Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< May 2 May 4 >

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. Waggers (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Smith

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

Of the two sources, one is self-published and the other is just a list of gigs. Hence, fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. This article needs multiple, reliable, independent sources, and doesn't have them. Rodhullandemu 23:44, 3 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. Tiptoety talk 04:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demo 2 (Nightrage demo)

Demo 2 (Nightrage demo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Demo albums generally fail WP:MUSIC#Albums. PROD was contested back in November. B. Wolterding (talk) 23:09, 3 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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Jung

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

Listed with maintenance tags for references and notability, prodded by me on the grounds that no attention paid to the notability tag, prod and maintenance tags removed by unregistered editor without any improvement. Only edit by article's starter, so probably fails WP:COI Richhoncho (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Tiptoety talk 04:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to comply with WP:Bio#Creative_professionals. Evidence of output is not evidence of notability. A journalist, by the nature of his or her profession, will have a volume of material out there in the public realm and may therefore generate significant Google hits. Nonetheless, Google hits alone are not evidence of notability. Debate (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, fails notability, agree with Debate --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:20, 8 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. Tiptoety talk 04:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Nine Kills

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

Here per request of editor responding to request at AfC. Has some sources but may not be reliable enough to pass WP:MUSIC. So, after he put {{hangon}} and myself and another user discussed it with him, we agreed to take it here and let the community decide. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 3 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 per nominator's rationale, and consensus to follow. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demo 1

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

It seems a bit ridiculous to bring these demo albums to AfD, since they clearly fail WP:MUSIC#Albums. But at least the first one is a contested PROD (recreated after deletion), so it needs to go here. The band itself barely passes the notability criteria.

I also nominate the other demo albums of this band; the sources they refer to (if any) are the band's web page and private websites.

--B. Wolterding (talk) 22:56, 3 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 Withdrawn by nom. — iridescent 19:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cattle Health Initiative

Cattle Health Initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If ever there was an "indescernable or unclassifiable topic", this is it. I'm not at all sure what this is, but I'm sure it doesn't belong here. — iridescent 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE This article was significantly rewritten and documented after the AfD -- it was a hopeless mess when nominated. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete No context, but probably not quite enough for a speedy. I'd say this is most likely the work of a confused n00b who doesn't know that much about the project yet, but still, this page is just so lacking that it should probably just be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite, looks to be a somewhat notable organization with a few reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Somewhat low importance subject, however it is not entirely without hope, a rewrite by an experienced editor should do the trick. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've worked a bit on this and in an hour, been able to document enough to meet the minimum standars of WP:N. We have a very strong verifiable refences in the DEFRA site, and enough tangential discussion in farm related journals to demonstrate practical notability. It would be grea tot get some vets to supply information from hard sources. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:18, 3 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. Tiptoety talk 04:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tempus (MUD)

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

Online game without evidence of notability; fails WP:WEB. Note: The article survived a mass nomination last year, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVATAR (MUD). Tagged with {{notability}} since July 2007. B. Wolterding (talk) 22:22, 3 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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRADIS

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

Non-notable piece of in-universe information that has no relevance outside of the work of fiction. Wikipedia is not a repository of obscure technical information about fictional universes. Chardish (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could a hacked down version of the article be merged in as a section to Battlestar (re-imagining) and redirected? I know that the article and the subject are not appropriate for Wikipedia, but I also think that people are going to be looking for this, and a soft redirect to non-Wikimedia wikis (i.e. Battlestar Wiki) has been established as A Bad ThingTM -- saberwyn 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote keep. I tend to err on the side of keeping articles unless they are erroneous or truly useless. I, for one, did search to find out what DRADIS was an acronym for. I agree that Wikipedia is not a repository of in-universe trivia. But on the other hand, a fictional term can often reach a point of usage where many people will hear it and want to know more about it (they may hear it outside the context of the show, for instance). I should note that LCARS (which comes from Star Trek) has an article. --Kebes (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable plot device. Unless there are citations addressing real-world development or critical reaction, I think this is something that cannot be appropriately covered by Wikipedia. --EEMIV (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The simply is not enough in-universe information about DRADIS to support a separate article. Indeed, as best as I can tell the second paragraph is more speculation then canon (BSG avoids getting too stuck in technical details). Take that away, and you just have references to three episodes.-- danntm T C 18:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article definitely asserts out of universe influence and notability: "DRADIS is so notable outside the Battlestar Galactica Universe that a number of real computer computer programs have been named by it.[3] [4]". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PLOT. To respond to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, I think the sentence you quote serves more to justify the article's existence than to actually inform the reader in any meaningful way. Jakew (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it has out of universe context, it passes WP:PLOT. The sentence can be reworded per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT and additional information from the references can be incorporated into the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid I disagree. First, I think it's missing the point of PLOT to have a relatively large amount of in-universe information and then a single (frankly useless) sentence asserting out-of-universe notability. Second, I would question whether anything can be written around those references (a blog post and a Sourceforge project's home page). Finally, although I may have missed something, my searches through Google Scholar and Books failed to identify any suitable references for out-of-universe material (and precious few for in-universe material, for that matter). Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The in-universe definition of the term itself (Direction, RAnge, and DIStance) provided in the article is actually unsourced, and a handful of de minimis out-of-universe references just isn't enough to keep it in. And I would also suggest deletion of LCARS per the previous poster. 71.199.115.131 (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable fictional technology on a fiction show which has not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Content of article is mostly plot summary as well. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with suitable redirect-- which does not require afd. Too insubstantial for a separate article. . DGG (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I'd love to have a good article on this subject, but - while I believe real-world notability is there - I don't think we have the real-world reliable sources to justify it. However, the term DRADIS is a reasonable search term, and so should absolutely redirect to the series in some fashion if the article is deleted. The likely target would be the re-imagined series article, as noted above. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable piece of in-universe information. Dorftrottel (harass) 14:45, May 8, 2008
  • Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment plus... it is mainly funcract (no real world information except an unreferenced line). Not really worth to have in Wikipedia. Any usefull info can be added in the Battlestar Galactica article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No no no no nonono. Not to the top level, this is far too insignificant to the grand scheme for that. A redirect should go no higher up the food chain than If there was anywhere you could something along the lines of "DRADIS is the equvalent of radar in the 2004/reimagined BSG series", that would be a worthwhile redirect to (somehwere like Battlestar (re-imagining), Battlestar Galactica (ship) or a "List of terms in Battlestar Galactica" article). -- saberwyn 10:12, 9 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 (non-admin closure). Deleted 4 times - A7 by Nakon, A1 by Acroterion, A1 by Ohnoitsjamie, and A7 by NawlinWiki. WilliamH (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greancys

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

This is apparently a non-notable series of characters; Google returns only (what I believe to be) the blog responsible for creating them. Rnb (talk) 21:33, 3 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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craigslist ad controversy

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

This event doesn't seem to have sufficiently widespread notability to me -- although the article claims multiple reliable sources, only one is cited (a column at SFgate.com). NawlinWiki (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've updated the page with more sources now.--Urban Rose 20:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above sources are currently used in the article, also it shows it has had substantial media coverage globally. Some of the articles have been published some time after the event showing that it has had a lasting effect. The event is also commonly referred to in another articles related to internet privacy. It has been documented extensively over a long period of time making it a historic event. The article event is too significant to merge, and if all the sources were used it would also be too large. A more suitable title for this may be The Craigslist experiment.--Sinister beard man (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC) — Sinister beard man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - all these sources have no bearing on whether this article, under this name, should be kept; the incident already has all the coverage it needs at Internet privacy#Jason Fortuny and Craigslist. Also, please stop removing the SPA (single purpose account) tags I placed after your username. You have five edits, four of which are to this AFD and your account was created 6 minutes before coming straight to AFD to argue "keep". KleenupKrew (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was nominated because it didn't have enough sources, this has now been fixed.--Sinister beard man (talk) 15:07, 4 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. Spellcast (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's Day Massacre (2008)

AfDs for this article:
Mother's Day Massacre (2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable wrestling event. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 20:24, 3 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User environment management

User environment management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by author. This does not appear to be an encyclopedia article, but an essay describing a phenomenon. The use of terms like "solutions" make it almost appear to be spam, but not for any product in particular. Honestly, I don't see the point of this article. JuJube (talk) 07:25, 26 April 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) 20:18, 3 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of youth

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

Neologism. What does this article want to be? If this article really want to be about a clinical condition called "ephebiphobia", then I would have to say no, that is not a condition notable enough to have a separate article, instead redirect to List of phobias.

If the article want to be a gussied up version of the article "Old Folks SUX" then no, we don't need an original research essay on that topic, thanks.

The first Google hit for "ephebiphobia" is this article, the third is uses this article as a reference, and the second is an entity called "freechild.org". The main protector of this article is User:freechild and this is no coincidence, this article was designed and is maintained as an unsubtle POV hammer. Sure it has a lot of citations; good original essays do. Herostratus (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is actually the second AfD for this article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ephebophobia for the first. --Orlady (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm and it was deleted, under that name ("Ephebiphobia"). The article under this name ("Fear of youth") was created as a separate article shortly before that... Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, your accusation is inaccurate. Note the timeline:

• Freechild'sup? 19:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further reply. Herostratus, looking over the article history for this article, you present an interesting study for me. In your opening salvo to the AfD you state the I've used the article as a POV hammer. Looking over the article history I notice you have been a diligent muse for my contributions to the article; after not interacting with it for more than 16 months after its creation, I began editing on it after you tagged it and had already worked on it extensively. After that point you continued to prompt my interaction by tagging and deleting and working on it diligently. Now, after almost no substantive additions or deletions since the beginning of the year, you go on the offense, and attack me and my motivations for working on the article while you're at it. I do not want to doubt the good faith you have for the WP project, Herostratus; however, I want a clear explanation of why you want this article deleted that goes beyond name-calling and accusations, which your nomination features. Please enlighten me. • Freechild'sup? 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a pov fork of adolescence, where more editors can watch it. There is actually fear of/discrimination against adolescents, which arose largely in response to the invention of adolescence itself as a life stage comprised of a new class people who didn't have the same rights as adults. Industrialization created "adolescents," as a renegade disenfranchised underclass. (Before that, adolescents were adults...) See this reference, which is notably missing: [6] Also, this article is missing info re racism--the fear of nonwhite adolescents is so intense in the US that it dicates public policy--since the 90s, they are warehoused in prisons at an alarming rate. There are plenty of references that address the demonization of and discrimination against nonwhite teenagers; the fear that is projected onto them.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per PetraSchelm. While there are lots of citations, some of them don't actually say what they're supposed to. Note that at adolescence, ephebiphobia is described as "the fear of adolescents gaining more rights or showing behavioral, emotional or social emancipation" while this article is mainly concerned with the fear of youth crime (something I wouldn't call "emancipation"). Huon (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pediaphobia. That's where it belongs. Majoreditor (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply the citations in this article support the contention that the fear of youth is a unique phenomenon that is distinctly different from the fear of children. • Freechild'sup? 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. PetraSchelm, your argument actually further strengthens the reason why this article should stay put - add to the article. As many of the citations in this article show, this is clearly a legitimate phenomenon that should be acknowledged within the confines of WP. • Freechild'sup? 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Herostratus regarding OR and POV: Regarding Herostratus's assertion that this article is original research note that several the references and citations specifically mention "fear of youth" or "ephebiphobia" in their titles, while all of them specifically discuss the topic within their text; all of them directly relate to the topic. Note that regarding the charge of being a POV hammer, the essay on POV specifically states in its opening that, "Points of view are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects." The major POV regarding ephebiphobia is that it is injust; that is represented in the article; there is no other major POV presented in the source material. This is not to say that, "other views are mentioned only pejoratively," as WP:NPOV states; it does mean that the facts about opinions are asserted, and not the the opinions themselves. That is what policy asks for. I believe the most recent edits and this clear analysis policy - rather than the simplistic assertion stated in the AfD nomination - clearly demonstrate the viability of the article, including how it meets WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR; I will stop responding now and let this AfD take its course. • Freechild'sup? 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hello again, Herostratus. Yes, I created this article in 2005 under the name "Ephebiphobia"; it was then proposed for deletion and the proposal was rejected. Apparently someone two years later changed the article's name to this new one, "Fear of Youth".

