Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 25

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< May 24 May 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 keep. Singularity 04:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarajevo International School

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

Not notable. Seems to be promoting one person, the principle. Conflict of interest? Lsiryan (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Not a notable article, mainly promoting the principal.--Pecopteris (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that ? John Vandenberg (chat) 04:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Cab for Cutie (album)

Death Cab for Cutie (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rumored album, no verifiable info yet. Someone else (Cm619) tried to AfD it, but didn't form an actual AfD discussion page; they just transcluded and left an ugly red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the following quote from the official website (www.snowpatrol.com) is verifiable proof that this album is being recorded - Despite being terrorised by bats the SP camp are in good spirits as they finish the first week of recording the follow up to ‘Eyes Open’. Gary has just posted up a new blog writing about the new Death Cab for Cutie album, how the new songs are springing to life and the perfect way to deal with our flying friends. R. Crowley (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the bad linkage. Surely the new Death cab for Cutie album they refer to is Narrow Stairs, by the band of that name? Cm619 (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  19:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hooker with a heart of gold

Hooker with a heart of gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article appears to be WP:OR and lacks real sourcing. Serious POV issues. Enigma message 22:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you personally work on the article's OR issues then, friend? ScarianCall me Pat! 16:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently rewriting the article List of female stock characters and have worked upon some of the other articles to which it links. So, yes, I might edit this one too. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • changing to Keep with a rewrite and more accurate references The article is not a list, so the list should be cut down to a reasonable size, which should be easy to do if you remove all the unsourced bits. What's left should be incorporated into the article text. The "References" section is bloated with references that show the usage of the term but are not writing about the term itself so a lot of those should probably go as well. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result after further review was delete even though two editors said "New Zealand," which sounds so cool. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normality (roleplaying game)

Normality (roleplaying game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources or evidence of notability regarding this game. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not a roleplayer myself, but all the roleplayers I know seem to have heard about this one. (Again, probably a NZ bias there... are things which are notable in New Zealand notable on Wikipedia? Buzzy Bees seem to be, for instance.). The Otago Daily Times gave it a mention last year, which probably counts for something too. Pnot (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Stroud

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

Chairman of the board to a red linked organization. Doesn't appear to be notable; most incoming links (before I removed them) were for a record producer with the same name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus because we don't know if this is spam or one of the most wonderful sim games ever. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FS Passengers

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

I nominate this article for deletion as follows:

  • Notability: Article fails to establish notability in that notability requires objective evidence. I have researched the article and been unable to find any objective evidence establishing notability.
  • Verifiable sources: reliable sources in objective, independent media. The only verifable source on the article page, is one that will suffer link death and is commercial in nature.
  • Spam: I made some minor changes to the articles wording, but I still feel the article (and the links provided to reviews and such like) make the article appear like an advertisement for the product, and given the lack of verifable references I do not believe this could be improved.
  • I proposed deletion of this page on 14 April 2008, and it was contested to allow time for the article to be improved.

Icemotoboy (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or perhaps merge to some article which bundles together several of the Flight Simulator add-ons. Generally, I am a bit skeptical to articles on add-on software, but still there are some things going for this article. The Simradar review and others are at least independent, though I am not in much of a position to judge their reliability, and a look at Google indicates that the program is subject to a lot of interest from forums, so I can believe that a reader might be interested in such material. Link death of websites is not too big a worry since the Internet Archive seems to be retaining these pages [3]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ducky Derby

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

Fails WP:N. ZimZalaBim talk 22:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Wizardman 18:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksi Asikainen

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

Not notable. Nakon 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a guy related to a video game, he's also a TV composer and the president of a small business. There's no appropriate place to merge that information to. -kotra (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can be merged to Furcadia. Highlight a small buisiness. No mention of TV composing, and it also would usually have an article in the Finnish Wikipedia first if he is all that notable. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His TV composing is mentioned. "He is also a music composer associated primarily with Finnish television." As for the Finnish Wikipedia, it's not exactly the most comprehensive Wikipedia. It doesn't even have an article on Albert Einstein, if the interwiki links are to be trusted. (apparently they weren't) It only has 163,000 articles in comparison to English Wikipedia's 2,386,000. -kotra (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, this isn't the AfD you're looking for, move along, move along. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dani DeLay Ferro

Dani DeLay Ferro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Gained brief fame when she jumped into a Las Vegas hot tub with a lobbyist or two, which isn't mentioned in the text but in a citation instead. The article is basically a press release for her (possible copy-and-paste?). Notability is not inherited from her famous father, Tom DeLay, despite her sometime role as his campaign manager. Sources cited either are primary, mention her only in passing, or don't mention her at all. Doubtful that notability can be proved to WP standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect into Tom DeLay. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Ferro deserves coverage in her own right for actions she took on her own. She received "unusually generous" compensation -- several hundred thousand dollars -- for managing a charity that accepted donation from DeLay's supporters, in return for their attendance at an event where they would have access to DeLay. The managers of this charity could not fulfill the requirement for registering as a charity in New York State because they could not prove the charity had ever spent any funds on actual charitable projects. In addition the lady has written a book. Children of prominent people who publish books merit coverage, without regard to whether the book is about the famous parent. Agreed, the article, as it stands now, requires some work. But, I remind participants that the decision to keep or delete an article is supposed to be based on the potential of the topic, not on the current status of the article. Geo Swan (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 04:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Fascist Society

British Fascist Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A minor political party from Britain. The party appears to have an existence but I do not think it has notability. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Ice Skating

Xtreme Ice Skating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this sport really notable outside of its own webpage? Google turns up nothing more than a few passing incidents of the phrase amidst a bunch of various video site links. Though it has a very nice webpage, it almost seems like an unusually flashy breach of WP:MADEUP. Writer's argument on the talk page is that it will one day be notable, which runs afoul of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Vianello (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was general confusion because it's difficult to figure out to what article(s) the individual comments apply, but at any rate no consensus to delete all of these articles. Any renominations should be made individually, if a merger to the article about the nomination issue fails to find consensus.  Sandstein  19:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Moreno

Enrique Moreno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Note to closing admin: There are multiple "keeps" and "speedy keeps" in this article that originate from two editors. I am partly to blame for this confusion because I added other articles to this afd after it had already begun. In any case, please note each !voter when figuring out the concensus. Thank you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bio about an unnotable person that was a pawn in a notable event. This lawyer failed a judicial nomination because of Republican-Democrat politics. This political issue is notable, and there should be an article about this event. However, there should not be a seperate bio for each person that was a pawn in this event. He was one of seventeen lawyers whose nomination falied for this reason. He was not notable before this event, and this one-time event (i.e. WP:BLP1E) should not cause him to meet the notability standard of WP:BIO.

An afd (link) of one of the aforementioned "17" resulted in a keep, but that person is very different. He was notable prior to the failed judicial nomination. He was Governer Gray Davis's secretary of legal affairs and he was a judge in the Calofornia judiciary syetem. This person was not notable prior to the failed nomination, and his failed nomination shouldn't make him notable. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Arguello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robert Raymar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Allen Snyder (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charles "Bud" Stack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep. I am the article's creator. This article should remain for five reasons: 1) A lawyer who was nominated to a court one level below the U.S. Supreme Court meets the notability threshold; 2) A lawyer whose (ultimately unsuccessful) nomination then becomes part of not only an open fight between two parties in the U.S. Senate but also has his name invoked by both the sitting president and the sitting vice president (and presidential candidate) at the time meets the notability threshold; 3) Federal judicial appeals-court nominations have become increasingly controversial, and Moreno is relevant because his name continually has been raised in speeches all throughout this decade by U.S. Sens. Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein as one of 17 non-acted-on nominations in the latter part of Clinton's presidency; 4) Given his still-young age, it's reasonable to think that Moreno may well be renominated to a Fifth Circuit by a future Democratic president; and 5) A Google News search for "Enrique Moreno" and "judge" produces 125 results, so there is some notability there. I don't think this is a BLP1E case at all. As a user said in the previous AFD article referenced above (the article about Barry Goode), "When the "one event" you're known for (assuming that's true) is a major political tussle in the upper house of a national legislature, your notability is not really in question. WP:ONEEVENT was intended for people who get 15 minutes of fame for balancing a hot dog on their nose and the like." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvishunt (talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will respond to each of your points in turn:
  1. There are over a hundred judges at that level. Being nominated to that level doesn't establish notability.
  2. Being mentionened by the President doesn't move him beyond WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is an excllent argument for the creation of an article about this controversy, not about each person that was a pawn in this political fight.
  4. Is violative of WP:CRYSTAL. Any future nominations can be dealt with when he his actually nominated.
  5. The ghits all link to the one event. Your understanding of WP:ONEEVENT is - with my utmost respect - incorrect. Balancing hotdogs on noses and judicial nominations are the same for WP:ONEEVENT purposes. We don't decide the societal importance of people. We only look to see if that person has recieved significant coverage outside of one-time events.

---brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you're making too strict a ruling on BLP1E, and here's why. To me, "one event" would be the nomination failing. Or being filibustered. Or him being nominated to begin with. Not taking all three together over a period of 1999 to 20001. Most of those 125 that I listed (and there are more) are from major publications, and include plenty of biographical data to flesh out the rest of his life beyond the context of one event. Therefor, not only do they demonstrate notability for a series of events (rather then BLP1E), they also provide notability for his earlier career. Furthermore, there are several in there which take place after the nomination, and showed up because I used "Enrique Moreno Judge" in the search string, and they make reference to the failed nomination while discussing another topic, a key indicator that he has lasting notability. MrPrada (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prada: Your defintion of BLP1E would preclude its applicability in the most classic of BLP1E situations. Take for example Sean Bell, now a redirect to Sean Bell case. Google him and you get - yes - nine million - hits. As many ghtis as he gets, they all stem from one event. Yet, if you apply your argument to Sean Bell, BlP1E doesn't apply to that case either. You can divide that one event into multiple events. 1 - the incident, 2 - the officers' indictment, 3 - the trial, 4 - the acquittal, 5 - the subsequent protests, 6 - the (soon to be) civil lawsuit. Therefore, even if one event stretches out for a few years, that doesn't mean that the event is outside the realm of WPBLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are partially correct on both points, but still do not prevent a convincing reason to delete his biography. From a notability standpoint, Sean Bell, like Scott Thomas Beauchamp, was not notable outside of the 1E that created a controversy. Moreno seems to be. From the 1E standpoint, there are many instances from tragedies to battles that receive a single article. Would each judge's nomination therefor get its own article outside of the biography? No. The sensible place would be in a biography of the judicial candidate. In this particular instance, you have a judge who is nominated, and returned by the Senate (1E), and then renominated (another event), as I stated above. These seperate events are not all connected to one event on one day, like a tragedy or a battle. Arguing otherwise is a stretch. There is no need, reason, or policy to support deletion here. The follow on stories that have mentioned Moreno recently confirm that he meets WP:NTEMP for more then just the confirmation. Nothing can be clearer then BLP1E itself: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted Sean Bell, and Scott Thomas, are chronicled in relation to the event that made them notable. We read little about who they are, where they come from, etc. On the other hand, Moreno receives a wider breath of coverage in the articles about his confirmation, indicating coverage beyond the context of the nomination itself, and warranting a seperate biography. MrPrada (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd say that Prada's comments capture exactly why the fight over Clinton judicial nominations weren't a onetime event and as a result shouldn't be classified or viewed as such. It really was a series of fights that took place over a more than five-year period, involving many different players at many different times, with vastly different outcomes. I'd argue that each one was an individual event. Some other thoughts on the comments raised so far:
  1. There are indeed over 100 appellate level judges, but these are lifetime appointments. In a given year, a president nominates 5 to 10 of these at most. Nomination *is* a huge deal--there aren't hundreds and hundreds of them a year (or even in an eight-year presidency).
  2. I should have elaborated on the president mentioning one's name. It's true that if the president congratulates Podunk High School for winning the state spelling bee, that doesn't establish notability. But, when the mention by the president (and the VP, who's also the presidential candidate) is part of a Senate fight over his nomination, the notability has standard has been met, in my opinion.
  3. Brewcrewer makes a fine point about WP:CRYSTAL, and I withdraw that argument.
  4. Moreno has more notability than just the judicial nomination. I'll add that shortly.User:Jarvishunt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.78.206 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Almost any judicial nominee to an appellate court or nominee for a cabinet post has some inherent notability, stemming from their nomination. The five failed judges in question have all had storied careers as jurists, litigators, professors, etc., I cannot see how we would delete as non notable. MrPrada (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrPrada (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No basis for meeting the notability standard of WP:BIO was given. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We'll have to agree to disagree then, because no basis for not meeting the standard of WP:BIO has or can be given. :) MrPrada (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The burden is on those claiming notability to establish notability. We all know you can't expect someone who claims that something doesn't exist to prove that it doesn't exist. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree. Discussions default to keep, not to delete. There is plenty provided above which would establish notability. The burden is on you to refute it. Thus far, you've claimed that the sources provided only covered one event (which I showed to be incorrect), that they only were trivial (ditto), etc., so the keeps have done their due diligence.MrPrada (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that the initial burden falls on the creator of the article has nothing to do with default to keep after the discussion. For the simple fact that you cannot expect or request someone to prove that something isn't. Therefore, just stating that it's notable and then requesting that it be refuted makes absolutly no sense. And a !vote that says its just notable without backing it up is - with all due respect - valueless. You, Prada, have obviously attempted to back up the notability, and therefore you have to be reckoned with. But my initial point above was that "good faith effort underway to improve the article" is not a basis for notability and non-deletion, and it doesn't even meet the discussion threshold. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Well, sadly good faith is not enough to keep an article from being deleted. This man has not done anything notable enough to be on Wikipedia. It almost seems like the creator of the article is Ernique(just saying). Basically, the man is no-notable.Gears Of War 21:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha funny. What is he doing now then? And secondly apparently I my comments are not the only ones who want this article deleted, so that means something is wrong. I am also not the last person to say this guy was non-notable. Sadly he did not play a big a part as you make it put to be.Gears Of War 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gears of War, look under Moreno's professional career--since the failed nomination, he's been a lead (or sole) attorney on legal teams that won two very high-profile class-action lawsuits (see references). That's notability entirely apart from the nomination to the Fifth Circuit. Jarvishunt (talk)
Sadly no matter what you try to show me, I just think that the article should be delted, and thats never gonna change, Gears out.Gears Of War 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! You guys crack me up. Going into my own personal conversations to try to change my mind. I have considered his case and I dont appreciate you going into my personal conversations and trying to piss me off. I know what I said and I listened to all of your pleads. The dude is non-notable. And yet when some else said he was non-notable, no one jumped on him like this! But sadly that always happens to me. I will not change my mind, and if the article is so good, it will be saved after all.Gears Of War 22:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Gears gave a coherent and valid reasone for deletion - "This man has not done anything notable enough to be on Wikipedia." A long explanation filled with alphabetical abbreviations isn't required to state an opinion around here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much like just a policy or guideline, simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. Actually, my comment on forming consensus was in response to "Sadly no matter what you try to show me ..." which followed Jarvishunt's asserstion of notability to Gears. I have addressed each editor that has stated an nn-concern in a similar manner, so I apologie to Gears if he feels that he was jumped on. However, I would be doing him as much of a disservice by not pointing out the spirit of consensus (which is what has lead me to his talk page, wehre I am currently typing a response) as he would be by choosing not to evaluate Jarvhishunt's arguments. MrPrada (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was neither asking you to change your opinion nor consider anything contrary to your opinion, nor did I imply we discount it. I merely suggested an exercise in consensus building after you mentioned "It doesnt matter what you show me ", which would be to at least evaluate the information. Its completely optional. MrPrada (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of Peter dude, the reason I said that was to say that no matter how much he argued with me I had made my decision and would not change my mind.Gears Of War 22:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Gears can be blamed for stating he will not change his mind. This page has pretty much hashed out all the possible arguments, pro and con. If Gears has read the applicable articles and analyzed both arguments on both sides, he shouldn't be jumped on to change his mind, and be accused on being a non-consensus-builder. Indeed, if any side isn't working towards a consensus its the keep side. After nominating the articles for deletion, I felt that it would be a fair compromise to merge into Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies instead of deleting. Yet, the keep side isn't budging. They want a full bio on each and every person that ever went through an unsuccessful attempt to become a federal judge. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would surmise that the controversy certainly does deserve its own article, much like the Bush administration judges Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, etc. However, at least in the case of these five (and most of the others that I read articles on today), in my opinion there is sufficient notability to warrant inclusion. As daughter articles they would only compliment the main controversy article, which in time could well become a featured topic. The fact that it is the Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the U.S., is really what seals the deal for me with regard to keeping the biographies. Is Joseph H. Boardman notable outside of being Chief of the Federal Railroad Administration? Or Raymond P. Martinez beyond being Deputy Chief of Protocl for the State Department? Possibly. And I submit it is likely that they would retain that notability, even if their nomations to their respective positions (which have gauranteed them inclusion) had failed, they would still warrant a biography. The Circuit Court of Appeals is no different then any other high level administration appointment. And appointees are in many ways non-elected politicians. Its possible for an unsuccesful candidate for election to fail WP:POL and meet WP:BIO, so why not an unsuccesful candidate nominated by the President? At least with these five, I believe they do exceed the standard. As Brew has pointed out, I think its been hashed out enough at this point, so I will leave it to other editors to evaluate whats been stated here. MrPrada (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There seems to be a defacto acceptance that any high govermental official is basically automatically notable. Joseph H. Boardman and Raymond P. Martinez might not pass the WP:BIO standards, but an afd of their bios is guarenteed to fail. Similarly, when it comes to baseball players. A person who played three games of professional baseball in 1998 is considered notable, and an afd of his bio would fail, notwithstanding the failure of establishing WP:BIO. But the Wikipedia community has only applied these bright-line rules to people that have actually made it. If you have a high-level govement job you are notable, but if you never got any high-level job, you must meet the regular notability standards of WP:BIO and you must move beyond WP:BLP1E. This much I do agree, that it is time for other editors to chime in. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea of merging the page also. Every single person does not need their article unless the Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies page has been tagged with a long tag and is being split into different articles. Other than that every page will either be merged or deleted because every person on their own is not notable, but an article with all of those men in one is an awesome idea(depending on how well the article is written also)Gears Of War 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In thinking more about my case for why Moreno, Raymer, Arguello, Snyder and Stack all are sufficiently notable to merit individual Wikipedia biographies, I think it's helpful to look at the issue from another direction, regarding the case of Miguel Estrada.

Like the above five, Estrada was nominated to a federal appeals court judgeship by a president, and like those five, Estrada never was confirmed. (Estrada withdrew his nomination, as did Stack.) Estrada's contributions to notability outside of the failed circuit court nomination are roughly on par with those of Moreno, Raymar, Arguello, Snyder and Stack--certainly not more than the non-nomination contributions of those five, but also not appreciably less (Estrada was an assistant to the solicitor general for a time, while Moreno won some huge financial judgments for his clients in notable cases and also was the subject of comments by both Clinton and Gore in the 2000 race; Raymar was NJ's deputy attorney general at one time; Arguello is on the verge of being nominated to a U.S. district court and has received wholly separated news-media coverage for that, eight years after her nomination failed; Snyder has represented some major clients and was a figure in the Whitewater controversy; and Stack has been a major fundraiser and was a 1996 presidential campaign issue).

However, I don't think there's anyone who would argue that Estrada isn't notable enough to rate a Wikipedia biography. Have there been more news articles about Estrada than those five? Probably (although the vast, vast majority of those articles would deal with Estrada's failed nomination). Was Estrada's nomination during a period of somewhat greater news media coverage of opposition to certain judicial nominations because of the specter of the Senate filibuster? No doubt about it. But it's pretty clear that Estrada's underlying situation and non-nomination notability are very similar to those of Moreno, Raymar, Arguello, Snyder and Stack. As Estrada's biography has no business being deleted--he's obviously an individual whose notability isn't in question--so too should the biographies of Moreno, Raymar, Arguello, Snyder and Stack remain. Jarvishunt (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Singularity 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berg publishers

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

This is a publishing company from Oxford. Their only claim to notability is having published one possibly notable book. I don't see how that makes the company meet WP:CORP. AecisBrievenbus 18:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline for things we have no rational criteria about. the only policy relevant is V, and there's enough factual data to write an article. The number of titlse & library holdings shows them to be notable, so we have a real criterion, instead of the accident of sourcing. DGG (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd interpret that as meaning that even a relatively small academic publishing house is notable. I think that is the case, as I said earlier. Having published a considerable number of books is, by common sense, notability as a significant company in their field. 2RS=N is intended as a flexible guideline. As we can verify the information given about them, it meets WP:V. I point out that it's important to have these articles, as background for the nature of the books they publish when they are referred to in Wikipedia references. DGG (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 19:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheWolfWeb

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

Notability of this message board not obvious, and no third-party references to support inclusion. Previously nominated in 2005 when it appears there was no real consensus (though result was "keep"). Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big boards lists The Wolf Web in its top 500. (307 for English boards, 426 overall) http://rankings.big-boards.com/?p=all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.47.117 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yume Nikki

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

Non notable freeware game. Notability tagged since April. Lots of attention from 4chan and the like, but I can't find anything that meets WP:RS LegoTech·(t)·(c) 20:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it notable due to the fact that it's very famous for its vast viral spread; it shows how much of an influence 4chan has upon the rest of the internet, not to mention it's an example of what RPGMaker is capable of accomplishing. If deleted, yes, Yume Nikki could make a small mentioning in RPGMaker's article, but I feel Yume Nikki is more noteworthy than such NNR07 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Continued: As for sources, there's plenty on Indie Blog sites, and any Bilingual Editors can also extract some information from the author's site. NNR07 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), As per consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein and Religion

Einstein and Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reads like an OR Essay or scholarly review of the book. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have cited an academic review of this book to further demonstrate its notability. The current style of the article is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep ( I am the editor who created the page ) My process for the article was as follows. I discovered references to the book in the main article Einstein. Next, I used my library's access to Book Review Index online to find scholarly book reviews. After carefully reading those, I methodically created each of the wikipedia-article sentences while carefully reading portions of the book along with passages from its references, periodically re-checking the scholarly book reviews, especially the one commissioned by the Harvard University Society of Fellows. (I used this process to avoid plagirism of the cited book reviews.) The article's not complete and I'm certainly very far from perfect as an editor, but I can swear under Biblical Oath that I followed the process as I've stated.--Firefly322 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It is still a violation of WP:OR despite your reasoning, Firefly. However, if you add links to those scholarly sources, that will help the article's standing. Happyme22 (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is heading for an overextended out of proportion chapter by chapter synopsis, but the book is notable none the less.a little watching will deal with it. DGG (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I bet loads has been written on this interesting subject. O.R. in an article is fixable. Sticky Parkin 02:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because Princeton Press and other citations make this book as if not more notable than some of the more google heavy but novels on AfD. gren グレン 09:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to Jordin Sparks. Singularity 04:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Step at a Time (song)

One Step at a Time (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not-yet released single; no sources exist on the song yet. Only charts listed are iTunes charts which are not major reliable charts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colby O

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

Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC because the article is about a future album. WP:N states that future albums are not notable. Razorflame 19:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Midland Barbershop Harmony Club

West Midland Barbershop Harmony Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. The article was previously speedily deleted two times, but the author is repeatedly recreating the page. I found no way other than AfDing it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It certainly lacks WP:ORG which is suggested by the absence of references for it. Artene50 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong Wii

Donkey Kong Wii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It was rumoured to exist three years ago and never heard of again. As well as this, only one source exists for said rumour, and a rumour does not prove the game's existance. Far from it. Cipher (Talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Despite nothing much being known about it, it HAS been confirmed by nintendo, and its pointless to delete a game article, knowing it is going to come back eventually. You would have to "re-gather" information, and it just seems pointless. Hollywoodd 22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kperfekt722 (talk • contribs)


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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Pinball Wii

Mario Pinball Wii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that this game exists. It isn't even mentioned anywhere on the internet, bar Wikipedia. Cipher (Talk) 17:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashan

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

Article about a fictional game world. No sources and written almost entirely in-universe. Subject is not notable outside of the game series. Suggest deletion or merge to a general Might and Magic article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I'm sure some of this could be important and useful in the Might an Magic article, not anywhere near all of it though. Chris M. (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Bachelier

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

Semi-finalist of American Idol (season 1) that fails WP:MUSIC Aspects (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. "Merge" is a variant of "keep" for AfD purposes, but a merger should be discussed on the article talk page.  Sandstein  19:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super-recursive algorithm

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

See below for reasons, I am just trying to correct the form of this nomination Hans Adler (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this article clears the bar for notability.

