Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 22

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colinisation

Colinisation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable parody religion -- no Google hits aside from the Bebo page (which is certainly not a reliable source), no news articles that I could locate; page creator's username matches the title, suggesting a conflict of interest. nneonneo ^talk 19:56, 22 April 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Pahlow

Chris Pahlow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet notability requirements per WP:Notability (people). No reliable secondary source material exists to establish notability. The only sources cited in the article are promotional websites, press releases, promotional pages for film festivals, and blogs. Neither Chris Pahlow, nor any of his films, nor any of their minor awards have received any press coverage whatsoever. Since the previous AfD discussion, his films have been deleted for lack of notability. (See recent deletion debate: AfD for Fraught. Supermarket Musical Massacre was speedy deleted twice for blatant advertising.) This article is likely a self-promoting auto-biography (see Frogshavelegs (contribs)). Dgf32 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding previous AfD - The previous Afd discussion said Chris Pahlow's notability was determined by the films' awards, but since the awards were not covered by any independent sources, they themselves are not notable. Dgf32 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable awards for non-notable films do not establish notability for a producer. Dgf32 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A non-notable individual for whom the article attempts to demonstrate notability by pure numbers of non-notable events. The article is nothing more than a promotional bio by a series of what appear to be SPA accounts. --WebHamster 05:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, a handful of minor awards does not a notable producer make. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC).
• Delete no RS coverage, ghits only confirm that he exists, no evidence of notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 13:56, 23 April 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rahan Arshad

Rahan Arshad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable murderer; seems to be a case of BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - only "notable" because he killed his family. I created this originally, but no longer feel it meets our notability criteria. Majorly (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Though newsworthy (at one time), the subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Deli nk (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Majorly. --JulesN Talk 20:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This person was involved in one incident which had no sourced societal impact or resonance. If page creator doesn't believe it passes notability, that's pretty close to speedy. BusterD (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 18:41, 27 April 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Holburne

James Holburne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable grandson of a notable individual. Pastordavid (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. --JulesN Talk 20:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No references; appears non-notable. P.B. Pilhet 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cunard (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Like the other guys say... Ecoleetage (talk) 20:11, 24 April 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 Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This Is Forever (Say Anything album)

This Is Forever (Say Anything album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable references provided, and very unclear grammar. Dwilso 19:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I said it in the first AfD for this and i'll say it again: this is crystal ballery. The band hasn't even begun recording the album, they only released the second single from In Defense of the Genre on April 9. The only source is one sentence. This isn't any more notable (or in any form of completion) since the last AfD. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Album hasn't even been recorded yet; no verifiable info exists on it yet. WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - why not speedy WP:CSD#G4? JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No good references. P.B. Pilhet 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, and so tagged. Nothing has changed since the last AfD - crystal ballery with no reliable sources. It's not even as well written as the previously deleted article. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:21, 23 April 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tokere

Tokere (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dab page that consists only of two definitions, which violates WP:DAB#Dictionary definitions. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Probably could be speedied per G6. The dab doesn't actually link to any articles bearing that title. PeterSymonds | talk 09:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JulesN Talk 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - neither half leads to an article. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No refs, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If refs are found, then I suggest a move to Wiktionary. P.B. Pilhet 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:42, 22 April 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog

The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Irrational list of games for a compilation; unsourced. 阿修羅96 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete then redirect to True Blue: The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog. No sources (of any kind) provided or found. No evidence the video game collection exists, but True Blue clearly does and this is a reasonable search term for it. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I'll point out the existence of the redirect The Best Of Sonic The Hedgehog as well. Just64helpin (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No sources; until then, delete. P.B. Pilhet 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete First of all, no source. Also, this is obviously a fanboy's idea of a funny joke. There is no way Sega would release a game with all of these games that they could get off of the Wii's virtual console, or Xbox live arcade. Besides, they already have Mega Collection and Gems Collection. They have no reason or motivation to make another compilation other than SegaSonic and Knuckles' Chaotix. A definate delete. Indigo Rush (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Looks like a hoax, smells like a hoax. Couldn't find any sources to back this one up either. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not getting many hits and no results on notable game sites: [3], [4], [5], etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to be a WP:HOAX. Fails WP:V and WP:N otherwise. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:18, 24 April 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. If anyone still needs info for merging into Audicom, come on by my talk page & I'll restore the article into userspace. — Scientizzle 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audicom (PC audio cards)