My vote here is for keeping the article, either as "Fear of youth" or as "Ephebiphobia". A search for the latter term in Google gives not less than 35.000 results and I believe this indicates relevance. The original article in 2005 was based on sources from newspapers' articles researched then in the online "NewsLibrary.com". Those articles used the term "ephebiphobia". I think the subject is relevant as it points out to an existing and measurable social phenomenon. Paulo Andrade —Preceding comment was added at 19:03, 10 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. Spellcast (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International NBA players

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

Synthesis/non-encyclopedic essay. It'd be one thing if this was a list of international players or an article about the history of International Players in the NBA, but it's an essay essentially mostly about the San Antonio Spurs. SmashvilleBONK! 19:57, 3 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Society of the Seven

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

Notability not established, no references, previously deleted. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trikster – Nordic Queer Journal

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

New webzine has not yet achieved notability; only 66 Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. --  Aleta Sing 00:51, 6 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. Spellcast (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yjzone.net

Yjzone.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete: Non-notable website without any reliable source. I can't find any single good source about the site and the creator over the web. It seems also a big problem that the site owner is writing this article to promote the site. Appletrees (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it may not be a very large website like Google or eBay, it has recently become one of the most popular sites for technology enthusiasts around the world. If you read through the article, you will find well referenced sources, including Engadget.com, the most popular technology website, continously linking to YJzone.net. It is among the top 180,000 websites as ranked in Alexa. If you go to the site profile, you will find information of the author of this website, YJ. If necessary, I can provide contact details of him as necessary. The article has never been writtne to promote it in anyway, its sole purpose is to inform a good source of information and communities for other product pages it links with, such as Samsung, LG and iriver, where it is recognized as a de facto source of information. I know that it is not particularly famous in the world but in the technology world, it is.92.233.108.8 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only available information with his name and the website is that the owner is a young student in London (from a personal website). If the site is truly notable, there should've been interviews in Korean media, but I can't find any from either Korean or English site. --Appletrees (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've just posted on the talk page regarding concerns over COI and notability, and while I was content to give it a chance and see how it progressed, I can't in all honesty justify the existance of this article. A blatant disregard of WP:COI, this article was created by the owner of the website, and the only other contributors are members of that community. Of the cited claims made in the article, none appear to be particuarly noteworthy: "more than 3,100 active users worldwide" isn't a lot, and according to the website itself there are only 3099; "one of the top 180,000 websites in the world" is hardly significant. References #1 and 4 don't even support the claims made in the article. PC78 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE TO 92.233.108.8: Do not remove this AfD listing from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 3 again. Consider this a warning. PC78 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. It can be only sad to see Wikipedia simply deleting articles at their wish and not respecting the hours of work that was put into creating this one article. Sadly enough, I will stop arguing here. I will leave it to the administrators to decide the outcome and if it decided to be "insignificant", well, let it be so. The community as a whole is disappointed regarding this process and recognizes that is is a strong mistake into a site which is experiencing a growth of 500% in traffic every quarter (see Alexa for reference). We are severely disappointed with Wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.108.8 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a brand new article, but appears to be blatant spam, and the IP's edits make it appear as though it's someone from the website (also see the username of the article creator). The IP should also be blocked; I'm filing an SSP in regards to it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Per user JeremyMcCracken. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no reliable sources provided from which we could judge the importance of this site. The engadget reference is a photo credit for a new product from Samsung; this does not establish the importance of Yjzone. The WP:COI issues are a concern. Deleting the AfD from the log is not good form and is close to a blockable offence. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—not notable; COI; bad behaviour WRT previous prod (deleting tag with no discussion); likely sockpuppetry ... richi (hello) 13:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessum

Excessum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Death Redemption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- related article added by Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient references to show notability. Triwbe (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information; their 'official website' now says the have disbanded. --Triwbe (talk) 20:09, 26 April 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) 19:20, 3 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 Keep (non-admin closure). Rename to Tube trumpet. SilkTork *YES! 08:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Hosaphone

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

A joke instrument, as defined by the article itself, with a trivia link to cartoon of a similar joke (but not the same instrument as in this article). A Google search has so far only turned up spam links by the creator of the instrument. Not a hoax as such, as the Hosaphone website exists with pictures of the instrument - but simply not yet notable enough for a stand alone article. I did ponder if there was a place to redirect the article, but couldn't think of anywhere obvious. The instrument is supposedly a joke response to the natural trumpet, but I can't see this joke instrument finding a comfortable slot in that article. SilkTork *YES! 18:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the problem. The Hosaphone was invented "In Rochester, Minnesota on July 4, 1976. Petitions to the mayor's office to declare that date Hosaphone(tm) Day have been met with less than a fanfare." While I'm the Urban Spaceman was recorded in 1968. The Hosaphone and this article is a joke. It's not a hoax, but it's a joke. SilkTork *YES! 20:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the claimants in Rochester did not invent this instrument first. Apart from the Bonzos, I am finding references to this as a routine teaching aid in science and music. The matter is notable and the only issue is whether we have this material already under another name. Deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, and that of Grutness below. SilkTork *YES! 12:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that the contributor to your email discussion is Ellis Workman, the creator of Hosaphone. And the writer of the entry on the Trumpet Guild is David A. Roth, from Hosaphone Headquarters, the other founder. See my comment on the nomination that a Google search turns up spam links. The only links I found were spam created by the Hosaphone founders - and that includes this Wikipedia article. There may be more meaningful stuff out there, but I gave up looking after a while. At this stage I suspect anything meaningful would be as a result of the spam campaign being successful enough to convince people that - well, that the Bonzo Dog Band played a Hosaphone nearly 10 years before it was invented! ;-) SilkTork *YES! 20:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom + his points above. I agree this is clearly a joke and not notable in an encyclopedic context. Rename per the nominator's position below. Eusebeus (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. As there are no longer any deletes I can, as nominator, now Speedy Keep this and rename it to Tube trumpet.SilkTork *YES! 08:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to hosepipe (musical instrument) or similar. There are enough tracks that have used this sort of instrument to lend it some notability, but the name "Hosaphone" is far from the only name for it. Other than the Bonzos an "elephunk trumpet" (i.e., a "hosaphone") was used to good effect by New Zealand band Low Profile on their 1980s single "Elephunk In My Soup". To quote that band, "I've got my wash-hose, and I can do elephunk!" Grutness...wha? 00:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. This and Colonel Warden's comments above do convince me that an attempt could be made to create an article along those lines. I'm not entirely sure such an article would in itself be notable - it sounds like it might be bordering on original research - but it would be worth trying. SilkTork *YES! 12:33, 4 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Sulite

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

Thoroughly non-notable founder of a thoroughly non-notable martial art (also being AFD'ed). Lack of sources for only (exceedingly minor) claim of notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A book's listing at online bookstores such as Barnes & Noble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary, including large numbers of vanity press publications. There is no present agreement on how high a book must fall on Amazon's sales rank listing (in the "product details" section for a book's listing) in order to provide evidence of its notability, vel non."

Lameco eskrima does not seem to be a major school, and being mentioned by books about Filipino martial arts is not, in my opinion, enough to establish notability. I would say that to be notable he would have had to have made a major impact on the practice of eskrima. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Have you reviewed any of those books, such as Masters of the Blade or any of the general/history books by noted author Mark V. Wiley (such as Filipino Martial Culture)? They would provide teh answer to your question. I own several of those books and can attest to Edgar Sulite's noted influence. Also, have you checked martial arts news sources such as Black belt magazine? They are more relevant than Google News here (which is another questionable source; see WP:GHITS). JJL (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just checked Black Belt, they don't mention him. I don't have ready access to the books available--if you do could you put some relevant information into the article? What I'd really like to see is the wider impact Sulite has had outside of his own school. Also, do we have any estimate on the number of practitioners of Lameco Eskrima?

Hello I am a new member here and I would like to comment on this attempt to delete both Punong Guro Edgar G. Sulite and Lameco Eskrima from Wikipedia.

Are you kidding me with this??? Seriously let`s look at this great mans contributions to the Indigenous Filipino Warrior Arts both directly and indirectly. Edgar G. Sulite wrote three best selling books Internationally and had the best selling video series produced through Curtis Wong Enterprises (Inside Kung-Fu) for years. Even 11 years after his death his books and videos are still in demand.

Edgar G. Sulite has trained and is qualified to teach under some of the most noteworthy and combat proven Masters in 20th century Filipino history. He is a direct student and a certified Master in Kali Pekiti-Tirsia under Grand Tuhon Leo T. Gaje jr. He was one of the 5 pillars of Kalis Illustrisimo and a direct student and certified Master of Kalis Illustrisimo under Grand Master Antonio "Tatang" Illustrisimo. He was a certified instructor under the very well respected and feared "Juey go todo" champion Manong Jose D. Caballero of De Campo uno-Dos-Tres Orihinal. In writing his last book he traveled to numerous remote locations across the Philippines to interview, train with and document the histories of so many, at that time living legends, of the Filipino Warrior Arts who are sadly no longer with us, which is such a huge contribution to our community in and of itself. Had he not documented their histories we would have lost so much had they taken their individual experiences with them to the grave. Because of the efforts of Edgar G. Sulite we have documented personal information and personal experiences of these great warriors in their own words.

Edgar Sulite was also instructor to Dan Inosanto, Bruces Lees best friend and successor to Jeet Kune Do. As well Edgar G. Sulite was an instructor to Larry Hartsell, another Bruce Lee student who trained with all of the legends at Bruce Lees China town school in Los Angeles. Edgar G. Sulite was also an instructor to such noted Filipino Warrior Art persoanlities such as: Christopher Ricketts, Ray Floro, Marc Denny (Dog Brothers), Steve Grody, Ron Baliki and Burt Richardson to name only a few, all of whom have created major succes for themselves and regard his instruction to be very influential to their success.

We currently have Lameco Eskrima students in more than 25 countries on 5 continents. As well Edgar G. Sulites Lameco Eskrima has been taught to our own Elite U.S. Special Operations Soldiers ranging from Navy S.E.A.L`s, Green Beret`s, Black Op`s and Marine forced Recon as well as U.S. Friendly Foreign Spec. Op`s soldiers in various foreign countries. I have taught numerous Special Operations Soldiers in the art of Lameco Eskrima for more than a decade and I currently have numerous students fighting in both Iraq and Afganistan where they are from time to time required to utilize these skills for survival.

Edgar Sulite was also a Body guard of President Marcos, General Estrada and General Ver of the philippines during the late 80`s before and during the Filipino coup which eventually forced President Marcos to flee and go into exile in Hawaii until he died there. Edgar G. Sulite was also the instructor to Filipino action star Roland Dantes and frequently trained actio star Ronnie Ricketts in addition to assuming numerous "Bad guy" roles in several films in the Philippines.