Here is where I have looked for the obvious evidence:

(1) Google book search: Super-recursive algorithms are very briefly mentioned in a few books that (so far, in my searches) show little evidence of actually exploring the topic under that name. These mentions seem to be confined to the kind of kitchen-sink listing of vaguely related work that a serious author might only bother with up-front in order to preempt being bombarded much later by people asking why their work wasn't mentioned.

(2) Peer reviewed literature: Super-recursive algorithms are discussed at length in papers written by Mark Burgin, who appears to have coined the term. A few of these papers have a co-author. These articles are referenced in other papers by Mark Burgin, but otherwise do not seem to be significantly cited.

(3) A monograph by Mark Burgin, Super-recursive algorithms is available from Springer. However, it appears not to have received the benefit of copy-editing by a native English speaker; furthermore, Springer monographs are not peer-reviewed. Amazon.com offers two very brief reviews of this book. One of them is by D.V. Feldman, a mathematician at the University of New Hampshire who, from cursory web searches, seems to contribute quite a few very brief reviews of books on topics outside his specialties. This review says that Super-recursive functions "synthesizes all isolated heresies from the journal literature". The same review also claims that the book is "important"; however, Amazon lists it as about #1,700,000 in sales rank, after over 3 years in print. The other Amazon review is by Vilmar Trevisan. This researcher has a record of publication in areas relating to the design of efficient algorithms for specific purposes (e.g., polynomial factorization), but has not published anything clearly related to the theory of computation per se. His review mentions only that Burgin's book "serves to develop a new paradigm", but mentions no particular groundbreaking results.

In the discussion of this article, the only review mentioned as discussing Super-recursive algorithms at any length was written by Martin Davis, a mathematician who is a recognized authority in the theory of computation. As noted by computer scientist Vaughan Pratt and others in the discussion with some mathematical sophistication, this review's withering sarcasm is, at best, thinly veiled. The main author and defender of this article, Multipundit, might be forgiven for not detecting just how negative Davis' review is, since (by some odd coincidence) Multipundit's grasp of English seems little better than Mark Burgis' in Super-recursive functions.

My personal opinion might seem out of place here, but I have studied some computing theory, and for those who haven't, my perspective might help you understand why establishing notability in this case is likely to be difficult, if not impossible. I have read some of Super-recursive algorithms. Frankly, when I see a definition of super-recursive algorithm as an algorithm capable of computing what Turing machines can't, the next thing I expect to see (in a real computing theory book, anyway) is a rigorous proof that there exists at least one such thing. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence, and this is a very extraordinary claim. But does Burgin then do the math? No. he appears more likely to refer to obsolete fault-tolerant commercial systems for his existence proofs. I admit I am not an expert in computing theory. I have read a few textbooks on it, and a handful of papers; I took a few courses in it at U.C. Berkeley, and graded homework for those courses a few times. And even this experience was almost three decades ago. However, the style of rigorous mathematical argument in this mathematical specialty is not something one soon forgets, and where Burgin discusses super-recursive algorithms, what little rigor I see is superficial at best.

Wolfgang Pauli once said of a particularly shoddy piece of physics work, "it's not even wrong." From what I can see, Burgin is not even wrong in what he claims about super-recursive functions. And others in a better position than I to judge Burgin's super-recursive functions appear to have -- with one scathing exception -- also agreed this stuff is not even wrong, with their resounding silence: there just isn't a whole lot to say about it. Note that "wrong" doesn't make anything "not notable"; far from it. I could (and have) argued that Lotfi Zadeh was wrong, that Fuzzy Logic was inferior to Bayesian approaches to reasoning under uncertainty. But Fuzzy Logic did become notable, whatever its faults, and from a certain point of view, maybe it's good that it did -- reasoning under uncertainty ("is there any other kind?" someone once quipped) needed a push, and Zadeh gave it that push. (Also, to his credit, he didn't push past any reasonable point, he began yielding gracefully to Bayesianism, if anything.) What has Burgis achieved, except to claim he has some umbrella concept that he can't rigorously describe?

Burgin's super-recursive algorithms have not achieved notability in computing theory, even though they purportedly comprise fuzzy logic systems somehow. Nor have they achieved notability anywhere else, apparently. It's not that Burgin is wrong. It's not even that he's not even wrong. It's that this supposed theory of super-recursive functions is not notably not even wrong. Therefore, even in the narrow and rather obscure discipline of computing theory (which I would contextualize here by noting that Hartley Rogers' lovely classic text is ... well, not even as high as #400,000 in Amazon sales rank), I don't see that we have Wikipedia notability here.

So I say delete. Yakushima (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to keep the arcticle and to see views and arguments (s. talk page) getting incorporated. --demus wiesbaden (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep it, help make a solid case for notability Yakushima (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Initially I thought there couldn't be notability problems with a Springer book by a UCLA professor. But now I know more, especially after several altercations involving editor Multipundit from UCLA who, I still hope (because of Multipundit's general cluelessness in what should be Burgin's area of expertise), is just one of Burgin's undergraduate students and not Burgin himself. It seems that "super-recursive algorithm" is just a fuzzy buzzword, designed to mean everything and nothing. Given that, the negative review by Martin Davis (which seems to be essentially the only real response by mainstream science), and the reaction of Vaughan Pratt to this article and its author, I think deletion of this article as non-notable fringe science is probably justified. "Weak" delete because I am not entirely sure my delete !vote isn't in part due to the wish to get rid of the ridiculous conflict with Multipundit, who either has a severe conflict of interest or a severe obsession with the topic of the article. I will probably make up my mind and change my vote after I have seen other people's comments. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"... book by a UCLA professor". Atually, it's a monograph, and by a UCLA visiting scholar, not a professor. If the subject of hyper-recursive algorithms has a claim to fame, I think it's mainly because of a special issue of Theoretical Computer Science (journal) on "Super-recursive algorithms and hypercomputation"[11]. However, that special issue was apparently guest-edited by Burgis and Klinger; I don't think any article in that special issue treats of super-recursive algorithms per se except for the one by Burgis and Klinger. If an article in a guest-edited journal is written by the guest editors, is it necessarily peer-reviewed?

