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Graphia

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

Seems to be non-notable. Could be speedyable, but bringing here to be sure since there's a question. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nomination widthdrawn (non-admin closure) Justin chat 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Roosevelt (1760-1847)

James Roosevelt (1760-1847) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable ancestor of Franklin D. Roosevelt. --Michael WhiteT·C 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to have been a councillor ("alderman") in the New York city council, according to the bio. presented here in The Old Merchants of New York City [1]. It is generally a rule that councillors of the greatest towns are considered notable.--Aldux (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While being Alderman in, say, Waterbury, Connecticut, might not be considered notable enough for an article, Alderman of the Fourth Ward in Lower Manhattan was an important position, then and now. Mandsford (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Found a newer source, The Complete Book of US Presidents, calls him "an active Federalist, [who] served in the New York State Assembly." If I'm correct, per WP:BIO state assemblymen are automatically notable. As is written among the standards for notable politicians: members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature--Aldux (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/nomination withdrawn. I will expand it based on these sources. --Michael WhiteT·C 05:07, 26 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) non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Roosevelt

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

Non-notable ancestor of Theodore and Eleanor Roosevelt. --Michael WhiteT·C 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article doesn't demonstrate any notability. Cornelius Roosevelt was one of the founders of Chemical Bank which is now Chase. His ghost haunts your Chase card. Mandsford (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok, Theodore Roosevelt, Patriot and Statesman confirms what said of the Chemical Bank, saying Cornelius Roosevelt was one of the the founders of it". He's mentioned quite extensively in the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, where he is called "one of the five richest men of New York". He appears to have been a successful glass merchant, and is said to have been "deeply interested in charitable enterprises and gave largely to their support", from The Life of Theodore Roosevelt, written by William Draper Lewis. Cornelius has also quite a bio. in The Merchants' National Bank of the City of New York. And with not mach effort, from what I've seen, other sources can be added, but these already seem to me that he was notable enough to pass WP:N.--Aldux (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aldux. If this chap is good enough for the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, he's good enough for Wikipedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Nomination withdrawn. Well, I guess it's a good thing these sources turned up through the AfD. I can expand it. It seems Theodore may also have inherited some money from him. --Michael WhiteT·C 05:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sick Time

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

Non-notable low-budget film. No external reviews on IMDB. I found only a single source of questionable reliability: [2]. Previously part of a mass AfD that was closed as no consensus. Jfire (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Djsasso (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of April 8, 2005

Solar eclipse of April 8, 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable solar eclipse. From what I have seen, only total solar eclipses have pages and this is the only non-total eclipse to have an article per List of solar eclipses. Tavix (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young People Who Rock

Young People Who Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Young People Who Rock is a series that runs on CNN's internet video channel and an accompanying blog. I don't see anything to indicate that it is notable. Except for a broken link, all of the references in the article are CNN's own website. The citation that the show is popular is a page that list what stories are currently the most popular on CNN's website and it currently does not list Young People Who Rock. I only found a few passing mentions in reliable sources and nothing that indicated notability. In an attempt to show that Young People Who Rock is notable the creator of the article added mentions of appearances on the series to article of everybody who appeared on the series and has a wikipedia article. BlueAzure (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore (album)

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

Non-notable album in my opinion. No attribution to notability. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although this article is in need of a clean-up and expansion, it is an album released by a notable artist, and such articles are generally kept per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC -Fritzpoll (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus (default keep). Very little of this discussion was actually valid. The article asserts notability, a user provides references to support these assertions, but the sources are in a foreign language. That's all we have here for the closing administrator to consider. So the deletion policy advises us to lean toward keep in questionable cases, therefore my decision accordingly. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akos Gurzo

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

Somehow I would think that someone who has worked for a news agency since he was 16 would have more than 74 Google hits. I can't find any stories he's written either to verify the claims made in his article (two prestigious awards). Blueboy96 02:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having workied in the commerical communication industry for 15 years in Europe and here in Hungary for for the last 5. I know for a fact the Mr. Gurzo's article is fact. His articles on Afghanistan as well as international political analysis on internatioanal events have added to the Hungary's concern about external affairs. Although young, he has been very active in the Hungarian media and in bringing relevant, unbias information to the public.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.96.63 (talk • contribs) — 81.182.96.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Reasoning, please? This is not a vote. Blueboy96 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Blueboy! Please, explain your concerns again and underpin your viewpoint with facts and quotations from Wikipedia. It can easily happens that your standpoint based on impressions instead of clear facts because of the language and cultural differences. Please, help us to improve this article together and make the Wikipedia a better place together. I'm ready to cooperate with you and help you to create a perfect article. I do beleive in the power of communication between people from all around the world, because this simple action is the bottom line of the Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia. Web 2.0—Preceding comment was added at 22:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — Web 2.0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Neutral Seems to be the first article of a new Wikipediauser. Some parts of the article do not belong to Wikipedia since they read like a letter of application :"travels a lot inside and outside of Hungary not only professionally but privately as well to meet new people and understand different perspectives". I would like to see references to the awards since they could make the difference. If the awards are important, than the awards themselves should have an article. Neozoon—Preceding comment was added at 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote about the awards I used the following links and articles for the awards: Kazinczy-prize 1Kazinczy-prize 2Kazinczy-prize 3MTI-prize 1MTI-prize 2MTI-prize 2Web 2.0—Preceding comment was added at 07:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC) — Web 2.0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
 + :Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a gross misrepresentation common misconception. A lack of English language sources does not preclude articles from being on the English Wikipedia. Hungarian sources would do just fine. matt91486 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)user modified own comment @ 23:40, 26 February 2008[reply]
I think "gross" is a bit hyperbolic, the guidelines can not cover every contingency for verifiablilty. There is an essay that covers this somewhere, something about not sticking something up your nose. If the general community can not comfirm his notalility, he does not qualify under the guidelines. Mstuczynski (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm asking for is a translation, certainly not much to ask as the references seems to be one-line trivial mentions. I suppose I could have worded my objections better.user added to own comment @ 14:47, 26 February 2008
That's true, it was a bit hyperbolic. I guess what I should have said was common misconception, which I've altered my comments above. I naturally am unable to translate the sources myself, but you maybe could find someone able to do that. matt91486 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notable is notable, irrespective of the language in which sources are written. I do not (yet) claim that the subject of this article is notable, but an article should not be deleted merely for lack of English-language sources. It is inaccurate to equate "the English-language Wikipedia" with "the Wikipedia for the Anglosphere". Black Falcon (Talk) 05:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Poor writing is annoying to see in articles yes, but it's not a cause for deletion, just cleanup. Wizardman 05:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Data Palette

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

advertising Thru the night (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Article reads like an adverisement, makes unfounded claims, most of the article merely copied from the corporate website. This is exactly the type of article that Wikipedia is not about. Should have been speedily deleted. Bardcom (talk) 15:06, 22 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete G12 — as for the injunction, that only applies to articles created before 2:07 February 3, 2008. Besides, copyright trumps that. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seacht

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

It is an article about a TV series, or a comics, or a book series (it is not specified on the article) that doesn't seem to assert notability and provides no sources. The description of the characters is made mainly of non-NPOV statements and it seems to be just a copy and paste of material found somewhere on the net. Victao lopes (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AFD violates the current Arbcom injunction. Jtrainor (talk) 21:15, 26 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. Wizardman 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giselle Yum

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

Porn star article which doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO. I couldn't find any significant coverage of her on Google. Epbr123 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete --slakr\ talk / 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon Race

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

Delete no indication that this ride is notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 20 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, Djsasso (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't even know if balloon race is the technical name for that type of ride anyway.Not notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhockey10 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Kivisto

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

A college hockey player--search of Yahoo or Google turns up no awards won at the college level, and no instances of being named an All-America. Therefore, fails WP:BIO. Blueboy96 22:11, 25 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) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of browser-based Flash games

List of browser-based Flash games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed nomination to be prod deleted, reason for which was "Aside from the tautology in the title (arent all Flash games browser-based?) I cannot see this list ever being remotely near comprehensive, or anything other than an arbitrary random sampling, and of course will always be open to abuse from spamming. The only linked games on the page are to what are basically marketing strategies, so currently fails WP:NOT#ADVERTISING as well as WP:NOT#DIRECTORY." Also, Category:Flash games and Category:Browser-based games serve the same function dont they? Iamaleopard (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your justifiable concerns. so one thing I would suggest is that maybe we could consider this article a stub, and perhaps give this article a little time and leeway to grow. By the way Flash trek 2 is extremely notable. i had an article which explained all this. basically, it allows players to interacts with other races, to buy and trade items, to buy ships, to make alliances, to colonize and develop planets, all in a browser-based game. Doesn't that sound a bit notable? I wasn't sure how to indicate though. So how about we all work together, and try to make the article more responsive to the many valid concerns which have been expressed here? i do greatly appreciate all the thoughts, input, and the understandable criticisms expressed here. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I have revised the article, to address some of the valid concerns which have been raised here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flash Trek 2 was specifically found to be non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Trek 2 (which you participated in). Claiming that it is "extremely notable" is hardly convincing. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant notable enough for inclusion in a list. By the way, noone said that it was non-notable, they said you cannot claim notability without sources. i understand your rightful and justified concerns, but I do feel that this is a small but important difference. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 10:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Hills Cricket Club

Alexandra Hills Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cricket club. No evidence of notability established using reliable independent sources. The club plays at a generally amateur and social level. Mattinbgn\talk 21:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no claim to notability, and thus fails WP:ORG. (Did you notice "Extinction: 2010 (predicted)" in the infobox? Strange.) Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page originally had a bit of an attack page feel to it if go back through the history. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. It appears the article was written mainly for a WP:BLP attack. I think this could even have been speedied under G10 (attack pages / BLP violations). Even if the page survives (which I don't think it will) this should be removed from the history. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article appears to be a plaything (at best) between some club members. Non-notable. Murtoa (talk) 13:13, 26 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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Justin chat 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Pell

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

Contested speedy, then prod. Fails WP:N and WP:PROF. Only primary sources provided. Google hits lead either to this article, his own sites, or to sites which list press releases and speaking engagements and such. No independent reliable sources found. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are plenty of 3rd party sources for Barney Pell. There is a PC Worldarticle from 2007 talking about Powerset Inc. (Barney Pell's company) to develop a search engine in tandem with Xerox that would rival Google, and it quotes Pell heavily throughout the article. That alone should justify this article. Another article at CNet News talks about the impending release in September of the Powerset AI search (although that second link is a blog, it is a blog for a respected news service which satisfies WP:V. The San Francisco Chronicle had its own article that mentions Barney Pell and Powerset's search engine. The Guardian quoted Barney Pell in an article, and the New York Times mentioned him in a blog... Do you really need more sources to show notability? As I'd said on the discussion page for this article, I'm working on getting these sources in the article, but I haven't had time to get to it yet. -- Atamachat 21:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sources should have been provided up front, so we wouldn't have had to go through this whole process. Why weren't they? If you had time to provide the primary source links, you had time to provide these as well, especially after you'd been notified. I waited a couple of days after the PROD was removed to nominate this for AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you talking about? I didn't provide any "primary source links", I haven't even edited this article before except to deprod it after I did a search and found a fair number of articles about Powerset, and to leave a note on the discussion page that I was going to integrate some references into the article. I think you have me confused with someone else. Oh, to the others below, I don't mind moving this to Powerset either because those sources are admittedly more about the company than Barney, though he is mentioned and/or quoted in all of them. -- Atamachat 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having pondered the matter and Dhartung's vote, I'm leaning toward Move myself. However, it would need some rewriting to make the point of view as that of the company and not of Pell. Personally, I still think PowerSet is more hype than substance right now, but it has enough independent coverage to pass WP:CORP pretty easily. (Frankly, I'm surprised the company doesn't have an article by now, and the logs don't show any deletions I can find.) If User:Atama is agreeable to this, well go ahead and do it and do a non-admin close of this AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham bus station

Birmingham bus station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:N. Google search shows 71 ghits [3], but no significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Svedin

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

No notability at all. Having worked as a model is hardly notable, as there are tens of thousands of models in the world; neither is it notable to be married to someone famous. I would guess the only reason this woman has an article about her is because she is married to a Portuguese footballer, and that hardly satisfies notability. JdeJ (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I appreciate you finding all the references, but each and every one of them mentions her only because she is married to Figo, never for anything she has accomplished. As for H&M, they change faces many times each year and she's no longer the face of the company. I'm half Swedish myself and lived in Sweden at the time she was the face of the company, and I don't recall a single article on her during that time, so I'm not sure how notable it is. While being married to a prominent president, or being married to a king, might be enough for notability, there are over 10.000 articles on more or less notable sportspeople on Wikipedia and I fail to see that their spouses would be notable, if that's the only thing they are notable for. JdeJ (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand where you're coming from (and I didn't actually see any articles in Swedish either, interestingly, just mainly English and Spanish), but there's still a lot of sources from very reputable publications in which she features prominently, as Figo's wife or not. I looked for the other model you nominated for AfD, and there's not nearly so much on her, and Raúl's a fairly high profile player as well. Notability may not be automatically inherited, but tons of mainstream coverage over a series of years makes a person notable. Additionally, the Diario AS article alleges some role outside of simply being a wife, regardless if her spousal connection is how she ended up with it. I just haven't quite determined how to translate it it and put it in the article. matt91486 (talk) 15:14, 26 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mamen_Sanz

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

No notability at all. Having worked as a model is hardly notable, as there are tens of thousands of models in the world; neither is it notable to be married to someone famous. I would guess the only reason this woman has an article about her is because she is married to a Spanish footballer, and that hardly satisfies notability. JdeJ (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Revolving Bugbear 12:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olsha Law Firm

Olsha Law Firm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be insufficiently notable. Googling Olsha Kiev law finds only a dozen or so unique hits, and even Googling in Cyrillic - ОЛША - finds very few. Note the conflict of interest: see WP:COIN#User:Olaffpomona. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

firm keep the legal professional is a proimninent part of the world and it only makes sense the articles relating to it are allowed to prove their own notability. it seems unfair to rush off to a delete vote without even giving an obvious stub article a chance to develop. who knows??? maybe this will even become a Featured Article after all??? unlikely, possibly, bu stranger things have happened. Smith Jones (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? I'm well aware of the risk of systemic bias, but this is a firm whose web presence extends to two single-page entries on free web hosting sites and, as far as I can tell, no site in its native language. For a company in a major city like Kiev, that is seriously one-horse league. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): where are the reliable independent sources that are the criteria for establishing notability? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well obviously its not hyper-extremely noable now but with the fall of the soviet union and ew new system of laws in ukraine is is prefectly reasonable for a new and qite possibly pre-eminent lawfirm to have its own articles. at the very least it deserves the publicit.y as for its lack of a web presence [1][2][3] here. admittedly, that is a few but a large web presence is not theonly indicator of notability. i honestly recommend that that a search using Ukrainian lettering instead of cyrillic and in Ukraine itself might yield a lot more source sthan previously extant. i would like a few days to conduct one myself please before this article is rushed off to the gas chambers like so many other stub articles. Smith Jones (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian lettering is Cyrillic, unless Romanized, and I tried both. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Ittna Haapapuro

Anti Ittna Haapapuro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only notability seems to be mainly from online forum websites rather than professional media networks. Per WP:MUSIC. Gary King (talk) 21:18, 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, Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus for deletion (default keep). The nomination did not assert valid criteria for deletion, in that it seems to imply that notability was temporary. The sole participant who supported deletion stated the reason was that the subject had not "made innovative contributions to the field of entertainment", which is not a requirement for establishing notability. The sole keep recommendation was also completely non-valid. So we are left with nothing to consider, in which case the deletion policy advises us to decide as keep. Considered relisting, but I did not belive this discussion would get any better, considering its poor start. Editors should endeavor to improve the article. Failing that, a valid renomination should be considered. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kramer (presenter)

Alex Kramer (presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

time to remove failed Quiz show presenters who are now not on any terrestrial channel & are not up to Notability Wikipedia standards.

A person being only on in-store TV promo advert is hardly Notable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertsquirrel (talk • contribs) 21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment fixed malformed listing (please use {{afd2}}). Also note that "not now on any terrestrial channel" is not a reason for deletion; people may be notable even after they are no longer on the air. Notability is not temporary. I found at least one source about her from a newspaper in Wales [4]. More may be available. cab (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The fact that a subject is no longer notable is not reason to delete. Once notability is established, notability remains. If this person was notable, then the article should not be deleted. - Fritzpoll (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by bertsquirrel - was any quiz presenter on after midnight on ITV1 ever notable? the fact that nominated for deletion before shows they are not. other presenters (ie Anna Fowler) rightly got deleted ages ago, yet she has a web presence too. That's why I nominated it. - You decide.Bertsquirrel (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pages are judged on their own merit, not on what happens to other pages. The fact that this was nominated for deletion before (not that I can see it in the logs) is also irrelevant; on the one hand you can argue that people want to get rid of it, on the other, you can argue that this implies that consensus opposed deleting it. To avoid this, the fact that articles have been considered previously for deletion is not a criterion for deletion - Fritzpoll (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One old newspaper interview is hardly facts for notability. Perhaps her lads' mag underwear poses & thousands of screencaps on quiz tv forums is the basis for notability today! This person was picked for deletion as one of the main culprits who almost prostituted themselves to ITV to get money from gullible users via these tacky quizzes. The "Make Your Play" page & similar have been severly edited from it's original content as proof no-one cares or rates as of value. It alone should be left, but an article on those within it is worthy of deletion. The fact none of the presenters have made it beyond quiz tv shows they are not notable. The lack of interest apart from tech replies shows I'm right. Bert's Quarrel perhaps? Bertsquirrel (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - following some digging around, I conclude that she is not notable in her own right. Being the presenter of television programmes does not accord her notability. She has not had a significant part in a notable TV programme (one of many presenter of Quiz Call), does not appear to have a large fan base and has not made innovative contributions to the field of entertainment. As such, she fails WP:BIO. That said, I should like to state that this does not endorse the reason given by the nom, which was that she was no longer notable. - Fritzpoll (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My point summed up rather well by another. Have nothing against her personally, but if she is worthy of deletion, all other non-notable call-in TV Quiz Presenters (ie the lot...) should go the same way. Wikipedia is not a fan site or a place for a CV as this entry appeared to be. Bertsquirrel (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was a main & regular presenter on ITV1 Make Your Play & Glitterball for well over a year from Sep 06-Dec 07: the amount of hours she was on ITV1 (a main channel) surely means she is the MOST NOTABLE of all Quiz Presenters. The amount of clips on YouTube & other web presence she has via quiz forum comments & photos shows that this person is worthy of an entry & that same entry that was severely edited before this one had been on Wikipedia for well over a year, with a photo of the person even, got locked for abuse by comment writers: she must be well-known in her circles to get that sort of attention. Fritzpoll hasn't done much research on her. Wikipedia is flawed by this sort of half-hearted 5 min look research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.99.129 (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have reverted page detail to what it was just before deletion notice. Doesn't look a person of no worthy note to me.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy-deleted by User:Jerry under WP:CSD#G11 as a separate action from this AfD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Office Commercial Technique

Office Commercial Technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional entry and non-notable Puck (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Han unification --Stephen 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UTF-2000

UTF-2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Elam

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

Non-notable cartoonist, fails WP:BIO and WP:RS - external links go to artist's own site, a solicited blog, and some page about Disney in which the subject isn't mentioned. Reference is quite useless for verifying info. Google's only acknowledgment that this person exists is this article and his home page. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Fat Joe Mixtape

2008 Fat Joe Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased mixtape (crystal ballism) with very little media coverage. WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs says "mixtapes... are in general not notable"; nothing indicates that this one will be an exception. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep new version, which I have now put in the article. Wizardman 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics

Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not content for an encyclopedia Plushpower (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Salzman (talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have created an alternative stub article here. Haven't had a chance to incorporate the book references yet, but it may be a workable replacement to deal with the copyvio issues. —Noah 02:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little more work and I think the stub is quite viable at this point. Please consider replacing the current article with my version rather than deleting it outright. Thank you. —Noah 07:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. If no one's bothered to look at this in two weeks then the answer's obvious. Wizardman 05:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forest of Sound

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

Non-notable advertising group. References provided are all trivial, solicited, or in violation of WP:EL. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:26, 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, Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Wizardman 16:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here Comes the Sun (novel)

Here Comes the Sun (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:BK. No notable media coverage, and not an author of extreme notability. Gary King (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References have now been added. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. If you want to ban stubs you need to change policy. The fact this is a) a book by a major UK author and b) is published by a major publisher, qualify it for existence. Content issues are a different matter. 23skidoo (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please read WP:BOOK. This book fails all six of the nutshell points. Unless best-seller ratings or other coverage indicating its notability can be found, if fails, period. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! WP:BOOK? nutshell points?? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - don't forget that WP:BK key criteria is an inclusive list ie. if one applies the article is automatically deemed notable, the opposite only "suggests" that the novel might not be notable. Anyway the author's notability should be sufficient in this case. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:57, 26 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, Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Holt's an extremely popular author in his field, and his work (this one in particular) fits well into a particular SF tradition of humanizing the world, so it's interesting in itself. Eithin (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability per WP:BAND. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exit State