So to say that Punong Guro Edgar G. Sulite is "Not Notable" and that Lameco Eskrima is not an "influencial" system is an insult. My advice to Tall Napoleon is to do your research before you slander someones good name and reputation. Edgar G. Sulite is as real as you get and anyone would be estatic to have a portion of the pedigree that he does. I say that both Edgar G. Sulite and Lameco Eskrima should be kept as is on wikipedia and if people have a problem with his articles than I will personally take a look at them and with the assistance of my Lameco Eskrima brothers edit where necessary.

Guro Dave Gould www.LamecoEskrima.org

Hi Dave,
It’s great to have new and passionate contributors. Be warned however, that contibututors often have difficulties when contributing on a subject for which they have special knowledge. The inclusion criteria are not based on how you might understand the wor d “notable”. Ideally, a wikipedia article is a synopsis of other, independently published works.
The best thing you could do at this stage is to find some independent publications, newpapers, other peoples books, etc, reviewing, discussing or commenting on Guro Edgar G. Sulite and Lameco Eskrima. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Edgar G. Sulite has been referenced and acknowledged in numerous books written by noted authors, International Magazines and video tapes featuring some of the most noteworthy experts in their specific field of expertise.

Steve Tarani acknowledged the contributions made by Edgar G. Sulite in his book "The Naked Edge" (Unique Publications 2002). He credits Edgar G. Sulite`s influence in directly furthering Mr. Tarani`s career in teaching elite Law enforcement officers which include Agents and Special Agents with the F.B.I., C.I.A., D.E.A., D.O.J., Dept. of homeland defense, correction officers and local Law Enforcement. Steve Tarani is also a fire Arms and tactical weapon Instructor for "Quantico" F.B.I. academy as well as an Instructor for "Gunsite".

Author Mark v. Wiley acknowledges and features Edgar G. Sulite in his book "Filipino Martial Culture" (Tuttle 1996). He dedicates chapter 22 to Lameco Eskrima, Edgar G. Sulite and his profound influence on the Pilipino Warrior Arts community as a whole.

Author Reynaldo S. Galang acknowledges Edgar G. Sulite in his book "Warrior Arts of the Philippines" (Argee enterprises 2005). Master Rey Galang dedicates 25 pages of this book to Edgar G. Sulite and his accomplishments and achievements in the Pilipino Warrior Arts.

Author Reynaldo S. Galang acknowledges Edgar G Sulite in his book "Masters of the Blade" (Argee Enterprises 2005). In addition to Master Rey Galang numerous Masters featured in this book also contribute Edgar G. Sulites influence as being beneficial to their success and evolution in the warrior arts.

Edgar G. Sulite over many years has also been featured in numerous articles both here in the U.S. and abroad and has been given the honor of being placed on the cover of many of these Magazines including "Inside Kung-Fu" (I believe october 1995) and "Filipino Martial Arts" (CFW Enterprises January 2001).

Guro Dave Gould. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guro Dave Gould (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: That looks like a good start. I'm still not convinced--the lack of information from Google or Google News searches is what bothers me, and I'd be interested to know the level of influence, popularity or esteem some of these publications have. What I would recommend is that you provide a few weblinks to some of these if possible, and rewrite the article to more reflect his significance and the impact of his work, making sure to cite sources (especially if you have print sources not available online). Right now the article really doesn't do this. Furthermore, it might be appropriate to merge and redirect the Lameco Eskrima article to this page. Take a look at WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:Martial arts#Notability guidelines. Keep in mind the importance of maintaining WP:NPOV, especially when editing subjects with which you have personal involvement. Finally, assume good faith. I don't have anything against Mr. Sulite; I just was of the opinion that, based on the research I was able to do and the state of the article, he did not appear to meet notability guidelines. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on Comment. It looks to me easily good enough for a *keep (for now)* for a new article. I disagree with requiring Google or Google News searches as a necessary. Any reliable publication, regardless of difficulty of accessibility, is good enough. Advice regarding WP:NPOV (please maintain a neutral point of view), WP:N (wikipedia-"notability"), WP:BIO (wikipedia-"notability" indicators for people) and WP:Martial arts#Notability (never met this before) are good, but he shouldn’t have to work this hard to prevent deletion; he should expect help from experienced contributors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 6 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; see also OTRS #2008050110015682. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanz TV

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

I wrote this article when it appeared that this TV station was going to be carrying several minor league sports events. Since then the league hasn't broadcast those games yet, so I don't believe it's notable anymore. Furthermore, the President of the network is using the article as his own propaganda piece. I think that it's best at this point to just scrap the whole thing. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. This should really be a CSD issue, if you request deletion. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would do DB-G7 except for the fact that the network itself has also made edits, so I'm not sure it's eligible for that. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G7. At first glance it doesn't look like a G7 at all, yet, seeing as how the only other contributor to the article represents a clear coi and has been blocked, I think G7 should be honored. But thats just my opinion. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:44, 7 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 references provided by SmokeyJoe were not substantial.Fabrictramp (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese Rugby League Association

Maltese Rugby League Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete notability concerns; there is no indication how many members of professional rugby are supervised by this league association, if any. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Maltese Rugby League Association (MRLA) has never been in a stronger position since its inception into the Rugby League world a mere three years ago. Rugby League played on the Maltese Islands, a three man committee based in Malta committed to the code's development and a domestic competition set to kick off in October with no less than four teams at one of the few grassed pitches on the island. Follow the Maltese Rugby League every month in Rugby League Review.

http://www.rugbyleaguereview.com.au/world.htm

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?articleID=2461&class=Features&classID=3&subclass=Sport&subclassID=27

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 3 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:27, 3 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). Proposals to merge can obviously be dealt with on the article's talk page, but apart from a smattering of such suggestions, the most conspicious view put forward is that this is notable. Either way, there is clearly no salient consensus to delete the article. WilliamH (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American-Born Confused Desi

American-Born Confused Desi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've put a lot of thought into this. Originally I had redirected this page to South Asian American. I felt that the term ABCD had too much of a "slang"-like connotation. The discussion to perform the redirect can be seen here. The merge was supported by numerous editors. I was since informed that there are numerous sources. I checked out these references, and although they do describe the subject, I still feel there is a problem in light of WP:NOT. The term itself is a synonym for second-generation South-Asian Americans. As such, it is a sub-class of South-Asian Americans in general. The "Confused" attribute is extremely subjective. Fact-wise, the article does not provide much, and I doubt the subject will actually allow for any sort of factual description (everything is already covered by South Asian American). The only thing left is an exploration of the "Confused" theme with respect to identify conflict, which would make the article like an essay or opinion piece and therefore not in line with WP:NOT. Instead of a delete, I wouldn't mind a redirect/merge either. vi5in[talk] 16:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the issue has to do with notability or not. Perhaps I should be a bit clearer. An article about "ABCD" wouldn't be significantly different than South Asian American or Asian American. The term itself highlights an alleged "identity crisis", and that's all the article is going to be about. If you start talking about, let's say, contributions "ABCDs" have made to American Society, you're already covering ground that has been covered by S. Asian, or Asian American. There is significant overlap. I guess you could say it's an unnecessary fork as well. --vi5in[talk] 20:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOT fails here. Ultra! 17:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that this is used widely enough to warrant its own article nor to be anything like comparable to a term such as baby boomer - that's a laugh-out-loud, utterly ridiculous comparison. It could certainly be mentioned, as the nom suggests, at the SAA article; indeed, I hope it is. But the sources adduced do not come even close in establishing sufficient notability and should not be used as grounds for opposing a merge. Eusebeus (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was NOT a comparison. That was an example to show that concepts do have a place in the Wikipedia. Please, read before you laugh. If you have any reason to advocate deletion other than "this is not as common as baby boomer" than you are most welcome to state it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the concept is (barely) notable enough. My second choice would be a redirect to an article about ABCD, the 1999 English-language film, but we don't have that article yet. JamesMLane t c 01:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm pretty familiar with the term (I personally find it notable), and the article is pretty decent. I'm impressed with the sourcing: I think it demonstrates notability and verifiability. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Based on the citations provided the term is notable. Arman (Talk) 10:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The term may actually be more notable than South Asian American, and as Aditya has pointed out, has more than enough media hits to assert notability. Vivin raises a good point about the scope, but the term itself is notable.Bakaman 03:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge my feeling is that the exact explanation and subject is/can be covered in the South Asian American article, thus giving continuity. I don't see how keeping the ABCD segment in South Asian American conflicts with its own notability; it is beneficial to give readers continuity in context and subject matter, rather than developing another article on the same subject. Which one should I read? South Asian American or American-Born Confused Desi? Plus, this issue has relevance to Indian immigrants everywhere, including UK and Australia, etc. Are we to have British-born Confused Desi if/once the term picks up in media? What about American-born Confused Chinese? Another point is that "Desi" is a popular term, but not necessarily applicable to all subcontinental nations, which has great cultural diversity. The term "Desi", from my own experience, is biased in favor of North Indian/Pakistani cultures and not representative of faraway cultures of Nepal, Northeast India, South India, Baluchistan, Sri Lanka etc. Thus, it does not necessarily represent many of the same "Desh" (nation) who share the same issues, and I don't see why a Northern-tilted article on the subject matter relating to all South Asian immigrants is needed; you can just incorporate "ABCD" into South Asian Americans without comprising its notability, or else have an article that covers the "confusion" issues of all South Asians, not necessarily North Indians. Vishnava (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - based on citations. This is a very well known term. --Ragib (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well sourced (American-Born Confused Desi#References). However, It does not meet WP:NOT criteria.--NAHID 19:58, 8 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. Spellcast (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Interethnic Communication

Theory of Interethnic Communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While topic might be notable, the article would need to be scrapped and totally rewritten. I couldn't find it on Google, but I would be willing to bet this is a cut-and-paste job - if someone can find it, this should be speedied per WP:COPYVIO. Tan | 39 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as editor essay / original synthesis. WillOakland (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not so much an original essay as it is someone's college assignment. "In this chapter, the author breaks down this theory..." Apparently, someone whose last name is Kim wrote a chapter in a book about "interethnic communication". The creator of this article thought that Kim's thoughts were brilliant... but not as brilliant as his/her own thoughts about Kim's thoughts. Fridgecruft is the best way to describe this; and Wikipedia is not a refrigerator for posting your schoolwork or your children's schoolwork. Mandsford (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:OR and WP:SYN. Tnxman307 (talk) 15:14, 5 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 defaulting to keep. I'm sorry to bring such a long, thorough debate to such an anticlimactic end, but the discussion below presents a large number of competing, well-reasoned opinions without arriving at a definitive conclusion. --jonny-mt 05:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Augustus Hilton