Merge to hypercomputation as a very short section, per CBM below. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Look a little more closely at your "enough citations" results, Colonel. Does this count, for example? I'd say it's more like a Springer advertisement. How about mere listings in the bibliographies of master's theses? Or how about this, not even published in a peer-reviewed journal, just available on an academic website, and only asking, at the end, whether it's possible that the result could be obtained by an "inductive Turing machine"? There's a lot of chaff here, of the kind that can be created by energetically pressing for mentions rather than by doing substantial theoretical work. Once you've cleared away mentions by authors other than Burgin that aren't significant (and notability guidelines say that more than a mere mention is necessary), the only researchers who seem to be persistently using the term "super-recursive algorithm" are Mark Burgin and the occasional co-author. (And in the case of co-authored papers, I have yet to look closely to see if the term gets more than a mere mention.) In one book, a 70-year retrospective on the Church-Turing thesis, Burgin gets a laugh-out-loud quote in one paper that dismisses hypercomputation as ultimately reliant on infinite computing power. The only other paper to mention him defends him stridently, but elsewhere says that calculus, and other parts of mathematics, would "disappear" if the set-theoretic foundations of mathematics were sufficiently eroded. (Well, that's odd -- calculus preceded set theory, IIRC, and I've met people who got quite fluent in calculus who didn't have much, if any, exposure to set theory.) Who takes super-recursive algorithms seriously, and are they actualy computer scientists who have done, and are doing, serious theoretical work on them under that name? Yakushima (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* You might be mistaking "actually trying" for "reaching". Do you actually know the subject area at all? Yakushima (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It may be "fringey" and not very notable, but still notable enough IMO. There are citations by third parties, and the fact that Springer decided to publish the monograph suggests to me that at least the editors there decided it was notable enough to print. As far as I know, Springer is not a vanity press but a reasonably respectable scientific publisher. --Itub (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I encourage you to go to Amazon "search inside" for this book and try reading some of it. There are clearly longish passages that no editor has bothered reading for grammar or sense. (Maybe the manuscript got a spell-check pass?)
Yes, Springer is a reasonably respectable scientific publisher, but that doesn't exclude elements of "vanity press" in its business model. For what Burgis has on offer, you won't find a sucker born every minute -- it is, after all, a computer science title with mathematical symbols in it. However, in view of the Amazon figures for how many copies are new and used for the rather high price of around $30 (given what rubbish this is), I'd guess there is a sucker of the required type born perhaps once a week.
Get your own taste of the drivel, here. The question isn't "How can it be so bad if Springer will publish it?" Rather, it's "What's happening at Springer that they would even bother to read 10 pages of something like this, much less print it?" I'd say that what's happening at Springer is that they (like many publishers) now have ways to get something into print with very low overhead, compared to the bad old days when you had to pay a union wage for a typesetter skilled enough to set mathematical type accurately. Yakushima (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, ltub -- I should have looked at your user page before commenting. You don't have a computer science background, do you? I guess if I were coming from chemistry, as you do, and read ten pages of Super-recursive algorithms, I might not notice anything amiss except that I didn't really understand much.
By the way, for future reference, "citations by third parties" is not enough for notability. The subject must have been discussed significantly, not merely cited, by third parties, and in reliable sources. "Reliable" in a scientific context means "peer-reviewed"; Google Scholar is pretty cool, but it's not yet smart enough to tell whether a source is peer-reviewed or not. For example, is Peter Kugel's "It's Time to Think Outside the Computational Box" peer-reviewed? I'm sure an editor or two looked at it, and thought it would amusing for CACM readers. But if you took Kugel's name off it, and tried to run as a research contribution through the gauntlet of theoretical computer science peer-review, it wouldn't pass muster. Kugel's case in point of "super-recursive algorithms" is Programming by example. There are no algorithms in the field of PBE that can't also be run on a Turing machine. Kugel offers up Burgis' bogus "proof" that Turing machines can solve the halting problem. As someone with a computer science education, my first lip-curling reaction is "Who the hell is this guy? He can't have had a proper education in computing theory!" And, in fact, there is nothing in Kugel's publications to suggest that he's ever even taken a course in the subject, much less taught one. It looks to me like he got tenure a long time ago, before the CS field had a well-formed curriculum, and kicked back for a career of writing mildly controversial op-eds in the AI field and musing about computers in education.
Challenge to everyone here: give me one peer-reviewed publication on super-recursive algorithms. Just one. Yakushima (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Hans Adler. In reply to Yakushima and Firefly, I believe you that this term is probably BS, but that doesn't make it automatically non-notable. I certainly don't think that the negligence of Springer when it comes to copy-editing is a factor to take into account. And I don't agree with the suggestion that only peer-reviewed references count. What matters is the reputability of the source. There are many crappy peer-reviewed journals and there are many excellent non-peer-reviewed books. But anyway, based on various arguments here and thinking further about it, it does seem like this is "just a fancy buzzword" that hasn't found enough use to deserve its own article but may deserve some mention somewhere else. That'll be up to the editors of hypercomputation. --Itub (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The standard I'm applying is this:
Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
That's from WP:RELIABLE, subsection "Scholarship". When Peter Kugel says [12] in a CACM article that "limiting computation" can "solve" the halting problem, he neglects to mention that the halting problem is defined as giving a yes or no answer in a finite amount of time. If "vetted by the scholarly community" (or even by a class of CS undergrads in a theory course, looking at this as homework problem #1 - "spot where he's cheating"), this article wouldn't have made it through. Ergo: it wasn't vetted. Just because it's in CACM, and some contributions there are vetted doesn't mean that all are. It appears to be just these sorts of loopholes that Burgin has wormed through to, camouflage his work (to the inexpert or inattentive eye) as peer-reviewed. I could be wrong. But I'm still looking for some unambiguously peer-reviewed work on super-recursive algorithms, and nobody here has answered my challenge to identify one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakushima (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My training in Control theory at instutions as famous as Burgin's UCLA has led me to believe that Cybernetics is MIT's version of pseudo-science. In the Springer book, Burgin mentions Cybernetics and then tries to synthesize economics and computer science with a bit of Control theory. From my perspective, no deep love: art aesthetic or otherwise and a bit of Cybernetic pseudo-science. As an author, Burgin reminds me Richard Bellman, whose of overall understanding of early modern computer science and control theory is tolerable, but all his pet ideas are intolerable. Though my respect for User:Colonel Warden and his or her thoughts and works might very well give him or her the power to convince me otherwise, I see no flaws in User:Yakushima's argument. In fact, these comments are all spot on. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I do not really want to rely on an argument for deletion based upon the assertion that the subject is not important because "Cybernetics is MIT's version of pseudo-science." I suppose the cybernetics and MIT articles will be proposed for deletion next, along with Norbert Wiener & John von Neumann. I rely on common sense in judging the comments of expert editors. DGG (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just trying to be honest. Obviously, cybernetics and Norbert Wiener are well established topics that aren't someone's pet publication topic like Super-recursive algorithm. To suggest that I would propose MIT for AfD is not so cool and totally absurd, which makes me believe that your vote and your comment here is a knee-jerk reaction. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, a slight exaggeration, but we should not delete based upon that the work is not actually of high quality fundamentally. Not the role of Wikipedia, to decide on the academic quality of work in a subject, if there are good references to standard peer-reviewed journals. There's a lot of stuff i personally thing over-exaggerated narrowly-focused studies in Wikipedia that I wouldnt accept as a peer-reviewer, but the question is whether here are references show that people consider it important. This isnt academic peer-review. DGG (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, DGG, what you offered wasn't a "slight exaggeration", it was simply wrong. Firefly322 made a comment that you apparently interpreted as being of the form "I don't like topic X, topic Y is no better than topic X, therefore topic Y should not have a Wikipedia article." Firefly322 might fairly be accused of a not-very-useful editorial digression. However, AgF requires that I view Firefly322's submission as being on topic for this page if his/her conclusion supports that view; this discussion is about whether there should be an article on super-recursive algorithms; Firefly322's conclusion was that he/she agrees with what I've written, and what I've written here is a case (with its own editorial digressions, admittedly) fundamentally based on the claim that the topic hasn't achieved notability in the theory of computation because there isn't be any peer-reviewed work on it. There may appear to be peer-reviewed work, but so far, I haven't seen any.
DGG, although you have no apparent computer science credentials, you are a librarian. With skills like yours, you could be more useful than any of the rest of us here, on a specific question very relevant to the deletion issue: is there an independent, peer-reviewed publication on the topic of super-recursive algorithms? As a librarian, you must be aware of the distinctions involved.
If you're game, let me help you get started. Last I checked, CACM is peer-reviewed; however, it consists largely of what passes for light topical reading among computer scientists, and not all articles in it are necessarily vetted by experts in the article's topic. Thus, Peter Kugel's defense of super-recursive algorithms in an issue of CACM doesn't, in itself, make super-recursive algorithms a formally recognized topic in computer science; from what I can see, it is little more than an off-the-cuff comment (one of many in a career apparently consisting of little else) from a computer scientist who is more of a gadfly than a serious researcher; moreover it is an off-the-cuff comment with at least one serious and glaring technical error in it. Nor would 10 such articles by 10 such authors necessarily establish the topic as legitimate within theoretical computer science. And without such support from within the field itself, you either have to look for significant notability (i.e., more than just a mention) somewhere in the popular press instead, or take very seriously the proposition that the topic is, at best, better covered as fringe theory, to be discussed in some other Wikipedia article, but not at a length that suggests it is being given undue weight. Yakushima (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is too unfocused to judge what it is about. It begins with a long list of examples of "algorithms that are more powerful than Turing machines." That topic is already covered by the article on hypercomputation. The rest of the article focuses on a single class of such examples, namely inductive Turing machines, which the article distinguishes from an ordinary Turing machine as not having to stop after producing its result. While this vague notion could mean various things, judging by the article's reference to Gold it most likely refers to the concept treated in Language identification in the limit discovered by Gold in 1967 and rediscovered by Burgin in the 1980s. Burgin does not make clear whether he wants "super-recursive algorithm" to be the new name for hypercomputation, language identification in the limit, or something in between. In any event no one but Burgin and the two anonymous Wikipedia editors of the article have found any use for the term, making WP:FRINGE the applicable guideline. The controversy is not notable outside Wikipedia (there is nothing controversial about Martin Davis's negative review) whence my recommendation to delete. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to hypercomputation as a very short section. When this article was originally created, I spent a significant amount of time investigating it. I obtained a copy of Burgin's book and browsed through some of his papers. I looked up the reviews of Burgin's book and added them as references to the article. After all this, I think I have a vague sense of what Burgin means by superrecursive algorithm (one difficulty is that Burgin's text is not as precise as a text in recursion theory would ordinarily be). I also found that Burgin's book spends most of its pages summarizing of other people's work. Essentially the only new content is Burgin's model of hypercomputation, the inductive Turing machine, and his terminology "super-recursive algorithms".
       After doing all this research in an attempt to make the article somewhat reasonable, my opinion has become there is nothing here that cannot be adequately covered in a few sentences of the article on hypercomputation. It isn't our role on Wikipedia to predict whether Burgin's terminology will ever become popular. At the moment, it certainly is not used by any other recursion theory text, and as rare terminology it shuld be given a brief mention but not an independent article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the time you have invested into this and for proposing a very sensible option. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it now safe to assume that there's no more need to look closely at sources to see if they are peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? I really have no appetite for continuing with that task. Besides, it doesn't look like the search will produce results, except perhaps in some "super-recursive algorithm" sense of "results". Yakushima (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carl, I went back and forth between "delete" and "merge", the latter exactly as you propose. I'm fine with either, but with a slight preference for "delete." This is because it wasn't clear to me what "hypercomputation" should be about. Most of recursion theory arguably falls under hypercomputation. On the other hand theoretical computer science has moved far beyond the 1960's conception of computation as modeled by recursion theory, whose distinctions are based on computable sets and functions, dealing nowadays with probability, concurrency, game theory, quantum information, etc., all of which can be considered "hypercomputation." So there is at least the potential for the hypercomputation article to be about a wide range of legitimate research of generally acknowledged quality, without feeling obliged to also list all the muddle-headed thinking. By way of calibration look at the faster than light article, which gives a fair and detached assessment of a variety of ways of breaking that speed limit while stopping short of including the considerably body of confused thinking, bad exposition, and/or pseudoscience in the field, see the article's talk page where that boundary is fought over. (Incidentally I don't see what if anything Burgin's notion of inductive Turing machine adds to Gold's notion of language identification in the limit, which in any event has been largely supplanted today by more versatile learning models such as PAC learning. Whereas a number of researchers have expanded on Gold's original notion, no one has seen fit to follow up on Burgin's variant of it, assuming it's even a variant.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some vestige of this article into "hypercomputation", and you've got vestiges spread around, only a little more widely (try a poke at "what links here"). Still, you might as well. I'm not on some crusade to scrub Wikipedia of every mention. It's enough to get "due weight".
There will probably always be several mentions. Burgin discusses this topic using the terms "algorithm", "Turing machine", "inductive inference", "recursive function", etc., etc., and thus almost any of those Wikipedia articles might be targeted. Some have been; Multipundit was pretty busy. As coverage of logic and computing theory grows in Wikipedia (what?! no article yet on the subrecursive hierarchy!?), the number of, um, "receptor sites" will only increase. But can't we count on the vigilance of the editors of those articles?
As for hypercomputation, the category seems problematic. But so is, for example, AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus, which includes theories ranging from those of Leonard Horowitz (shorter form: AIDS is a genocidal plot!) to those of Paul Farmer (shorter form: Haitians got targeted as inward HIV vector by Americans, even though HIV more likely moved from the U.S. to Haiti.) Obviously, it's a stretch to conflate "extra-national origins of HIV infection in a particular country" with "origins of HIV, period". Especially when it gives roughly equal weight to the epidemiological views of both a paranoid quack and a medical saint. But that's the beauty of vagueness, isn't it?
Hypercomputation: what is it, exactly? Who really knows? I just know that, with ten times more Google results coming back for "hypercomputation" than for "superrecursive function", I'm not going to try to fight it. Let's say the article for hypercomputation gives roughly equal weight to quantum computing, language identification in the limit, and "super-recursive algorithm". Readers will notice that the article doesn't say nearly enough to confer much understanding of the first two topics, but at least links to expanded treatments of them, and that it apparently says just about all that can really be said for sure about the last topic. That's about as good as you can expect, under the circumstances. Yakushima (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are only 5 non-redirect articles that link to super-recursive algorithms, and I think each of them does have due weight in the context of that article. I double-checked them a while ago. I appreciate Vaughan's point, which is why I think that only a very short part should be merged into the hypercomputation article, not the entire article here. I agree with Yakushima that due weight is the best goal to work towards. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You saw due weight in all five? Even inductive inference? More than half of the main text there is unsourced statements that don't make it clear where Gold's contributions leave off and Burgin's pick up. (Anyway, as Vaughan Pratt pointed out, it's not clear the Burgin did more than what we see in Gold's language identification in the limit.) And yes, this is Multipundit again. Yakushima (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to argue here whether to keep or to delete the article. If those who make decisions here base their decisions on grounded scientific arguments, they will keep the article. If they take into account only those who shout louder and are more aggressive, they will delete the article because the user Yakushima throws his ungrounded, as a rule, irrelevant and amateurish accusations with such intensity that nobody will be able to compete with such aggressive ignorance.

However, I would like to show to what low level of discussion Yakushima takes all of those who participate in this discussion. One example: mathematician Martin Davis saw mathematics in Burgin’s works, while Yakushima, admitting that he is not an expert in computing theory (actually, according to his resume, he was not able to get even the lowest degree, BS in computer science), cannot see this mathematics. One more example: Yakushima attacks fuzzy logic, an established mathematical theory with a lot of applications. One more example: in his contribution to the discussion (26 May, 2008), Yakushima suggests to “watch the proposed Turing machine to see if it has halted yet.” It would be interesting to know how Yakushima will watch when the Turing machine will need to do 10 to power 100 steps to halt. Thus, it is not a coincidence that Yakushima cannot understand how inductive Turing machine work and how they solve the halting problem. By the way, what Yakushima writes about the halting problem is also incorrect. It is possible to continue such examples that show complete incompetence of Yakushima, but it’s not worth spending time on such an aggressive ignorance. It’s clear why Yakushima is not interested in a scientific discussion because ignorance detests scholarly discourse. However, it would be interesting to know why Yakushima is so aggressive and searches compromising data on those who he attacks.

What concerns the vote of Pratt to delete the article, it’s very clear why he strives to achieve this. Discussion related to article exposed very low logical proficiency of Pratt. Really, how we can call a person who in one sentence can make three mistakes. So, if the article would be deleted, the discussion also goes away and Pratt can continue to pretend that he is somebody like a logician. Multipundit (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reply before we close out here. Multipundit wonders: "It would be interesting to know how Yakushima will watch when the Turing machine will need to do 10 to power 100 steps to halt." I have actually cooked up some Turing machines in my lab that clock in at well over 1.0e+100 Hz, fast enough for even my gnat-like attention span. However, this speedup requires a special-purpose patent-pending hardware acceleration technique. I was calling it "super-recursive alchemism" in early patent drafts, until my attorney alerted me to a possible litigation risk because of certain similarities to certain other competing concepts, in both my terminology and my obscurantist references to theoretical computer science. For now, my Powerpoint slides call it "ultra-effective comprehensionalism", until I, my lawyer, and numerous Wikipedia meatpuppet allies can get all potential usurpers thoroughly discredited and my own idea established. It's taking a little longer than I thought, though. And that's a pity because I really want to get back to the lab and see how much higher I can crank the clock rate on my improved Turing machines when I stick them in the freezer.

Anyway, Multipundit, please don't tell Mark Burgin what I'm up to, OK? Keep quiet and I'll cut you in on founders stock, and maybe I'll even buy you some recently minted credentials at American Biographical Institute, like he's got. I'll give you even more stock if you can find the proofs for any of the theorems in Burgin's "Superrecursive Features of Interactive Computation". Six theorems but no proofs? If it were one missing proof, I'd say this might have been accidental -- there's many a slip from the cup to the lip, eh? He just copied but neglected to paste. Happens to me all the time. But six times? And only the proofs, nothing else? That's no mere coincidence. He's hiding something, no doubt in my mind. And if I can find out what it is, I might be able to get transfinite clock rates on my Turing machine accelerator. Then I'll be worth billions, and like Gates, Jobs and Wozniak, nobody will care that I never got my BS in CS, because I'll have more BS in CS than anybody else alive. Yakushima (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multipundit and Yakushima, can you please stop the personal attacks against each other or any third persons? Both of you? It's ineffective, and it's against policy. Thank you for your cooperation. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, thanks for pointing out this out -- it helped me see that I've actually said something incorrect and potentially damaging about a third person. This was actually just a factual error on my part, but that's no excuse. Accordingly, I'd like to apologize to this person, right here, and offer a correction. Actually, Steve Wozniak did get a BS in CS, after Apple. How could I have forgotten that? He studied in the same CS department I did (though it was both before and after my time.) Steve, if you're reading this: I'm sorry. Really sorry.