Audicom (PC audio cards) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The purpose of the page is for company's promotional purposes only and it violates WP:SPAM, WP:NOT policy. In addition User:SLedesma violates WP:COI (see: [6]) and appears to be acting as a meat puppet for confirmed sock puppeteer OscarJuan] owner of www.solidynepro.com, external link which violates WP:NOT and WP guidelines WP:Notability (web), WP:RS and WP:ELNO (see:[7] Jrod2 (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Merge Per argument above. This is a legitimate hardware product that should be merged to its software, the Audicom article.Jrod2 (talk)

• Delete – I would have no problem with an article based on the company, in that there is enough information to make a case for notability. However, an article on the particular product the company makes, where I could find no information other that the company website, is called SPAM. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I was referring in part for "Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business". In addition, the subject of the article itself lacks notability. But, you are right, this is blatant spam, I just didn't want to sound like the Inquisition. Jrod2 (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've declined the G11 speedy - WP:COI does not spam make (in fact, the guideline states that editing in a situation where you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged rather than outright prohibited), and the language of the article on its own is generally encyclopedic in nature. While I'm curious to see if there are any substantial Spanish-language sources out there, right now I'm going to go with delete for lack of notability per WP:PRODUCT. --jonny-mt 05:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I'll stand by the delete though. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep to proceed with merge as the article was tagged prior to the nomination. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If you want to be technical about it, I Proded the article first (see: [8]) an hour later, a user deleted the Prod for Merge, so I tagged it for AfD minutes later. We don't use this criteria to vote "Keep" or "Delete". A user can tag to merge something that lacks of verifiability. That still doesn't mean it is an article that meets policy. Jrod2 (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete – There is already an article about Audicom. I don't see the need for a specific article about the audio cards from it. If some this has any interest, it should be mentionned within the main Audicom article.--Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi!:
My name is Sebastian Ledesma, I am the initial author of the article in Wikipedia about Audicom. I've created it 2 years ago because I considered relevant information. I know that I work in the company that created the Audicom, nevertheless I've tried to be as neutral as possible. I did it on my spare time, the company didn't paid me to do it, and they they are not paying now (Saturday at 4 a.m.!).</ br>

About the ECAM: it was created from zero. Without copying anyone. Bonello recognizes that the theoretical principles of masking were know but that was considered a curiosity behavior of human ear. His novel idea was to use those principles to discard information and so 'cheat' the ear. Bonello knew that was possible, so they started the project of creating an algorithm, hardware cards and the application for that (ok, the hard work they did their engineers, but based on Bonello's idea).

About Audicom cards: I didn't tried to do SPAM. These cards are obsolete today. So I do not expect customers to come running to buy, nor I'am inducing its purchase, and on the other hand, the cards already ceased to be manufactured (so the company could not sell them). I was looking to documentate what was done. It wasn't the first audio card, I credit this (in my opinion) to Creative, who in turn copied the design of the sound generator card from Adlib, and added an option to play in 8-bit samples (but forgot put a filter anti-aliasing! so that sound was horrible!). Solidyne but if it was the first company that did so in Latin America (and one of the first in the world), from scratch and without copying the design of other manufacturers of audio cards (because there wasn't any to copy), and also with the ability to compress and decompress audio in real time and based on a psychoacoustics codec (primitive when compared with existing AAC, WMA and others, but worked for that time). It took time to do it, there wasn't Google to search for information, there wasn't software to simulate circuits lika Tina, there was'nt software to make PCBs (a technical cartoonist did it with technical pens Rotring), there wasn't IDEs (such as RAD Studio CodeGear) to make the software, but they finally achieved it! The card was ready in 1988, and the product in 1989. The company was so sure that what they had invested in the journey of 12000 km to the NAB next year to show what they had done. </ Br>

About Audicom: it was a real novelty by that time. It created the concept of broadcast from a PC. Nowadays such software is becoming a 'commodity' (there are even some free), much of them pretty similar (have a 'file manager', a 'live assist', a 'playlist' and so on, some even unconsciously copied the cursor red to indicate the title in play and the cursor green to indicate the next item!). Solidyne does not control that market, and I do not see that it will gain any market share due to hard competition. I didn't tried to do SPAM about it, if you look the domain [www.audicom.com] belongs to a Finnish firm with which we have no relationship. I consider worthy to include in wikipedia as others products as VisiCalc do it. The relevance of the product that it changed the market, large manufacturers of cartridges and tapes (like Shure) left market by the appearance of products like-alike the Audicom (or better).