Charles Augustus Hilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Genealogy page for a completely non-notable Civil War soldier. The complete lack of notability makes for a very boring read, but by all means slog through it if you don't believe me. Qworty (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response His notability comes through his work as a pastor and an educator, which I picked up in the article. He must have done something notable to have a town named after him (that's quite unusual). As I said, the article needs to be rewritten, not killed. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was non-notable as a soldier. He was non-notable as a pastor. He was non-notable as an educator. He was just a guy who was alive for a while. A town can decide to name itself after a blade of grass, but doing so does not make the blade of grass notable. Qworty (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it would make the blade of grass notable. People don't rename incorporated towns after obscure individuals (let alone obscure blades of grass). Ecoleetage (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this incorporated town--officially it's only a "village"--did indeed name itself after a highly obscure individual. This is hardly akin to New York City being named after the Duke of York. This is just a tiny village that named itself after a guy who was non-notable. They have a right to do it, but it doesn't make him notable by WP guidelines. Qworty (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they do in fact name towns after obscure individuals -- people who would not pass WP:BIO. I don't think this minor honor makes them notable, any more than the (more significant) naming of ships after people, especially naval ships, fails to make them notable.--Dhartung | Talk 11:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I don't know. I can’t see the connection between naming battleships after people and naming villages or towns after people. If anything, I would believe the naming of battleships (at least the U.S. variety, which I assume you are referring to) involves a great deal of lobbying and political pandering – something I see as less-than-savory. That didn't appear to be the case in Rev. Hilton's experience. From what I read online in Jeremiah Wadleigh Dearborn’s “A History of the First Century of the Town of Parsonsfield, Maine” (available here: [8]), Rev. Hilton overcame extraordinary odds to achieve prominence in his day. Dearborn praised Hilton in this manner: “Altogether, he ranks among the best men now in the Free Baptist pulpits.” It appears, too, that his prominence was fairly ethereal, hence this interesting discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is that (interesting). I may be more familiar with local history publications than you. ;-) Every county in the country probably had a biographical dictionary written in the 1860-1900 period, and every one of them -- while having value -- is full of similar puffery. A successful farmer, for instance, is a "noted agriculturalist". I'd be more impressed if it were, for example, a history of the Free Baptist church. This is a glowing profile of Dearborn himself -- which mentions almost in passing the only thing I think gives him notability, service in the Maine Senate. All the rest is basically personal opinion about how wonderful he is. Today such overt praise is shunned or pigeonholed as public relations spam, but it was just the standard way all these word portraits were composed. The books were considered an integral and necessary part of a town's boosterism. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response But that argument could be stretched to insist that all books that praise individuals are PR shams. For example, David McCullough's book on John Adams could be considered a revisionist view of one of the less popular presidents in US history. Besides, every county in the U.S. did not have a biographical dictionary written in the 1860-1890 period -- and please refrain from making negative comments on what you perceive as other editors' lack of knowledge. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm baffled. I'm constantly battling to save people like Marc Smith from deletion -- people who actually did something notable. Apparently this chap, who seems to be little more than well-liked, is able to be well-liked a century after his death. What did he do? --Dhartung | Talk 09:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hilton, New York. Having a village or a school named for you is a rare honor, but that, by itself, isn't proof that you were notable except in your own community. For instance, it's surprising how many post offices were named for their first postmaster, and most postmasters would otherwise be non-notable. I agree that the maintainers of the article about the town can make their own judgment about how much to include about Mr. Hilton. Mandsford (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Indeed, my city was named after the first postmaster -- a tavern owner/ferry operator who used a cigar box for the mail -- because the post office declined his nominated name of Black Hawk (he actually camped here), as there was another town in Wisconsin Territory that already had the name (it's now in Iowa). The name was decreed by Amos Kendall, Postmaster-General, and as such was entirely arbitrary. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response The history of Janesville, Wisconsin, is not the subject of this debate, and the experience in naming that town is not revelant to this discussion. Please stick to the facts of Rev. Hilton's perceived notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please present some demonstrated notability. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument is based on the fact that I do not think that the required sourcing (web or otherwise) has been provided to establish the notability of the subject and I do not believe that such sources are likely to exist based on the limited sources which have been presented and the views of other editors above. If evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources does come to light during the course of the discussion I will strike my vote (although if my argument is disproved I doubt any closing admin would hold it in any regard anyway). Guest9999 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Having a town named after you is significant, plus there are sources here. The problem (as I indicate in my comment above) is the fact there aren't a lot of web sources available. I say weak because it's possible the century old sources are bogus; if that can be proven, then I have no objection to the article being renominated at a later date. 23skidoo (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why would the century old sources be bogus, particularly on someone who was non-controversial as Rev. Hilton?Ecoleetage (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess I find Wikipedia's culture of priveledging online sources over print sources a little odd. Even aside from that it biases the encyclopedia towards recentism, even among recent work, the internet has major holes in its scholarly coverage. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It isn't odd so much as one form of systemic bias. Similarly American topics and sources dominate Wikipedia, though this is changing as more non-American editors participate. In this case I don't consider anything dubious about the sources per se, it's what they (fail to) say. They're just no more indicative of notability than being written up in a local newspaper. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 5 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), Notability was established. Magioladitis (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leiths Group

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

Seems to fail notability guidelines for companies. Magioladitis (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:CORP, per Blanchardb, no assertion of notability. WilliamH (talk) 17:12, 3 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. Bearcat (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Gimghoul

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

Not notable even within UNC. Article is imprecise and adds little, and it seems unlikely it ever will since this is a "secret" society. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as YSH. Do we really even know this exists apart from a library catalog? Artichoke2020 (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I accept the summary of the records, available here, for purposes of WP:V to the extent of any assertion contained in the summary (although not for anything verifiable only by going to the library and looking at the records). Furthermore, this newspaper article is a reliable source for the organization's existence and its ownership of the castle. (The article quotes Wikipedia for some points, but the ownership was verified by "a real estate agent in Chapel Hill who did some research on the property".) JamesMLane t c 03:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I saw the summary, and I'll accept it gives credibility to the existence of the order, but I don't think there's anywhere near enough depth to establish WP:N. The article is so vague at present, and I don't think the castle is notable on its own. The problem seems to be "secret" and notable are such opposites. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ya got nothing better to do? Why not list the Illuminati or the White House for AfD? I hate to get personal, but this just smacks of frivolity. SuMadre (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That comment is uncalled for. What happened to WP:NPA and WP:AGF? What are your reasons for the keep? An article that has a theme of "this is known" or "this is confidential" isn't great, and all we really have is in reality a single source that isn't fully verifiable as access is restricted. You worked on the article you maybe you can fill in the blanks and remove the vagueness. The comparison to the White House is rather strange... Yellowspacehopper (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article has been in existence since 2005 and has been accepted as notable by the editors of WP for over two years. AfD's are typically for new/newer articles that have not stood up to the test of time such as this one: WP:AfD. This article is footnoted and cited. There is documentation of the existence of both the order and the meetingplace thereof, and this documentation is cited within the article. You state the article is not notable even within UNC. How can you even make this claim when one of the citations is an archive from the LRW Library historical records? I happen to agree with your Society of the Seven AfD, since there is virtually no documentation of that order, however, your argument of the same for Gimghoul falls on a deaf ear as this article is so well cited (and is the reason I feel this AfD based on WP:V, no less, is so frivolous). SuMadre (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the argument is for notability and not verifiability, and I might have confused things. The UNC libraries must have hundreds of archives of non-notable events by the Wikipedia definition. I'm new to AFD arguments, but is there a more general secret orders article we could merge this to? That would work for me. Artichoke2020 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just found List of collegiate secret societies has sections describing some the societies as well as just a list and I think we should Merge to there, then the question of notability is not so acute. Artichoke2020 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've put a possible merged paragraph on the talk page of the article at Talk:Order_of_Gimghoul#Merge_to_List_of_collegiate_secret_societies.3F. I think it conveys the verifiable information that we have and gives us somewhere to redirect to, if that's possible. Artichoke2020 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find it odd that out of what appears to be nearly 50 entries in the list you cite - List of collegiate secret societies, the OoG has been singled out for AfD. If you compare the Gimghoul entry with most of the other articles linked from this list, you will find this one has as many if not more sources listed therein. Do you think that every other article on this list of 50 or so should be put up for AfD for the same reasons as this one? (to wit: It is not notable since a secret society, by the very definition is difficult to verify?) I believe this quite a weak argument for an entry such as Gimghoul, which is so well sourced. SuMadre (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know why the nominator choose this one. I'm here because I was working on/reading UNC-related articles. It may be that many of the other pages need deleting or merging too. That doesn't affect the status of this article. I think it is borderline. I would favor a merge and redirect. I tried to remove the vague statements from the article and it looks better now, which addresses one reason for the nomination. Artichoke2020 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There's only one source that looks like it might meet the usual standards, the article in the Raleigh Chronicle [9] --but actually go and read it--it gets its information from Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh dear, reading it again, I didn't realize it was quite so circular. I'll have to switch back to Delete again, I'm afraid. Artichoke2020 (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It gets a lot of its information from Wikipedia, but it serves as independent verification of a key point -- that the Order of the Gimghoul does indeed own that castle. That plus the library summary is enough for me. JamesMLane t c 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment - The time people are taking up trying to delete this article could better be used by trying to find more information to put into this article. In a two minute google book search, I've already come up with another source and information to add here [10] and if someone was industrious they could obtain the directory of the order of the gimghoul mentioned here [11]. There is no reason to delete this article or merge it. Remember (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I read the pages in that Guide to NC Curiosities on google books--and I notice it carefully avoids saying there are any verifiable facts other than that the castle exists and that people rumor that there is some connection with the order. None of that makes it notable, or gives enough information to write an article. DGG (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok if those sources weren't good enough, what about this source link? Again, I found this in about 4 minutes. Could we please spend some time actually researching this before we merge it off. Remember (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've always had that source, I think. I'm really not sure about the inventory entry, for two reasons. Firstly, anything less than 50 years old is restricted, and secondly it's mostly a listing or transcribing of primary sources (from the society itself), and we need verifiable secondary sources. If the library had third-party books, I would be happier. Newspaper clippings are mentioned, but they really need to be examined and cited directly as they could realistically say anything. However, I just looked at the electronic catalog and they say status "LIB STAFF ONLY" unfortunately. Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shows it's been a club there. Normally, university archives keep records of all student clubs they can find. Doesn't show it was important. DGG (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am confused. So you are now arguing that this secret society is not notable? If so, is this an argument that all of the secret societies at various colleges are not notable (then we should delete everything here List of collegiate secret societies). If it is that this particular secret society is not notable, then I don't know what documentation you would need to show that it is the most important secret society on the UNC campus? Obviously there are a variety of sources that note its importance in the campus as far as secret societies go. Remember (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have found another source in yet again a 5 minute search. See here link As stated in the source: The castle was built as a meeting place for the Order of Gimghoul, a still-existing secret society of noted UNC students and alumni. Construction began in the fall of 1924 and cost about $50,000. Although the structure is accessible from Gimghoul Road, it remains a mystery, inspiring nearly a century of folklore. "It's a mystical thing that's been part of the University for about 100 years," said Roland Giduz, a UNC alumnus and Chapel Hill resident who has researched the castle. "It's part of the heritage of the University....Giduz said Gimghouls have historically been prominent students, professors and alumni. "There was the idea that it was a very high fraternity in Chapel Hill, in terms of prestige," he said. Past members include prominent alumni J.C. Ehringhaus, William Rand Kenan Jr., Frank Porter Graham and William Donald Carmichael.
Again, can we spend more time researching this and less time trying to delete it or merge it down. There is lots of information to be found on this and I think I have shown that it is a notable organization. Remember (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to DGG's comment above, I agree that we know that the castle exists. Beyond that, we know more than "people rumor that there is some connection with the order". The ownership of the castle by the Order has been verified by a reliable source: "The castle was built in the 1920's and according to a real estate agent in Chapel Hill who did some research on the property, the land and the castle are owned by the Order of the Gimghoul, a North Carolina corporation." (from this newspaper article). Whatever one thinks of secret societies in general, most of them don't own castles. JamesMLane t c 15:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DTH article mentioned above says "It's really more lore than history". Where do WP:V and WP:N stand on folklore? Is folklore, if notable, enough or does it need to be history. Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote that you are referring to is: "It's a mystical thing that's been part of the University for about 100 years," said Roland Giduz, a UNC alumnus and Chapel Hill resident who has researched the castle. "It's part of the heritage of the University. It's really more lore than history." But while there is a description of folklore, there are also plenty of facts in the article as well. As for the more legendary aspects of the castle, I think in general notable folklore is still notable and gets to be mentioned in the encyclopedia. Just look at Paul Bunyan or John Henry (folklore). Remember (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems most of the certain information we have is about the castle. Is the castle notable? Could we change the article to primarily focus on it, instead of the order? If so would the article be "Hippol Castle" or "Gimghoul Castle"? I have [no] objection to an article on notable folklore, though, if we can source it well. Artichoke2020 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article is about folklore, you object to it even if well sourced? I am having a hard time following your line of reasoning. As user Remember pointed out, there are many articles on WP regarding notable folklore. The castle is a result of the Order. One carries as much import as the other. Moving the goalposts from Verifiability to Notability seems a weak tactic at this point of the debate. SuMadre (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that was an extraordinary bad typo missing the "no" out of "no objection". I think the inclination of the sentence should have made you suspicious of that. All the same you seem to be directing a near personal attack at a second author in this discussion, which is not appreciated. I have no tactics; there are no goalposts. Ultimately, it's no issue to me if the article stays or goes, but I think it's important to have the discussion to ensure the article is noteworthy and can be trusted, as it reflects on Wikipedia as a whole. The discussion has already raised a number of interesting points and people have found sources and given opinions about them. If the article is kept, it will have been improved by this, and if it is deleted, then at least we know why, and we can look to remedy it in the future with similar articles. Artichoke2020 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A second editor...I'm not so sure in that regard, but I'll let you know my findings...As far as a personal attack goes, I've read and re-read the paragraph, and have come to think you are acting defensively. There is nothing that could even be construed as personal therein. If you are referring to the goalposts comment, the subject of that sentence is the tactic - not the tactician. SuMadre (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've confused me slightly, but I'm sorry, maybe I was being a bit sensitive. Artichoke2020 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added all the references that we've mentioned, and on reflection I'm going to change my vote. Maybe it's folklore, but it's sourced and that's the important thing. I think the article has been much improved through this AfD, so I'm happy. Artichoke2020 (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep now seems well sourced, enough to pass WP:Notability cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Order of the Gimghoul is "secret" only insofar as its membership and activities remain closed to the public. The Society and Gimghoul Castle are a notable part of University history and tradition. The average freshman student on campus might not have heard of it, but most of them couldn't tell you the history or significance of the Dialectic and Philanthropic Societies either. I don't see anyone proposing the deletion of that article. (I've also added another reference to county land records showing ownership of the castle by the society.) --Hennap (talk) 02:51, 10 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 a hoax (WP:CSD#G3). Yep, I know that "hoax" is generally not a valid reason to speedy delete, but the reason for that is the danger of false positives (i.e. misidentifying something as a hoax, when it is actually true but obscure.) In this case, we have given the article so much attention, and the hoax allegations are no longer substantiated merely by "We haven't heard about it, and we cannot find references", but an active proof that the article is a lie along the lines "all the references are wrong, and every piece of the article is taken from another article". Since the reason for not speedy deleting hoaxes is no longer valid for this particular article, and since the presence of hoaxes and misinformation is actively harmful, I have no compunctions against removing the article as vandalism right now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Zimare