Hi, I have not read the article, so I don't know if it should be deleted or not. I just want to say that this article has been put as an example in the Wikipedia manual of style, and that's how I arrived to it. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Reference_qualification_in_article_text. So either the article remains for the reason of being an example (not judging about the validity of its contents), or a new example should be found for the manual of style. Thanks. Pmronchi (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exar Kun

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

The usual. No reliable third-party sources, and none to be found; notability not established; no real-world context at all; development over the last year or so shows that no one would be interested in improving the article to the barest minimum standards, if that were at all possible. dorftrottel (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Enough third-party sources ([13][14](Free with registration)[15](Free with registration) [16]) exist to keep the article. After I finish casting this !vote, I'll be adding some to the article. And real-world context? According to TheForce.Net, a miniature is being made of him. He's been in video games, so he's had voice actor(s). And as far as no interest being shown in the article, or the article being sloppy? AfD is not Clean-up. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 21:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not Clean-up? What is it, then? dorftrottel (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...pretty much the exact opposite? --Kizor 12:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish production? I don't think so. More like cleaning Wikipedia from rubbish. dorftrottel (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:AFD: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."

An article being poorly-written isn't grounds for deletion. And third-party sources aren't need to verify information in the article. Licensed LucasArts books are, after all, the most sensible place to find facts on a character. None-the-less, the character has been featured in several books and at least one game. In my opinion, that's grounds for notability. Not to mention the sources I provided above. The biggest problem I have with the article is the lack of cited real-world context. Still, this is only reason to improve the article, not delete it. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phatry Derek Pan

Not notable. Fails WP:Creative for his writing. Only one article can be found on google written by him in the "Phnom Penh Post." Last blog entry was 2006. No evidence of him doing any business endeavors that would make him a notable entrepreneur. Candidate for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agiambrone (talk • contribs)


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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Saviours

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

Albums released on non-notable labels (redlinked). Insufficient notability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete the mean robots. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy robots in Sonic the Hedgehog (series)

Enemy robots in Sonic the Hedgehog (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Game guide, non-notable. There is no encyclopedic reason to list this many enemies. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. DurinsBane87 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least the name should be changed if kept. Using (series) in the article implies that there are two or more articles with the title Enemy robots in Sonic the Hedgehog which is not the case here. --76.66.186.203 (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this article turns Wikipedia into an indiscriminate collection of information. And this isn't a guide to a game, so it's not a game guide. This list doesn't appear to contain "strategy guide material" like the {{gameguide}} template says. If someone has not played any games in this series, this article gives them further information about the series. I really don't see how you can say this information is not useful to people who have never played the games. If someone has played the games, they probably already know most of this stuff. And you and the nominator seem to have ignored that this list also contains information on comic book characters. --Pixelface (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOR, WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:FICT or smerge. Too much original research, and too much of a game guide, too few reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jabronie Pictures

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

Page creator removed prod. Subject is about a non-notable independent film studio. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'External Links' on the Jabronie Pictures page has 5 separate articles that verifies the existence of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.95.210 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) --MPerel 17:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Brown (academic)

William E. Brown (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

He's been the president of two private Christian colleges and written a few books that don't seem to have had much impact (at least on Amazon.com). Here's his Cedarville University bio. I don't see him satisfying WP:BIO. However, if the article is kept, it needs to be moved (there's already a William E. Brown). Clarityfiend (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i can see 'being the president of two colleges' is not a criteria on WP:PROF. Can you clarify? --neonwhite user page talk 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, WP:PROF says nothing about this. All I can say that I have seen in several academic-related AfDs in the past the argument that being a university president, or sometimes even a provost, is indicative of being regarded as an "important figure"/"significant expert" and that argument was sort of accepted at the time. I'll try to find links to the actual AfDs where this happened. I know this is a very weak argument, but I don't have a better one at the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is one relevant AfD where this issue came up in the past: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boetsch. Nsk92 (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A poorly closed afd, there were barely any valid comments at all, most were just personal opinion. The bottom line is, to make this subject notable it would require WP:PROF or WP:BIO to be changed and we cant do that here. --neonwhite user page talk 16:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the "Caveats" section of WP:PROF :"Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page." So I'm gonna go with Merge/Redirect to Cedarville University. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:PROF and lacks reliable sources to boot. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two college presidencies, and that takes care of the caveat above. DGG (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While university presidents have been scholars at some point in their career, they are not chosen for academic achievement. Rather, they are the university's chief fundraiser, and are appointed with that in mind. Also, they have to have left the academic track for the administrative track some time ago, usually going through the offices of provost and dean. So, being president of a university does not touch upon any of the criteria of WP:PROF. RJC Talk Contribs 15:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment That is an interesting point. So do we abandon WP:PROF and just default to the general notability guidelines? Beeblbrox (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How, in the Wiki world view, does being a college president not confer notability? So many bad articles that do not belong, yet world famous inventors and college presidents are being discussed as deletables. A contribution to improving the "encyclopedia": improve it. No sarcasm in this post applies to RJC who appears to know of what he/she speaks. --Blechnic (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, your question is the whole reason we are having a debate on the subject. As for the "other bad articles", check this out Beeblbrox (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, we're having a debate because Wikipedia doesn't understand what a college president is? Is that correct? --

Blechnic (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 02:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Swanhaus

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

Does not appear to pass notability guidelines. I can see no significant coverage in reliable sources, looking at google, google news, google scholar & google books. I can see nothing in the article that would suggest it passes guidelines. BelovedFreak 16:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 03:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ljubba

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

Possible hoax. Neither source even mentions Ljubba, and there's no real assertation of notability anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Ah, the vanity article. Considered this one prime for deletion once I saw "16 year old" and "YouTube". treelo talk 23:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Person lacks any notability at present. Appears to be a clear vanity article which was created by the author. see here Artene50 (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The creator and subject of the article, Ljubba, removed the AFD notice from the article at 16:49, 27 May 2008 [17]. A few minutes later I found the article via recent changes and, not seeing the AFD notice, speedily deleted it at 17:04, 27 May 2008 under WP:CSD category A7 for no assertion of notability. Ljubba re-created it and I re-deleted it at 17:06, 27 May 2008. Ljubba had also blanked his talk page, removing the notification of the AFD nomination. Since I was unaware of this AFD, I have restored the article to its status right before I first speedied it, and re-added the AFD template, so the AFD process can run to its conclusion and be properly closed. Edison (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of or claim of WP:notability.Edison (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus but truth be told, as is, this is an A7 speedy. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rockford-Montgomery Labs

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

    No references, no assertion of notability. Hellno2 (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This reference and others similar to it may just be enough to save this article. But this article does need some completion. It does not even have a category, and it probably should be marked as a stub for now until it is finished. I have little familiarity with the topic, so I do not know what category to place it in, but I would like to see this Wikipedia basics filled in before this discussion is closed.Hellno2 (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Wizardman 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Big Band and Jazz Hall of Fame

    Big Band and Jazz Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable award previously published on their website (now defunct) by a non-profit big band jazz orchestra. Rick Block (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 19:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Craig Duncan

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

    Does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Also, potential COI problems: appears to be a self-written article (the YouTube username linked to under "External Links" is the same as the Wikipedia username of the page creator and principal editor). — Lincolnite (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that a PROD tag was placed on the page (and seconded, by me) before being removed. The removal, which was not accompanied by a rationale or any kind of explanation, was the work of the user with the same username as Mr Duncan's YouTube account. — Lincolnite (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 20:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Three Panel Soul

    Three Panel Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Three Panel Soul is not an important webcomic in the grand scheme of webcomics available. I would think this should be deleted from Wikipedia. This is my first edit on Wikipedia so please fix this if I have done it wrong. Thank you, StevenCases (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Keep Not an important webcomic in the grand scheme of webcomics? Is there a textbook on the grand scheme of webcomics? Do we delete Wikipedia articles on webcomics if they aren't important in such a scheme? Sorry, this nomination just strikes me as odd. Sorry if I seem sarcastic, but it seems almost as you think we should delete this article because you don't think the subject is... important? Anyway, I see no reason to delete it unless the notability is challenged, something this AfD hasn't challenged. Sure, it is not an expansive article, but Three Panel Soul is still growing and the article will be expanded in time. --Ifrit (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Strong Keep As per the above, someone deciding that this is "Not important webcomic" is not grounds for deletion. SirBob42 (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete speedily A7, they do YouTube stuff, some web videos. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Smooth Few Films

    Smooth Few Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Does not meet encyclopedic notability standards. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Although I do feel that this article still needs a good amount of work, please clarify your statement. How does this not meet encyclopedic notability standards? A number of respected websites, all listed in the references section, have brought attention to works created by Smooth Few Films. Is the only standard for notability recognition in printed works? Is the issue simply that this article has not been properly referenced? Unsquare (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the standard would be met by the company having produced works notable enough to have gotten mainstream attention from outside the subcommunity. Sourcing is only good enough to provide verifiability - having reliable references does not connote notability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep While I do believe that this has some WP:RS going for it, it also is on shaky grounds in WP:N. This would need to be completely rewritten or reworked, as right now, it is not fit for a Wikipedia, but I believe that if it is completely reworked, then it would definitely be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Razorflame 21:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but I believe that this should not be deleted as the links provided do not just link to the "subcommunity" as it links to gaming websites and the like, whereas if it had just been a subcommunity then all the links would respond to Machinima websites and the like.81.157.65.181 (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the creator of the wikipedia for Smooth Few Films. After re-reading requirements we are well safe. I do believe that we follow all of the guidelines. The links given show our sources. This is a valid and srong topic in the making. I still think it shouldn't be deleted or even be considered to be deleted. We are adding onto it so give us time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainesWorthy (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep (non-admin closure) with notability confirmed via consensus - and I have some nux vomica pellets for those who got heartburn from this discussion! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nelsons (homeopathy)