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

Article reads like an advertisment. Less than 20 Google hits for ("exit state" "curtain call") (one of the groups albums). Single editor. Looks like blatant advertising--may qualify under Speedy Delete. Justin Eiler (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. While the subject-specific notability guidelines do not trump the general notability guideline, they do provide a convenient means of treating a subject when sources are expected to exist but are not currently available to the discussion. They do not provide an additional hurdle that the article has to pass just because the subject of the article matches the subject of the guideline. So from that standpoint, the first keep argument in this discussion had the chance to outweigh all of the delete arguments, as the subject is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However upon inspection of the source provided in the article, of which there was only one, it was a trivial mention (just mentions he was the goaltender for at least a portion of a game with Rushden & Diamonds F.C. -- no critical commentary of how he played), hardly meets the requirements of WP:N, in that the depth of coverage is not substantial. Therefore we must fall back upon the subject-specific notability guideline, which the delete arguments clearly identify as this article does not pass. My decision therefore is delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Roberts (footballer born 1986)

Dale Roberts (footballer born 1986) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Rushden & Diamonds now play in the Conference National, which is not fully professional, so appearances this season for Rushden do not establish notability. robwingfield «T•C» 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Further to the consensus reached through the discussion below, it is clear that the conclusion of this debate is that all three subjects have failed to assert their notability through the provision of reliable sources. This falls short of the minimal provisions of Wikipedia policy, and to this end I am closing as delete. AGK (contact) 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Donohue

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

David Dechman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miles Doherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Nancy Donohue article was created, tagged for speedy deletion and untagged all within the space of 18 minutes on 17 August 2007. Creator was Summit499, whose only other Wikipedia work has been to create David Dechman and Miles Doherty. Now, all three of these are officers of a firm called Summit Rock. All three articles were created on the same date and speedy tags for all three were removed by User:DGG. Despite DGG's edit comments in removing the speedy tags, none of the articles asserts a genuine notability beyond the position held in the company they are all members of. A Google search for Nancy Donohue, for example, turns up basic directory entries and a brief wedding notice from the New York Times, but no third party evidence of notability that I have been able to discern. (Ignore the actress with the same name.) These articles, to my mind, constitute a concerted effort to publicise a company and its directors, none of whom has any real notability that can be evidenced from reliable external sources. Note also that none of the external links - to major financial organisations - do anything to provide such evidence. Emeraude (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My removing the speedy tag does not imply they were notable, just that there was a rational claim that should be tested by the community. Even the nom says there is a claim to notability based on their present company, but for some reason wants to establish notability outside of it. Rather, I think the notability of them will probably depend on how notable Summit Rock is, about which I have no opinion. Incidentally, Donohoe was VP of Harvard's $16 billion Investment Management Company, with a remarkable rate of return--that is a claim to notability, quite independent of her present role at Summit Rock. DGG (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hope I didn't appear to suggest any impropriety on DGG's part - not my intention. My nomination though does not say 'there is a claim to notability based on their present company' - being leaders of their company is NOT notability unless the company is a major player AND they are responsible for it being such. I did say that I have found no evidence of notabilty in reliable third party sources. Otherwise, these articles are little short of spam. Emeraude (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Rationale on talk page. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadman Wonderland

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

Delete nn manga w/o sources written by redlinks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's pretty far along, especially for a monthly serial, to get no official notice, which suggests a certain lack of notability. OTOH, I've found a couple scanlation groups working on it simultaneously, which suggests a level of popularity in an extremely unreliable way. Can anyone find anything about licensing outside of Japan? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to reformat the article to something more acceptable. I was able to find some very basic information about the serial, but not enough to presume notability from. It do want to take issue with the nominator's "written by redlinks" comments. The fact that the writer and illustrator do not currently have articles is not a presumption of non-notability. All it means is that we don't have an article on them for one of many reasons not related to their notability, or lack thereof. --Farix (Talk) 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This manga has been running for a considerable amount of time. I decided to start it so that it at least existed on Wikipedia and could be added to later by anyone, but I made it with the intention of expanding it soon after. It seems it has been added to, and I have edited it a bit further. Presumably this makes it eligible to avoid deletion. N-Denizen (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The cleanup done seems to have established reasonable notability. Doceirias (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like most Japanese works of fiction, the availability of sources in English are hard to come by, so it's not surprising this was brought to AfD. Even if all we know is the publisher and past work done by the creators, I think that's enough for a longer grace period. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little conflicted about this one: there's been a fair amount of work put into the article since the AfD, but very little of it demonstrates notability. But as Ned Scott says, sources are such that it would be difficult to find those quickly. (BTW, as noted above that the article or the series was written by users without userpages or creators without articles is a highly spurious deletion argument: manga coverage on Wikipedia is still very spotty -- there are many creators of highly notable works that don't have even stubs yet, and ditto the works.) (These being award-winning serials running continuously since the 1970s.) So mark me down as weak keep to give editors some good-faith time to find better sourcing. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page is much like many other manga pages that are accepted by Wikipedia. It has enough information to be useful to the reader, and the format is easy to add to. It has no need of deletion anymore. N-Denizen (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the original creator of the article stated in an edit summary that the work is too obscure and unknown to have a proper reception section.[14] However, the notability of this work depends heavily on such a section, or similar section using third-party sources, being written. --Farix (Talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than a Japanese wikipedia page? I've almost never seen any coverage for anything beyond top selling manga by reputable sources. There just isn't a reputable online press dealing with manga. I think a manga by a major publisher by creators who have had work translated into English (Eureka 7 was, right?) is more than enough to satisfy notability requirements. Doceirias (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see many articles on wikipedia which fall under your reasoning for deletion, and not all of them have Reception sections. They aren't deleted, and do not need to be deleted. Why should this article be an exception? N-Denizen (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not designed as a defense for someone arguing a set of standards significantly harsher than standard operating practice. I've seen a number of books with similar claims to notability survive deletion uncontested, and am baffled as to why you've suddenly decided to move the goalposts. Doceirias (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The goal post hasn't been moved, but that we really haven't been looking to see if we were clearing the goal post in the first place. Also, unlike other nominations, we have a clear assertion that the work is non-notable work. Your argument also reminds me of the ones used to defend episode articles that also don't have third-party sources from which we can presume notability. --Farix (Talk) 04:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know it does. I think we'd be using basically the same language no matter which end of the line of reasonableness we were on. Frankly, I think if something is notable on the Japanese wikipedia, then it is notable enough to get an article here. Doceirias (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deadman Wonderland is published in Shonen Ace, has Two released volumes, is created by the author and illustrator of a manga of another known series. It has had attention from various people, as proven at least by the japanese wikipedia article - I could list other people, but they most likely would just be rejected as not reliable enough. Farix, You focus on the fact that the reception section was unnecessary, as if somehow because I can't dredge up unneccessary information that simply proves people read it, we should delete an entire article. This article was marked for deletion because it barely had any information to begin with. It's been fleshed out to an acceptable standard now, and yet you insist on scrutinization of it, but not to let it stay, but to be deleted. Is this truly the correct attitude to take? Frankly, I think this discussion is tired and little more than picking at particular statements, and if there are no more dimensions to add to it, we should just end it. Many say Keep, so let's keep it. N-Denizen (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This series is published in Shonen Ace, and by notable mangaka. The series has no official presence in English at this time, but that is not a prerequisite for notability, just an undeniable proof of it. (The time someone tried getting the articles on Saint Seiya deleted jumps to mind here.) --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saint Seiya, though, has more clear-cut notability, having been adapted as anime (thus clearing WP:BK in one hurdle), spawned several derivative series, been reissued several times, been licensed in multiple languages, and been cited by many other mangaka as influential. Not everything in Shonen Ace is automatically notable, just as not everything published by The New Yorker is. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RFerreira (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdschloss Glienicke

Jagdschloss Glienicke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
My translation skills aren't exactly good, but I tried my best. – sgeureka t•c 21:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, World Heritage standing confirmed. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. There was no support for the nomination to delete. Although many participants suggested merge as an alternative, most said "keep or merge", or "merge if...", and only one suggested where to merge, but not specifically what to merge. Others suggested merging with some article that does not appear to even exist yet. It is not reasonable, therefore to conclude that there was consensus for a merge from this discussion, although from a glance it seems to have been a popular recommendation. Keep by default. Merge can happen by editor action independant of AfD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corn Stalk Defense

Corn Stalk Defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In my opinion this chess opening is not notable, as the references do not list any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The lead does nothing to demonstrate any notability (quite the contrary). SyG (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs tidying up, but the article asserts that it was an opening played in recorded games by a notable chess player. - Fritzpoll (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge per the proposals below - an article on this class of chess opening would be better than simply removing the material. -Fritzpoll (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This "opening" is the epitome of non-notableness. No one rated over about 1400 would play this today (and very few would have done so even in Preston Ware's time). The fact that a second-rate player fond of ridiculous openings played it over a century ago does not warrant inclusion. Krakatoa (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I question whether Preston Ware was a notable player. There is no article on him in any chess encyclopedia (e.g. The Oxford Companion to Chess, Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, The Encyclopedia of Chess (Sunnucks), or The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia (Divinsky)), although the first of those does mention the Ware Opening (i.e. 1.a4, a/k/a/ the Meadow Hay Opening). To my surprise, there is an article on Ware in Edward R. Brace's An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess, which describes him thus: "(1820-1890) American chess player. He was an influential member of the Mandarins of the Yellow Button of Boston. In 1882 he visited Europe and played at Vienna (1882). Here he provided Steinitz with his first defeat in nine years, but finished last of those who completed the tournament." Ware is also listed in Gaige's Chess Personalia, but so are assorted FIDE Masters and such. Gino di Felice's Chess Results, 1747-1900 shows just four significant tournaments that Wade played in: the Second American Chess Congress (1871) (5th-6th out of 9); 4th American Chess Congress (1876) (7th out of 8); 5th American Chess Congress (1880) (7th-8th out of 10); and the aforementioned Vienna 1882, where he finished 16th out of 18th with 11/34. Three of his eleven points came from forfeits, and he most likely would have finished last if Noa (9 points) and Fleissig (7 points) hadn't dropped out after the first half (it was a double round-robin). Against the top half of the field, Ware had the win against Steinitz, 2 draws, and 15 losses. Ware scored 32.8% (+18 =8 -41) in his games given on chessgames.com [16]; as you'll see, the vast majority of his games against notable players are losses. (By comparison, I score 83.3% and no one would call me notable [17].)
Nonetheless, I have changed my vote to Merge. I think this opening and the other "Brand X" responses to 1.e4 (e.g. ...f6, ...Na6, ...Nh6, ...h5, ...f5) should be merged into an article called something like Unusual responses to 1.e4. Krakatoa (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's correct to say Preston Ware was a second rate player(unless you mean by todays playing strength). In his day Ware played in top tournaments and was able to win a competitive game against Wilhelm Steinitz in 1882 when Steinitz was the Unofficial World Chess Champion. ChessCreator (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Firstly I agree with the above, this opening has no interest to respectable chess players. In chess terms it's a useless opening. I believe this article could be written to be interesting to the casual reader, but is unlikely to meet the WP:RS criteria for referencing.
There are several other first move openings all in the same situation Amar Opening, Durkin Opening, Barnes Opening to name but three. I think together they could make one complete and referenced article. ChessCreator (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update to Keep or Merge in light of new reference information. Amar Opening, Durkin Opening, Barnes Opening where poor examples. Better examples are Goldsmith Defense(1.e4 h5), Adams Defense(1.e4 Na6) and Lemming Defense(1.e4 Na6) ChessCreator (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - I agree with Quayle ChessCreator - I don't want to lose this information, but it is questionable whether it should be an article. I think it would be best to collect several of these unusual openings into one article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge. In the defense of Amar, Durkin and Barnes per ChessCreator above, each of those openings are one of 20 possible opening moves on the first move by White, and each of them have an entry in the Oxford Companion to Chess (1984 edition), which is the closest we get to a gold standard chess encyclopedia. The Corn Stalk does not have such an entry, and if we will have an article on each of the Black responses to White's first move, we are up to 400 possible combinations, most of them which are not taken seriously by anybody. As Krakatoa says, this opening is not something you will find played seriously by players with a 1400 rating (for non-chess buffs, that is a mid-level amateur tournament player), or even by players with a 900 rating, except as some silly joke. After all, the move 1...a5? is a time wasting weakening of the queenside which does nothing for development and has no redeeming characteristic over 1...c5 for example. However, we could expand the article King's Pawn Game with a mention of some of the obscure responses to 1.e4, like this one, provided that there is some source to ensure verifiability, the Chessmaster comment is such a source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Putting them under King's Pawn Game as you suggest is also a good thought. Rather than being an article for these, there could be a section for unusual responses. (Probably one for unusual responses to 1.d4 too.) Bubba73 (talk), 07:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with redirects, if merger is possible while conserving all of the data. There is a fair amount of third party commentary about all of these unorthodox openings. I think Benjamin and Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings (Collier; ISBN 0020165900) covers them all, as does Dunnington's Winning Unorthodox Openings (Everyman; ISBN 1857442857), which focuses on Black's response to odd moves by White. My own favorite is the American Attack in Alekhine's Defense (1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ng8). At any rate, these chess openings would appear to meet our general notability guideline, being the subject of multiple works of commentary by third parties who write chess books. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think any chess opening played by a notable player (Preston Ware is notable), is worthy of keeping. Also, this is a response to White's most common opening move! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.31.12 (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems to meet WP:N as references have been provided. But I would not really have an objection to the content being merged to a larger article on unusual openings.Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. While the subject-specific notability guidelines do not trump the general notability guideline, they do provide a convenient means of treating a subject when sources are expected to exist but are not currently available to the discussion. They do not provide an additional hurdle that the article has to pass just because the subject of the article matches the subject of the guideline. So from that standpoint, the first keep argument in this discussion had the chance to outweigh all of the delete arguments, as the subject is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However upon inspection of the sources provided in the article, of which there were three, two are extraordinarily trivial mentions (one just lists him as a member of a team along with all of the other members, the other just lists him as one of three other players to leave a team after the entire article specifically discusses two other prominent players -- both offer no critical commentary), and one just says he was picked up by a team as its newest rookie, and has a brief quote from the subject of his opinion on it. The latter is boderline, but hardly meets the requirements of WP:N, in that the depth of coverage is not substantial. Therefore we must fall back upon the subject-specific notability guideline, which the delete arguments clearly identify as this article does not pass. My decision therefore is delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Cann

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

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield «T•C» 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Call (album)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect. RFerreira (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bicentennial Jr. High School

Bicentennial Jr. High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing to indicate that this primary/jr. high school is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive Audio Footage

Exclusive Audio Footage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --Stephen 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We The Living (band)

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

Band article that fails WP:MUSIC. Single album release is self-published. Ros0709 (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages, the aforementioned self-published album[reply]

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

The result was Delelte. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burntwood Town

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

Club has never played at a notable level, no reliable sources to give notability via any other means ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no please keep. it is going to be added to clubs such as Northfield Town in the same division have a page that is not even as good as this one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntwood07 (talk • contribs)
Firstly, you are not permitted to remove the AfD notice (as it states), so do not do that. Secondly the place to argue your case is not here but on the deletion debate page. Thirdly, the only clubs in the same division as Burntwood who have articles are those who have played at a higher level. Northfield, for example, are former Mid Comb champions, whereas Burntwood have not played in the top division..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CREATE/RECREATE

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

A self published book with no assertion of notability, and a Google search doesn't provide any. Fails WP:BOOK TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome Dreams

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

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and I have added refs to demonstrate this. --Michig (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wizardman 06:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiley Dean

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

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, no released albums, no reliable sources, no tours, etc. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan Ayre

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

Another contested prod; Player that fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league (Berwick Rangers F.C. are not professional) and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN, fails WP:BIO#Athletes, just about passes WP:BIO#Basic criteria, so in this case, especially as the league is almost entirely pro, I think we can make an exception and keep the article. John Hayestalk 14:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the source above was rubbished for being seven years old, here's a source from 2008, from the Times, no less. Berwick Rangers manager Michael Renwick is quoted as follows:


There ya go - there are only three full-time teams in Scottish Div Two ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought they were pro, in which i case i withdraw my keep, and change to Delete John Hayestalk 15:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, unreleased, not notable, no thorough coverage --Stephen 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Girl

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

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saltee Islands (Airman setting)

Saltee Islands (Airman setting) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. A article on a fictional setting. The novel it is from has been released a month. I'm unable to find any real world coverage and suspect that there is none Nuttah (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth United

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

Contested Prod. Article fails WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations. Non notable organization, I did a google search on pages from India regarding this NGO, [30]. Basically the search results still relevant are only two, that too of their own site. Also the article is sort of a copy vio of their own website (not an exact copy though). Weltanschaunng 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • the justification- My article 'Youth United' is listed under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I have gone through the details for this and I found that the answer to the question why its subject is important or significant, is implied by the full article, particularly, headings of philosophy, vision, and mission statement really imply the answer to the same question. Youth United is a registered Non Governmental Organization, as Rotary International or Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The only difference is that they are quite reputed and old. Youth United solely works for the betterment of Society and Youth and it does not have any profit making motive as per its Constitution. Moreover everything was written from a neutral perspective. Had it not been the case, everything about the past events, activities and tabloids would have been flooded in the article. It was avoided to make the article as neutral as possible. Everything written was written to make the article informative and inform the general mass about Youth United and its missions and objectives which in turn have absolute nature of Community welfare. This article is to propagate the mission statement of Youth United and not the Youth United itself. If required I can send you the official charter and bye laws of Youth United. However you can also let me know as what all should be incorporated in the article to make it agreeable to wikipedia policies.

Searching the NGO on google is quite a speculative thing to do, especially when the organization is listed in India. It takes years for a name to come on google and not to mention this organization is quite a new organization. I have gone through the policies of wikipedia in this regard, it does not bar any one to write an article for a new organization. it also maintains neutrality and above all it just propagates the message which is in accordance with Society welfare and not any profit motive. really soliciting your cooperation,

Firstly, this is not CSD. Familiarize yourself with WP:ORG to understand why this article is being nominated for deletion. Your organization is non-notable i.e. it is not peer-reviewed by notable third party sources, nor does it feature in print media. Being a registered organization is not a criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. If you say that google search it not enough, I'd suggest you bring forward notable third party sources (i.e. links, most notable indian newspapers have websites) to show that you ARE notable. Weltanschaunng 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern. But you may like to consider the fact that this organization is a very new organization and finding third party sources for this is somewhat difficult so early. However there are some print media sources that I may be able to produce to you. Nonetheless, third party sources will be incorporated as soon as possible and for the time being this article may be approved as this article does not violate any other policy of wikipedia. However there are certain articles which does not cite the source from third party sources and still not having any problem. e.g. [31]. So in this regard, I request you to close the discussion and approve this article, with some reservations and liabilities that it will list more third party sources in near future. However organization's official website may be taken as the official source for the time being as in the case of few articles like [32], where the sources are primarily taken from the official website.
Your cooperation is really solicited,
Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extolmonica (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case I would like you to clear the position of these articles [33], [34], [35],[36], [37]( or similar hundreds or thousands of articles) having no sources at all. These are just similar organizations found alone from the list of Youth Organizations. I believe wikipedia policies are meant for all kinds of organizations be it any NGO from India or US. So with all respect, I would still request you to follow one standard to tackle one kind of situation and close this discussion, in regard of my earlier request.

Sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extolmonica (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • response- I am unable to understand the subtleties of the notability of this organization. The notability is quite an abstract issue. One issue may be notable to you and one may not. You can not prove the non notability of any entity just by saying that the corresponding wikipedia article does not have third party sources. At least the article Youth United has a lot of sources referenced from its official website, and in many a cases, excluding or including wikipedia, official website is taken as the official and authentic reference. regarding the Google search thing please refer in here. I am aware of this policy [WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS], but it does not mean that these articles are still to be overlooked after having noticed. This is a registered NGO having certified charter and bye-laws. The offical website cites these information only and challenging the authenticity of a certified charter is uncalled for. This matter is quite irrelevant for wikipedia administrators that what are the goals and activities of Youth United.I request you to take the matter more seriously, so that we may finally reach to a valid conclusion and hence close the discussion. sincerely. Extolmonica (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - As per WP:Notability, the way you can save this article from deletion is to provide reliable sources to establish the notability of the organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Concern 1 - Google Test - Firstly the example in WP:ATA#Google test tells us to see the quality, not quantity, of the links. I used the google search to indicate that I found nothing to make your article notable. Hence I put this article up for AfD, so that you could provide third party sources which I might have missed, since google is not perfect. So far you haven't provided any.
Concern 2 - Notability - A policy is a policy, if they are relaxed for one article, there goes the neighbourhood. Also consider reading WP:NOT. Weltanschaunng 08:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete: deleted under snow, then restored for unknown reasons, then speedied under G4 for recreation. I think consensus is safely on the snowy side of delete at this point. Non-admin closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted by User:SGGH. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion reopened and relisted to generate a more thorough discussion to ensure that a consensus is reached. Guest9999 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in The Simpsons by MBTI type

List of characters in The Simpsons by MBTI type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I really don't see why there should be an unreferenced list of the Simpsons characters based on their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Non-notabilty and/or original research SGGH speak! 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and remain civil. Guest9999 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, absolute defecation. JuJube (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Par above. To bad there is no speedy for this. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:45, 24 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, Guest9999 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't know why this was re-listed. Consensus seemed to be reached to me, which is why I never entered the discussion. Delete based on original research and no possibility to be independently sourced and verified as of now (and hopefully, never). Hazillow (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Meets requirements of WP:Music. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who Will I Run To / Kiss Me Like That

Who Will I Run To / Kiss Me Like That (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs, non-notable. No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
then that is reason for redirection not deletion. My vote is unchanged. Ridernyc (talk) 14:22, 26 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, with strong prejudice against recreation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boubaker polynomials

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

The only publications mentionning Boubaker polynomials are from Boubaker himself or closely related people. We are really lacking any relevant source that would confirm that this concept is anyhow accepted among mathematicians. At this time, very far from verifying WP:N (47 google hits). I also hope we can avoid the problems that followed the AfD on French language WP (speedy delete has been used in german and swedish as far as I know). Clem23 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the content may differ dramatically, this is the second nomination for the article entitled "Boubaker polynomials". As a procedural matter, this nomination is and should be separate from the first, even if the content under consideration does not overlap at all except for the title. We see this sometimes where a deleted term ends up as the name for a band; the two are unrelated, and that's usually noted in the debate (which this has been, now, as well). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to Delete ; the references are true, some notorious publication in the press about it. --Mario scolas (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The references do indeed exist, but they are from Boubaker himself (and not really notorious). No mention of the polynom in any other scientific publication, and that's the problem. Clem23 (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a recreation. The original AFD closed as delete due to apparent non-notability. Change in the precise content of the page aside, those concerns are abosutely not addressed with this new version. As mentioned by others, hardly any ghits and no independent publications on them. And as far as I can tell from Google Scholar, their papers haven't even been cited by anyone other than themselves. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think "speedy delete" is ever appropriate when some people who understand what the article says are arguing in good faith for keeping the article. Even if I thought this article were a re-creation of a properly deleted article (and it is not a re-creation) I would still hold that. There is not doctrine of stare decisis in deletions, and that is as it should be. As for the claim that the grounds for deletion was non-notability, I think that is highly questionable. It may be that the nominator and at least some of those voting for deletion had in mind those grounds, but one cannot read the minds of all who voted for deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Someguy1221. A non-notable topic does not become notable by rewriting the article text. If not deemed speediable, my recommendation is still Delete: not notable.  --Lambiam 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable. Only possibly reliable source to support notability reads as press release, and this is after significant effort by many individuals to source this article. I personally have spent several hours searching, and the enthusiasm of its proponents compared to the number of sources generated, should indicate the difficulty. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One should note that very recently a possible WP:RS has been given, but only one, and it was not clear to me how independent the source was (to my very weak french, it read like a departmental newsletter; the source itself seems not to be such a newsletter, but perhaps it was released as "copy" by a university to the magazine; in the language of WP:N, a "press release"). At any rate, speedy deletes based on the old memory of the article, should check out the new (a day or two old) source given to support notability claim, especially those with passingly good french. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the journal is a tunisian magazine (officially 55000 printed). It is treating about very general topics and does not have any scientific credibility as far as I know. The article is presenting Mr Boubaker's work with some mistakes, and at the end is talking more about the interest of the scientist for poetry and his acknowledgements to the tunisian president. It nevertheless confirms what we did know, that Boubaker & all are real researchers in mathematics and that they claim to have invented that polynom. But nothing consistent otherwise. Clem23 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not to delete see http://www.tunisie7arts.com/?nomPage=suite&newsid=555 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.221.156 (talk)
    Note : this is most likely, according to the used IP, from Boubaker. Darkoneko (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Warning to they who contributed to make and keep this discussion at a high level. Please J. C. M._Clem23 if you have problems with the Tunisian President, that is your matter, but please leave enPW away from Racism and Xenophobea, Do you want to project your behaviour in En.WP?? Do you want everyone know Which ideas you have already expressed in fr.WP. Ok? You promised to order an immediate deletion of this page from en.WP, do you think enWP administrators, who contributed to its enhancement,are your agents?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.221.156 (talk)
For the 25th time I've never ever insulted anybody about those polynoms, especially not for racial issues. I'm not going to apologize because your only solution to save "your" article is to use calomny against those who propose to remove it (I'm not talking only about me). Your widespread vandalisms on the french language wikipedia over the past few days have been tiresome, but this nomination is disconnected (I was willing to do so way before that). Clem23 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Sir, you decided it!
En.WP's will see immediately your discussion pages with administrators , saved in htm. format, from your OWN archives where you express your opinion and your real motivations ...(don't think we can rewrite them here .. this site is very clean) ... the honorable EN WP's will see and evaluate... .
For your informations, many En.WP administrators contributed to the correction on SCIENTIFIC Basis .. NEVER any one of them behaved like you in FR.WP..
In every case En.WP is too clean for you, so thanks to that feature, your language and behaviour in En.WP seem to be very very very different from yours in Fr.WP!!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.221.156 (talk)
Please do not hesitate to show the concerned pages, I have nothing to hide. But if possible show the diffs where the alledged insults are: Saying "they are here" in pointing a 500 message archive page and mixing what other people said in totally different cases with pure fakes as you did on fr:wp is not so honest :-). Clem23 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you EN.WP, you made C.L.Martin bahaving like an ANGEL !!!. If only you know how was he in FR.WP.
Ok, the en.WP will judge if what Jean-Clement Martin23 wrote to Balougador Popo le chien , and Doctorcosmos and others was racist or not, and his annexed antecedants with other people will be examinated.
You know, Clem23 is not very wise, he wants to make the debate's level low... so our last comment to him is : good night! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.219.31 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clem 23 acts only by one feeling of hatred. The sources are sufficient to show the relevance of this article.--Mario scolas (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very interesting link. Mario scolas is the worst ever vandal on the french and dutch wikipedia. He has been a very painful issue for us, with very violent threats towards 8 sysops or chechusers (and even Anthere). I'm somehow surprised that he is still active there as his case has been notified on meta many times. If somebody says that he's not active as a vandal on en:WP, check the history of my talk page... Clem23 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The specialist in lynching comes here with his own problem (see the discussion[38]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario scolas (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To each page his own problem, vandal. The present page is about wether to keep a page, and that and this one (amongst others...) are about you. Darkoneko (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was considering merge to Chebyshev_polynomial, but the absence of any clearly reliable source suggests otherwise. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please be aware !! Sir, please debate on the polynomials use, proprieties and usefulness, don't let such persons disturbing the debate; P.S. see the page Dicussion of Boubaker Polynomials , and be wondered by the level of the discussion (criticism, demonstrations, formulae correction..), if someone tries to make the level lower by evoking insults don't give it attention ; you'll see it will vanish naturally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.219.31 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note : this, too (sigh...), is most likely, according to the used IP, from Boubaker. Darkoneko (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to Delete. The references added (in French) are true and well-known, the page has been rewritten by several WP contributors in a scientific way (we checked the discussion page). Claiming that :" ..The only publications mentionning these polynomials are from the author himself or closely related people<see Clem23's comments above>" is simply wrong and strange, what does closely related people mean??, the press? Citypark2008 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    closely related: People working in the same researcher team. This opinion might be sock-puppetry. Clem23 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to Delete. Undiscussable notority, may French-native operators check (and translate the content) the 3 last annexed references.K71811418 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very likely sock/meatpuppet. Clem23 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another reference has been added by 41.224.219.31. I merged two listed references, since they were different web versions of the same LaPresse article, leaving two sources which support a claim of notability. This is exactly the sort of edit which forces me to reconsider my vote. My only remaining concern is whether the sources are independent; both are by the same author and published in the same magazine, but are separated by several months. At this stage, if the consensus is delete, I think it would be worthwhile to userfy the page; presumably if the polynomials can generate this much press in a few months, they could generate more over the next few months, until it becomes clear the subject is notable enough for inclusion. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In a different direction, I suspect some editors are overworried about the "scholarly honor" of Boubaker the person (who is so uncouth to use his own name in his article's titles at least three times). I suspect other editors are over-concerned with the "lasting scholarly value" of the research, the utility of the polynomials, how intrinsically interesting or beautiful they are, etc. The AfD is just here to decide if the article meets wikipedia's inclusion criteria, certainly not to endorse (or demean) the man behind the polynomials, and not even to judge the value of the polynomials themselves. The encyclopedia should document those things, that for whatever unknowable reasons, human beings have decided are worthy of publication and "significant coverage". Surely catastrophe theory, fractals, chaos theory, E8, and others have received more press coverage than other more "noble" or "deserving" mathematics, but in their own way they have impacted human history, and so have a place in the encyclopedia. Certainly all things noble and deserving better be included too, and luckily those will get significant coverage in first rate scholarly journals. At any rate, all I'm trying to get at, is that this AfD isn't some sort of scholarly debate. No one should ask the researchers to justify their research, and the researchers should not try to justify it here. Simply finding citations to the polynomials in reliable sources, and otherwise meeting the inclusion guidelines is what should be at issue. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Recreation. ➪HiDrNick! 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This article has been deleted on many other projects such as :de or :sv. This has no believable source. This is a hoax, don't be part of it. This link explain that there is a serious problem. Like tears in rain (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to Delete 196.203.50.144 (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comes from the creator that has already "voted" 3 times. Unfortunately he has 2 internet accesses and dynamic IP. Are we going to have all of them? Clem23 (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Self-promotion + recreation + undocumented/able. Popo le Chien (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Apart from the article itself, the user has been a real problem on frwiki for the last 8 months (he even tried to fake being an advocate office recently and posting "alarming" comments on random talk pages...). We'll probably have to block /16 ranges pretty soon... An IP list is available at fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Mmbmmmbm#Adresses_IP_connues, amongst other things (in french, but IP are universal :) Darkoneko (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Research not recognized + serious problem on WP-fr (we must stop this as soon as possible). DocteurCosmos (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment : as Tourist says below, "topic is covered only by a very small number of sources, which hardly pass the tests of Wikipedia:Reliable sources" + intolerable racist-salted self-promotion (sorry if my english is not understandable). It makes not only one but two good reasons for deletion. DocteurCosmos (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and editprotect. This article was already deleted once. Now, once again, there is one registered user and a few anonymous IPs pushing heavily for its inclusion. There is only one source offered for these polynomials besides that written by the author himself, and that is an obscure Tunisian magazine written entirely in French. A Google scholar search returns only three hits on the subject. Again, two of these are by Boubaker himself. It's not looking good. Delete with prejudice. The author(s) should have to request a review to recreate the article again. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Literally, there's only one real hit on Google Scholar, written by H. Labiadh. The other two hits are just the citations Labiadh made to two of Boubaker's papers. And what do you know, Labiadh co-authored at least one of them. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to Delete I knew the Boubaker polynomials from the second refernce. Thanks to WP I could establish an ORDINARY GENERATING FUNCTION -in press- of the shape:
Alieldear (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 3rd sock-puppet already, + 2 IP "votes". It's not a vote - thus it would be nice if you could bring any extra references. What would be the most interesting would be scientific publications not connected to the main team that mention the boubaker polynomials. I do not see any yet. Clem23 (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a vote. Please read over the article and its sources before commenting. If you do think the article should not be included in wikipedia, please try to indicate what part of the inclusion guidelines it fails. If you believe it should be included, please try to indicate why it meets those guidelines. An article topic may easily move from not meeting the inclusion criteria to meeting the inclusion criteria. For instance in 2003, it was premature to discuss the 2008 Oscars, and such an article would be deleted under WP:CRYSTAL, but such an article is clearly worth including now. Some of the previous comments address these issues, but many include details unrelated to the inclusion guidelines. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think the article fails to meet notability guidelines, because though notability is claimed, and supported by two reasonably reliable sources, the coverage is not yet "significant". One reporter for one magazine has covered the polynomials (twice), while the standard for inclusion of a mathematical concept is usually several available citations from peer-reviewed journals, and preferably articles written by authors outside of the core group of researchers. Indeed, a good article has explicit citations to textbooks which cover the topic. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder if these "non-notability" claims would ever have been mentioned if not for the alleged "self-promotion" problem. Is there a hard-and-fast rule forbidding "self-promotion" or is there rather (as I think there ought to be) a rule against the various evils that can often result from self-promotion? There's an article titled Harry Binswanger, which once stated erroneously that he was a professor at Duke University. Harry Binswanger himself edited it so that it said he visited Duke for one day and gave a lecture there. Someone objected that one should never edit an article about oneself. I think rules of that sort are too extreme; obviously weakening the claim from a statement that he was a professor there, to the statement that he gave a lecture there one day, is not an instance of using Wikipedia to advertise oneself. Even if someone does in effect advertise himself, I don't think that should be considered a problem as long as the article limits itself only to the sort of content that a disinterested party would have written about the topic. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Four or five intervening parties here (among which myself) have been expressing themselves here mostly because they were fed up by the behavior of some user (users ?) on :fr, retrying ten times to recreate the deleted page under variations of its initial name, or trying to insert links towards it in the article fr:Polynôme. So, certainly, a disruptive behavior has caused much of the fuss here. If it has consequences on the length of this discussion, it is of very small relevance on the analysis of the article relevance. This article is not relevant, not because its author has not understood how to behave properly on WP, but because its topic is covered only by a very small number of sources, which hardly pass the tests of Wikipedia:Reliable sources (scientific articles by Mr Boubaker himself or co-publishers, two articles in a generalist newspaper which contain quite suprising mathematical assertions ("Mr Boubaker has broken with the 22 polynomials classified in five families (beginning in 830 with the so-called canonical polynomials of Khawarizmi) ; while the last three have been classified by T. Chihara in 2004, V. Jones and P.J. Namara in 2006, they have been rejoined and overtaken by what is to be called as from April 14th 2007 Boubaker polynomials0" (bad translation from French by myself)) which should disqualify them as sources of an article of abstract mathematics, or even as proof of the notability of a mathematical concept. French Tourist (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I may have been the first to apply the label "self-promotion",[39] yet my argument here for deletion has solely been the lack of notability. While COI is not per se an argument for deletion, there is a good reason to apply the notability rule extra diligently in case of self-promotion.  --Lambiam 06:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in answer the {{!vote}} frame : about five participants to this discussion (myself, Like tears in rain, Popo le Chien, Darkoneko, DocteurCosmos) are sysops on :fr Wikipedia, lured there by a discussion on our Sysop Noticeboard about actions required to counteract disruptive behaviour around these Boubaker Polynomials. I hope this can explain the probably rather astounding participation on this not quite sexy topic. French Tourist (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    comment too. The page has just been is being (*sigh*) under sock attack (see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Clem32_and_User:Mario_scolas for information). I took the liberty of reverting it. Hopes it doesn't cause any problem. Darkoneko (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and editprotect. I stumbled on this page a couple of weeks ago. This is 2006-2007 material, according to the references, and nothing particularly exceptional. Time will tell us if this is really notable for inclusion (as for now, it is not). Plus, original research, self promotion, repeated spamming. There is plenty of reasons to delete it, and to take measures so that the author will not attempt to recreate it a third time. --Fph (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunatly, if this goes like frwiki, protection against recreation won't help (the bad title blacklist can't be used, as there could be too many false positives) : it will simply recreated using similar titles (examples ). Darkoneko (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I came to that page earlier, and tried to find reliable sources for this. This is non-notable original research and should be deleted. Herve661 (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to delete , the last debate,VERY VERY intresting DEBATE (see translation) : [40]between the 'DELETE' claimer Clem23 and some Fr.Administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citypark2008 (talk • contribs)
I have no particular interest in whether this article is or is not deleted. An editor noted some issues with the conduct of editors, which I addressed. I further recommended additional actions if additional disruption took place. I note also, for the record, that you have already recommended that the article should not be deleted; this is a duplicate !vote. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ultraexactzz:
It was precised that this is not a 'MAJORITY VOTE'; and we wrote this message just because you adressed us a message telling about about a possible BLOCKING.. and as we fear you do it, we contacted you this way.... this 'vote' is naturally withdrawn. Ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citypark2008 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's a discussion and debate - but the recommendations to Keep or Delete are what is debated, as well as their reasoning for so recommending. On that basis, every editor who participates can make one such recommendation, which can be changed or amended, but not duplicated. The warning was in reference to re-adding comments that had been moved (not deleted), and had nothing to do with participation in general. By all means, feel free to leave messages for me on my talk page, rather than here, if the comment is for me rather than on the article or its fate. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Imo the most interesting point was stoping the vandalisms from user:Mario scolas' socks and inform the admins here about the numerous problems encountered with this guy. This is now done, it's never a good thing that an editor is blocked permanently, but in this case it was the only solution. Then there is this polynom author, which is on my opinion a secondary problem despite his trend to spam tenth of talk pages on fr:WP in revealing at the same time a bunch of user's real names. In weeks (months, it dates back to the beginning of may 2007) of debate he hasn't been able to provide any reliable reference about these Boubaker polynomials. From my experience of WP, the more socks a person uses the less fair arguments she has. So for me it's now over - we'll continue blocking the spamming IP on WP:fr, delete the recreation of articles about Boubaker polynomials, but I stop wasting time in trying to have a fair discussions when there is so much bad faith involved. Clem23 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the comment of a regitered user, Darkoneko has not to remove it..

  • Comment: to voters; let’s summarize the 5-days (legal duration) debate:

Thanks to En.WP administrators wisdom  :

>Intentioned contributes (Mario, Clem23, Popo le Chien, K71811408, DoctorCosmso, Darkoneko..) were Check&mate. Racism and xenophobia deviation has been avoided.

>Sock/meat-puppets were unveiled

>A deletion in 5 seconds (the time of reading the Nationality of the contributors ) as in Fr.WP has been avoided.