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

Author has removed speedy tag three times, but overnight developed the article to the point where an AfD is probably prudent. Subject is just not notable - a current college student who did pretty good in one or two tournaments. This is basically a vanity page. Tan | 39 14:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Brittle heaven. The Elo he got is not notable, and beating a chess International Master is not notable either. Fame is a harder mistress to get! SyG (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The FIDE rating card and Chessgames.com link are to Viswanathan Anand who is notable, but who is not Akshay Zimare. If the person verifiably were a GM or a national chess champion (either standard has been sufficient to gain a mention in paper encyclopedias) I would probably say "keep", but a 2300 FIDE Elo and just defeating an IM is not by itself notable, even though it indicates a strong player. With the article being unreferenced (or rather: wrongly referenced), and lacking content beyond a game and infobox, I will need to say delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it is not even his own game! It is a game from Anand, and the diagram and annotations are copied from the article on Viswanathan Anand. The whole article seems like a bad joke. (Delete) Voorlandt (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article was created by User:Enigmatic1986 who is probably Akshay Zimare himself given his other contributions, and who has a behaviour of vandal (e.g. he has just vandalised the page on Viswanathan Anand). I have reported this behaviour at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and now I think we should go for speedy delete. SyG (talk) 09:04, 9 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. May be restored to merge with an article about the case if one gets written. Sandstein (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Eklund (trucker)

Anders Eklund (trucker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I listed this for speedy deletion this morning - this guy may have confessed to murder, but legally he has not yet been tried and has not been found guilty of murder. So, legally, he's an innocent man until proven guilty. I can very much believe that he did do it, but it's not yet been proven in law. So at the moment we've got an article about someone which states that he's a serial killer, and states as a fact that "His final victim was the 10-year old girl Engla". I think that this is a big legal problem for wikipedia, which is why I flagged it for speedy deletion. For ten hours, administrators went through and got rid of everything else in the speedy delete category, but just left this here. So I put a "help me" tag on my user page, asking why, and someone called Wknight94 responded to my "help me" request by belittling me, saying "I'm not sure why you're so excited about this". Hey, Wikipedia sure is a friendly, welcoming place! I've edited anonymously for a while now, and decided to start an account, and I don't think this was a very nice welcome...

Anyway, I'm sure that in time he WILL be found guilty, and when that happens he needs a page as his notability will be firmly established. In the meantime, surely this article needs to go - being a truck driver isn't notable (what a ridiculous page title - "Anders Eklund (trucker)"!) and nor is the fact that he's been convicted of exposing himself and "other minor offences". When he's found guilty, start an article. Until then, delete! Patty Fantastic (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there is substantial coverage of the case, but the way the article has been written implies more than has been admitted or is being claimed in the media, for example "his final victim" where "victim" does not specifically refer to murder but the way the article has been written implies it. --Snigbrook (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten that part of the article, but I'm not sure about notability. It has had recent news coverage, but the notability may be only temporary. --Snigbrook (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on a number of grounds - Wikipedia is not a newspaper, putting up an article on a suspected murderer who has not yet been tried, WP:BLP1E with no other notability. Should have been speedied on sight. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I tried that, but Wknight94 told me "I'm not sure why you're so excited about this" and untagged it. Patty Fantastic (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the existing article can possibly be renamed to either of these - the article is all about the suspect with a passing reference to the case. If the case deserves an article, a new article needs to be created. Renaming the existing article won't address the problem. Patty Fantastic (talk) 06:17, 8 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. Sorry, I was unaware of this policy. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ucalegon

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

Placeholder for a nonexistent article. {{db-empty}} has been removed by a third party. Regardless of either editor's intentions, this article must be deleted without prejudice per WP:BLANK. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:22, 3 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amaryllis Knight

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

Completion of incomplete AfD nomination. No rationale given. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per notability policy. Although the article is about the co-founder of a notable company this does not automaticly mean the person is notable. The only news third party source i could find with her name it in was not directly about her and only mentioned her as the founder of this company and went into no detail about here hence does not indicate notability. Added comment I just went through all the refrences and only 2 of them mentioned her and in these two articles they pretty much just mentioned her as part of a non-proffit group with other people. Notablility guidlines state that the coverage must be significant to indicate notablity and these sources do not go into any detail of the person what so ever. Printer222 (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO Amaryllis Knight just won 2008 Custom Culture Award for Best Motorcycle at Legend of the Motorcycle on May 3, 2008. Much press has come out about this person in the past week, there are references on her page to articles that tell of how she crossed the world with Jack Osbourne doing a tv show and car rally etc., I will go to clean them up now. As well as being part of a very high profile English family, and having done notible work with refugee children, being noted on the Oprah Winfrey show. -- There is no reason to delete this person. She is of interest to many and is about to become of much more.Ash773 | talk 07:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO Notability established through mentions in several reliable independent sources. This person was on a prime time television series that aired throughout Europe in which she starred with Jack Osbourne. She is not just a business person, but a television personality, as well as being noted in the press as a builder of the falcon motorcycles (see references) and as others have noted, comes from a prominent family of public interest . Motoguzzi2 | talk 04:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links

delete no general notability. The company is a niche company, not necessarily important enough that its ceo is automatically important, and the evidence in the articles cited does not show she was the principal designer of the prize winning bike. On the contrary--the LA Times article headline says "Custom ace Ian Barry and actor Jason Lee are behind the Bullet Falcon". I trust their reporter more than the above arguments. Similarly, the articles on the tour refer to her partner as the important figure. Again, I trust the reporters on this. The SF Chronicle article heralded above merely mentions her. The references do not at all support the claims in the article. As for minor issues, being on Ophrah by itself is not notability. Her notable family does not make her notable. Her charitable campaign does not have a WP articles, so its hard to judge. I note that all the substantial information in this article is already in the article on the company. DGG (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep person is of notability. Many are missing a point. She was the co-lead with Jack Osbourne of a vastly successful prime time television series in Europe. Falcon Motorcycles, having just won 'best custom motorcycle' at Legend Of The Motorcycle, the worlds only international concours for motorcycles, is a far cry from a niche company, but rather the premeir custom motorcycle builders in the eyes of the motorcycle industry at large, for the year 2008. Knight is noted in all articles as being a joint partner in Falcon and an active part in the sourcing and design of the bikes (as per intersection magazine linked to article - and in the linked San Francisco Chronicle they cite Knight and Ian Barry as being given the award jointly for the build of the Bullet Falcon Motorcycle.) When viewing the Legend Of The Motorcycle press page on the Legends website itself, Knight is covered in as many photographs as Barry, and in their literature, it is clearly stated that the Bullet Falcon was built by "Ian Barry & Amaryllis Knight of Falcon Motorcycles". See photograph of Legend Of The Motorcycle plaque labeling bike at the international concours, and the award was presented by [Jesse G. James]] to both Knight and Barry jointly. I agree that having notible family does not make Knight notable, but when added to the list of things that do, her family being notable is certainly of public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.250.70 (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as above, Meets WP:BIO. Also I note: nowhere in any of the sources or referenced articles is Knight named the "COO" of Falcon, in fact, only in the wiki article is this the case. In the San Francisco Chronicle Knight is named as the co-builder of the Bullet Falcon, with Ian Barry for Falcon Motorcycles, and in other literature she is either named as the co-builder (such as the Legend Of The Motorcycle documentation, or as a joint partner in the Falcon Venture as well as the chief source of rare parts that make up the motorcycles themselves. Is The LA Times journalist is to believed, then the motorcycle is "Mary Shelly" -d together with rare parts and pieces, which according to the editor of Intersection magazine, is left entirely to Knight to source from her travels around the world. There are many 3rd party sources citing Knights Notability. Tackat | talk 07:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO. Article has multiple third-party sources. Amaryllis Knight is a British television personality and of equal interest (literally and figuratively) in Falcon Motorcycles as Ian Barry. She is according to all articles I can find on line, as well as the Legend of the Motorcycle website and resources, an equal part of the design process as Ian Barry seems to be, with the exception being the LA Times article who states simply that Falcon Motorcycles belongs to her an d Barry. [(talk) states above that the Times article talks of Barry and Jason Lee being behind the Bullet falcon. This is a figure of speech - the reality is, as stated in the San Francisco Chronicle article that Barry and Knight built the Bullet Falcon for Actor Jason Lee. This is reconfirmed in the Legend Of The Motorcycle references and Press photographs on their website and in print. Knight is also a British television personality as well as of interest as the member of her high profile family. Agreed as above that this does not stand alone as being notable, but is of additional interest. The other points: Oprah / charity etc. again would not stand alone as notable, but are interesting pieces of information to add to her article. [User:LAmusic3|LAmusic3]] | talk 22:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it interesting that all the keep comments are formatted with ----- lines separating them, something I have never seen before at AfD. The ones after my comment, and after Marasmusine's, were added by some one of the "keep" editors, apparently in their view of what AfD is like. I will let the closing administrator draw their own conclusions. DGG (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' I personally formatted all the different keep comments on this page with ----- lines separating each of them them last night, when posting my keep comment above, I did not know that this had any meaning, and did it as I thought it was aesthetically pleasing.. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Thank you to DGG for pointing this out as being new to posting on a AfD page, I would have kept doing it everywhere had you not! [User:LAmusic3|LAmusic3]] | talk 09:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO, and has third-party sources. I have cleaned up and re-organized the article in the hope that it is clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfmoon3 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Nair