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

    I have nominated Nelsons (homeopathy) for deletion as it appears to be an advertisement for a non-notable company and its products using poor sources. -- Fyslee / talk 15:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    comment Are you in the UK? I think I've seen their products frequently here, and google news has heard of them, quite a few of these results must be about this company [19]. The AfD tag isn't up is it? A prod tag is up. Sticky Parkin 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it worth noting that the user who nominated the article for deletion appears to have an anti-complimentary medicine belief (reading thier user page) and is therefore likely to have a negative view of the company and its products, which could be an influence on thier view of the article. I don't want to in any way appear to not be assuming good faith, but I think it relevent to the debate. Belief in the effacacy of Homeopathy should not be an influence on whether a particular company in this field is notable. To keep a spirit of fairness going, I'll also mention (and did at the point of article creation) that I work for the company and therefore have a potential conflict of interest. However, as stated there, I don't work in the marketing dept or similar and simply created the page as it seemed worth doing. I did attempt to avoid any commercial bias and I'm keen for other editors to take it over and add to it (including for example the negative but true comments added recently) --ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF. You can strike through the personal attack. The fact that I'm skeptical is why I noticed this (and why I notice any alt med) article, but that has nothing to do with my nomination. It looked like a poorly sourced advertisement using too many primary sources, and in spite of living in Europe for years I had never heard of the company. Boiron is the homeopathic company I think of when it comes to large and well known companies internationally, but I may be wrong. Whatever the case, if this article can be improved using better sources and more neutrally, so it doesn't look like a brochure (the list of products isn't all that necessary), then great. Improvement is always in order. I'm for including all notable subjects, and I've supported, edited, and ensured the inclusion of articles on subjects that I consider to be total nonsense. That's my view on NPOV editing, and I'm still a scientific skeptic ;-) While here, Wikipedia policies override my skepticism when editing. -- Fyslee / talk 05:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I almost edited the comments out altogether shortly after posting them as I do genuinely want to AGF and not make a personal attack, but have seen many examples in the past where a skeptcism over natural medicine is clearly more relevent to an editors perspective than a strict interpretation of wiki rules. Where in Europe do you live? Boiron are by far the biggest Homeopathy company on the continent, but they have hardly any presence in the UK. Conversely Nelsons homeopathy brands don't trade much outside of the UK, most international sales are of Rescue Remedy and the Bach Flower Remedies, the Nelsons name isn't generally known outside the UK though. I think if you google for Rescue Remedy or Bach Original Flower Remedies (Nelsons brand of the generic remedies), you'll find a great many stores selling it as it's a well known brand. You might also want to look for 'NelsonBach', which was a name used for a while a few years ago that is still common in international markets. Alternatively, go to www.boots.com (Boots the Chemists are the largest pharmacy chain in the UK) or www.tesco.com (Tesco are the largest retailer overall in the UK) and search for either Nelsons or Rescue Remedy and you'll get a range of products. Lastly, without wishing to make any assumptions about you or any other editor, if you are a man you are far less likely to be aware of Nelsons products anyway, the target demographic for Rescue Remedy is overwhemingly female and many men have never heard of it while thier partners have a bottle in their handbags. I had never heard of Nelsons before coming to work for them, then discovered my wife already had several of thier products in the medicine cabinet. This is in no way meant to be a sexist comment, its simply the reality of these products.
    Incidentaly, if you live in Germany Rescue Remedy is not available on shelves due to German regulations, but if you ask over the counter many pharmacies will order it for you. This will be changing in the next month or so though as it has been re-classified as a foodstuff and can therefore be openly marketed in Germany for the first time.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that addresses the notabillity issue, the other is how the article is written. When I put it together I quite consciously tried to avoid a promotional tone and in particular left out most claims of effacacy, except where sourced, to try and make it non-advertorial. Most of the copy is about the history of the company and while the sources could be improved I believe they are at least good enough to support notability and the general content. There is an obituary and original article from a leading broadsheet newspaper in the UK (The Daily Telegraph), the results of a clinical trial and for the Bach connection a link to the Bach Centre itself (who are charitable foundation independant of Nelsons, although there is a commercial relationship) who represent the estate of Dr Bach himself. Someone has also just added a link to a negative article from the BBC. For a manufacturing company with a stable of brands, I don't think it unreasonable to include the products as that is what defines the company, especially internationally where the brands are better known than the parent company. e.g. if you look at the article for Kellogg, it has a similar list, as does The Coca-Cola Company. The article could doubtless be improved, but that doesnt mean it should just be deleted. Many articles are put on wikipedia in a less than ideal state then improved over time by multiple editors, thats the essence of most of the article grading systems in wikiprojects. I've held back from doing much more work from concern over COI. It would make far more sense for other editors to step in and do this. In the meantime I've simply tried to put enough content and sources in to keep the article from deletion. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nelsons is a leading company in this field in the UK, with its products sold in all the major supermarket and pharmacy chains in the UK. It also sells products in 60 countries around the world, has also been in business for 160 years and counts a number of celebrities as clients, including the British royal family (until recently it held a royal warrant). I beleive this clearly meets the notabillity criteria. The article was previously put up for speedy deletion, which was turned down by an admin, since then more sources have been added, so it seems strange to nominate it again now. I believe there is a difference between 'could be improved' and 'should be deleted'.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I did a little Google search and came up with "A. Nelson & Co. is Europe's oldest and the UK's largest manufacturer of homeopathic medicines." from Hoovers.[1]. That seems enough to establish notability. I do think the article is still a little too much of an advertisement ... short on history and long on list of products. But as noted above, needing improvement is different from needing deletion. --Mbilitatu (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have more sources I could add for the history, e.g. I recently came acrosss a printed article from the London Times published in around 1870, but I haven't had the time to dig out all the details for a cite (you cant exactly hyperlink to it!). However, I have tried to back off from editing the article recently as I want to try and get away from COI issues. To this end I've posted a request for assistance on the Alternative Medicine portal.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I beleive that if you search the BBC website you can find the original Newsnight article on this, which I think would be a primary source, rather than the Jamaca observer article which is a secondary since they copied from the BBC. I am trying to avoid editing the article at the moment to minimise the COI perspective here. Not to mention my colleagues wont thank me for bringing that out again--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Hoovers description of Nelsons


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ljubiša Bojić

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

    Not notable per WP:BIO - all the top Ghits are either to here or to the persons various blogs and social networking accounts. Kelly hi! 14:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep (non-admin closure) --MPerel 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Emma Wilson

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

    Not notable and plagued by additions of inappropriate personal details. Deletion requested by the subject. Fred Talk 13:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. An academic with only five published papers in 10 years? She needs to pull her finger out ... (sorry, bad joke that backfired). Seriously, notability not established. Wikipedia is beyond listing every university reader. WWGB (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Nothing here but daughter of a notable author. Fred Talk 13:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely Delete. Non notable, and I understand she has personally requested the article to be removed. Poor thing, what has she done to deserve crass comments like WWGB's above? --woggly (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Five books rather than five published papers. The article's references include three reviews for Cinema's Missing Children, so I think notability as an author is established. --Eastmain (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep She is the daughter of so-and-so? That's an inappropriate personal detail? The personal details in any version of this article I can see are the level of "Who's who" and well below any real biography. I assume the subject requested by OTRS to have it removed? All I see on the page is your everyday vandal, messing with URLs. She's head of a department, has five books, clearly makes notability requirements.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep She is a published author in her own right, not simply the daughter of one. Plenty of RS here LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The fact that her mother is Jacqueline Wilson is little more than trivia in this article. Her notability is established as a reader at the University of Cambridge, and through being an academic with published works. Passes WP:BIO. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep She is an established secondary writer on French literature and film whose work has been recognised to be of enough value to award her a readership at Cambridge.Halfleft9843759 (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Agree with what's written above: she's an author and should be treated as such. By the way, there's nothing wrong with mentioning her parents; any serious biography, if possible, would at least mention the parents of any person listed. Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment -- general issue here about BLP policy: does an article which is borderline for notability become more notable because of the biographical fact of the prominence of the subject's mother? OR, does that fact raise the bar for notability, because of a duty of care to to protect LPs from unwarranted intrusion? --mervyn (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If we start paying attention to the [preferenes of notable academics we will end up with articles from preferentially those with a certain degree of vanity self-importance-- but the modest ones are equally notable. DGG (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- I didn't see anything derogatory in the article. I think DGG makes a good point about notable academics. Could those who claim to have knowledge of her request to be delisted fill us in on whether there is a good reason for this request? Has there been a stalker? If those who say she requested deletion can't confirm the assertion, and the reasons, I'll change to "Keep". Geo Swan (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete all three. Singularity 03:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jaypee Sotto

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

    I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar concerns - unreferenced and unable to establish notability:

    Vanessa Sotto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Imelda Salvador (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 delete all three. Singularity 03:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Imelda Salvador

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

    I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar concerns - unreferenced and unable to establish notability:

    Vanessa Sotto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Jaypee Sotto (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 delete. Singularity 02:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gousgounis Nikolaos

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

    Resume-like article about an aparrently non-notable academic. Google gives two hits, and they appear to be about an unrelated chess contest (one definitely is; the other is in Greek and appears to be). Ros0709 (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I hate to say it . . . but it's all Greek to me. Wow, what an ugly article. He appears to be a jack of all academic trades without ever having become notable for any of them. I love the part about halfway down where he finally admits what his "actual interests" are. And then, tsk tsk, the improvement tags were removed, and more of this same poor sausage kept being ground out. Thank God for AfD! Qworty (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very Weak Keep While the article is awful and does not reference anything online. He has an awful lot of publications in print, the problem is they are mostly in Greek. Im not sure this belongs in the English wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Personal resume. I can't find any evidence that it satisfies WP:Prof. Most academics have a publication history, but this doesn't guarantee notability. Even if someone could come up with an argument keep this would still have to be recreated from scratch. Arguably a candidate for CSD A7 since it doesn't really assert... well, anything as far as I can tell. Debate (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Doesn't appear to have done anything of note; "γουσγουνισ νικολαος" returns no hits at all on Google, Greek Google, Google Scholar, or Google Books. Wish I could get at JSTOR to "make assurance double sure." AnturiaethwrTalk 12:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Zero hits on JSTOR even after trying several alternative spellings. Debate (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Good for you for trying to search in Greek, unfortunately you got the spelling wrong, it's "Γουσγούνης". But even so, nothing terribly noteworthy except a few references to articles etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. Singularity 03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Troy Blacklaws

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

    This man is not related to any wikipedia article. Are they trying to play a fool? Hellboy2hell (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing my vote to keep: the rewrite by Bilby has removed the copyvio problems, and I think has also done enough to establish notability. Scog (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Guest9999 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alfa Romeo 33 Carabo

    Alfa Romeo 33 Carabo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Can you really belive this article? No, if you don't have sources, proof and/or evidence. The author of this article maybe think we are gullable Hellboy2hell (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comment - Not sure if it needs its own page but the details appear authentic [25] - should it maybe just have a request for references instead?-Hunting dog (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    • Speedy Keep - After making the comment - realised the page was added for deletion about 3 mins after it was created! Think author needs more time possibly and some friendly help not this -Hunting dog (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Singularity 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tommy Wang

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

    Non-notable poker player, fails WP:N and WP:BIO. –– Lid(Talk) 09:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kathy Kolberg

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

    Non-notable poker player, only claim to notability is via being the daughter of famous poker player Jack Keller –– Lid(Talk) 09:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker


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

    The result was delete. As there were also some merge votes, the content can be restored (for merging purposes only) once a clearer consensus for a merger is demonstrated.  Sandstein  19:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Allopathic usage controversy

    Allopathic usage controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    POV fork of Allopathic medicine and Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. User:Hopping is pushing for the inclusion of this poorly defined and derogatory term in various articles, and is not entering into discussion. This page gives undue weight to this supposed controversy, which is non-notable and pushed by very few. The cherry picking of sources is a problem here. The material in this article is already presented in Allopathic medicine and Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. I feel this page is a bit WP:POINTy, and fails WP:NPOV (WP:WEIGHT,WP:FRINGE). I hope I've brought this to the right place. A prod is no good as Hopping will simply remove it. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking through Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline and Wikipedia:DEL#REASON, this content seems to meet the criteria for permitting this content to stay. Wikipedia is not used as a source, as far as I can see. Perhaps the article should be moved to a less contentious title, like Allopathic usage debate? It may be a stub, but the material that is there is sources reliably as per WP:RS. Bryan Hopping T 14:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    comment The usage information should stay, but in a much reduced form in the Allopathic Medicine article - as it is already. I fully agree with users Fyslee and RogueNinja. Fyslee sums up the situation quite succinctly - there is no controversy, nor debate, just a small minority who (mis?)use this term. (As the nom, I'm for delete by the way.) SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I think its worth considering the academic, technical nature of this term. A few examples of the usage of this term follow:
    "Applicant - a person who has applied to one of the US Allopathic Medical Schools."
    Bryan Hopping T 19:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cecilia Reyes Mortensen (2nd nomination)

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

    Previous discussion defaulted to keep due to no consensus however nothing seems to have changed. Most of the notability for the article is derived from being the ex-wife of Carlos Mortensen and, due to notability not being inheritted, the rest of the article fails WP:N and WP:BIO –– Lid(Talk) 09:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. It's not in the cards for this high-stakes article that's tried to bluff its way into an inside-straight on Wikipedia. You gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, and it's definitely time to throw this hand into the discard pile. In other words, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO, WP:N, heck I'll even throw in WP:ATHLETE, since poker is a "sport." Qworty (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the same arguments as were made in the first nomination. She's competed in the highest level of her sport. Pburka (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Poker tournaments are open events with hundreds and thousands of participants, simply "competing" is not a sign of notability as literally as long as you have the money you are allowed in. This is especially true of the WSOP ME, which I am assuming you are using as the basis, which consistantly has over 5000 participants every year. We can not make a page for every person who finishes in the top five hundred, hundred, fifty, or even ten of the event because simply put there is more to notability than "competing" in poker. –– Lid(Talk) 12:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Withdrawing vote in light of Balloonman's comments. Pburka (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Being part of a five thousand-person contest is not considered "competing at the highest level" that WP:ATHLETE (I know playing poker isn't an athletic sport, but you get my point) requires. She hasn't recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. Subsequent to the previous AFD, discussions occured at both the Wiki Poker Project and at WP:N talk pages, the point of which is, WP:ATHLETE does NOT apply to poker. The criteria for poker players similar to the athletes on is: either a World Series of Poker championship or a member of Poker Hall of Fame. She has neither, so she simply needs to meet the coverage in indepent sources threshold, and while she may be close, she doesn't have the coverage via profiles or her-focused news stories. 2005 (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker

    • Delete or better redirect to Carlosdoes not meet notability by a mile. For those who believe that her mere participation in a tournament establishes notability, please pay attention to the footnote that was added: 8. Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc. Also, while not an official policy/guideline, the poker project doesn't believe mere participation (even winning) of minor tournaments to be inherently notableBalloonman (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Wolfe (poker player)