>Attempts to tame En.WP Operators failed, see  : [41] '..§4 : ufortunately this page is becoming out of the cotrol of FR.WP.."'translation of a last message from Clem23

Now let's let En.WP’s apply En.WP lawsCitypark2008 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make Me a Song

Make Me a Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: No coverage in reliable sources, barely charting (#99 on hot 100) from an unreleased album from a non-notable artist. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Carreno

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

She "appears on US Television regularly" really? Where? Not that these are considered 100% reliable but there's one listing under Karen Carreno, nothing with the middle and nothing under AB. RS coverage under Karen is trivial and Alessandra is even less with two false positives. Plain google searches don't turn up anything more, so without any verification, she fails WP:BIO TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Spence

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

Fails notability test for footballers - he had not made an appearance for a senior team in the FNLP. Checking the club site seems to suggest he hasn't even been selected for the reserve side. Fredrick day (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Smalling

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

Astoundingly, the PROD on this article has been disputed. Anyway, this player has never played above the Isthmian League Premier Division, which is three levels below a fully professional league and therefore an egregious failure to meet WP:ATHLETE ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Punkmorten English peasant 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Void Invalid nomination. Merge requests are made at article talk pages or in RFC. AfD discussion can result in mandating a merge, but they can not start out with that as the nomination. Editors may merge and/ or redirect as they see fit. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Basics and Beyond

Back to Basics and Beyond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has no use- I'd merge it into the Back to Basics article under the track listing, among the Tour DVD edition!! Olliyeah (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it or delete it its a useless article on its own.--202.12.144.21 (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, apparently duplicate discussion? Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in The Simpsons by MBTI type

AfDs for this article:
List of characters in The Simpsons by MBTI type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research, no references, no notability, I can't see any reason for an analytical psychological profile of each Simpsons character. Original AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in The Simpsons by MBTI type speedy closed by myself per WP:SNOW but request was made to re-open. SGGH speak! 17:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Cuban Link. The album fails WP:MUSIC, but the information warrants inclusion in the artist page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24K (Cuban Link album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. It was never released. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp and assistance 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I'd merge it into his Biography!!Olliyeah (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Premier League 2008 results

Russian Premier League 2008 results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is not notable, there is no need to go into such details about matches in football league season. Seems like no other league articles have separate article for match reports.  ARTYOM  17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this would be better suited to another site. John Hayestalk 08:17, 26 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. "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles" (quoted from WP:MOSDAB), so there is little point in having such a page for a single article. The page can be recreated if/when the need arises. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Coleman (disambiguation)

Priscilla Coleman (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

So far there is only one Priscilla Coleman with an article on WP, so is a disambig page necessary at this time? ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, probably not!--IronAngelAlice (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Recreate when another Priscilla Coleman gets an article. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp and assistance 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per consensus. WP:BLP does urge us to be cautious with respect to privacy, and I personally appreciate editors who are mindful of that particularly in regards to minors (however such editors may have decided on this individual case), but WP:ONEEVENT does not mandate its removal. Several responders have suggested or conceded that merger may be appropriate, but there is not clear consensus to close as merge, and that can, of course, still be accomplished outside of AfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwu octuplets

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

Whilst octuplets are rare, they are not unique. Simply being an octuplet does not make one notable, and certainly does not necessitate us having a bio on these children. Yes, we kept this 2 years ago, but I suggest our tolerance for unjustified BLPs (especially of minors) has decreased since then. Docg 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Em, I'm not arguing it does, so how is your argument relevant? I'm contending that consensus can (and has) changed--Docg 16:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Em, I'm arguing consensus should not be changed because notability does not degrade over time. So how is your objection to my argument relevant? Hazillow (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't make sense to me. Why should the contention that notability doesn't change mean that Wikipedia's consensus should not change? Wikipedia's consensuses are not set in stone. There's a non sequitur in your logic.--Docg 17:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mean that the consensus can change, but it shouldn't in this instance. If it was notable then, the consensus should be that it is notable now. To be fair, I sort of ignored your argument that we feel differently than we did before about living people, especially minors. I guess what I'm saying is that, yeah, we feel differently about living people now due to accusations of slander, but as long as we are really careful there should be no reason to delete this article based on that. These children are still notable. I hope that makes sense. I think I explained it adequately but it still looks really confusing. Hazillow (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Not notable enough. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep apparently first set of octuplets in the US and significant RS coverage. Granted the media goes crazy for multiple births and this could easily fall in the scope of BLP1E, but I don't know .. there's been some coverage many years post birth as well. I think they might eke in. Yes they're notable for their birth, but then wouldn't we be all? I'm really not sure on this one. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not sure, and think BLPIE applies, and (WP:NOTNEWS?) isn't it safer to delete. We need a good reason to keep such articles.--Docg 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E might apply, but it goes beyond news to the overall issue of multiple births (an example. I wholly agree that had they not been part of a multibirth, we wouldn't be hearing of them at ~9 years old, could it be merged somewhere? I don't think it's an obvious has to be deleted as there are no BLP issues. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Octuplets are a rare occurence, but Fermat numbers are rare, too. Yet, we don't have an article about each of them. It may deserve its own paragraph and maybe even a subsection in the Multiple birth article (that's where octuplets redirect), but it isn't worth a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admiral Norton (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, we do have separate articles on 3 (number), 5 (number), 17 (number)... JoshuaZ (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true, but we have articles on these numbers because they're small enough to be often mentioned and important. 4294967297 (number) is also a Fermat number (and notable, because it's the first composite Fermat number) and yet it doesn't have its own page and I wouldn't advocate its creation. Chukwu octuplets have been a major news event, but not much more than that. BTW, we don't even have an article on octuplets, so why should we have an article on one of its specific occurences. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I see that we did at one point have a separate article on 4294967297 (number) and it was merged. I'm tempted to unmerge and give it a separate article (the story of that number's history might be long enough for its own article). I wouldn't object to adding an article on octuplets either but that's not an argument against having this article. It is also the large number of births that has made them notable, not necessarily the exact number. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Edit conflict) Not my favorite article, but I don't see where BLP requires us to get rid of it. I'm assuming that there's not a different article specifically about the births, as a merge to that article would be our normal resolution per WP:BLP1E. The story was following by major news outlets for the entire time the surviving octuplets were in the hospital, see the 12 articles in NYT here. Xymmax (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is an interesting case. If we had a direct request by the parents for deletion I would advocate deletion since we are not talking about willing public figures. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. However, we should not engage in BLP-penumbra deletions unless we have a request from individuals or their guardians to delete an article. BLP1E is also not relevant given the high level of news coverage and the lack of any reasonable merge source. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that argument is that it insists that if people do not want publicity, then they must publicly ask, on a website that anyone can access, for the removal of their biography. They must publicly argue for their own privacy, and have their right to that privacy openly debated, scrutinised, and noted. That really is not a solution to Wikipedia's potential for harming private persons, now is it.--Docg 23:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We explain very clearly how they can make a request by email to OTRS. DGG (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As DGG observes we have OTRS for a reason. If we took this argument to its logical conclusion we would need to AfD all articles that remotely had the possibility of such a request occurring. Furthermore, the family gave interviews and talked to the press demonstrating that they didn't mind certain levels of publicity. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The OTRS argument is invalid. As OTRS people cannot delete articles on request. They still have to publicly have their request for privacy reported to the community and publicly discussed - sometimes heatedly and nastily, anyone who thinks that's a real option of private people needs to carefully rethink.--Docg 08:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so they can request an AfD which will then be courtesy blanked. Given that they gave interviews and other work, the default assumption that they would want deletion of this article is hard to understand. Furthermore it is simply not our job to anticipate that people will not want an article about them except in the obvious cases. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:54, 26 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. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 08:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Song for You (Bizzy Bone album)

A Song for You (Bizzy Bone album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete both. ChetblongT C 01:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medy Elito

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

Contested PROD, article about a 17-year-old Colchester United guy who failed WP:BIO#Athletes. The PROD was contested under the claim that he played the U17 World Cup, which, in my opinion, is definitely not an assertion of notability. Angelo (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating for deletion for the same reason the following articles:


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

The result was Delete & redirect. ChetblongT C 01:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon Resurrection ship

Cylon Resurrection ship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:FICT. No assertion of real-world significance, in-universe information only. The ship was only featured in a couple of episodes, and those episodes have their own article. No sources, no apparent importance. I would oppose a merge because the episode articles should have more real-world perspective rather than less. Mangojuicetalk 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abadawn

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

Procedural: creator removed PROD notice. Prod reason was "non-notable artist".  —SMALLJIM  16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Point Communications

Fair Point Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability for this ISP and ghits don't show anything either. Appears to fail WP:CORP TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its Business Baby

Its Business Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable web-based business, all of the sources presented have been worthless. Fredrick day (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep and needing improvement. Davewild (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treatise

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

A dictionary definition, already transwikied to Wiktionary, followed by a fairly random list of things that meet some undefined notability definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there's no doubt that treatises are notable, but this list is far from complete and I don't think it could ever be complete. The linked articles are notable in their own right, but this list is unnecessary. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. My comment about "undefined notability definition" was referring to the criteria for appearing in this list, not for having their own articles on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and turn into a slightly amplified disambiguation page or list. Not sure whether the subject of treatises constitutes a specific literary genre the same way that essays are, but I am open to persuasion. A number of the works that are not specifically called treatises here probably ought to be removed; claiming the label for them may well be original research. I would also suggest that the current disambiguation page tractatus be merged / redirected here as well, since tractatus and treatise are essentially the same thing, one Latin, the other French. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A quirk of titling is not a sufficiently discriminate criterion for a list article, and it's improper to disambiguate articles on the basis of this one word. Deor (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List has unclear inclusion criteria and could never cover anywhere near all notable "formal, lengthy, systematic discourses". Dictionary definition is unnecessary in an encyclopedia. I can't see that we need a disambiguation page here either; nobody is going to search for "Treatise" to find out about an individual work which happens to have that word in the title. EALacey (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clarify inclusion criteria, adequately source, and prose-ify. I agree that the current article is too broad, but it can be narrowed and clarified to highlight only discourses that are specifically singled out by historians as significant "treatises". Not all "formal, lengthy, systematic discourses" are treatises, but that doesn't mean that no "formal, lengthy, systematic discourses" are treatises. Or to put it another way: Not all formal agreements between two or more nations are necessarily treaties. Does that mean that WP shouldn't have an article on treaties? Groupthink (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a type of scholarly work,and a distinctive type. The term is used in various senses, and the article attempts to explain their nature and distinguish by examples. The article should be expanded to do it more explicitly, there are sources available about scientific book and scientific publishing. DGG (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This could be vastly expanded. The practice of the treatise is especially important in certain disciplines, such as constitutional law. It's not just a high-falutin' word for essay or argument. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Dhartung. A treatise is a distinct type of publication; at minimum, this page serves as a disambiguation page. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Activist Council of the Columbia University College Democrats

Activist Council of the Columbia University College Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable committee within local chapter of College Democrats RedShiftPA (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Tyndal Winthrop

Margaret Tyndal Winthrop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Grandmother of John Kerry and granddaughter of Robert Charles Winthrop. No claim to notability. --Michael WhiteT·C 15:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject is not notable. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp and assistance 15:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having a relationship to a notable individual does not, in itself, meet notability requirements. Individuals need to be notable in their own right. -Fritzpoll (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was created because of the extent of the interest in John Kerry's ancestry, particularly his relationships through Margaret Tyndal Winthrop. She became notable because of the attention paid to her in this connection. The consensus of editors during intensive edit wars at John Kerry during the 2004 campaign was that the information about her should be available on Wikipedia but that it was too much collateral detail for the Kerry article. JamesMLane t c 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relationships do not confer notability, per Wikipedia:Bio#Invalid_criteria and WP:NOTINHERITED, meaning that this subject needs to establish notability alone. The guidelines suggest incorporating such material into the notable subject's article. I understand that this split is the result of an editor consensus at John Kerry, but perhaps it is time to re-open the discussion, especially now that the page is not as contentious? - Fritzpoll (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could be put in the article about his mother, Rosemary Forbes Kerry. --Michael WhiteT·C 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Presidents are not royalty; neither are presidential candidates. Being in a family line does not, as responders above note, automatically confer notability. While a mention of her in the article of Kerry's mother (presuming that article needs to remain) is not inappropriate, I don't believe this information needs to be merged. Genealogy is not in itself the function of an encyclopedia, as I understand 'em. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 06:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hide in the Storm

Hide in the Storm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a completely spurious/hoax article. I can't find any evidence that there is any such series of novels, or, for any of the titles that are unique enough to search for, that the individual books exist, and no author is credited in the article. Two other articles by this original editor were speedily deleted recently. ShelfSkewed Talk 15:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An article about a book of fiction should at least include the author's name. And the article makes it sound like some of the books haven't been written yet, so how notable / verifiable can they be? Dan Beale-Cocks 15:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can find no evidence these books exist. (Though to be fair, DanBealeCocks, we knew that Harry Potter would end with his seventh year of school long before that book came out -- though it would have been a better hoax if the final year had been written as a future intention.) —Quasirandom (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No Consensus defaulting to keep, some very weak arguments used by some on both sides ('fictional nonsense' or 'useful') which I have largely discounted but there is still no consensus. Davewild (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series

List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced outside of in-universe references. Has limited potential for independent 3rd-party sources. ^demon[omg plz] 14:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 14:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Lack of sources is hardly grounds for deletion. The fact of the matter is is that all of these gangs are deemed characters under WP:FICT, i.e., they are important, integral parts of the storyline that help to advance the plot. This deletion is totally unmerited. Also, concerning the "fair use" issue, this issue is still being discussed and I'm confident this issue can be reasonably resolved. Regardless of the outcome on that matter, I'm sure the GTA task force will do a great deal to mediate the matter according to the resolution in the future. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, 34 of the 38 references on the page are directly from the game and thus primary sources, one is from RockStar (and is thus also primary), one is a fansite, and another doesn't work for me (this might be temporary). The remaining one (GameSpot) is quite good - more like that would be needed to source the article properly. Black Kite 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I also feel that I should point out that "fictional nonsense" is not a valid argument for deletion. WP:NONSENSE clearly states that "nonsense" constitutes as unintelligible material (i.e., "text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all" or content that "is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.") and also mentions that "nonsense" should not be confused with fictional material. If that were so, "fictional nonsense" could constitute as any material based on fictional works. .:Alex:. 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The gangs in the GTA series are as fundamental to the games' stories as the individual characters. As mentioned above, the flaws of this article are reason for improvement, not deletion. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. No notability outside of the GTA series itself. As much as GTA fans may like this information and find it useful, WP is not a game guide or a fan fiction site. Articles need to be supported by reliable research from independent third party resources, and those resources have to be notable. Anything else is a violation of WP:OR. This article will likely violate WP:SYN. 65.93.222.5 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has nothing to do with game guides or fan fiction. There are already third party references (and primary source references, which are also allowed) in the article. 96T (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I knew someone was going to come along and completely ignore what I had said... It's not a game guide, as already pointed out numerous times for a variety of reasons. Also, primary Sources are acceptable and are not necessarily original research. Yes the article most definitely needs more third party sources, but that does not mean the primary sources are not valid as well. .:Alex:. 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Too many mentions have been made regarding the lack of notability this subject matter has outside of the GTA universe. If the game itself is notable, its constitutive components certainly are, since they themselves are what foster such notability in our collective consciousness. The allusions and similarities to real-life locations, situations, and entities are what constitute the impact of the GTA series on our culture. The gangs portrayed in the series are just as notable as any of the other plot devices employed throughout. But to attempt to include every last notable aspect of a phenomenon like the GTA series in the main article(s) would be ludicrous. Articles such as this one can alleviate such a burden, and can delineate impactful components of a complex network of notability. As long as the editors of this article are allowed time and space to source claims, it should be kept. EganioTalk 03:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, too long to merge into Grand Theft Auto (series). The games are the primary sources. As a sub-article, it doesn't have to establish independent notability. And I'm sure one could find coverage of the gangs in reviews at review aggregators. IGN has an article on the gangs of GTA3. --Pixelface (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 06:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All That Money

All That Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-charting single from an unreleased album. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Wizardman 06:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in the Ranma ½ manga

List of minor Ranma ½ characters (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced and written in-universe. A list of minor characters is not necessarily notable. ^demon[omg plz] 14:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 14:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree article definitely needs cleanup. Hell, entire set of Ranma articles need cleanup, they switch between past and present tense and have a ton of sloppy edits everywhere. But it doesn't need to be deleted. It was probably spun off the main Ranma 1/2 page in the first place to avoid making that article too big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A group of editors has been discussing in the main article's talkpage how to deal with the Ranma character articles. They (or "we", as I've participated in the discussion) just need more time for fixing these problems.--Nohansen (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We are currently in the process of talking about how to best restructure the section as a whole. The minor, or not-so-minor but with too limited text to warrant separate entries, characters are a necessary part to showcase the depth of the series as a whole. Wantonly deleting vast segments will greatly diminish it, not add anything constructive whatsoever.
I do however agree that it would be useful to add a quite a few more chapter references. I'm currently busy with other improvements, but help would be very appreciated both in this respect, and a tense and/or over-repetitive word-usage sentence reformatting clean-up.
'Notability', while very useful and relevant for real-world scientific treatises, is also an indiscriminately sweeping, blunt, and utterly destructive hammer for fictional-related pages, given that it essentially says that you are limited to thoroughly referencing available independent essays on the subject, the writers of which per definition generally don't know any more than the Wikipedia contributors. Interviews, mentions in non-fiction works, and similar have usually already been used to the extent that they are available. Dave (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AFD violates the current Arbcom injunction. Jtrainor (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep yes, in my view the afd violates the injunction at least broadly interpreted to include video-like fiction in general, but we might as well discuss it anyway, for I think this page illustrates some problems. The key one is duplication and scattering of the material on the various pages of this complex set of articles. Not being familiar with the series, i am not going to give advice how to do it better--except to say that reading this material did not lead to my acquiring information, but rather confusion. I ascribe this to the practice of dealing with redirects and merges and separations as people propose them, rather than having a stable way of writing these kinds of articles. An deletion of a combination article like this is however only certain to make it worse. DGG (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The injunction only applies if you broadly define "manga" (printed material in comic book-like form) as "television". I'm aware that Ranma also had a television series, but this article is very specific in that it is in regards to the manga, not the television series. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Being minor does not mean we don't mention them at all in an article, often because of how arbitrary "minor" can be defined. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a stronger sub-article that can establish more real-world notability. The key is to organize into the fewest subarticles possible while getting the basic points across. Just because we're not paper does not mean that we stress flabby presentation/excess detail, but we are also not a deletion-happy cabal either. — Deckiller 04:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original minor character list was very long, so it was split into the 3 minor character lists that currently exist in order to segregate characters by medium in which they appear. I got the idea for splitting along these lines from how the Fullmetal Alchemist minor characters are currently organized. What do you suggest in terms of a merge? BrokenSphereMsg me 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football playing styles

Football playing styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very un-encyclopaedic article, full of original research and hugely open to subjective interpretation and debate. Might be of some use in a guidebook on soccer, but certainly not in an encyclopaedia Tx17777 (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article full of original research, partly a duplicate of Association football positions. --Angelo (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kerry

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

Father of John Kerry. Minor diplomat, non-notable lawyer and author. Arguments from 2004 for keeping at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Richard Kerry seemed to center on the temporary or possible notability because Kerry was a presidential candidate and possible president. So, since that situation is no longer the case, it should be deleted or merged. --Michael WhiteT·C 14:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, article lacks reliable sources to establish notability at this time. Davewild (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Champion

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

One-and-half-year-old bio stub, just as unsourced today as it was when created, and no real sign of actual importance, impact, or notoriety. PROD tag and {{Articleissues}} tags added, but tags removed without addressing concerns. Calton | Talk 14:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a weak delete. The subject of this article may be "on the radar" for certain people; however, I don't see much anywhere that would qualify the article in terms of notability for purposes of Wikipedia -- at this time. The individual subject is a radio talk show host and run-of-the-mill purveyor of Tax protester arguments -- erroneous, legally frivolous arguments about the validity or applicability of Federal tax laws. He is not a lawyer or certified public accountant. I believe he might be holding himself out as a "paralegal." He has no discernable knowledge of legal matters of any kind. (In the interest of full disclosure: I am an attorney and certified public accountant. I am also a former radio talk show host myself. I edit heavily in the area of tax law related articles in Wikipedia.) Based on a google search and a search of the huge CCH database of reported U.S. Federal tax decisions (court cases) since the year 1913 (resulting in no "Dave Champion" hits at all in the CCH database), I don't see much that would qualify the article in terms of notability. For now: a delete, with the understanding that Dave Champion could very well become notable enough at some future time (and I don't want to be more specific than that here). Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Google News can find nothing on this person's radio program under any combination of keywords. Plenty of Google hits so there is some notability but not in reliable secondary sources, it appears. If this article were better referenced, I'd flip this vote to Keep. - Dravecky (talk) 06:58, 26 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, please add sources identified here to the article. Davewild (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homegrown (album)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We have lyrics on a fansite and the cover on the cover artist's website. That is not "substantial coverage", nor is it in "reliable sources". Were we trying to merely show that there was strong-ish evidence that the album existed, I'd agree. That is not the issue. It is not notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theres another 9 pages of published books that get hits on google [50]. Ridernyc (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if someone would actually work some of those sources into the article, or at least in a links section. Wikidemo (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not going to argue that, but this all could have been dealt with without coming to AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime in the near future, Neil Young will be releasing his Archives series, his long-awaited compilation of unreleased material. Young has already stated that, among other things, unreleased albums will appear on Archives in their entirety [citation needed], leading to speculation among fans that Homegrown will appear in the set.

appears to violate WP:CRYSTAL. Further, there are no references from reliable sources, which is a requirement for any article on wikipedia. This article appears to contain primary research and guesswork, e.g.

Personnel: Unknown, either David Briggs or Elliot Mazer produced most of the songs that were released on later albums.