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

Unsourced article on a company CEO. No significant coverage found on Google. Epbr123 (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only way that this article can be considered notable is if the company Telesto Inc is also considered and notable enough, since this company doesnt have a wikipedia article and i cant verify the notability of the company through a google search i would delete it. Printer222 (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, no sources.Renee (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as non notable bio (A7). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Thebert

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

Unsourced article on a WWII pilot. No significant coverage found on Google. Epbr123 (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as per CSD A7. An article about person that does not indicate significance or importance of the subject. Don't get me wrong, very special and important job however i dont think that just being a WWII pilot makes the person significant or important in the context of an encyclopedia. Article is also not sourced hence no significant real world coverage of this person can be indentified . Printer222 (talk) 14:13, 3 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 Hacienda La Puente Unified School District. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bixby Elementary School

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

Doesn't appear notable. Epbr123 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will give more time and opportunity, in the rest of the school term, for the article to be improved and for notable aspects of the school to be written up. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC) The preceding comment was left on the article's Talk page when the ProD tag was removed. Moved by AnturiaethwrTalk 14:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. While I understand Wanderer's comment, it [14] doesn't appear that there's anything notable to write about this school. RS coverage is limited to name drops of attendees and people who worked there. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Travellingcari. You probably understand that I was only asking for a delay in the process on the chance that the article creator returned to work on the article, taking into account that if the article remains in place somewhat longer than it otherwise would, no harm is done thereby.
I think there is a problem in that reading the formidable template-created boxes at the top of the article will tend to discourage a new editor from continuing to edit. Whether this has actually occurred, I do not know. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of why I support a redirect/merge, if the person re-visits the article they'll see the content is still there and maybe continue to edit. While I think 99.99% of elem schools are n-n, I think immediate prod/afd etc. scares off potential future editors TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:01, 4 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. Our French-speaking colleagues seem to have come to the same conclusion. Sandstein (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seyhan Kurt

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

This article has had a speedy delete requests, been prodded a couple times and been to AFD before. The subject also has nearly identical articles in 5 other languages et:Seyhan Kurt, fr:Seyhan Kurt, 'Italic text' it:Seyhan Kurt, pt:Seyhan Kurt, tr:Seyhan Kurt. There is every indication that subject should be notable and that great references should be available, the problem is that while of this should be possible none of it seems to actually be true. The Basic criteria is A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. With five languages articles to chose from not a single one has a reliable non-primary references.

There is no indication or claim in the English language version of the article that subject meets the Notability requirements for Any biography

  1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
  2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

There also is no indication or claim in the English language version of the article that subject meets the Notability requirements for Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

I came across this article while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and have no vested interest in the article or the subject other then to ensure that article meets at least the barest minimum of verifiability, by including at least one reliable published (online or offline) reference. If such a reference was available I would have much preferred to included it in the article rather then bring this article to AFD. A good faith effort to find a reliable reference was not successful.

Additionally per WP:V #Burden of evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This article's complete content has been challenged a number of times, but in two years not a single reliable reference has been provided.

I ask the community if this article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Jeepday (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The only Ghit I found that I could read (after removing Wikipedia and Facebook from my search) was a French website for finding old classmates (anyone read Turkish?). The Library of Congress has no mention of him (I also searched for his books, in both Turkish and English, with the same results), so I'm inclined to say if he's published he's probably not notable; however, I'm not sure what its limitations are. Overall, I'm seeing no indication of notability, but my recommendation is "weak" because it's reasonable to suppose I may have missed something. AnturiaethwrTalk 13:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain I deprodded it a while back on the basis that the poetry was probably notable, but this will obviously need reviews or references of some sort. Given that they will be in Turkish, I do not have the ability to look for them, nor can I check whether the books are widely held in Turkish libraries. Someone who knows the language is needed. I did do some quick fixes to the poorly translated article on the basis of the article in the French wikipedia. DGG (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice to recreation if notability per WP:BIO is established at a later date.
    Many thanks to the nominator for a well-researched nomination. I had previously PRODded this article at the end of March[15] on grounds of its being unreferenced for so long, and I think the nominator's most important point here is that the burden of evidence lies with the creator of content: it is up to those who create an article to establish notability, not to others to disprove it. The nominator's checks usefully confirm that Kurt exists and has published, but that's all, and publication alone is not enough to establish notability. I know that there are some cases where notability can only be established by those who now their way around specialist or non-English-language-sources, even when a google search draws blanks, but two years is more than long enough to wait in the hope that notability will be established. DGG is right that Turkish-language skills would probably be needed to establish notability, but I believe that DGG's arguments here amount to an inversion of proof and if we were to assume that non-English-language writers are notable unless proven otherwise, we would be driving a coach-and-horses through WP:V. I'm aware that there are systemic bias issues here, but for me the clincher is that even the Turkish-language article on Kurt is unreferenced, which for me offsets any concerns that this is an English-language-bias issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, I said uncertain, not keep. DGG (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there really appears to be no notability here and the other language articles offer no substance to redress that concern. I will take this to pages a supprimer on French wiki as well. Smells like vanity to me. Eusebeus (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional note. So, in the languages I can read, viz. French, Portuguese and Italian, these are the same copy and paste jobs. Moreover, every single article on all these wikis was the product of an editor for whom this is their sole contribution - and not one has an actual account. No evidence of notability and strong WP:VAIN concerns here. Eusebeus (talk) 23:31, 3 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. The article was very significantly improved from May 4 on, which is why the earlier "delete" or "redirect" opinions would seem to no longer apply. Incidentally, AfDs should not be used to propose redirects, only deletions. Sandstein (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit of Caerbannog

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

A minor plot device in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The lead is actually just about all that can be said on the subject, the rest is a repeat of a section of plot summary from the main article plus a bit of trivia that largely reads as novel synthesis. Time for a redirect, I think. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later I have added 8 references which seems enough for today. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added references now demonstrate notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy and one remains unmoved by the dilatory "references" added. Eusebeus (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I warned you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn't you? The article's structure has been developed and another 8 citations have been added. What more do we need to make this a featured article? Colonel Warden (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks like straw-clutching. Lots of the added material has an utterly speculative link to the film, and is of seriously dubious notability as well. I applaud your effort to expand the article beyond a list of pop culture references, but the "why?" factor is still pretty high. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that most of the sources don't look that useful for demonstrating notability. There are 19 listed right now, of which twelve most definitely do not involve significant coverage of this particular rabbit (several have only passing mentions of the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, which is related in name only; a few are just plain unrelated, like the book on Apple Computers). I'm a tad iffy about the rest, but since I can't access them I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they aren't definitely irrelevant. Long story short: the sources don't convince me, but they sort of come close. I still recommend a merge, but keeping the article won't disgust me. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have accessed all these sources in the course of editing the article and they support the relevant points made. The Apple book, for example, says "AppleShare 3.0 was code-named Killer Rabbit, after the blood-sucking character in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail.". This detail properly appears in the section which explains how this character had a widespread impact. The only aspect which was not initially clear was whether the Jimmy Carter references were an attribution and so I have cited a source which makes it clear that they were. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point; those sources have more value than I originally thought. (I thought they were being added to establish notability, not to back up specific claims; the relevant pages tend to be restricted, so I couldn't see anything about the rabbit.) Nonetheless, I still don't think they establish notability apart from the movie, as none of them (including the three added since I last responded) are about the rabbit per se. I think we're dealing with a difference of opinion about depth of coverage: at what point does a large amount of trivial coverage indicate notability in the same way that substantial coverage does? I think we may be nearing that threshold, but I'm not convinced we've crossed it; you're apparently of the opinion that we have. Both positions seem fairly reasonable, so I'm not going to get too invested in defending mine. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rabbit has made more than one appearance. In particular, it appears in the Spamalot musical. I have not seen this yet and do not want to research it closely as it will spoil it for me. The character is therefore bigger than the single movie and so a merger would be inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Matter of Britain has spawned endless variations over the centuries and will continue to do so. We have many articles upon these and this is a Good Thing as it is of great scholarly interest. Since Spamalot is a separate and distinct work from the movie, we have a separate article for this too. The rabbit appears as a distinct character in these and many other derivative works, as the article explains. It has established its place in Arthurian myth and is, it seems, more famous than lesser knights such as Bors who also have separate articles. Notice that the Bors article has no sources while the rabbit is at 22 and counting. The argument for deletion doesn't have a leg to stand on, but like the Black Knight, will not lie down - now that's ludicrous. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The citations and searching demonstrate that it's harder to find a review of the film or musical that omits mention of the "killer rabbit" sequence than the reverse, and there are plentiful indicators that it's e.g. a "famous set-piece" in the context of the film, and may be nearly the only thing some people recall. This more than satisfies WP:FICT.--Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came here expecting to post delete as an unnotable, but the amount of citations and content written on the article is actually decent enough to merit an article. — Κaiba 01:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably one of the most famous rabbits there are. This article has 23 references. It was voted Britain's best movie rabbit. --Pixelface (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, will never become a proper encyclopedic article, nor even a proper stub. Dorftrottel (bait) 14:45, May 8, 2008
What? I honestly wonder if people actually look at articles up for deletion sometimes.. This article has 20+ references and isn't even marked as a stub. How can you claim that it will never be a proper stub (or article) when it is already past stub quality? — Κaiba 19:50, 8 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raving Loony Green Giant Party

Raving Loony Green Giant Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hum. 21 unique Google hits, including nothing that looks like a reliable non-trivial source about the group. A splinter group of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, which polled fewer votes than the OMRLP in the tiny number of elections they contested. I suppose the fact that the leader then joined the Monster Raving Tory Party might score some points for political humour, but that's about it. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this group received a lot of coverage at the time, as evidenced by the reliable Almanac of British Politics reference, which gives a lot of information on the party and provides most of the details in the article. Most of this coverage will date from the early 1990s and is unlikely to appear online, but someone with access to newspapers of the period would be sure to find far more. However, we have this strong reference for much of the article, and I have spotted another book reference for the Scottish councillor. As the article states, the party was pretty successful at a local level, and it was this which generated the substantial media coverage. Warofdreams talk 18:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an article about them in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which shows that the group received some international attention. Admittedly, there's not much else at the Google News archives, but that doesn't mean that other newspaper articles don't exist somewhere offline. Zagalejo^^^ 19:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google News archives are not great for the UK, but do turn up a couple of other references in U.S. papers the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and The Intelligencer. Neither of these are freely viewable, but the second one looks like it may give some detail. Searching for the likely misspelling "Looney" turns up a (again not freely viewable) transcription of an interview with Hughes on National Public Radio. This party was clearly international news for a period in the early 1990s, and notability is permanent. Warofdreams talk 01:08, 4 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 Redirecting the dead page at editorial discretion. Spartaz Humbug! 21:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Lawrence (politician)

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

The subject was defeated in the 2004 Presidential Election on a ticket that attracted 0.0015% of the popular vote. For every person that voted this ticket, around 32,000 voted for each fo the two main candidates.