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

    Non-notable player, fails WP:N and WP:BIO –– Lid(Talk) 09:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete For a poker player with moderately large winnings, its strange the only reference to him is a single winnings tally site. Doesn't appear to be notable at present. Artene50 (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Paul Wolfe is a Full Tilt Pro, a sponsored professional on the site Full Tilt Poker a major online poker company doesn't sponsor just anyone. this is his profile▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 10:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Full Tilt sponsors many professionals, and many of them simply aren't notable players apart from the fact that they are sponsored. Paul Wolfe seems to fall into this category with meager results and nothing to illustrate notability in his own performance. –– Lid(Talk) 10:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree, the fact that a highly successful online poker company sponsors him does speak to his significance, it is not just a dime a dozen if you receive sponsorship from a top online site like FTP this does speaks to notability of the subject.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 10:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (de-indent)Not all poker are freeze out tournaments, so not all their sponsored players will have tournament results, while its true that high stake cash game players like Cole South won't get the type of publicity as a live tournament professional players there are other factor namely being a part of team cardrunners which is the official training service of full tilt poker, I've also notice that reports of high-states ring games are becoming more common, there was a recent mention due to a sizable lost to David Benyamine, after losing a single $132,000 pot.[26]. anyway I do believe when a multi-million dollar company sponsors you it does speaks to a part of a persons significants after all these things are not done arbitrary by these companies.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 13:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Full Tilt Poker is a company the same as any other multi-million dollar company, and they have employees in this case poker players. Each employee is not notable simply for working inside the organisation. Now if that argument does not sway I'll try a closer one, sponsorship for race car drivers: some drivers are not notable and have not accomplished a significant amount on the circuit however they usually, always, have sponsorship deals. These deals do not make them notable, their performance on the track does. This can be extended to any sport, but the end result I keep coming to is that the person needs to be notable, not the larger body they are a part of. –– Lid(Talk) 13:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed... and there are numerous poker aspiring racecar drivers and or other professionals in different sports/competitions that aren't notable but rely on sponsorship. Sponsorship doesn't equate to current notability---it is often attaching one's company's name to a person in hopes that they become notable. Plus, to establish notability, coverage needs to come from an independent source---separate from the sponsor's cite. Using Full Tilt to establish the notability of a Full Tilt Pro, is NOT independent---it is a clear COI issue.Balloonman (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    a refined news search give hits , here is one from pokernews [27]▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 02:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is one, and there are two other small profiles on him, so a case can be made for a keep, but it's very marginal. Given his stature for those articles revolves around tournament poker, and that he has not made a final table in four years, I'd say that would tilt the marginaliness to delete rather than keep. 2005 (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also say that a single interview that doesn't claim any real notability of the candidate is no more notable than somebody interviewing a random poker player at the WSOP.Balloonman (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Maybe a tree has fallen in the poker forest, but nobody heard it. From his winnings and the lack of claims, apparently he hasn't won a major tournament. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Doesn't meet bio notability requirments, very little tertiary comments even. Also, and importantly, being a Full Tilt pro (or sponsored by any cardroom) is not a WP:POKER criteria for an article. 2005 (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker

    • Delete does not meet notability by a mile. For those who believe that his mere participation in a tournament establishes notability, please pay attention to the footnote that was added: 8. Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc. Also, while not an official policy/guideline, the Wikiproject Poker has addressed the issue of people who are notable on an individual poker site, per the project, On-line poker players must be able to establish notability independent of the poker sites they play on and sites that simply track online results. This would go for the individuals that are sponsored by the sites as well. Having a sponsor does not equate to notability. There are plenty of aspiring racecar drivers who have 'sponsors' but are not notable. Balloonman (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Wizardman 20:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retroactiv

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

    Non notable local club night... notability claim appears to come from the coverage in a local weekly free paper. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 09:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY. In plain English, there's a strong concensus to keep, and the article has been significantly improved since the nomination, thereby removing the nominator's basis for deletion (non-admin). brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Teeswater (sheep)

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

    This article has no verifiable sources. In addition to that, its text is in a form NOT like encyclopedia terms. Hellboy2hell (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I've now edited info and those references in -Hunting dog (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep for now but another AfD in 3 months is so strongly suggested, there is nothing here to see. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Australian Mafia

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

    Is there any such group as the "Australian Mafia" or is this just a term used to lump a series of criminal groups linked by nothing more than hand waving reference to the Italian ancestry of some of their members? How reliable a source is the "Gangsters Encyclopedia"? Mattinbgn\talk 08:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dunno, this could be real. It gives a reference: "Gangsters Encyclopedia" unfortunately the book isn't apparently scanned by Google and it's not in a library near me. The term gets a few google results but maybe a third are seriously in reference to any kind of criminal conspiracy. If this article is deleted we should maybe look at the two crews mentioned in this article, they use the same reference. --Rividian (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Oggle is the very last place id ever go for this - http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Search/Home?lookfor=mafia+in+australia&type=all&filter%5B%5D=&submit=Find would suggest about 4 to 5 books either written on the subject or referring to the subject with the word of the phenomenon in the title - however the creator of the article by over-relying on one source leads it into the Xfd territory - I would not argue for retention of this article unless someone could find the bits in the books that could be tied in - as it stands it cannot stand on a leg - tie in bob bottom and the others who use the term in their titles - it would have legs to walk away from xfd SatuSuro 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- I did some work on the 'Ndrangheta article. I know it is a world-wide phenomenon. that there is an Australian connection seems entirely credible to me. More sources would be good. This article is less than a week old. Let's give the contributors some time to find the sources. Geo Swan (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's important to distinguish between organized crime, which is a general sort of crime that certainly exists in Australia, and mafia, which is a specific organization and for I'd prefer we get some better sources to confirm it has a presence in Australia. Waiting is acceptable since crime articles can be he hard to research... but they do need to appear at some point. --Rividian (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- The Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking (Woodward Royal Commission) is a strong enough reason, even in the case of lack of proof of the existence of the Mafia in Australia (as opposed to Italian criminal groups).dinghy (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Singularity 03:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Crucifixion

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

    Non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Delete Undeath (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). --MPerel 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger Award

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

    No sources apart from fringe organizations which created the award and their press releases on Scoop. John Nevard (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep, coverage in mainsteam press such as The Press [28].-gadfium 08:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, obviously a search for the two common words 'roger' and 'award' is going to return a whole bunch of irrelevant results. Search for "roger award", and among the few thousand you might find the occasional site that actually has something to do with it. John Nevard (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Singularity 03:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Twam

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

    Non notable Neologism. I tried writing a section on Twitter referencing this term for the merge...but it sounds forced for now. If this term comes into general use, we can always add it to the article...just not yet. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete these OR stubs for now redirect. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Luv Addict

    Luv Addict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Whatcha Gonna' Do With It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Replace Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Kountry Gentleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Non notable singles. per WP:Music

    Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Result : Speedily deleted - blatant advertising of a non-notable company. GBT/C 07:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Activo

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

    Not notable, created by the VP/Sales & Marketing purely for promotional purposes. See Talk:Activo. ~ akendall 06:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I am not sure I need it to be notable as Oracle, or A&W Rootbeer. It is a site of interest to a limited audience. I noted these examples to solicit an opinion on why these are permitted vs. mine which is somehow violating an AUP?

    Luigi.calabrese (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Singularity 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Olive Branch University of Peace & Reconciliation

    AfDs for this article:
    Olive Branch University of Peace & Reconciliation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not notable, no WP:V sources. SEWilco (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

    Magibon

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

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

    • Weak delete I'd say it's amazing how the Japanese flew her to Japan just because she said she wanted to go, and how she has gained a certain amount of notoriety in Japan (though how much seems unverifiable at this time). However, per WP:ENTERTAINER the only thing that would be there to assert notability would be the "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" which she may have as the article tries to assert, but as I said it doesn't seem like that can be verified with reliable third-party sources, and some coverage by a single TV station is not enough to assert notability on it's own.--十八 01:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep I think that all of this attention, including flying her out, and popularity of her online media/website/etc (millions) is evidence of a cult following. She's probably more well known to Japanese people than Americans, which is why so many people haven't heard of her, here. Can anyone look into more articles in Japanese and summarize them in English? One good source of media and links is this ED article (because of blacklisting I can't link directly: www.encyclopediadramatica.com / MRirian) --the website is satire in nature, but in this case, it provides helpful links, videos (including broadcast TV appearances and the internet TV appearances) and a list of factual information. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) --MPerel 23:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of people in Playboy 1990-1999

    List of people in Playboy 1990-1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Wikipeadia is not simply a collection of lists. Plus people are not notable just for having been in playboy. JeanLatore (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Further to the above, this is not an instance where Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people applies since this is not a stand alone list but a list based on magazine content. In any case, the vast majority of names are blue links and therefore prima facie notable. Debate (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional Comment After having his articles, such as Anal Sex with Sluts, deleted, the nom. is clearly trying to make a WP:Point and this afd is simply disruptive. To avoid wasting other editor's time this is a clear Speedy Keep. Debate (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The other lists also exist. (See "See Also" at the bottom of this article page.) They've no doubt been split to reduce the side of the individual pages. Debate (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, I know. My question was to the nominator of this AFD. I'm sorry if my question was unclear. Dismas|(talk) 04:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I think we've answered your question per my additional comment above. :^) Debate (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Indeed, thank you. Dismas|(talk) 20:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Merge and redirect to Grants/Cibola County Schools. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mesa View Elementary School

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

    Contested PROD, no reason given. Non-notable elementary school. No references whatsoever, not even a school official website. Absolutely, positively no indication of why this school is anything more than just an ordinary elementary school. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Original research essay; Wikipedia is not a pulpit.  Sandstein  19:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seventh Trumpet Rapture

    Seventh Trumpet Rapture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is about a non-notable interpretation of the Rapture, an event in Christian eschatology where adherents hold that God will take His church home to heaven prior to the end of the world. There are four or five mainline interpretations of when the rapture will occur - you can read about them at Rapture#Views_on_the_timing_of_the_rapture.

    The "Seventh Trumpet Rapture" is not a mainline view or anything I had ever even heard of. From googling, I found http://home.nww.net/jamesu/ which most of the other pages seem to be crediting as the source of this doctrine. While it is not Wikipedia's place to be a judge of religious truth, it is our place to only publish notable theories with external reliable references.

    Two of the google hits are to google books that use the term, but both of them make it clear that they are talking about a post-tribulation rapture and not talking about some different doctrine.

    The article is written from a position of advocating this theology and is nothing resembling neutral. -- B (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Singularity 03:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Princes Keep It Real

    Princes Keep It Real (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable album by non notable artist. No sources, and a Google search for this album only returns a recently deleted Wikipedia article. The artist's article, David Early, has been speedily deleted once and likely will be deleted again soon. TheMile (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Singularity 04:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The music surgeon

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

    Contested PROD. Audio engineer, only reference provided can't be checked for verifiability, of the 5 ghits when searching on "The music surgeon" with his name, two of them are Wikipedia. Delete. Roleplayer (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Singularity 03:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Labotkin

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

    Non-notable. Looks like vanity. Creator removed prod ccwaters (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Merge, as suggested by some, is not a practical option since all non-OR content seems to be already present in the parent article anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pillar System

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

    Nonnotable fictional element in a manga. Articles is mostly repetition of plot, written with in-universe style. NickPenguin(contribs) 02:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete both. Singularity 02:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Liz Colville

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

    Also nominating Liz Colville (vanity).

    Orphaned article for a nonnotable blogger. Only ghits are stuff she's written and a handful of other blips on the radar. NickPenguin(contribs) 02:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This article described a hypothetical weather phenomenon called a "hypercane". Although there are several references, they all source the same 1995 paper from an MIT professor. The idea hasn't been the subject of additional academic publication or investigation, and I suggest that this is more original research than encyclopedic. I move to delete based on WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS.