For the above reasons I support deletion of the page. Cloudz679 (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This album was shelved in the 1970's, WP:Crystal has no application at all here. Also the fact that you have totally ignored numerous published sources posted in this AFD is disturbing. Amazing how people are now nit picking individual lines in articles and trying to use that to justify deletion. Ridernyc (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unreleased album with a possible future release date. It meets WP:CRYSTAL for me. Particularly the part which states All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable. There's no verification at the page, hence my point of view. Maybe it would suit you better to just remove the information I was specifying in my last post. Cloudz679 (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again how is that reason for deletion of the article? Ridernyc (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think the material the two of you are discussing will impact the outcome of this discussion. It doesn't seem to be sourced or source-able, so it doesn't support a "keep", but it isn't a sizable enough portion that removing it would push toward "delete". Perhaps this side issue can be discussed on the article's talk page and decided separately? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
exactly the point I was trying to make. Ridernyc (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 10:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Mac's Cross

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

This article on a bed of flowers just doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines, though it does have one source to a 1978 magazine. I can't find anything else. I PRODded the article in December; the PROD was removed with a note that more sources were being gathered. They have not appeared. I tagged the article for notability concerns on January 15th, but this did not elicit more sourcing or evidence of notability. Without access to the source, I can't be sure, but it seems quite likely that the extensive quote utilized in the article exceeds fair use, to boot. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's not a question of whether it's a hoax, but a question of notability. :) Perhaps shaped flower beds are unusual in that region, but they aren't particularly around here. Good find on the link, but I'm not personally sure this is enough to verify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable, even locally, and is basically only a cut and paste from another web site (and is presumably a copy of a copyvio of the original article in a defunct magazine) plus a photo.--Grahame (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notwithstanding the mention in the article on the Alpine Way, the feature is not mentioned in the National Parks and Wildlife site as being a feature in the park. They mention falling down fences in preference as a legacy of the chalet and European settlement. - eg Kosciuszko Road area: Rainbow Lake Walk //3 km, 1 hour, easy // The track begins at a gate on the left side of the road towards Perisher from Sawpit Creek, 1.7 kilometres past Sponar's Chalet. The track winds through snowgrass and snow gums to Rainbow Lake. The lake is a dam which was built to supply water to the Hotel Kosciusko. Sponar's Chalet had been the staff quarters for the hotel which burnt down in 1951. The old fences near a large boulder just before you descend to the lake are a legacy of the period when this area was leased for grazing. from [52] Other searches on daffoldils in the park mention Kiandra cemetery and mining heritage.--Matilda talk 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, obviously not a hoax, but I'm not sure that this particular flower bed is really all that remarkable. The web source provided only mentions it in a trivial, passing manner. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Sources mentioning the topic in a trivial manner, do not conform with WP:N. Twenty Years 11:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete - clear case of criteria G10; no usable history. Marasmusine (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Riley

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

undefined Dewster_^*'_ 13:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already up for speedy. Queerbubbles (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep, This does not stop an editorial decision to move to Rosenkranz Foundation. Davewild (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rosenkranz

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

The page was clearly written by a paid publicist, about someone of no great public interest who is seeking publicity. Marcus Tully (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Copied from note left on article itself. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It reads as if a PR girl wrote the entry - and not even a good one ! A competant publicist would have done better. 86.144.85.168 (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's one financial group in country of thousands and not sure that justifies an entry. Ditto the Foundation - half of Park Avenue has at least one or two, and although he's a Conservative he has not contributed really unlike say Scaife (who if you like him or hate him, has at least made an impact). Maybe I'm feeling cranky today, but sort of getting tired of how many people use Wiki for self-promotion these days. Getting a publicist to place a puff piece in the Times and the New Yorker does not make him notable in any way .... Marcus Tully (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would hope a professional publicist would do it better--there is obviously a good deal more to say, judging by the sources. From the NYT aticle " Robert Rosenkranz, an investor and philanthropist who runs Delphi Financial Group, a $5 billion insurance concern," this is sufficient money for notability. In any case, being the subject of an article in the NYT and in the New Yorker, it meets the WP:N requirements beyond any doubt. If they think his activities notable, that should end the discussion. DGG (talk) 00:36, 26 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. Wizardman 06:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter X. Takahashi

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

I've nominated this page for deletion as the subject doesn't seem to be notable. A Google search gets less than 250 hits, and I can't find any reliable reference to receiving any significant recognised awards or honours. 203.173.16.199 (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Copied from talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 13:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only encyclopedia-worthy information in the article is "award-winning ... author." One-sentence article can be created again if someone has information about what awards he won, what he wrote, or anything else that makes him worthy of an encyclopedia article. Fg2 (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. If the creator wants it userfied, let me know and I can do that. Wizardman 16:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kunle Odetoyinbo

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

Not notable in my opinion. Anon's can't complete the process, but this should prevent deletion before discussion. 128.240.229.67 (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Copied from talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 13:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N (lack of notable coverage from secondary sources). --Angelo (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Fearn

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

Proposed deletion as I don't think this person is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.31.51 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Text copied from talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 13:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep, bad faith AFD by anon user who's since been blocked for vandalism. Also WP:SNOW per comments below. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Starr Jordan

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

Who is this guy? I've tried to start a so-called "afd" per the deletion guidelines I've just read but don't seem to be abel to start step II. Can someone do this for me please. 194.189.32.65 (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Copied from talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 13:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not posting an actual opinion mainly because I'm not sure what my opinion is. The way this article is written, it's more or less a stub with a bunch of lists tacked on the end, and complete rubbish as a result. However, the article clearly establishes him as a notable figure, and it seems as though with a bit of work this article could be knocked into shape and thus spared deletion. The only problem is, it is going to take a lot of work with the way things presently are. This isn't an offer to do said work, as I'm not the best article writer and don't know much about what this guy apparently did, so doubly feel as though I'm not the best choice to do so - however, if that sort of work is what is needed to spare the article in the end, I may give it a shot if I have time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NOAA thought he was notable enough to name a boat after. President of Stanford University for 25 years. May be that the article could use a bit of work, but looks notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Six other-language wikis consider him notable, and I am not doubting their judgment. – sgeureka t•c 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - not only the President of Stanford, but the first one. He was a significant figure in American scholarship in his day. The article needs a lot of cleanup, but there are many sources to aid that. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Curtis Osano and Viktor Illugason, Delete Gylfi Sigurðsson. Davewild (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Osano

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

Not played in a fully professional league (cup is not a league), which appears to be the guidance followed re footballers. Anon's can't complete the process, but this should prevent deletion before discussion. 128.240.229.67 (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Copied from talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 13:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus defaulting to keep. Davewild (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Pond

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

Unremarkable pond of hyperlocal interest only. Failed Prod. Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:HOLE, which is a more humorous way of saying it's got no WP:N. (Translation of this hostile alphabet soup for newcomers: It's not notable enough.) Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a perfectly fine subject for its own Wikipedia article--notable Indian spot. I sketched in some history with cites. Grateful for the enthusiasm of those who made a start on this.--Wageless (talk) 21:35, 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, MBisanz talk 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - verifiable, historical and has reliable sources. Why would we ever even think about deleting it? That said, a merge would be acceptable - but a proper merge, not a dodgy copy and paste, delete and redirect. EJF (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: because it wasn't verifiable or cited when nominated. The article has come a long way since then. Toddst1 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am just one of the hundreds or maybe thousands of descendants of Perez Walker who have found or might eventually find this information useful. There is much written about this particular Walker line of genealogy and I believe Walker Pond deserves it's own article.Powalker (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn notability established Mayalld (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Buttons

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

Delete NN band. Article cites 4 references;

  1. Time Out Magazine - Appears to be no more than a listing for a gig - trivial mention, therefore not relevant
  2. Pitchfork Media - no evidence that this is a reliable source
  3. New-noise.net - appears to be a blog - not a reliable source
  4. Observer Music Monthly - group gets a one line mention in a full length article - passing mention doesn't confer notability Mayalld (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep This article "slipped through the cracks" because it was not correctly listed until February 25 - hence delay in closing. That said there is no consensus to delete the main article nor any as far as I can determine to delete the two offshoot tag-alongs. --VS talk 09:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applegeeks

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

Almost everything is primary source. No reliable secondary sources cover it at all. There is NO serialization or publication outside of the web nor is there any serialization or publication on a busy/major website. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, Mohammad Haque and Ananth Panagariya should go too. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the main Applegeeks article. Serialization or publication outside the web or on another website is not the only criteria for notability. I'll do some searching for reliable third party sources, I'm sure they exist on some level. At any rate, what is your criteria for deletion; that they are not notable, or that no references exist in the current article? Because a lack of references should be a reason to clean it up, not delete it. Just things I found in ten minutes:
The Stanford Daily mentions Applegeeks here [54], as one of four webcomics that are popular and good starting places for the world of webcomics, noting that the artist is "known for his wonderful use of color and ink style in every single issue".
Applegeeks has been nominated for a number of WCCA awards, including Outstanding Character art 2006, Outstanding Use of Color 2006, Outstanding Web Design 2006 [55], and possibly more, I'm still researching.
The awards section appears to be unreferenced. And I'm not sure if "WCCA" counts under this guideline: "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]" WhisperToMe (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) - In addition, I cannot find Applegeeks on the WCCA website. EDIT: Found it [56] - But I doubt that this is enough to make it notable - People may argue that the WCCA is not a famous/notable award. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then these "people" would be arguing with the New York Times and the Wikipedia consensus, which decided to keep the article on the awards after a lengthy AfD last year.[57] --Ig8887 (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So references and assertions of notability can be added. This is a major webcomic with a long history, and it shouldn't be deleted because the article is poorly referenced at the moment. As for the artist and writer, those should not be lumped in with this; a comic can be notable without its creators being independently notable. --Ig8887 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article from the Stanford Daily gives a short description of Applegeeks, but it is not really about the comic. - In the meantime read: Wikipedia:Notability (web) - These are the notability guidelines of webcomics. In order to ensure this, you have to get "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." - Which means you need to find at least one more source like the Stanford one. As for the award not only is it unreferenced, but the organization may not be notable. EDIT: I searched the organization website and I cannot find any mention of AppleGeeks. EDIT 2: Found ref for AppleGeeks comic nomination [58] - But I do not believe that this is enough to make it notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not withdraw the nomination unless I see more reliable secondary sources and feel certain that AppleGeeks is notable. If you want to save Applegeeks, you need to find the references. Since AFD is not a vote, this page will likely be deleted due to the dearth of reliable sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I know exactly what is required here. I believe I said I was still looking for references, so if you could possibly hold off assuming that I don't know what I'm doing for the time being. Speculating on what is "likely" or not is not meaningful. Also, repeating over and over that you will not withdraw the nomination within the twenty minutes or so since I first responded isn't really helpful either. I get it, you won't withdraw it. I'm not asking you to. I intend to simply prove you incorrect by providing references, but that will TAKE TIME and there's no rush to close this within the next hour, is there? As far as whether the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are notable, their article is well-referenced to, among other places, the New York Times. --Ig8887 (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have plenty of time to look for refs - These discussions typically last for five days. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three website references: each one is a multiple-contributor, editorially-monitored website that has written a review or in-depth critique of Applegeeks; there are no blogs here. 1.) PopSyndicate [59], 2.) Modern Humor Authority [60], and 3.) Digital Strips [61]. When added to the Stanford Daily and the Plagiarism Today reference that was already in the article [62], that comes to five nontrivial reliable published works. And as an extra bonus, I give you another comics website (not a blog) that performed a survey of major webcomic traffic in May 2007[63]; Applegeeks comes in at #18 in Alexa ranking of the 300 biggest webcomics surveyed. This is one of the top 20 most widely-read webcomics in existence and has been covered by no less than five reliable websites, in addition to being nominated for a notable award. Therefore, I submit that it is without a doubt notable. (At this point, I actually consider my point made, but if I come up with any more references in the next five days, I will certainly add them here. I encourage others to do the same.) --Ig8887 (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I'm not really sure if Pop Syndicate is a Wikipedia:Reliable source - In particular see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29
2. Modern Humor Authority and Plagiarism Today are blogs AND they are self-published. Also Broken Frontier seems to be self-published. Anyhow, I don't think 28,640 is good enough, AND Alexa ratings *may* be manipulated. Remember the information about self-published websites. This is not a policy or a guideline, but you may want to see this: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples - Also see this how to guide regarding search engine tests: Wikipedia:Search engine test#Alexa_ratings WhisperToMe (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're inventing a definition of "self-published" that has no basis in reality. Those sites are not published by the people who make AppleGeeks, nor are the articles linked written by the person who publishes/manages/edits the website; therefore, in this context, they are NOT self-published and they are NOT blogs. As far as whether 28,640 is good enough, you may want to see WP:NOTBIGENOUGH, I'm not sure if you're familiar with it. At any rate, there's no point in me wasting my time trying to convince you; I've laid my argument out for other editors to see, and until some of them weigh in, I won't bother responding further. --Ig8887 (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant self-published by the people operating the websites. The people need to be shown as reliable sources. Generally newspapers, scholarly journals, government websites, etc. are considered notable third party subjects. Anyone can start a blog or a personal website and talk about Applegeeks. This isn't notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every website in the world is published by the people operating that website!! That's the definition of "published by" on the web! TIME.com is published by TIME, The New York Times website is operated by the New York Times, and Digital Strips is operated by the people who operate Digital Strips. How on earth can any website be operated by someone other than the people who operate it???? The proper interpretation of the term "self-published" is whether the WRITER is the same as the person who operates the website, which in these cases, it is not. If Bob starts a website about Topic X, then Jill submits an article for it that Bob chooses to publish, then Jill's article is not self-published, because Bob is exercising editorial control over his website. But you're right, I'm sure the dozens of writers and editors at Broken Frontiers started their website in 2002 and used it to cover the world of traditional print comics day in and day out JUST so they could forge an article about webcomic traffic in 2007. Right. Although bonus points for uttering something so absurd that I couldn't let it stand unchallenged. --Ig8887 (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TIME has professional journalism and exists in a magazine format. The others... don't. Ig8887, please re-read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, particularly the section "Aspects of reliability." WhisperToMe (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we discussing whether or not they are self-published, or whether or not they are unreliable? The two words have different meanings, though self-published sources are often unreliable. You asserted that these are self-published sources, in error, then changed the subject to whether or not they were unreliable when I pointed out how they are not self-published. If you want to discuss how those websites are not reliable, feel free to do so, but do so without the erroneous charge that they are self-published. As in, prove that they are unreliable in some other way, because they are not, as the self-published guideline stipulates, "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings". They are sites with an editorial staff and multiple contributors, and such websites are permitted as reliable sources. --Ig8887 (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both, and we also have rules about self-published here: WP:SELFPUB - Some of the websites above were either self-published or unreliable. To be fair, self-published can be used as a source, but we use third-party, reliable sources when gauging notability. By self-published I meant some guy decided to create a website without journalist/academic fact checking. There is a difference between CNN.com and a guy's personal opinion website about Donkey Kong Xiang Jiao Chuan. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I hate to make an WP:IKNOWIT argument, but I've always gotten the impression that this is one of the more popular webcomics in existence. I have no doubt that notability can be established per WP:WEB, it looks like a completely surmountable problem. -Verdatum (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with the argument is revealed in the details of the IKNOWIT section: "Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it would end up being original research." - Without enough verifiable sources saying "Applegeeks is popular" becomes Wikipedia:Original research - The way to save the article is to find more verifiable, reliable sources. For that matter, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry's Legend. - I found one reliable source that documented this, and it still wasn't enough to save the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • to quote the essay, "This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions." hence the expansion of the thought. I completely agree, the article should be properly saved by providing quality references, but unless there is a signifigant doubt that any such sources exist, I don't believe the present lack of reliable sources is a sufficient reason to delete, just a reason to request sources. That's all. If concensus appears to move towards deletion I will happily take the time to bolster this argument with evidence or article improvement. -Verdatum (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried a Google News search and I found some articles talking about Applegeeks: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=Applegeeks&ie=UTF-8 - Newsweek, University of Alabama, and Anchorage Daily News - They mention Applegeeks but I do not know if this may be construed as trivial. Of them, Newsweek is the only one which may have it for free. I'll check and see. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Newsweek one is here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/46853 - But the article is not really about Applegeeks. It just mentions it once. For that matter the U of Alabama also only mentioned AppleGeeks briefly. I tried to use an article in a similar scenario for the AFD for Harry's World and that didn't work. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got additional information: Google Book Search tells me that T Campbell covers Applegeeks in his book, A History of Webcomics: The Golden Age: 1993-2005 from Antarctic Press. [64] Now, I have no idea as to how much coverage he gives, because I don't own the book, but it's a published reliable source. Even if one objects to every website I found, there are now two reliable published sources: Stanford Daily, and A History of Webcomics. That should satisfy WP:WEB right there. I leave it to someone else to incorporate these references into the article, both because I don't own the Campell book, and because I've never actually read Applegeeks and am not certain how best to write about it. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite from secondary sources. More coverage in the above AFD than many webcomix every get. --Dhartung | Talk 05:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly userfy to whoever may want to try to rewrite on this topic based on multiple, non-trivial reputable sources so that it meets our content policies. --Dragonfiend (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To be clear, I doubt multiple non-trivial reputable sources exist for this topic (I certainly can't find them through my library), so I don't think it can be cleaned up or salvaged into a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article. --Dragonfiend (talk) 00:53, 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flurry (screensaver)

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

Non-notable Visor (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Partial merge to screensaver. Some evidence of notability but from non-reliable sources, a nearly 4 year-old stub so unlikely to ever grow past stub, still zero links to it from proper articles (the only one from article namespace is a disambig). However I'm not fond of the idea of completely deleting and losing the revision history of an article that's been around this long and has had this many edits and editors. All this suggests merging with its natural parent to me. Reduce to just a sentence or two on TMC1221's point in the screensaver article (with a ref), maybe even just in the caption of the existing image of this screensaver. If Flurry is important in the history of screensavers its has a place (in suitably reduced form) in the screensaver article. If it's not important the content will probably reduce or disappear over time with normal wikiprocess. Qwfp (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Rewards

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

The subject is a planned, but not yet operational loyalty program. Refs and article generated by subject's marketing consultant. May be notable in future, but can't be considered notable until program launches and gains significant membership. Murtoa (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Murtoa (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete (unless / until sourced). Not-yet-launched businesses are not inherently non-notable or a WP:CRYSTAL issue; if they're important enough then the idea, preparation, and launch plans themselves may be notable whether or not the company ever gets off the ground. However, in this case I just don't see notability. There are indeed a number of mentions in reliable sources but they are minor references in minor sources, e.g. an interview in a green publication so informal that they refer to the CEO by his first name. There's just not enough substance there to say it's a notable program...people love to hear about this kind of company, so if it ever does become notable I'm sure we'll see lots of press and notability will be clear. If that happens, or if the sources are out there and I just missed them, it's a keeper. Wikidemo (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Reads more like an advert than anything else, and the sources provided do not suggest that the proposed program is notable. It could be notable -- just not yet. However, having said that, I disagree with the nominator's assertion that a product or service can't be notable until it has launched. That is just plain incorrect. On that point, I concur with Wikidemo. iPhone is a classic example of a product that was certainly notable (and subject to much hype and speculation, as well as its own Wikipedia article) long before Apple admitted that it planned to offer such a device or anyone knew what it would look like. However, Green Rewards are not the iPhone, and this product does not appear to be notable. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about launch not being a prerequisite for notability. The inherent difficulty in launching and sustaining these types of coalition loyalty programs was driving my comments rather than applying more generally. Murtoa (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This program does not exist outside a website, logo and article placements by employees...all former marketing people. They do want your credit card in order to save the world from more plastic reward cards. Flowanda | Talk 05:24, 26 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 to delete. I have chosen not to relist this to prompt further discussion because the conditions that prompted the nomination on February 1st no longer apply. This does not preclude the album article being nominated for deletion for other concerns, but the article is now sourced. Please review WP:MUSIC before renominating. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Destroyer

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

No artist, no nothing. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:38, 1 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 rename to William Durbin and clean up to remove advertisement and to address unverified assertions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyojute Ryu Kempo

Kiyojute Ryu Kempo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable style. The article itself claims lack of notability. Ceated 20 years ago, it only has 9 dojos throughout the world. RogueNinjatalk 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm you forgot to tag the article, to be honest I've never added an AfD tag and I don't want to risk botching it up. --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, in the past 24 hours, Twinkle has screwed up 3 or 4 times for me. RogueNinjatalk 10:39, 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, Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 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 No consensus (default keep); just not enough participation although the AfD was started 25 days ago. Relisting is clearly not the right thing to do. Perhaps editors should use the PROD process first in cases where the subject is not likely to garner wide attention. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosho Shorei Ryu Kempo

Kosho Shorei Ryu Kempo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable style. The article's only "claim" to notability is brining martial arts to Hawaii, where they undoubtably were already. The article is basically a coatrack for Mitose RogueNinjatalk 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability is not inherited. Just becase American Kempo is notable does not mean that this is. RogueNinjatalk 17:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no claim of inheritance of WP:N here. I found 6,750 ghits for "Kosho Shorei". An Amazon search on "Kosho Shorei" shows that the phrase appears in many books, several of which cite Mitose's influential "What is Self Defense? (Kenpo Jiu-Jitsu)" [73] from Kosho-Shorei Publishing (which published other books as well). See also "James Mitose’s Kempo Karate" in Classical Fighting Arts #3 (19-24, 59). This is a notable system. JJL (talk) 18:45, 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, Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in the current state I'm inclining towards weak delete. I'm not saying that the topic is definitely not notable. Probably after some digging notability could be established, after all the topic is googlable. Still, I'm not sure if this is going to happen (if anybody will actually refine the article) and in the current state it is very poor, un-sourced, and not wikized. Also, even if the topic is potentially notable, it definitely is not a must-have. Pundit|utter 20:31, 23 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 necessary material to List of Xbox Live Arcade games. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xbox Live Arcade releases by date

List of Xbox Live Arcade releases by date (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant with List of Xbox Live Arcade games, which is sortable by date. Redirection not necessary as this article is not likely to be found directly. An argument advanced elsewhere I will counter here is that this article includes other things than the main list. This is a surmountable problem: add them to the main sortable list. That is better for both clarity (confusion over two similar lists), usability (sortable), and in the interests informative value, as the sortable list includes more information. User:Krator (t c) 09:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) User:Krator (t c) 09:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to notify observers that the above argument is the exact same argument as the argument I attempted to refute in my nomination ("An argument advanced ..."). User:Krator (t c) 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed, but these items simply do not belong in the merge target. xenocidic (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information like additional downloadable content should be kept in the main article for the game it applies to, and there is already a List of Xbox Originals. Other content like milestones and special promotions can be added to the lead as prose. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
It should be noted, JAF created the article, so it's pretty obvious he wont agree to deletion, merge or a redirect. It being a great resource doesn't instantly make the article notable. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ye old logical fallacy ad hominem. This article contains more salient info than the other page, which is confusing, uninformative, etc. Oh, and I created the original pages that some people want to merge it with, so that argument falls flat. JAF1970 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the amount of overlapping content makes the existence of both lists redundant. The extra information could easily be presented in prose in the lead of List of Xbox Live Arcade games. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