That's probably why the article is a stub with zero independent sources... Guy (Help!) 11:46, 3 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 Islamic view of the Last Judgment. Sandstein (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signs of qiyam

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

Essay about an element of the Islam religion. Note that "Signs of qiyam" is not a religious term. PeterSymonds | talk 11:30, 3 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 Spartaz Humbug! 21:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David North (Trotskyist)

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

This article has been tagged with issues since November and not fixed, and some Googling did not find any reliable independent sources from which it could be fixed. There appears to be a bit of a walled garden around the Socialist Equality Party and its website. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more sources can be found. There is some information in International Trotskyism, 1929-1985, always a good, reliable source on Trotskyism. But there's not enough there to construct a good article out of, and I can't find anything else which is independent and in any way substantial. Warofdreams talk 00:44, 4 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 recreation of deleted article. ... discospinster talk 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of Claudio

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

All this is covered in The Amory Wars, Coheed and Cambria etc. Perhaps some could be integrated but I feel most is already covered. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Story of Claudio said delete, but it's still here? Jack?! 11:24, 3 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. Spellcast (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Ellington Band

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

Obviously non-notable band, though I don't think this falls under A7. PROD'ed and appealed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the band is unsigned, does that mean they cant have a page on wiki?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffman2k5 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 3 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 fact that these famous people are radio operators does not make the topic notable. The information belongs in the individual articles of the subjects rather than here. Malinaccier (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Amateur Radio Operators

Notable Amateur Radio Operators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The primary amateur radio article used to contain a similar list of amateur radio users, and was deleted as being simple trivia. This article is exactly the same, simple listcruft. These may be famous people, but they are not famous in any way for holding an amateur radio license. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:53, 3 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 Spartaz Humbug! 21:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P4 medicine

P4 medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability Axl (talk) 09:41, 3 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. Spellcast (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Collins, Esq.

Wallace Collins, Esq. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Allegedly notable attorney. Looks more like an advert for his business (I've removed one more spammy part) Declined WP:CSD#A7 speedy. Pedro :  Chat  09:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I originally CSD tagged, but this was declined. While his clients may be notable, I'm not sure that their lawyer is necessarily. I couldn't find anything to verify notability beyond commercial sites with a google search. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched for reliable secondary sources to establish notability, but was unable. In some cases, a notable client's attorney would be notable, however I do not think this is the case here. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hastily, if not speedily - enough spam to make Hormel happy. "Article" written by a single-purpose account (in fact, all of this editor's contributions are to this article and the talk page). Assertion of "recording artist for Epic Records and then United Artists Records" not supported by any citations from reliable sources; much, if not all of content a mirror image of lawyer's web page. If the article is kept, it will need to be renamed per WP:MOS and the "Esq." removed. B.Wind (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted under WP:CSD#G3 and likely WP:CSD#G10 Pedro :  Chat  10:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shneeter

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

Unencyclopedic article - possibly a hoax which does not establish notability. Deadly∀ssassin 08:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find nothing on google about this word, I would presume that something to do with gaming would have at least one mention on the internet. I would say that it is a hoax or attack on a person with the last name Shneeter. Not notable.  Atyndall93 | talk  09:02, 3 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). Subject is notable. WilliamH (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aggression Replacement Training

Aggression Replacement Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability and reads like and advertisement. It is orphaned, but that alone is not reason enough to delete. THobern 08:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete (even discounting my own opinion, see below). NawlinWiki (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DMurawski

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Just another YouTube user. Paradoxsociety 07:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not notable article. Macy (Review me!) 14:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can find some proof for the 750,000 views. Plus, I would like to note -- it's easy to be a pointless Wikipedian that doesn't actual consider an article before saying DELETE, but it is noble to actually consider one. I'm not even a member and I feel more fair, which I find sad. What is the point of deleting an article that fans of the subject enjoy reading? It isn't even poorly written. Clue me in? 71.193.87.216 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I have found that DMurawski has 800,000 views, not 700,000. Nearly one million views and climbing is pretty noteworthy. That's a lot of eyeballs... once I put the reference up, you might have to succumb and take it off Deletion Debate. There's no Wikipedia rule stating something with 800,000 clicks is not noteworthy, and if so, please cite it. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)— 71.193.87.216 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Article Validated I, the person the article is about, have validated it. I posted an article on my official blog, with photo evidence of both my 800,000 video views and 100,000 channel views. If you could be so kind as to click references 1 & 2 on the article, you will see it no longer is not sourced. As to the request of Saberwyn, I can and will find articles other have written about me. I did NOT write this article about myself, but I can and will validate it, because it rightfully can be validated. Dmurawski (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice The notice that was put up is flattering, but there will be no fanboys and girls debating on this if I can help it. With the sources I presented, whoever created this article is now validated in doing so. If there are sources to back the statistics and noteworthiness, there should be no debate any longer. As well, the notice says merit is judged... I urge whoever decides on the deletion: check the article, because all the statistics are backed up, and it is proven valid. Dmurawski (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Leaves me wondering "do you have a life? or at least some sources to back your claims?" Tell me how someone with success is non-noteworthy. Besides that, the basic fact remains that Derek Murawski is a YouTube partner, which is a very hard program to enter. When YouTube selects you to make money off your content, you obviously have some power on the site. You may think I'm ignorant, but obviously you do not see how pathetic it appears to others when you have power to say "delete -- not noteworthy"... despite your total lack of research, other than your sickening knowledge of some rules written by decrepit nerds with no lives. Good day, sir. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think it's worth valuing an understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, because with it comes the ability to assert your point legitimately, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks on participants in the discussion. It seems reasonably clear that even though the subject has had many views, the growing consensus is that there are no sources which offer independent commentary on why the subject is notable. My advice is if you have them, add them, but at no point will personal attacks advance your position. WilliamH (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Tribune Interview The Minneapolis Star Tribune will be doing an article on me soon, so therefore I am noteworthy enough to be featured in a respected paper. Once the interview is up, this article will be backed by an outside source, and therefore validated. I urge the final decider not to delete the page someone created of me, due to this fact. For now, the sources hold true -- the photographical evidence of source #1 was provided by me, and clearly shows that the 800,000 views are real. I don't own a robot refresh program, so the notion that they were attained with fraud is preposterous.

Comment. I'm not entirely sure you are clear on the "backing up" bit. Nobody disputes that hundreds of thousands of people have seen your channel, but this doesn't constitute notability, for the same reason that the hundreds of thousands of people who have seen my grandmother's front garden having driven past it doesn't warrant an article here, because no independent sources have asserted notability. Apologies if you were already clear on this but it's clear some participants weren't. When will the MST be doing that article on you? Wikipedia articles do not exist on the basis that notability might be asserted at a later date, per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WilliamH (talk)
Response They are interviewing me tomorrow afternoon Dmurawski (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to response: If that happens (and taking the word of a Wikipedia vandal for crystal ball information is sketchy at best), it wouldn't change the fact that you are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Posting videos on Youtube just isn't something that matters. A case can be made for people like Chris Crocker who were the subject of many news stories, but one possible upcoming news story isn't enough. Heck, I've been the subject of multiple news stories in national papers. I wouldn't claim to be sufficiently notable to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttle But do you have a worldwide audience, and fans that are interested in such an article? Obviously if one has found it and is defending it, and one created it... he has fans 71.193.87.216 (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody disputes that he has many fans, but the individual hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. We're not claiming that he'll never be, but if there is nothing to assert notability then there is no grounds for the article. WilliamH (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Please ignore this comment, it is crude and should not be used to make assumptions on this debate. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major Improvement Added independent source article, from another website, as source # one. This answers almost all of the claims against the article's notability -- nearly all of these comments have said "add an external source, or it will be deleted." Not only have I found this source, LG15.com, but I will be searching more later. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "...self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable" as sources, according to WP:SPS (emphasis mine). (And really, there's an entire wiki devoted to lonelygirl15? What is the world coming to?) 199.8.47.12 (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Salt Likely a vanity page and strong possibility of recreation. Artichoke2020 (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, even by standards of Youtube self-promotion, no reliable secondary sources. Debate is not helped by keep votes and nasty comments by subject of article and his obvious sock-puppets (for example, 71.193.87.216 has made no edits other than related to subject, including this self-promotion). Camillus 14:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious? What's obvious is that I'm a fan, which I have said many times before. When I was sent the DMurawski article, I was excited and enthralled to read it -- because I'm a fan. A fan. Not a puppet. The reason I have been editing only DMurawski is because I came on here for DMurawski's article. I have been watching and communicating with him on YouTube since 2007, so therefore I know many things about him. In his video, Spring Break, he wears a letter jacket from "Blaine" and talks about living in Minnesota... put two and two together... I'm not a puppet, I just have a logical mind. Sorry. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear lord. Shoot me for living in Minnesota... still haven't met him. I'm not fake, period. You people can label me all you want as a "sockpuppet", my truth is my own. I'm totally unphased by these developments. Bring them on. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, not just the same state, you live in the same small town as Derek! You guys really should meet up!
May 3 User:Dmurawski uploads image. 18 mins later Jorotayabl creates article, with the image - like, how did he know??? 2 minutes later 71.193.87.216 edits article. 14 mins later DMurawski comments that a fan of his created article, nothing to do with him (except there's the image...)
Nothing for 15 hours, then DM edits article. 13 minutes later 71.193.87.216 edits article.
Derek thanks his fans on uber site for defending him - actually, make that fan (singular), as 71.193.87.216 is the only one defending article.
Perhaps its the threat at the top of the page, quit with the personal attacks, so immature. Perhaps the author of the article searched the media area for DMurawski? Not everything's as shady as you think. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Derek, the point of WP:AUTO on wikipedia is that if you're notable, someone else will create/edit your article. One day you'll be in your mansion and you can all laugh at us...but till then, give it a rest ;) Camillus 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not... Derek... 71.193.87.216 (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not hard enough, I wager, for the source has been up since I added it yesterday... 71.193.87.216 (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking, but all I see is a link to an open wiki, which doesn't meet the Wikipedia criteria for a reliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since deletion is on the cards, I also suggest this page be salted, as I anticipate a strong possibility of it being recreated. WilliamH (talk) 17:53, 9 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 The Adicts. Spellcast (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Warren

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

Disputed PROD. While the band The Adicts may be notable, the lead singer is not necessarily notable as notability cannot be inherited. At the moment this article does not establish notability. Deadly∀ssassin 07:05, 3 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 repost of deleted material per previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coat of Arms of Coates nancy (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arms of Coates