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

    The result was delete. Singularity 03:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vedran Knezović

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

    Knezović is not listed on the website of HŠK Zrinjski, and Google yields only 12 hits. The only hit about a football player named Vedran Knezović is this Wikipedia article. That is very, very little for a professional football player and youth international. I'm tempted to say hoax, but I'll assume good faith and call the article completely unverifiable. AecisBrievenbus 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was No consensus. Evaluation is divided evenly (even on a numerical count) between deleting and keeping or keeping in some form such as merging/redirecting/rewriting. The debate has not been made easy by the fact that this is a current event, and the unusual nature of a "hoax", which has achieved international press mention and can be seen instead as a "fiction". Obviously the article in its initial state was not valid, but that has also changed since the AfD began. There is a merge proposal in place on the article, and that may be the best way to go for now to resolve the issue. Ty 00:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander Stanhope St. George

    Alexander Stanhope St. George (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Alleged inventor of a telectroscope. The two links which do work do little to confirm and the link to a book by Likopoulos, A. does not work, which is strange given that the article was written by A Likopoulos. An earlier version of this article was deleted as an hoax. One of its contributors was Paulstgeorge who is almost certainly the Paul St George in this blog]. In this posting he has the cheek to pretend that the Wikipedia article which he and A Likopoulos created validates his hoax. -- RHaworth (Talk

    All I can find is this NYTimes article; [29] Nk.sheridan   Talk 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The aforementioned Times link states explicetly that this is a hoax. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I opened an ANI thread about this issue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article is full of lies, per the New York Times, and the real St. George simply is not notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - plenty of substantive mentions in reliable sources[30] establish motability. St. George's telectroscope is a notable thing, and a well-covered example was just installed as an art project. So it is clearly not a hoax article. The question is whether the artist's great grandfather, and his claimed invention, are fictitious or apocryphal. They seem to be. Fictitious and hoax are two different things. Assuming the Times is right (we cannot take this for granted), Alexander Stanhope St. George is a fictionalized version of the artist's grandfather, Alexander St. George, a tailor. Not all famous apocryphal ancestors of famous creative people are notable. Some are -- for example, see Kunta Kinte. A S St. G is not as notable as Kunta Kinte to be sure, but he does have lots of significant mentions in reliable independent secondary sources. If we do keep it, all we have to do is rephrase the article in objective terms rather than in-world terms. Wikidemo (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it is a notable apocryphal character, like Kunta Kinte or all the people on our List of fictitious people. Wikidemo (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See comments below: Unlike Kunta Kinte, he has no notability as a fictitious person. The converage that he has recieved has been coverage as a real person. Therefore, making an article about his fictitiousness is Original Research. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite OR but I see your point. I agree that a merge and redirect (plus refactoring it to cover it as a hoax) is the most encyclopedic way to handle the material until and unless he starts taking on a notable life of his own, so to speak. Wikidemo (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete certainly as fact: [31] says it is an art hoax and subject of the article is fictional, and that fact that it appears here doesn't give me much confidence. If it's to be kept as fact, much more reliable sources are necessary; however, as a hoax, it is well-documented enough to be an article as such. --Rodhullandemu 01:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opinion as it is written the article is either a hoax attempting to present a fictional story (and establish hoax) as reality or an article on such a story that does not establish its fictional status. In practise there is no difference apart from the intent. If an article is created on the related work/installation which has received a substantial amount of news coverage I think that it would be appropriate to merge in the information in this article in some form - with sufficient context provided from reliable sources to establish its fictional/real world hoax status. As a real life hoax or fictitious happening I do not think the subject meets the inclusion criteria but given the correct context I think some of the content might be appropriate elsewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No reference on google books. Name is a combination of Alexander (Graham Bell)- Stanhope (inventor)- (Paul) St George. Other Victorian/Edwardian inventors such as Sir Oliver Lodge show up immediately on google books. A poorly written, anachronistic hoax. Mathsci (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and rewrite as a hoax. given the story in the NYT, it is sufficient notability. The article there is a sufficiently RS. (Essentially, I agree with Guest--the present article is unsupportable, but another one is possible. Someone should just rewrite it. I dont have the energy right now, unfortunately. DGG (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG: I hope you regain your energy, but use it for a better purpose. One New York Times article, that mentiones this hoax in passing, doesn't make it a notable hoax. Although plenty of reliable sources fell for the hoax, the story about the hoax hasn't recieved substantial coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, you're kidding, right? Do you propose that any time the NYT mentions something in an article, it is worth its own article here? The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...plus the Observer, and the Times of London, and the New York Post, and The Scotsman, plus a couple dozen other news sources.[32] Wikidemo (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikimodo: The problem is that you wish to make an article about the apocryphal character - Alexander Stanhope St. George. There's no substantial coverage about the apocryphal character Alexander Stanhope St. George. The New York Times only mentions this apocryphal character in passsing. The links that you provide discuss him as a real person, which has now been established as a hoax. So it seems that you are stuck. If you want an article about the real person, you have a hoax. If you want an article about the apocryphal character, you don't have substantial coverage about the apocryphal character. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, true. The character is just part of the performance - he hasn't taken on much significance on his own.Wikidemo (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I left a note to that effect on the person's talk page. It turns out it is a long-time administrator who deleted the article before and who one would expect to follow AfD procedures a little better than that. I would have simply reverted. At any rate I've made some modifications to make more clear that it is a fictitious / fabricated character. It looks like the result will be a redirect and merge, something one can do whatever the outcome here. All the same I would download and save a copy of the article in its most complete form just in case. Wikidemo (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I blanked a version that was universally agreed here to be a blatant hoax article, being actively used for PR purposes for the benefit of the article creator. We should WP:DENY hoaxers the benefit of such free PR during the course of an AfD. Now, if you want to write an article about "Alexander Stanhope St. George" as a "fictional character", I think that is a strange idea, but it is not against policy to do so until the AfD is ended. When I blanked the version, there was no other previous version that was not a blatant hoax article, so there was nothing else to "revert" to.--Pharos (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy is one possible outcome to an AfD, and clearly not going to happen. Your arguments are legitimate, and other people's arguments are legitimate too. Taking matters into your own hands during an AfD to impose an outcome that doesn't seem to be getting consensus contentious is indeed a contentious. It undermines AfD process. I think it's pretty clear at this point that the article will or should be deleted, that this does not preclude from adding the material in sourced, appropriate form to the article about the artist or the art installation. There also doesn't seem to be enough support to warrant the unusual step of salting a redirect, so there is nothing to prevent that. That does not reward anyone for vandalism, it restores things to how they should be. If a person is misbehaving here that is a separate matter and he can be blocked, banned, etc. Or, how about simply asking him not to do it again and seeing if he will agree? Wikidemo (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - don't like DGG's suggestion. This does not pass sniff test for own article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete When one of the supporting sources says "I believe in the Telectroscope" I start to think it's more likely a faux religion than a science. In my opinion no notability as a hoax whatsoever. Orderinchaos 05:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Merge and redirect. Reporting from London here.;-) The device, the artist Paul St. George, and his wacky story about his grandfather discovering the beginnings of the tunnel on some island in the middle of the Atlantic "possibly dug to entomb French prisoners of war, or as routes for escaping slaves" have received enormous coverage, including the BBC television news, and in the mainstream press e.g.[33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. It's obviously gone all over the world too. [39]. The hoax (and the Wikipedia article) is part of the 'performance'. Incidentally, The Guardian reviews the "telectroscope" in the Theatre section. The hoax (original press release came out on April 1st) is obviously part of the publicity too. That said, better to write an article on Paul St. George (who really is notable), incorporate the material on the hoax into it, and redirect Alexander Stanhope St. George to his "grandson's" article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, re-writing and merging the information about the installation and the fanciful Alexander Stanhope St. George with Telectroscope and redirecting his article is probably the way to go. I agree with Colonel Warden re the notability (and fabness) of the project. Yesterday BBC Television News was describing it as a rival to The London Eye. If it weren't pouring down with rain today, I'd go photograph it for the Telectroscope article. Voceditenore (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The weather forecasters correctly predicted this and so I anticipated you and have uploaded photos already. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went to take my pix during that lull in the rain on Sunday afternoon - no sun tho' so yours are better...Zir (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm changing back to delete with no redirect because there really isn't much to merge from this article, apart from the chap's name which is now mentioned in passing in the telectroscope article. This invented 'grandfather' of Paul St. George is not really notable as a hoax per se and it's currently impossible to reliably and definitively reference the contention that it's a hoax, although we all know it is. All the press articles are of the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" variety and analyzing the style of the drawings etc. would be original research. And the more I think about it, the more I agree with the views expressed by Pharos, JohnCD, and others that deliberately publishing a hoax article to Wikipedia as part of a well-planned and calculated publicity campaign should not be be rewarded. Voceditenore (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep/merge I went to take a look at NY through the telectroscope yesterday and it is certainly real and notable. This article seems to describe a notable semi-fictional character who plays a significant part in this fine piece of installation art. At the very least, the name should be kept as a redirect to another article as it is a useful search term and so deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete. Non-notable hoax. MilkFloat 08:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete. This article is a hoax by an author with a COI trying to put false information ("recognized in many parts of the world as the inventor of the only Telectroscope that would have worked") into Wikipedia as part of a larger hoax for an "art" project. It should go, preferably speedy G3. Whether the larger "art" hoax is worth an article by someone without a COI is another question. In my opinion it is too silly - transatlantic tunnels, forsooth! - but if we do, I think Voceditenore's suggestion is best. JohnCD (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Telectroscope, we should keep the article history around in order to cite it as a notable hoax entry, like this link from the present Lustfaust. <eleland/talkedits> 09:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Telectroscope, which, silly or not, is certainly a notable piece of installation art, having received international coverage. And mention Paul St. George's backstory about his grandfather there per Voceditenore; it's a nice tale, but nearly all the coverage seems to treat his alleged grandfather as a footnote in the story of the artwork. However, as a plausible search term it should certainly redirect somewhere. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 10:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Keep If anything's a deletable hoax, it's this Afd. Obviously notable and encyclopedic article (send this AfD to the trashbin). --Firefly322 (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment We have to be clear that the article under discussion here (Alexander Stanhope St. George) is almost undoubtedly a hoax, concocted by the artist, Paul St. George as part of the London/New York art installation, The Telectroscope. Paul St. George is real, as is the art installation. The question is what do we do with this article. At this point, it's quite hard to find published sources which unequivocally state that it's a hoax, although it's pretty strongly implied in this article in The Scotsman[40] and this one in The Times[41]. If you look at the drawings allegedly by Alexander Stanhope St. George and allegedly found in St. George family's attic, it's pretty obvious they're faked. See [42]. But for Wikipedia to say that based on the style of the drawings, which although charming, is not Victorian, would be original research. So do we keep this as a separate article and state that's probably a hoax or re-direct it to the telectroscope article? Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Voceditenore asks, what do we do with this article. We delete it, maybe leaving a redirect, because (1) it makes claims - "Alexander Stanhope St George is most famous for creating the Telectroscope... Alexander Stanhope St George is widely recognized in many parts of the world as the inventor of the only Telectroscope that would have worked." - which are not backed up by any reliable source, and because (2) it seems clear that it was created as part of the larger hoax or "art installation", and we should resist Wikipedia being used like that. The article about the larger hoax could mention that, to support it, a hoax WP article was created, but was promptly detected. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. This sketch from the same website is also odd in many ways. According to the publicity for this Installation art, the fictitious ASSG visited New York in 1884, before the Statue of Liberty had been assembled (1886) and while the 15 star American Flag was still in use. The style of the drawing seems to be a cross between Thomas Rowlandson and Edward Ardizzone. Mathsci (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete as cut and paste copyvio nancy (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eastbourne Group

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

    Contested prod. After extensive searching, I can find no indication of the notability of this local artists' organization. Only primary sources are provided, thus it fails WP:ORG. Google News Archive and Google Books results exist but are trivial in nature (CVs, for instance). If any of its artist membership has become notable (and notability is not transitive), I can't find that either. Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Yes! It's an exact copy. Just tagged it with a G12. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Wizardman 20:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom kha pladuk

    Tom kha pladuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Likely non-notable food dish. A Google search for "tom kha pladuk" leaves 65 non-duplicated results once you go to the last page, and a search for ต้มข่าปลาดุก returns 6 results compared to ต้มข่าไก่'s 27,300. Paul_012 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • That seems to be a Google error; when including multiple search terms the exact phrase search is mistranslated as separate words. Take a look at the results in cached mode. I'll try to bring this to their attention. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. If so, the dearth of Thai hits seems to indicate that this is a rare, oddball variation on a standard recipe, something like "Catfish chowder." Although I would like input from Thai Wikipedians first, I am leaning toward your view on this. Badagnani (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • relisting I note that WikiProject Thailand was warned by the nominator immediatelly after the above keep comment, so we actually don't have enough here to reach any conclusion (as that keep is actually void now). Giving this a few more days wont hurt and may help - Nabla (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki and delete Non notable food dish to have it's own article. Not enough coverage in independent sources. I do believe there is a wiki that is dedicated to foods...(also there is a wiki about recipes too...) Undeath (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was redirect to Terms of Endearment (film). Singularity 03:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Emma Greenway Horton

    Emma Greenway Horton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    character in a book; not important enough for her own page. delete. Ironholds (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_25&oldid=1081072852"