All this argument for merging doesn't seem to include the fact that this page notes all the downloadable content for the games, the weeks without a release (and sometimes just content). ie. the re-release of Undertow for free. JAF1970 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and perhaps it should be pointed out that Microsoft is rolling out their XNA creator's club. So the renamed chronology could include this as well. all this (game content, Xbox Originals, XNA games, game-less wednesdays) being lumped into the "List of Xbox Live Arcade games" would not only be suboptimal, but it would make no sense. xenocidic (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be careful about using "Xbox Live Marketplace releases". This might be too broad a scope for what is in this list, since the marketplace includes retail games content, videos, movies, themes, gamerpics, etc. Perhaps Xbox Originals could be out of the scope of this list if we keep it as "Xbox Live Arcade releases". I'm not sure about XNA Creators Club, will these turn out to be XBLA games in-the-making?
Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with having some redundant information presented in a different format. Look at Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents! I'm sure some people find this list useful, not the least of which are the people who put in the time and effort to maintain it. If one doesn't care for this list, why care about getting it removed? If you don't like what you see, just change the channel... 70.83.101.179 (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your first paragraph: I agree that we should not included themes, gamerpics, movies, etc. But I couldn't think of a name that would encompass XBLA, XBO, XNA, and content, but exclude the trivial stuff. I do think that we could/should work retail game content in as there's no list for that. XNA games are "sortof" XBLA games in the making, from the looks if it they may or may not be monetized and they will probably include achievements. As for your 2nd paragraph, well-said.
On a wholly unrelated note, since this was listed incorrectly (per DumbBOT's comment below), the AFD should run for the minimum period of time starting 25 Feb 2008 13:07 UTC. xenocidic (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding all retail game content, just because there is not a list for downlable content does not mean that such a list should be created or exist. Such minute details as downloadable game content really belongs in a game's main article. And even then it should not go into excessive details. Regardless, the amount of overlapping content makes the existence of both lists redundant.
On a side note, I would honestly suggest creating a copy of the wiki code in a text file before the outcome is decided, regardless of what that may be. It looks like a lot of time and effort was put into it and I'd hate to see all that go to waste. Wikipedia may not be the best place for such content, but perhaps a gaming wiki would be. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Eugene Scott, no independent significant coverage in reliable sources has been found to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Pastore Scott

Melissa Pastore Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO. See also the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22. Widow of Eugene Scott.; while he was notable, nothing in the article indicates that she is, nor are there any sources to indicate possible notability. Pairadox (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative keep. Xymmax removed the first sentence of this comment out of an over-abundance of caution re: a possible WP:BLP concern. Xymmax (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC) However, in light of the previous deletion I think we'll need reliable sources that assert notability. PC78 (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an explanation for my actions above, there was a prior AfD for this subject last March here. At that time many of the comments addressed the appearance in the article of information that, while widely repeated on the net, and mentioned above prior to my edit, lacked reliable sourcing. I removed the reference to the statement. If I'm overreacting, I apologize. Xymmax (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've got no intention of getting involved in any controversy, especially over a subject I couldn't give a toss about. For what it's worth though, I did manage to find one news article which at least gives mention to her "shady past" [74]. PC78 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'm glad you didn't take it the wrong way. I saw that source too, but I don't think we can use it as proof since it states itself that the author is repeating info he found on the net (including Wikipedia :) ) Xymmax (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous discussion, unless suitable sources can be found. I'm assuming that the Kevo link used in the article doesn't count as a reliable source. Perhaps someone knows if it's just a mirror of the original Wikipedia article? PC78 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Eugene Scott. The version of this article that survived the prior AfD and DRV became a redirect to the subject's husband. Based on my somewhat cursory search, it doesn't appear that any reliable sources have appeared since that speak to her independant notability. If it appears otherwise after I look further tonight I'll happily reconsider. Xymmax (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And are there any reliable sources that speak to this increased media presence? I ask this sincerely, as I see you edit extensively in this area. I couldn't find anything other than her website, links to the church, or attack sites. Xymmax (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her elaborate website points to this presence itself. A google search on "Pastor Melissa Scott" without quotes gives over 150,000 citations and with quotes close to 10,000. Lamlsk (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.11.71 (talk) [reply]
Comment And you'd think that it would be easy to find a reliable source among them, but I searched, and I couldn't. They all are blogs, attack sites, self-published sites for Scott or her husband, or the like. I could not find independant treatment by any newspaper, magazine, etc. Xymmax (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per improvements. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odle Middle School

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

Notability not established, authors have had 5 months to do so. Kraftlos (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my vote. Looks like you've got some secondary sources on the page and there isn't anything NPOV or unsourced. Looks good! --Kraftlos (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have put this back up for deletion. No one has provided a source about this middle school outside of the school district's web site. It has not been explained in terms of the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines for institutions why this school is notable. --Kraftlos (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Redirect to Bellevue School District. The information here which may be argued as notable is so little that it should be included on the distric page. In addition, there are zero outside sources. This problem has gone on long enough and it is time to delete if no one will be accountable. --DerRichter (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep because of recent improvements. In my personal opinion, middle schools are not notable, and a blue ribbon doesn't establish notability, but obviously consensus has priority over what I think. In addition, it is a much better page now with an info box. One suggestion, if I may, would be to take the demographics section out of the lead and put it in its own section. --DerRichter (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

  • Right now we have a blue-ribbon award, which doesn't seem to be all that significant considering there are fifty each year and the school got the award once (there are other schools in the state that have received several of these awards). Also "the afd is flawed..." is not really an argument for keeping the article but a complaint about the existing guidelines. I still haven't seen any significant secondary sources. (You might check the king county/eastside journal archives). The department of education isn't really an independent source. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article does have correct material and, after the recent improvments, should be allowed on an encyclopedia. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 22:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue for this article is that the article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. In addition to the school website, there is a Bellvue School District website containing the school, and School staff websites.This article is undoubtably reliable. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, you cannot have content on a page if it is not verifiable as per Wikipedia:Verifiability which is policy, not just a guideline. The school's web site is an acceptable primary source, but if there is no source, then it has no business being on wikipedia. Additionally, people familiar with the school cannot write from their own knowledge without citations because of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. That is what makes an encyclopedia different from just another web site. --Kraftlos (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Well, of course you can't cite everything but it is expected that anything beyond basic information (like where the school is) should be cited. --Kraftlos (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was soft redirect. krimpet✽ 05:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omglolwtfbbq

The article was speedy deleted during the AFD per CSD#A3. --Pixelface (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary blank (excluding a template) article. Should redirect to Internet slang or be deleted. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is or turn into redirect. The page is currently, in a sense, a manual pointer to Wiktionary:Appendix:Internet slang, which I think is a more useful page than Internet slang. In any case, all that's needed is a redirect, not a deletion. --Dom (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A bit of history first. This is the current end-state of several dozen internet slang articles. At one point they were all individual dictionary definition articles. Then they all got redirected to the now deleted List of Internet slang phrases, which was Deleted at AFD here. It was deleted because it was all dictionary definitions, and was finally transwikied over to Wiktionary. So the List of Internet slang phrases article itself became a soft redirect, and to avoid double redirects, all the many articles redirected to it were also converted to soft redirects. Most of those are still soft redirects to the Wiktionary appendix article, but some now have their own separate articles on Wiktionary, and the WP soft redirects point to the proper WT articles. To see just what articles are in this situation, please check out this page where I track them, for easy reversion to soft redirects as they regularly get definitions put in place of the soft redirects.
    That all said, I have a number of problems with deleting them, and especially with deleting just the one. I know that it is shades of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but IMHO all of the soft redirects listed here are in the exact same situation that the subject of this AFD is in. Either all should go, or all should stay, at least when the AFD reasons are based on their current status alone. So I'm not saying that valid reasons to AFD specific ones could not be come up with, but IMHO the reasons here do not do so.
    Next, I wonder if this is the proper venue for this discussion. This article, and all the others, are soft redirects. Redirects fall under WP:RFD, not WP:AFD. Do soft redirects go to RFD as well? I would think so, but will need to check the policy a bit.
    As I often see stated on WP:RFD, redirects are cheep. These redirects point people to the proper place to find info on the subject, Wictionary. Even with them, we are constantly getting dictionary definitions edited into or over the soft redirects. (That's part of why I have the tracking page I've already linked to a couple of times, to watch for the dic defs to revert them out.) If these soft redirects were deleted, I suspect that the volume of attempts to create dic defs would rise sharply. As it is, we have a nice template that shows people where to go to get information, and requests no dic defs. This I suspect deters a lot of good intentioned dic defs. But once deleted, unless all the red names are protected, we will lose that deterrant, and the number of well intentioned editors recreating the dic defs over and over and over will skyrocket.
    So overall, I'm of the opinion that this soft redirect in particular, and the rest of the internet slang soft redirects in general, do very little harm as they are, and actually do much good. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Do these "soft redirects" show up as Special:Random pages and such? I'm not sure I support having an article that basically says "We don't have an article". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really could not tell you of the consequences of soft redirects. I know that they are used a lot, though. Check out Category:Redirects to Wiktionary and Category:Wikipedia soft redirects, two of the tracking categories for these things. Between those two categories I see over 1200 of these soft redirects. If there are inherent problems with soft redirects, then all of these are effected, and the use should be examined. And I'm not saying that such a debate should not happen. But at that point I think we are way beyond the scope of this one single AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A3. There's nothing there, so there's nothing to keep. DarkAudit (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's advisable to tag an article for speedy deletion while there is an Articles for deletion discussion going on. --Pixelface (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that AFD trumps Speedy in all cases. If a case properly fits a speedy criteria, then it fits, whether it is under AFD or not. That said, I don't think that Soft Redirects fit A3, and have protested the speedy deletion with the normal {{hangon}} tag.
        That aside, I'm more and more thinking that a general discussion on the use of Soft Redirects may be needed somewhere, but I really do not know where would be an appropriate place for such a discussion. An AFD on a single soft redirect is just not the right place to properly debate whether such a tool should in general be used, which appears to be the needed discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close article has been deleted. JuJube (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's what happened: Yesterday I was browsing through Category:AfD debates and came here and noticed it had been nominated on January 7 and was still open. I looked at the article and saw no AFD notice. I looked at the history of the article and saw no AFD tag added. So I added one on February 13, 2008. I looked at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_7 and could not find an entry in the log. I looked through Floaterfluss's contributions and noticed that on January 7, 2008, Floaterfluss created this page using Twinkle and notified the creator of the article, but that editor did not put an AFD notice on this article and did not add it to the deletion log for January 7, 2008. I asked an admin if it should be listed on the January 7, 2008 log. I saw that DumbBOT put it in the February 14, 2008 log. DarkAudit added a speedy deletion tag to the article (above the AFD tag) at 16:14 14 February 2008 and then made their comment here one minute later (although I no longer see that edit to the article in the edit history). TexasAndroid then put an {{hangon}} template in the article (although I no longer see that in the edit history). The Placebo Effect then deleted the article per WP:CSD#A3 but this AFD was still open, with a redlinked article. I've never closed an AFD before, so at the top I put "The article was speedy deleted during the AFD per CSD#A3." Then I added "Non-admin closure." Then EJF properly closed it. Then The Placebo Effect re-opened it. Then I struck out my comment at the top. Then I noticed that it was not in Category:AfD debates, so I re-added {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|}}) back to the top. I hope that clears things up. --Pixelface (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (whether this is listed at RFD or AFD). TexasAndroid's explanation makes sense. I think this article should be a soft redirect to Wiktionary. If it's deleted, it's likely it will be recreated as a dictionary definition. --Pixelface (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's still empty. There's still nothing to keep. If an article meets the standards for a speedy, then an open AfD is not relevant. There's nothing there per A3, so it should be speedied. DarkAudit (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That all depends, in good part, on whether Article or Redirect deletion rules apply to soft redirects. IMHO soft redirects are close enough to redirects in function that redirect rules should apply. And there is no A3/Empty speedy criteria for redirect, specifically because redirects are by nature almost empty. Soft redirects are similarly, by nature, almost enpty. Even if article rules applied, I do not think that A3 speedy should. Currently soft redirects are considered valid on the project. Subjecting them to A3 speedies would invalidate them without any sort of proper discussion of whether they should actually exist or not. either they are allowed or they are not. If they are allowed, A3 should not apply. If they are not allowed on the project, then they should all by systematically deleted, A3 or not. In neither case is it IMHO proper to be subjecting them one by one to A3 deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to avoid turning this into a general debate over the existance of soft redirects, as I think this is really not the right venue for such a debate. (The Village Pump page *is* the right venue, IMHO.) But it looks like I will need to make that debate here after all.
There is the fact that, if the information is not going to be present on the given WP page, but will be present on the given WT page, it is useful to visitors to direct them to the appropriate place for the information that they are looking for. And a lot of these are fairly high-demand internet slang pages.
Soft redirects, in particular the Wiktionary ones, give an alternative to red links. Even with the soft redirects we get a large number of well-meaning editors adding dictionary definitions to the soft redirects. Without the soft redirects to rechannel many of these editors to the place where the definitions really belong I truely beleive we would be getting a much larger number of such dic def edits. Soft redirects is one way to divert a goodly number of these well meaning but misdriected editors towards the more proper outcome. The only other options would be to red link the articles, and either constantly deal with well-meaning dic def recreations, or near-permenant protection of the red links. IMHO the latter is by far the worst solution. In the current, if someone can actually come up with a good non-dic def article, the soft redirect allows them to do so. Protected red links would not.
And I will in general have to disagree with you about it's article/redirect nature. They may not be redirects in a technical sense, but they serve functionally the same purpose, to redirect a user to the true location of the information that they seek.
So, in general, I think that soft redirects have a number of helpful aspects to them, few negatives, and are much better than the alternatives. So I think that soft redirects should continue to be used, and that they should not be subject to A3 speedy deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A side note on why I am arguing so strongly about this. I see soft redirects as a very useful tool. But by their very nature, like redirects, they are almost empty. To allow the precedent to be set that soft redirects can be deleted for being short basically threatens to make them useless. If Soft Redirects are subject to deletion at any time, under requirements that they cannot by nature meet, then what's the point in using them? So we lose IMHO a very useful tool. And we lose that tool without ever having a proper debate on whether we should have that tool. If we have that debate, and it is decided that soft redirects have more negatives than positives, and should not be used, then so be it. But such a descision should be made in discussion about soft redirects overall, they should not be arbitrarily deleted because they do not meet, and never will meet, some minimum article length requirement.
Let me also state that I have very little personal weight for or against this particular soft redirect. If someone had reasons for it's deletion that had nothing to do with it's nature as a soft redirect, then I would not be fighting this fight. But the reasons given pro-deletion arguments are all about it's short nature, and those arguments apply to all soft redirects, so it is those arguments against which I debate, in order to preseve an (IMHO) very useful tool. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Soft-redirects using the {{wi}} template are a fairly effective deterrent which prevent new users from endlessly recreating these mere dictionary definitions. Our history has taught us that if you delete it, we will be having deletion discussions on the page about monthly. And everytime that you have to delete the page, you inevitably bite the newbie who created the page in good faith but who didn't know about WP:WINAD. Rossami (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you are looking to set a precedent, fine. But there are far better soft redirects to take a stand with than this one. DarkAudit (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about the delay in replying. In response to Pixelface's comment to my talk page: at this time there is no consensus either way, so I'm considering this "relisted" on the February 14 page, and it will be closed in due course. I hope that's OK with everyone else. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:16, 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, Daniel (talk)
  • Keep That was one of the more confusing Afd histories I've ever read through, but I think I understand now. I agree that this isn't the place to argue over the existence of soft redirects, and that if they do exist, that this is an appropriate situation in which to use one. Xymmax (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The value of soft redirects may need to be discussed in general, but if they're appropriate anywhere then this one belongs. This particular acronym isn't treated at Internet slang and probably shouldn't be, making a redirect there inappropriate. EALacey (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bulkley

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

Non-notable ancestor of the Bush family. Notability is not inherited. He does not seem to have been a sufficiently notable preacher to have notability on his own. --Michael WhiteT·C 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the references are all genealogy-related if that's what you're referring to. --Michael WhiteT·C 13:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Exclusive (album). Davewild (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Perfect (Chris Brown song)

Picture Perfect (Chris Brown song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

AFD of contested PROD. Non-notable song. Article is also a stub, suggest merge with the album page if appropriate. Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 23:22, 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. Mr.Z-man 01:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Us?

AfDs for this article:
The Declaration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remember Us?)


The article even says that it is an unconfirmed title, there are no sources, and it does not need an article. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The uncomfirmed title bit was unsourced too. Even though, delete until more info. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 21:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G7 author comment (above) RT | Talk 21:49, 26 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 01:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Prichard

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

Autobiography of a golf course designer. Is he notable? (TehSpud says: "I have seen no evidence that this is an autobio to begin with." How about: "my studies" - twice in this state of the article; "self-made" image and his being an SPA.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:20, 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, Tikiwont (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mind meal and Kubigula; the sources show Mr. Prichard meets the primary notability criterion. However, the current content is unsourced and promotional in tone, and should go altogether. I suggest reducing the article to a stub and expanding from the news sources. EALacey (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish medical terminology

Spanish medical terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a Spanish-English dictionary, nor a collection of medical jargon. This is also an undefined list classifiable as listcruft. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete CSD G3 (Note: I am just closing the AfD after the article was deleted by another admin) --Angelo (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outer FC

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

Blatant hoax club created by User:Hello01. I am Italian, I've never ever heard of this club, and I've found no track of its existence in the Internet. Angelo (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability Conference

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

Possible violation of WP:CORP. I also have Notability and WP:SPAM concerns, as this article contains 2 lines on the organization itself, and about 100 lines on its key personnel, conferences and the like. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 07:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Connelly

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

Delete Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course. The individual books aren't even notable, why would the main character be? I really don't understand why WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply to aspects of fictional works. <eleland/talkedits> 11:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girlband (American band)

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

Quite a few records, but reliable coverage appears to be nil. Nothing in the article suggests that this band passes WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect. Mr.Z-man 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Hudgens

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

The subject has no notability on her own. Only for being the sister of Vanessa Anne Hudgens. BeeFan (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Non-admin close per WP:SNOW Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 10:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Bean Cobain

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

Non notable. Only notable for being the daughter of Cobain and Love; in which case, violates WP:NOTABLE, which states that relationships do not transfer notability. I suggest redirect to Kurt Cobain or Courtney Love. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 06:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Her having an article doesn't "violate" WP:NOTABLE, as that states that "failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". She is notable simply for having been noted. She has been featured in People, Elle UK, Teen Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, ID magazine, and Australian News Weekly, amongst others. She has at least two fansites, and has been widely reported to be the next spokesmodel for Chanel. Owen (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets the primary notability standard which is multiple reliable references. This does not mean she is required to achieve something of merit on her own – that she is notable enough to be interviewed by the publications listed above by Owen means she is notable, whether by familial links or otherwise, not solely by virtue of her famous parents even if that is the reason she was interviewed. In addition, the previous AfD resulted in an almost unanimous keep – has something changed since then? --Canley (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple references, and wide coverage from newspapers, magazines and other media. --Angelo (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Owen's rationale —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedShiftPA (talk • contribs) 15:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, nontrivial coverage in reliable published sources. This coverage has not gone away since the last two AfDs, both of which closed with overwhelming keep votes. <eleland/talkedits> 11:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In another ten years she may not be notable at all, or she may turn out to be more notable than either of her famous parents. Right now she's smack dab in the middle. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - What's changed since the last snowball AfD keep? Also, please don't misinterpret WP:N's inheritance examples, which state that notability is not automatically transferred. It doesn't mean that any coverage the transferee in the relationship receives because of the relationship can be disregarded; just that the relationship itself is not sufficient evidence of notability. —Torc. (Talk.) 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT TO ADMIN - Please check the history of this AfD. The nominator overwrote the existing second AfD, which was closed in December 2007. This should have been AfD #3. —Torc. (Talk.) 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was gee whiz, there's no gosh-darn consensus. Oh, drat! krimpet✽ 05:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Cussing Club

No Cussing Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page seems to me like a self promotional page of a specific group.