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

This article is just a list of 5 people who have a coat of arms. Three of one surname, and two of another. Having a coat of arms does not make someone notable. Note this article seems to have been previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coat of Arms of Coates. Celtus (talk) 06:49, 3 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 without prejudice to recreation if substantiated by reliable sources. Ty 04:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windy Lampson

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals couple of local awards exhibitions does not make artist notable GameKeeper (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: 83 Google hits [17], and only a single reliable source among them, provided that this "Times-News" is one. Nothing to presume this person passes WP:BIO, and I'm interested in sourcing for the "internationally recognized" remark, because none of those hits reflect anything of the sort.  RGTraynor  07:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No books to cite. No arguments for why you shouldn't delete the article. All information is reputable, yet cannot be cited. However, I would like to know what does make an artist notable. Perhaps provide a link to Wikipedia's least notable artist so others will know what it takes to be accepted by Wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.33.42.113 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals provides a list of criteria for notability in this area. If you think at some future date Windy Lampson does then fulfill the criteria you can apply for an undelete to get this information back at WP:DRV. I had a brief look through the deletion reviews, I found this one recently that survived a deletion review Rick Bartow, I don't think this is the minimum standard but it is hard to find the 'least notable', I am 99% sure that there will be artists listed in wikipedia that should be deleted but have not been nominated for deletion yet. The review details are here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Bartow. GameKeeper (talk) 19:28, 4 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. Probable hoax and non-verifiable. Malinaccier (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo De La Rosa

Gustavo De La Rosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probable joke hoax article created February 2008, previously speedy deleted and arisen from the dead. Notability claims of drummer fame for a band and a line of clothing, both with zero Google hits, achieved at the tender age of nine and ten. Married a former Miss USA by the age of 16, received commercial endorsement deals, and so on. None of the claims appear valid based on multiple online searches. Regardless of the jokes, the article fails the core policy of verifiable accuracy to establish any notability. Michael Devore (talk) 05:52, 3 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. Spellcast (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Financial recruiter

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

Recruiter already exists; this is really just simply placing an adjective in front and making a new article. Perhaps a tidbit or two could be added to the Recruiter article, but there is no need for this one. Tan | 39 05:45, 3 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. Establishes notability through media coverage. Malinaccier (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ober Gatlinburg

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

This article pushes POV. It is also not notable. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 05:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep as conformant to WP:SS. (My personal opinion as a non-US editor, though, is that we may cover this particular issue a bit too much in-depth.) Sandstein (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political arguments of gun politics in the United States

Political arguments of gun politics in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I prod tagged this article with "Poor choice of a fork of Gun politics in the United States - this is the main topic of that article. A glance at the talk page of the older article reveals too little discussion of this forking to believe that it would be a consensus view had it gotten a wider airing. The older article has a huge "gun culture" section; that has its own article, so trim it instead." I should have said "spinout article" where I said "fork", because my prod tag was removed. Some background; on May 1st somebody put a "too long" tag on the article. Three editors (one somewhat unwillingly) then decided that this was the appropriate course of action--spinning out the the main topic of the old article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Political arguments of gun politics is distinctly different than gun politics in the United States. The gun politics in the United States article includes gun culture, which many references state is central to understanding gun politics in the US, as well as a history of gun politics, the legal history content of gun politics, and associated gun politics topics. On the other hand, political arguments of gun politics in the United States is a standalone topic that centers around the two documented and cited types of arguments of gun politics, which are then broken down at considerable lengths. The original article had gotten way too long per WP guidelines, and discussion on the talk page among all active editors agreed with spinning out the standalone content. Spinout articles are highly encouraged on Wikipedia to address articles that grow too long. Yaf (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a useful and well-referenced page on an encyclopedic topic: focusing on a specialised aspect of the gun politics page. If we didn't make separate articles for specialised topics, imagine how big the History of the United States article would be! Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. My comments mirror Yaf's. This is a spinout that addresses a specific topic within "Gun politics in the US." I think it's a useful, multi-viewpoint summary of arguments that have been made. I suppose one could make an argument about which subsection in GPITUS should have been spun out, but I do not find this section replicated in other entries, and it is on-topic.--Icammd (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Yaf pretty much summed it up; I have little to add except that the new article existed for mere hours before being tagged for deletion. I don't see why this article shouldn't be given a chance. A problem was found: parent article was too long. A solution was proposed: spin off this section. A consensus was reached: do it. It's done. This seems like Wikipedia at its best and it deserves a chance to be made to work and not have the door slammed on it before the metaphorical ink is even dry. Once it has been fleshed out and given some time to develop, if it turns out to have been a poor solution, it can always be merged back and a new solution found. In the mean time, I can see no reason not to give this article a chance. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:28, 4 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. Spellcast (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SpellBinder (RPG game)

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

Contested prod. The only references are to the official homepage (currently down) and a wiki devoted to the game, neither of which establish notability. Closedmouth (talk) 05:36, 3 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. Spellcast (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Howard

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

Original research essay...a blog post rather than a scholarly encyclopedic evaluation of a book. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment appears the previous AfD was for an article that liked the book...this appears to be a new article by an editor that does not like it. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:37, 3 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 18:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Man Standing (Ryan Shupe & the Rubberband album)

AfDs for this article:
Last Man Standing (Ryan Shupe & the Rubberband album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL, no proof that this album even exists yet. Only tracks are rumors, only source is MySpace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:24, 3 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, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:31, 8 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. Spellcast (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach in Warwickshire Bus Routes

Stagecoach in Warwickshire Bus Routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod was removed without comment or discussion. Wikipedia is not a directory, and a list of the bus routes in Warwickshire is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. A merge was suggested, which would not solve the problem: this information does not belong in Stagecoach in Warwickshire either. The subject of this article is simply a poor duplication of Stagecoach's timetable website. FrankTobia (talk) 03:41, 3 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. The article was cleaned up during the AFD. By the end of the discussion there was a clear consensus that the page should be kept, including the nominator. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankleigh Park

No indication of notability and article content consists almost entirely of lists. Grimhim (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, it does look like a real place. The question to me is whether in NZ "suburb" just means neighborhood of a municipality (New Plymouth), or if it is incorporated itself in some way. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It often means that it used to have its own municipal status but has since become subsumed in a larger entity. There was a major reorganisation of local government in NZ in the 1980s, after which a lot of former boroughs got amalgamated. In the case of Frankleiggh Park, I don't think it ever was a separate borough, but that shouldn't make much difference as we have articles on neighbourhoods for many different cities most of which are normally kept if brought up for AfD. In this particular case, this looks more like a candidate for cleanup than for deletion, so I'd say Keep. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, suburbs are worth having articles on. I'm writing articles on every locality or suburb in New Zealand large enough to have a primary school; when I get to Taranaki, Frankleigh Park will qualify because it appears to include Woodleigh School. Vogeltown School is on the boundary between Frankleigh Park and Vogeltown, but I'd put it in Vogeltown just because of the name in the absence of more specific information.-gadfium 05:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I'm usually quite sceptical about locality articles as they rarely seem to have much content, but this one appears to have enough to qualify for stub status. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comment: Cleanup certainly adds some value to the article. I've got no real problem with it now. I PROD'd it a while ago, but that didn't result in any change. The AfD has done the trick. Thanks. Grimhim (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment perhaps if you were trying to get some change in the article a cleanup template would have been better? That's what they're for... Grutness...wha? 01:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Maybe you're right, but I pointed out the obvious failings of the article when proposing its deletion in February and it was you, as I now discover, who chose to remove the PROD tag and leave it in the same miserable, worthless state. The only worthwhile fact it had at that point, other than a list of schools and an apparently random selection of street names, was that it was a suburb of New Plymouth, which wouldn't even have met the criterion for existing as a stub. So presented with the option of having it deleted or improved, you've given it some work that should allow it to stay. I'm happy with that. Grimhim (talk) 10:27, 5 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. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

508001

508001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability: there are many Pincodes in India. Why should this one Pincode have its own article? Joe Sperrazza (talk) 02:02, 3 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. Dhartung has provided sources showing the individual was notable; none of the deletes have made a compelling argument.Fabrictramp (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Tobias

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

This person is only notable for the manner of his death. He was not notable in life, no secondary sources are provided which discussed him while he was alive. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:58, 3 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Affleck

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

I am putting this up for deletion on behalf of User:Shovon76 and User:NawlinWiki who thought that Violet was not notable enough in her own right. Oore (talk) 01:48, 3 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. Waggers (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search finance

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

Apart from this brief mention there are press releases and ghits that you'd expect from a website -- but nothing to establish notabily per WP: WEB TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:00, 3 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. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devekut

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

Word - Wikipedia is not a dictionary Lemmey talk 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I rearranged it so the etymology is at the end, rather than the lead sentence. Still needs references, but that should help with your objection. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's clear that it goes beyond mere meditation or a hypnotic state; it also refers to the human relationship with God. A Christian equivalent is probably divine grace. I don't feel qualified to make these changes to the article, though. --Dhartung | Talk 18:23, 5 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. Tiptoety talk 04:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Burgess

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

Unsourced article on a painter. Little coverage found on Google. Epbr123 (talk) 00:30, 3 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.-Wafulz (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative theories regarding the CIA leak scandal

Alternative theories regarding the CIA leak scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a coatrack - it strings together various bits about Plamegate to make it seem like a coherent "alternative theory" about it exists - which does not appear to be the case. It's also a soapbox. Moreover, some of the sources it relies on are highly suspect - WorldNetDaily, freerepublic.com, and at least 9 blogs and self-published sources. Given that, and the uncited claims (think BLP concerns), and the fact that not every rumour deserves its place here, especially when we already have a giant article on Plamegate itself, deletion appears the best option. Biruitorul (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete POV fork. WillOakland (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Creating an "alternative theories" article is a typical approach to remove alternative theories from main article, as in case of John Kennedy assassination theories, for example. This should not be deleted as long as sourced. Problems with specific sources is not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point taken. However: a) one is the assassination of the most powerful man on earth, the other, the outing of a CIA operative (and anyway the latter article is about 100 kb longer already); b) once you've removed the "bad" sources, you're essentially left with a string of Washington Post quotes, a lot of uncited material, and some Wikipedians' "analysis" of those quotes, all served up in the guise of an article. However, given that the article lacks a coherent thesis and evidence that third-party sources have considered these "theories" in any sort of totality -- that they were not simply synthetized to seem like a legitimate topic, not to mention the source issues and such -- I think we're better off doing away with it. Biruitorul (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a POV fork to me. If teher's anything of value, merge it instead. JJL (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have an article on the Plame affair. If any of these theories is notable they should be mentioned there, not in a separate article which gives undue weight to them. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the very name of the article shows that it's a POV fork.--Berig (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Concerns about original research and possible WP:BLP concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per JJL, anything reasonable can be merged elsewhere, but the title inherently suggests both original research and POV fork. WilliamH (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if JoshuaZ voted delete, it shows how bad the article is Sceptre (talk) 21:06, 3 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 18:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Lynn

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:22, 3 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Bella

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

Pornstar with no significant coverage and who doesn't seem to pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per sources found by Vinh1313. Epbr123 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to Džej Ramadanovski. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vozi, vozi...

Vozi, vozi... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Track list and nothing further. Jón + 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It appears to be a decent article with a decent amount of content. I see no reason why this should be deleted as it obviously looks to be an encyclopedic article. Although it is short, so are several other articles like this. This would obviously need to be expanded, but otherwise, I don't think that this qualifies as a reason for deletion. Razor flame 01:06, 3 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_3&oldid=1081072786"