  1. The quote "It currently has chapters in 50 states and 24 countries worldwide" uses a reference from their website which is bias via self promotion. No other evidence supports this statement. Also not 50 states and 24 country yet all news comes from LA, California newspapers rather than international.
  2. Second reference point does not provide much information about what the group is about and how it was formed
  3. Site was hacked before and was not quoted or said in the article. Since its such a small group there is little data [75][76][77]

Not Notable: Website not notableWP:Notability & WP:Notability

  1. Insufficient secondary
  2. There are few notable members
  3. Wikipedia Notability quotes: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." there are not enough
  4. All content is NOT attributed by sources.
  5. "Hatch has been featured on radio and television locally and nationwide, including KCAL, KNBC, Power 106, On Air with Ryan Seacrest on 102.7 KIIS FM, KABC Radio with Peter Tilden, and the Fox News Channel." has no attributions or references
  6. No information about founder "Hatch"
  7. No history of events meetings Cs california (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is either delete or merge into some anti profanity group page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs) 07:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge. This has clearly been covered nontrivially by reliable sources. Yeah it's a poor article, so tag it with {{cleanup}} or {{advert}} or whatever, but it's notable by our standards. <eleland/talkedits> 11:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know nothing about the club myself. However, per WP:ORG, the major requirement for notability of organizations is in coverage of reliable secondary sources, and this article has it. The club has appeared on various news sites, radio stations, and on television. The size of the organization is adequate, the notability of key members is adequate, and the sourcing is more than adequate. I would also like to advance that the positive, "advertiser" tone of the article will be edited to death on Wikipedia, an inherently pro-free speech organization. Estemi (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues mentioned on WP:ORG was addressed. You state radio and television but provide no references. Wikipedia is NOT a promotional site as addressed in WP:ORG. Two sources is NOT considered adequate. --Cs california (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just did a search on the site apparently it IS SELF PROMOTIONAL all the links on references on the wikipedia are also on the site. No third party reliable sources are out there and not much NPOV article or articles bashing the group either.--Cs california (talk) 05:53, 26 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. Specific in-article BLP issues may be addressed through the rigorous removal of questionable content, in accordance with the biographies of living persons policy. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Tatma

Lakshmi Tatma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Queried delete for notability. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Loads of references, including a Channel 4 documentary about her? I don't understand how the notability is in question. --Canley (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. passes WP:V easily. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly notable, plenty of third-party refs. My main hesitation is BLP concerns, but I think that is covered by the parents' having given permission for the Channel 4 documentary. Several statements in the article still need to be sourced. NSH001 (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know that the last AfD featured a great deal of concern about BLP, but given the huge number of highly reliable sources (CNN, BBC, CBS, NBC and CBC) reporting this information, little Lakshmi clearly has moved into the realm of public figures. She's notable, and the information is verifiable, and should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xymmax (talk • contribs) 15:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of countries by value

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

    A cluttered mess of random statistics presented in a barely coherent manner. The material is redundant as it can all be found on other wiki pages and the concept of "countries by value" seems to be made up by the article creator. Sbw01f 05:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

    So what is the purpose of the article? All of the data can be found on other articles. It's just a giant list of random statistics mashed together, how is this encyclopedic? If someone wants to see a list of countries by population, GDP, birth rate, death rate etc.. they can already find all that on wikipedia in a more coherently presented manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbw01f (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I use this table frequently. It makes sense to have a master list of political states which gathers data from other lists. I like the sort function on this one. It's useful to be able to sort by one measure and than compare the other measures. The rank is useful for finding a particular country after a resort. I'd like to see other measures related to economy/ecology included such as land area, sea-coast length, population density, urbanization, etc. Such a list would soon become unwieldy, which leads to a technical question. Is it possible to have a table in which one can choose which columns or measures are displayed? Prakuyo (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was merge, if anything can be merged. I am redirecting this to List of Puerto Rico Highways so material can be found from the history. OR problems should be sorted out as part of any merge. Bduke (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Three Digit System of Highways in Puerto Rico

    Three Digit System of Highways in Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Pure original research. The only citation offered is a map of Puerto Rico, and even though these general trends may be identifiable from that map, it doesn't necessarily follow that the numbers were intentionally assigned in this manner. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep, notability demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources and nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    J Stalin

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

    Simpy does not meet WP:NMG. He is not the subject of multiple non-trivial newspaper articles. He talk's about himself in some, others are largely not about him and he is only mentioned in passing as listed to be performing. No real google hits. No personal website. Is not signed by a significant record label. Does not have significant albums sales. Albums not sold in stores. Only one real link from an another article. Icamepica (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Icamepica (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He does not have to be the subject of an article. seresin | wasn't he just...? 14:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Is not a notable musician. Very few independent sources even mention him.BWH76 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I write about hip-hop for a living and I've never heard of him. E-40's son Droop-E is far more notable and even he is a minor name in hip-hop let alone Bay Area rap. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Does not appear to be notable at all Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep has many reliable sources. A couple are most specifically all about him. What did he do, get somebody's sister pregnant? Blast Ulna (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's totally inappropriate to have a second AFD on an article just three days after the first was closed. He seems to have some notable qualities (there are a bunch of sources listed), but aside from that, this should be kept for its procedural problems. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems fairly obvious that the nominator of this AFD is a reincarnation of the user who nominated it last time, so I doubt this is the "good faith nomination" that I mentioned hypothetically in closing the first AFD. In light of this, and the fact that I don't see any reason to delete this, and that nothing has changed in the last three days, I would expect the same result. — CharlotteWebb 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might expect it but thisd is clearly no speedy keep, and nor are allt he delete votes sock or meat puppets by any stretch of the imagination. We certainly should not keep the article because of sockpuppets. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's pretty much a snowball keep to begin with. The fact that there has been meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, and canvassing here means that this deletion discussion is fatally flawed and should not proceed. If the only issue is notability that can wait until the more serious question of sockpuppets is resolved. You were canvassed to come to this discussion. I have left a warning on your talk page regarding edit warring over the placement of sockpuppet notices. Please take a step back on this one. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously I don't pretend that my expectations carry any weight in this debate, as I have no intention of closing it again. In fact, I'm done commenting here. — CharlotteWebb 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably not a speedy close: Although the nominator is accused of being a sockpuppet of a banned user, even if the nomination was in bad faith, since there have been some good-faith entries by established users I think this discussion should probably not be speedily closed, though I'm not entirely sure of that. While it's not precisely relevant to this situation, Wikipedia:Deletion process says "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well." and in my opinion the spirit of that suggests that once there are some good-faith delete votes, the discussion should not be speedily closed. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I respect that, and it is a shame to waste everyone's time here, there are a couple problems with allowing sockpuppet-plagued processes to continue. First, any result to delete based on this discussion would be invalid (unless it's a snowball / speedy delete) because the system was gamed. The sockpuppet(s) canvassed a bunch of people, convincing them unwittingly to support them by lying about the circumstances of the article, its citations, etc. So the time is wasted anyway - not by the close but by the sockpuppetry. Second, these sockpuppets have made six nominations in five days. If the nominations fail or they get blocked again, they just come back and nominate more articles. To allow these sockpuppets to force everyone to deal with that amount of work means, basically, that they win. The only reasonable approach to dealing with them is to simply deny them any benefit they might gain by gaming the system.Wikidemo (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of any lying. Please provide diffs.
    Any AfD discussion might have sockpuppets in it. Probably the best way to deal with that is by using all the usual procedures for carrying on and closing these discussions.
    The purpose here is not to make sure that someone does or doesn't "win", but to build an encyclopedia. I don't think it would be appropriate to close a discussion in order to achieve a particular effect on the perceived benefit to the nominator; that seems to me to go against the spirit of the policy that we don't block punitively. (WP:Blocking policy). --Coppertwig (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the thing about procedure. To create an encyclopedia you have to uphold the integrity of procedure. If you let anyone get what they want by subverting the procedure you don't get quality, you get a mess. Regarding lying, in the boomgaylove persona watch how the sockpuppet first adds a "citation needed" tag to a cited piece of text[78], removes two sources[79] because he "never heard of" them or something, then he removes data as "unsourced" and adds fact tags[80]. And then argued in the AfD that the article was unsourced. That's the kind of behavior that got this user blocked indefinitely if you look at the AN/I history. The newer examples are milder but either clueless or disingenous: "He is not the subject of multiple non-trivial newspaper articles", "No real google hits", "No personal website." I can't review it all for you but this kind of stuff has been going on incessantly for about a week. Probably for months under different accounts. Wikidemo (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits you describe look like valid arguments to me, and don't seem to me to bear any resemblance to "lying" even if one might disagree with them. Elsewhere I've added fact tags when there are already sources, if the sources are inadequate or do not support the material; the citation-needed tag for the slash article seems to me to be a request for a proper bibliographic reference including date of publication etc. Rather than "lying", from what you describe above the situation seems to be simply someone who has a higher standard than you for quality of sources. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that's ridiculous and uncalled for. I'm fighting a sockpuppet here and you say that the sock has valid arguments and a higher standard for sourcing than I do? If that weren't such a hoot I might consider it an insult. The sock's method of "argument" was enough to get him/her banned indefinitely. I already proved the case on AN/I, and if you really want to learn the details you can follow the links to that case. I don't have to prove it again and again on demand. And abusive sockpuppeting is inherently dishonest. Wikidemo (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I hereby declare that my attention was drawn to this article by a recent help desk thread started by the nominator. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which was part of the canvassing and forum shopping problem. The nominator went all over the place trying to drum up people to oppose the content until he/she found some. As did the previous sockpuppet incarnation, boomgaylove. That's part of what makes this AfD invalid, as well as the edit warring over claims of BLP violation. Wikidemo (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rewrote article Although I don't think it was necessary to prove the notability of the article or deal with the sockpuppets and other problems with this AfD nomination, I've substantially rewritten it and added yet more sources. As with the first batch of sources there is plenty of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources - articles about this artist in various print publications. I continue to believe this was a bad faith nomination that should be summarily closed. Wikidemo (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, among the many blatant misstatements in the nomination are that this artist's albums are not available in stores. I guess Tower Records is out of business but they sold an album, and CD Universe?[81], Rasputin, Barnes and Noble, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "The google test is not a valid argument, your confirmations are not valid, checkusers on one editor accused of sockpuppetry is irrelevant to this discussion since the rest of the voters which are majority in favor of deletion are not.Icamepica (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notable. And please note that the "Google-argument" is absurd in this case. Yes, you'll find tens of thousands of hits on J Stalin, true enough. Most of them are about the very notable USSR dictator, not about this guy. JdeJ (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For goodness sakes! We're up to eleven sources from six publications. Will someone close this farce already? Wikidemo (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources and publications are those? Many are not reliable. And even if all of them where, that only establishes verifiability which is not the point of an AfD, notability is. University professors are a good example of this. They are definatly verifiable in many sources but they are not usually notable.Icamepica (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Emphatic keep - Does not seem to be even remotely borderline: reliable sources, material available in stores - what else could be wanted to establish notability? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep just as it did three days ago, this article has adequate sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject. Gwernol 10:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep The sources give significant information about the subject, not just listing performance dates etc., and some of the sources focus specifically on the subject for at least several paragraphs. There is quite a large number of sources listed. I looked at the Google hits and many of them are about the musician, not the Soviet politician; the majority of the first few pages of hits are about the musician. Also per Bash Kash and Ed FitsGerald, who seem to be providing personal confirmation of local notability and presence of the musician's songs in stores. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that the sources are sufficiently reliable publications, and the subject doesn't seem to have any especially notable achievements. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • speedy keep. Abuse of process and article is sourced. This should be closed immediately as a keep with prejudice towards any near term nomination (6 months at least). R. Baley (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      In my opinion, if this discussion is allowed to run for the usual length of time and reaches consensus, then there should be the usual deprecation of re-opening such a discussion after a short time; but if the discussion is closed early due to abuse of process, then there should be no prejudice against any future good-faith AfD nominations of this article even if they're after a very short time. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. This was a ludicrous nomination on the face of it, and with all the sources now included (even with SqueakBox and Coppertwig siding with a sockpuppet to remove some sources), this is a no-brainer keep. Why was this even nominated, given the result of only a few days ago? Bellwether BC 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Correction: I have not advocated removing any sources. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note ongoing content dispute citing BLP. Some editors (including myself) consider a certain statement to be potentially libellous, poorly sourced and irrelevant to the reason for having an article on this subject, and have removed it. One editor considers the statement to be adequately sourced and has re-inserted it several times. There is discussion of this dispute on the talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is a misstatement on several points. It's not a legitimate dispute, there is no potential libel, the "poor" source is a newspaper, calling it "some editors" versus one is inaccurate and a bit backward, and the only thing it has to do with this AfD is that it was promoted by the sockpuppets behind the AfD.Wikidemo (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So only reports in national news sources count now? seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on how you define notable, is being a local talent notable enough? Not to me. All factors considered this ones does not seem to rise above the crowd. Yet. Why the rush? David D. (Talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    *chuckles to himself* Usually we have people asking why the rush to delete, not to keep an article. But anyway, I agree with what Gwenol says below; the newpaper articles are newspaper articles, regardless of size of audience. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the rush to write the article in the first place? David D. (Talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately we don't have to wonder, since our guidelines on musical groups defines what notability means in this case. The specific criterion is "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries" (my emphasis). The cited articles clearly meet this criteria. Gwernol 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The ones I read seemed pretty trivial to me, I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. David D. (Talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep What is the point of even having notability guidelines, if people are going to cite them in useless, talismanic fashion? There are sources in the article which discuss the subject extensively. The sources include major newspapers. (The SF Bay Guardian is a free alternative weekly, but it is as comparable to most other alternative weeklies as The New York Times is to the TriCounty Gazette-Herald.) <eleland/talkedits> 15:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Is the subject of secondary reliable sources, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Bad faith nomination riddled with sock-puppetry and WP:CANVASSING.--Oakshade (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Morning_Augment

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

    does not meet WP:MUSIC Ky Music Nerd (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Redirected (non-admin closure, nom withdrawn), TerriersFan made a page for the district and this article has been re-directed there. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

    Burns Middle School

    OK I know high schools are generally notable, but middle schools? This one's dubious claim from Google is school to watch and I don't know if that's notable enough. It's not the sole school. The school district is a red link so no where to merge and I'm bringing it here. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep, due to the improvements in the article which occured after all delete opinions had been made. Davewild (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Robinson (actor)

    Patrick Robinson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete contested prod about an actor for an upcoming role. nn. fails WP:BIO and so nn we don't know when or where he was born or anything he has done to date or sourcing for what is claimed he'll do in the future. WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep, great improvements to the article during AFD demonstrate that clearly meets the main notaiblity criterion at WP:BIO of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Brackman

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

    "nn rookie league minor league player, drafted this year, very unlikely to reach the majors now that he had Tommy John surgery that early in his "career", no indepentent sources to meet WP:N" *ndsah; as written by Secret (talk · contribs) [82]. Anonymous user disagrees so I am listing it on AFD. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This is the 2nd AFD, see the first one at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew Brackman for more comments. MrPrada (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of WP:SNOW is that if there is enough evidence to support a conclusion, the debate should be closed (i.e., if the vote is 7-1 "Keep", but the lone dissenter establishes that the article clearly fails BLP, the article is deleted per SNOW). It's not a policy or even a guideline, but I think the primary objections that he fails WP:N/V have been addressed. MrPrada (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see enough evidence at this time to warrant a conclusion to the debate. For example, he hasn't met any of the notability guidelines (not requirements) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players, and Brackman hasn't done anything significant media-wise (just the fact that he's listed on MLB.com or the Yankees website I don't think is enough as far as "significant media coverage" goes). Ksy92003 (talk) 07:50, 26 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, MrPrada (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is the odd case where he may well fail the notability sub-guidelines for athletes. However, you only look to those guidelines in cases in which the subject's notability can't be determined from the basic guidelines. In this case, as has been shown, the subject has received multiple, nontrivial mentions in reliable sources per the links provided by BWH76. He is notable, and the article should be kept. Xymmax (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Second-team preseason All-American according to Baseball America. Players named to All-America teams, whether high school or college, are inherently notable. Blueboy96 00:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KG-1

    KG-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete nothing indicating that this cell line is notable among the literally millions being researched all over the place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Redirect, cannot see any content to merge so am just redirecting to SAS System where it is already mentioned in the Features section. Davewild (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SAS (programming language)

    SAS (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete nn programming language, just because it's bits and bytes doesn't make it notable. no sources as usual... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge with SAS_System. Racepacket (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Article does not explain what the SAS programming language is, just a fact about it. That is not an article, and a sentence like that will do no good in any article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expand. Given that the SAS language can be used by different products (i.e. the SAS System or the World Programming System), I dont think this page can be merged with the existing SAS_System page. Presently the SAS System page does have some content about the SAS language itself but it is mixed in with product and organisational information specifically only from the SAS institute. Perhaps a solution is to move some of the content on the SAS_System page to this page to describe the SAS language independently of products that support the language. --Squidsey (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand per Squidsey. --Itub (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Merge until someone writes a real article. This is barely a stub and there is a reasonable merge target. I reconsidered my "keep an expand" since articles don't expand themselves, and no one is expanding it yet. --Itub (talk) 10:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I've used the SAS language sporadically over the past few decades and it is still notable. There is added content that should be pulled into this article to expand it. Alansohn (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with SAS System until someone wants to take the effort to make and source a real article. SAS itself is highly notable, but I'm not convinced its programming language is separately notable from the rest of the system, and the current tiny stub doesn't do anything to help convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with SAS System, which seeing as there's virtually no content amounts to reverting it to the redirect it was until recently. Many computer packages have their own "language" but we don't want separate articles on "SPSS (programming language)", "Matlab (programming language)" etc. The only difference with SAS is that someone has written a partly syntax-compatible competitor package, which could conceivably happen for these others too. Qwfp (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually there is already another program "mostly compatible" with Matlab: GNU Octave. But anyway, given how short this article is, I wouldn't object to turning it into a redirect. If someone ever wants to expand the section about the language in the SAS article, they can split out the article again. --Itub (talk) 09:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Comment - i think a vague recollection of Octave's existence was lurking somewhere at the back of my mind when I wrote that late last night... Qwfp (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 10:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Silver

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

    Delete unsourced neologism or protologism, WP:DICDEF Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep, article has been expanded and improved during AFD and nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cypress Village, Oakland, California

    Cypress Village, Oakland, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I have nominated this article because the article does not assert its notability. Furthermore articles for neighborhoods have a requirement for the neighborhood to have a neighborhood council or be widely known. Cypress Village is certainly an area in Oakland however the neighborhood itself is West Oakland, Oakland, California. This article is basicaly about an unotable public housing area in West Oakland. It is evident from the one minor reference and no external links that this is not a legitimate neighborhood. For these reasons I nominate this article for deletion and merge any worthwhile content into West Oakland. The article's only reference is mention of a rapper from these projects mentioned in passing in a minor newspaper. Icamepica (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    comment Nothing, but arbitary blanking and redriecting may be seen as vandalism. Moreover iys highly inlikely someone would search for such a contrived search. Cypress Village should link or redirect if this article is deleted however.Icamepica (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I'm having trouble confirming the current status but this was an all-black housing project established in the public housing era (post-WWII) and has a history extending back before the J Stalin issue arose. --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not nominate it because of J Stalin, that would be silly. Its a serious nomination. Perhaps if it is historical as you claim you should add that to the West Oakland article. But also a housing project is NOT a neighborhood.Icamepica (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close and keep in view of sock puppetry / meatpuppetry on this and other articles. The neighborhood is clearly notable, and the nominator's claim (that neighborhoods need their own local council to be notable) is apparently made up. There are dozens multiple independent reliable sources that describe this housing project. I don't really have time to deal with this nonsense right now given the sockpuppetry issue, but if you want sources you can look through this. Wikidemo (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    dozens? please. that is a google search, which mentions some projects. not a neighborhood. the neighborhood is west oakland. some projects or an apartment building or complex is not a neighborhood, it is a parcel! It is not made up, i read it on here before i have asked for help in finding the policy on neighborhood notability. please assume good faith. Article remains unsourced.Icamepica (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, dozens among the articles pulled up in a rather restrictive google search. There is already bad faith concerning this article and the issue, so WP:AGF does not apply. This is not the right time to be having a deletion discussion over the article given the meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry afoot, which is why it should be speedily closed. It can be re-opened another day once we deal with the trolling and can have a real debate among legitimate editors. Wikidemo (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dozens of articles about the "Cypress Freeway" if you think thats what this article is about then merge it with that article. What bad faith? Good Faith should always apply. This nomination is candid and in perfectly good faith in the support of a good encyclopedia. What sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry? Those are very serious accusations which may be viewed as disruptive editing. WikiDemo it seems like you think you WP:OWN this article and any article you like that is put up for deletion. What trolling? There is nothing but legitamte debate here. You have no policy arguement here wikidemo. Please use one and don't be an egg.Icamepica (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please mind your manners and don't make accusations against me. The sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry issues are real and uncontroverted. The only question is who specifically is involved. Dealing with trolls is not the same as owning an article and if you understand the terms you're throwing around you know the difference. You are following in the footsteps of the abusive sockpuppet owner, using the same tactics on the same issues on the same articles. It is definitely best to close this AfD down until this is all sorted out, and approach this later if a fair argument can be made that the subject is not notable. Wikidemo (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What accusations did i make? All i said was that you seem to be taking this too far, trying to close any debate on the deletion because you think someone is trolling on here. There is no vandalism on this page. So i feel you are being a bit paranoid. I am? What user is that?24.180.37.2 (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: My speedy speedy deletion / keep opinion is strictly that the content is encyclopedic and should not be removed by sockpuppets. Any closure should be without prejudice to the question of whether the content is best in its own article or whether the various West Oakland housing projects should be merged into their own article or article section - something we can make as an editorial decision outside of AfD with the sockpuppets gone. Wikidemo (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per nomination. Merge w/West Oakland. Yes, it's a real place, but it's non-notable in the sense that it's a microscopic piece of a small neighborhood. It's basically a housing project; doesn't deserve its own article. Integrate into West Oakland article. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    references are not reason alone for keeping, they must establish notability. The references only establish verifiability but does not meet WP:N.Icamepica (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So why is it notable and which reference asserts that notability? I don't see it. David D. (Talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting past the test for notability (publication in reliable sources, which it passes), the underlying reason it is notable (in my subjective opinion) is because it is a place where a lot of people live that figures into the history of migration, race relations, politics, and economy of the bay area. The story of that project, from a middle class white neighborhood, to black migration during and after the war, to government-enforced segregation in the 40s and 50s (which surprises people on the West Coast), so-called "white flight", worsening conditions, drug crisis, the cypress freeway disaster right in front of the project and then a decade and a half of local politics leading to some respect and civic improvement, and art out of the project in the form of rap and hyphy culture, is a very emblematic one. Understand the history of Cypress Village (which I don't yet, I'm just getting started) and you understand a lot about urban America. That doesn't necessarily prove it deserves its own article, but it does say that the material is worth having somewhere on the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 04:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Being published in a reliable source does not make something notable. It is one compontent only. And everything you mention happened in West Oakland, Oakland, California. In fact, in Oakland, California.
    Also, while the history you mention is interesting which reference actually puts it that way? The ones cited mention cypress village as a location only. Your interesting account above appears to be original research, so unless there is a reliable source for this social commentary it may not be acceptable for wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked why it's notable, not for proof. The proof is fully satisfied by pointing to multiple independent reliable sources. Nothing more is needed. But to understand you need a general knowledge of things. The housing project is notable because it is at the core of, emblematic of, and in the context of the broader social history. I don't need to source that. But if you must know, the statements about Cypress village are all from the sources cited in the article. Wikidemo (talk) 07:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't ask for proof. You have sources that verify the name exists. I asked why your version of its historical importance, the basis for your notability argument, is not original research? David D. (Talk) 04:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a question one generally answers on a talk page. People bring their general knowledge of a subject to bear when discussing things. Sourcing is for article content. Anything specific to Cypress Village is from the sources. I can assure you that anything more general about white flight, segregation, city politics, etc., is also from reading published sources, only I can't tell you exactly what book or newspaper article I read a year ago or ten that forms the basis of my understanding of the world.Wikidemo (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. Wizardman 05:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yatra

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

    Delete minimal context, no asserted importance, unsourced, fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Withdrawn by nom.--Veritas (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keader Keaton

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

    Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. While the individual may be a small part of some of the sources cited he is not given significant coverage. Further, much, if not most, of this article seems to not be about the individual, but rather general history of incidents with which the person was somewhat involved. Not all soldiers in famous battles are notable. Also note that the creator and the primary contributer to the article (Skeaton (talk · contribs)) may have a conflict of interest. Veritas (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was no consenus. I suggest some of the rewriting and renaming discussed below takes place - if not, this could be brought back to AFD in a few months. Neıl ☎ 09:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-Welsh sentiment

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

    Not really an enyclopedia article as such, more selected quotes and incidents that are disparaging to Welsh people. Similar articles could be written on any subject, but I don't think they should exist and neither should this one really. One Night In Hackney303 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete alleged sources don't seem to use this term--WP:SYNTH. JJL (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep until it can be merged into one of the other discrimination articles, e.g., discrimination in the United Kingdom. MrPrada (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep I'm sure this is well documented in the Welsh language, even if it isn't well documented in English (perhaps there is a reason why). The only issue with these Anti-X articles is that they have a tendency to accumulate original research, since the only Anti-X term that has an entire field of study dedicated to it is antisemitism. The way the article is formatted isn't a good reason for deletion; that can always be corrected. Is there a body or interest group similar to the Anti-Defamation League that the Welsh have created? If so, that could be a good litmus test to check whether or not this is solely OR. -Rosywounds (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you say it isn't very well documented in English (for reasons it might be best not to go into). There was an article in The Independent some months ago, but I haven't been able to find it. There is plenty of documentation in Welsh, but if I use that, I'll only be reminded yet again that "this is the English Wikipedia". The title is for uniformity with similar articles - most of which are completely unsourced, whereas everything here is sourced. If anybody doesn't like the way it is written, please feel free to rewrite it, but I can't see that that is a reason for deletion. Neither is the fact that it may be unpalatable to some English people. Cantiorix (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A minor species of xenophobia. A collection of feeble anti-welsh jokes and jibes is not encyclopaedic. I am Welsh but live in Birmingham. It would be the work of moments on google to find and list comments critical of Brummies and their whingy accent or, alternatively, scally Liverpudlians but why? --MJB (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but improve and (probably) rename - e.g. as "Cultural relationship between England and Wales"?. There is potentially a good article to be written on the relationship between the English and Welsh, which is the subject of both humour and (occasional) racism from both sides (and, for instance, the subject of a recent book - see [103]). This article could be a starting point for that. The article could link in with Welsh nationalism and Welsh culture, and also address the widespread English fear/distaste of those. It could also address the influence of the Welsh on modern English culture - eg in politics generally, and in specific areas such as Liverpool and Bristol. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This actually sounds like a good idea to me. I think that if there isn't enough English language documentation, then it could be better fit as a subsection in such an article. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is article is not about the "cultural relationship between England and Wales" any more than slavery was a cultural relationship between blacks and whites. There is a power imbalance which means that racism is a thing that the English do to the Welsh, not vice versa. Believe me, I wish that the roles were reversed and that the Welsh were able to oppress and discriminate against the English, but unfortunately that is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You haven't commented on my suggestion above, to expand it as "Cultural relationship between England and Wales" - this would identify and present information on the relationship in a wider and an even-handed way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've certainly nothing against such an article being written, however I don't think the current article should remain in mainspace in the interim, I'm sure an admin can userfy it on request. The present examples certainly don't show "In the United Kingdom, anti-Welsh sentiment is widespread in England and, to a much lesser extent, can be encountered in Scotland", which was removed by me. There's little doubt there's plenty of banter between the various home nations, which the current article seems to mostly consist of. A. A. Gill isn't exactly known for his serious columns, Anne Robinson's much criticised remarks were on a comedy show after all. As for Huw Edwards, this country practically thrives on complaining - the Brass Eye episode that people watched despite the warnings and complained anyway, or didn't watch it at all, and ditto with Jerry Springer: The Opera. I'm not suggesting there isn't a degree of anti-Welsh sentiment in England (although it's pushing it a bit to describe it as "a hatred or fear of Wales, the Welsh people or Welsh culture", but the current attempt to synthesise individual incidents to make it out to be widespread is very dubious. One Night In Hackney303 17:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Model agnosticism

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

    Google search shows nothing. There is no reliable source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy Delete non-admin closure by --Lenticel (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Frampin' my style

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

    Non-notable neogolism Mr Senseless (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Differences between book, film and TV versions of M*A*S*H

    AfDs for this article:
    Differences between book, film and TV versions of M*A*S*H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Trivial list that constitutes original research; unless secondary sources can be found that comment on such these differences (unlikely), article also fails WP:N. See here and here for AfDs of similar articles that ended in deletion. Previous AfD ended as "no consensus." CrazyLegsKC 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KeepGlobe.com

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

    Non notable Google derivative search engine, fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP Mr Senseless (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Redirect back to Agnostic atheism. Non-admin closure as housekeeping measure, per HSR. <eleland/talkedits> 09:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Atheistic agnosticism

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

    This article seems to be WP:OR. The article has no source. Google search shows nothings. We also have an article called Agnostic atheism, which is well sourced. This article seems to be unnecessary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted your edit. You need to wait until the closing admin gives the result of this AfD before making those changes. It is not up to you to decide if the result "should" be a keep. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Withdrawn, issues resolved by Hazillow --B (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Hick

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

    This is a completely unsourced article about a living person. I think this individual is probably borderline on notability - in other words, if someone wants to write a well-sourced article about him, I wouldn't object. But this current article is an unsourced essay and that's not acceptable for an article about a living person. B (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - appears to easily be notable so only cleanup is required. He won a $150K prize in 1991 for one of his books, has at least 8 news articles in the opening page of google-news-archives alone and over 150 in total, is mentioned in books he didn't write including "Against John Hick: An Examination of His Philosophy of Religion", "Modern Christian Thought", "Problems in the Philosophy of Religion: Critical Studies of the Work of John Hick" and others. He work also appears well cited in scholarly articles - Peripitus (Talk) 02:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article needs to be sourced, but the deletion process isn't to bring attention to this fact. The man is notable per Google as Peripitus mentioned. An appropriate forum to bring up this article's weaknesses is its talk page. Hazillow (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, but right now, there are no sources whatsoever. It needs to be sourced, stubified, or deleted. I don't care which. --B (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lack of current sources within the article is not a valid deletion reason - if this was the case then 90% of the articles here would go. There are unreferenced,wikify etc.. maintenance tags for this rather than AfD. The only valid deletion reason for a bio is that it is unsourceable....not that it currently lacks citations - Peripitus (Talk) 03:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • When the article is a biography of a living person, a lack of sources is very much a reason to delete. One of three things is going to happen in a week - the article will be sourced, deleted, or stubified. Again, I don't care which, but once we become aware of unsourced biographies of living people, we fix them in some fashion. This article has had the "somebody else ought to fix this problem" tag since July 2007. If it were an article on quantum physics, ok, whatever. But this is an article on a biography of a living person. After the Controversy over Wikipedia's biography of John Seigenthaler Sr., lack of sourcing in BLPs became a critical issue. --B (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:PROF Racepacket (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Which part of WP:PROF are you referencing? The man is widely considered an expert in theology. As far as I can tell, he meets not only one, but all six criteria for notability by an academic: 1.He is regarded as an expert by independent sources, 2. He is regarded as an important figure by other notables in his field, 3. Has published not one but several notable works in his field, 4. His collection of work is well known, 5. Is known for originating and popularizing an important concept, and 6. has received an award. So, I really don't know why you referenced PROF.Hazillow (talk)`
    • Improved. I have added five sources for various biographical information as well as his positions and will be working on this throughout the week. Hazillow (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Appears to be a noted author in his field and respected amongst his peers. Mainstream fame should not be the sole arbiter of notability, or else we'd propose deleting Isaac Newton for not being as notable as Paris Hilton. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The recent added references throughout the article (some from easily accessible, scholarly online sources no less) should go a long way toward meeting the concern of the AfD project originator as to lack of references. The large volume of Google Scholar hits speaks to notability of the subject. This is of course distinct from accepting his premises, arguments, or conclusions. --Thomasmeeks (talk) P.S. Related digression: The Talk Page template (top) for the subject states that "[c]ontroversial material about living persons (emph. added) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." I don't know that any of the biographical material presently in the article is controversial. What should be removed are controversial statements about the subject, not necessarily statements about controversial positions that the subject has expressed. —Preceding comment was added at 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep. Inappropriate use of the deletion process to force maintenance of an article. Even the original nomination suggests that he may pass notability, and now that others above have dug up multiple books with his name in the title it's completely clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you prefer that I just delete it with the summary "G10" rather than give someone a chance to fix it? BLPs with zero sources are unacceptable. They either get fixed or they get deleted. --B (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Incorrect. Controversial statements in BLPs with no sources are unacceptable and should be deleted, and the whole BLP should be deleted if it consists only of such or has no assertion of notability after the controversial statements are removed. But that's not the case here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The whole article is telling about the guy's religious views. Religion is inherently a heated topic and so if we are falsely attributing religious viewpoints to him, that's inherently contentious. Speaking of G10 deletions, WP:BLP says, "Further, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain or undelete the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy." If you want to retain the still-unsourced portions of the article, fine - just source them. --B (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Subject is quite notable and very influential in his field. Lordjeff06 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Obviously from the start a notable academic. But it's only fair to say that this was nominated at the request of another user [104].DGG (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Even after looking at the article at the point the AfD was created, the article made rather clear claims of notability. Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires individuals to research prospective claims of notability, edit and improve the article to address concerns, or consider merging, all before taking any steps to nominate an article for AfD. These obligations under Wikipedia:Deletion policy do not appear to have been fulfilled, and merely noting the lack of sources is an unacceptable excuse for deletion, especially as the nominator acknowledges "this individual is probably borderline on notability", which makes the failure to add the sources required all the more disturbing. As the article stands, the multiple reliable and verifiable sources provided establish an inarguable satisfaction of the Wikipedia:Notability policy. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue is not notability, nor is it my responsibility to maintain the article. The issue is that there is a heckuva lot of unsourced content here. The improved version is better than it was (when I opened this nomination, there were zero sources), but far from sufficient. Either the article gets deleted, the unsourced content gets removed, or it gets sourced - I don't care which. We don't maintain unsourced articles about living people. Period. I don't care how notable they are. We shouldn't have to wait until OTRS is contacted to take care of a problem. One of Wikipedia's biggest problems right now is the notion that any content is better than no content and that's gotten us into trouble on multiple occasions. --B (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So basically, you nominated this to prove a point. The article deletion system is not put in place to force edits. It worked this time, but perhaps next time people won't fix it and vote to keep it simply to prove a point, like you just did. Slippery slope. Hazillow (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I didn't nominate it to prove a point. I nominated it because as the article stood, it was unacceptable. That problem can be remedied in one of three ways - delete it, make it into a stub, or cite it. For at least one of those solutions, this is the appropriate venue. --B (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You desperately need to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy which clearly lays out your obligations to research, edit, improve or consider merging articles before starting an AfD, and your statement that you have no responsibility to maintain the article is false, if you were considering an AfD. If you refuse to fulfill this obligation to improve the article, there are dozens of tags that can be applied to request that others do the work for you. I don't now that this AfD violates WP:POINT, but it seems to be a rather clear WP:Deletion policy violation. Alansohn (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The article has been tagged with maintenance tags (aka, "someone else should solve this problem" tags) for six months and it hasn't been fixed. We don't keep unsourced BLPs around - period. The obligation is on the person wanting to keep the BLP to show that it is sourced and otherwise compliant with policy. At the time I nominated this article, it was not compliant with policy. It still isn't, although it is much better. BLP issues supersede anything in the deletion policy ... although a claim that a potential nominator is required to improve even a non-BLP rather than requesting its deletion is silly on its face - there is no affirmative obligation for anyone here to edit. --B (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now with more improvement. I have completely rewritten the article and removed all non-free images as well as anything that was not sourced. Furthermore, it is much more wikified, in accordance to consensus on style. Please have a look. Hazillow (talk) 00:15, 26 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 01:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Novi Drumline

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

    A high school's percussion ensemble is not notable to have its own article. ZimZalaBim talk 02:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nom withdrawn, notability established. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Biometrics (Journal)

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

    The society may be notable but it doesn't appear to have an article to merge this with. The article asserts zero notability but there isn't an appropriate speedy. This is a name and URL -- a google search for the journal's notability is problematic due to the frequency of the word biometrics, but I find no evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    along similar lines, adding the following, no assertion of notability and unable to find any:

    Meeresforschung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Further Adventures in Babysitting

    Further Adventures in Babysitting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A film not yet in production doesn't meet WP:NFF or WP:NOT#CRYSTAL; disputed prod Accounting4Taste:talk 01:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also see deleted article Further Adventures In Babysitting deleted per notability guidelines for films as not in production at that time either. Specifically WP:NFF "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles."--NrDg 03:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If we need to we can undelete the original Further Adventures In Babysitting - it had evolved fairly well before it was deleted.--NrDg 14:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep, article has been improved during AFD and is now more than just a definition. Davewild (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pediophobia

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

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary already has a definition. ukexpat (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, Wiktionary has a definition. And wikipedia doesn't have an encyclopedia entry. Did you read the discussion page of the article you just nominated for deletion? I created it about an hour ago, and plan to expand it beyond the current definition, stub template, reference, and 'See also' section (which alone make it a more complete article already than in its previous incarnation, and than other stub articles that have just been created). Give it some time please. Eleven even (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This article is not even a day old. We should give it time to develop. Hazillow (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-if you want to expand this article, please place a {{underconstruction}} tag.TrUCo9311 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A merge with the article on dolls seems like a natural starting point to me. I don't think it's going to be the sort of subject that gets long enough to deserve an article on its own, and if that happens, the section can always be split off into its own article. Sockatume (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - just because something is a new stub is not a deletion reason. Appears ample scholarly material online to make an encyclopediac article of what is a commonish term for a wierd afflication - Peripitus (Talk) 02:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Fear of children, which is where pedophobia redirects to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pedophobia is the fear of children. Pediophobia is the fear of dolls (or other inanimate simulacra of sentient beings) and/or of children. They aren't the same. Eleven even (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe, but that isn't currently what the article says: "Pediophobia is a fear of dolls, or a fear of children" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure I see what you mean to say. What isn't currently what the article says? To me it looks like you're quoting the article as saying what I said, but saying it doesn't say that.  ????. Is it the part about sentient beings that makes the difference? The only thing I've included so far is what was explicitly in the cited definition; I'm not going to add to that until after I've digested the source material. Or is there something else I'm missing about what you're saying? Eleven even (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I'm going to be eventualist for a change and say that an article is possible if it brings in material from, for example, the paintings of Balthus, the uses in literature (e.g. E.T.A. Hoffmann), etc. It's a pretty common feature of the uncanny. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Balthus is borderline: the only reason I'm contending that pediophobia deserves to be its own article is that it specifically relates to children, as opposed to youth. Many of Balthus' subjects are what I would call children, but on the whole I would call his theme youth. Just barely. And that's totally subjective. And kind of beside the point, because whatever I or you think about Balthus' intent, if some reputable person or group hasn't published some reputable paper in a reputable journal or whatnot, it's not getting in the article. Can you think of sources for any of that? Aside from the last part; it is a pretty common and fairly well-documented feature of the uncanny, I think sources will be sufficiently abundant on that point. Eleven even (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per Andrew Lenahan.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pediophobia (fear of dolls or children) is not the same as pedophobia (fear of children), so the utility of redirecting this page to Fear of children is questionable. On the one hand, "pediophobia" may be considered a likely misspelling of "pedophobia"; technically, however, the two concepts are distinct and we should avoid giving the impression that they are equivalent. In my opinion, a better target for a redirect and/or merge would be Doll. That said, the article is currently mostly a dicdef and a LexisNexis search didn't turn up adequate material for a quick expansion. Perhaps, if the creator is willing, we could userfy the article to a subpage of his/her user page, with the option of moving it back to the mainspace if/when it is expanded? Incidentally, the subject of pediophobia may have some relationship to the Uncanny valley hypothesis (see this). Black Falcon (Talk) 05:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - the addition of the paper by Pujals and Buffington as a source has changed my mind. The source itself does not, in my view, prove the notability of the subject (it seems to be an unpublished paper); however, it makes me think that keeping or merging are preferable to deletion. Since merging does not require AfD, I think it's better to keep, allow an opportunity for the article to be expanded, and (if it is not expanded) to revisit the issue of merging at some point in the future. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Soman Islands and Redhorse

    Soman Islands and Redhorse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Micronation - no claims of notability. asnd "Soman Islands"+redhorse-wikipedia returns a grand total of one ghit (that being a "list site". Unless some evidence of notability is foiund, this one looks like a no-hoper. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. John254 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Julia Drusilla

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

    Only daughter of Caligula and Caesonia who was killed at the age of two, not long enough to be notable on her own account. Something could be merged to her parents' articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdraw nomination per Roman mob persecution. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 26 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 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DJ Raiden

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

    Likely hoax. Youtube videos uploaded by Bodoque57 are given as references. According to the user page of this person, his real name is Diego Grez, same name as that of a known hoaxer. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diego Grez. Jespinos (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedily deleted at 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC) as "CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance" by Dsmdgold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). cab (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David Ishmael

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

    Not a notable artist yet - has not released album, so not yet notable per WP:MUSIC, and shouldn't be included yet per WP:CRYSTAL Fritzpoll (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tried speedy deleting, but author kept removing it! Then removed prod, so brought here, but looks like it's gone since I started the AfD, so this can be closed. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I hate when authors remove speedy tags! But when things like that occurs, I just revert their edits and place a {{uw-speedy1|name of the page}} ~~~~ on their talk pages. Victao lopes (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly should have done, but on this occasion felt it was going to be very contentious! Fritzpoll (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Oh, I understand. Anyway, the article is now gone, so there's little need to talk about it, unless it's recreated again. Victao lopes (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oi looks like it is gone now.Hazillow (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was A7 speedy delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bethany Home

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

    Fails WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Madison Nguyen

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

    nn city councillor. Prod removed. Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 01:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KEEP Madison Nguyen is some one to watch. She will go far. 71.135.173.36 (talk) 08:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    1. ^ Olsha Law Firm - Law Firm in Kherson, Ukraine
    2. ^ Olsha Law Firm » wikirage: What's hot now on wikipedia
    3. ^ Law Firms Product Liability in Kherson, Ukraine
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_25&oldid=1234127940"