About Solidyne: I've included the name because it is a fact, I didn't try advertise saying come and buy. Neither I've created an article in Wikipedia about Solidyne, given that as work on it could be interpreted as advertising. I've added the link to the official site for Solidyne because I respected the style of others articles on Wikipedia (such as Costa Cruises, Dolby, etc.). Besides there is no direct association between the name of the company and its web site (www.solidyne.com points to a U.S. manufacturer of industrial equipment).

About Bonello: He is an Electronic Engineering, graduated at the University of Buenos Aires. One of the most prestigious universities in Latin America (4 of 5 Nobels prizes that Argentina have received attended at that university ). Besides, he is professor at that university (technically speaking is the Chief of professors). He is also member of the Audio_Engineering_Society, has published several technical papers on it, and has been awarded by the same community [9]. Additionally has dictated several conferences in various countries around the world and has published several books on acoustic all existed before Wikipedia, so he didn't wrote those books just to appear in it. Bonello has his name (and also his money!), at least I'm young and good looking! :P.

About me: In my original edition I did not include my name (I did not seem appropriate). I laughed when he saw my name included. I was part of the development of Audicom at the final part of the development for Windows. I'm not trying to figure in wikipedia and I don't will do any movement so my name is included. I didn't have oportunity to knew engineer Demaria, but I know the engineer Ricardo Sidoti and I can personally testify that he is a brilliant engineer (Bonello didn't use the adjective 'brilliant' on me :)). Sidoti was a student of him(and Bonello was very smart when he hired him) and also was university professor at the University of Buenos Aires. All the work that I posted on Wikipedia I do in my spare time (possibly I will continue tomorrow on exposing and correcting the article), Bonello is aware of this and I do not give any directive to put on (sometimes I had very strong discussions with him, but always for technical questions). I've tried to add more information as possible (I have still more things to do, like transcode from ECAM to MP3 audio so all can listen how was the sound of ECAM), sometimes it took me time because I'm not very familiarized to write in wikipedia (there isn't a better way to write that this edit box!?!?!) (and I have to do in my free time!).

About the Diario La Nacion: It is one of the most prestigious newspapers in Argentina. It has a conservative orientation, was founded by a former president of the country, has more than 100 years old and several recognized spanish writers (Jorge Luis Borges, José Martí, Manuel_Mujica_Laínez, José_Ortega_y_Gasset, Alfonso Reyes, Miguel_de_Unamuno among others) have participated over the years in their editions. Their editors are very strict and you can trust on them as a very reliable source (I dont expect that the result of a soccer match will gain the headlines just to hide the country's problems). We didn't pay for them for an article (we never will pay for moral reasons). I am also looking for other references (journals, photographs of the stand, etc.). That's why I've created the article at first time, so it's registered, with an archaeological nature of technological progress and not as a way to boost sales. I do not think that a person will buy an audio-processor just by a card that the company did make 20 years ago. Today, I see that in any comercial show that the attendees enter into a stand just for the pretty girls, free snacks or any product with many lights that call their attention.

On the other hand I think it is an obligation of moral wikipedia include knowledge. Thanks to it, now we know that what is the papiamento. Only 0.0047% of the world population speaks that language, and its has his place in Wikipedia. And we also know that Leon Scott invented the first sound recorder which he called phonautograph. For years this was attributed to Thomas Edison invention. Only very recently it was possible to decode his recordings. In the same way I wish to record what they did these people over 20 years ago, when I was playing with a C-64.
.

Saludos! SLedesma (talk) 07:40, 26 April 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 speedy delete - per correspondence sent to the OTRS system, the sole claim to notability seems to be false and potentially libelous. krimpet✽ 19:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Leo

Charles Leo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subject. Article claims he helped start a notable company with his ex girlfriend however the actual company does not mention him. No independent third party sources found to support notability.

Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:46, 22 April 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 no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 22:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MuseScore

MuseScore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable program - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

MuseScore is worth to be noted in an encyclopedia, especially in wikipedia, because it empowers people to create sheet music. It is open source and free, and therefore perfectly suitable for collaborative editing between musicians. The MuseScore project started as a Linux project almost 7 years ago, but is since last year available on Windows as well. It is being used by many users world wide. Just give the article some time to grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toemaz (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make it notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thx for the link, I missed it in the text above. Give me some time to prove it is notable. This whole Wikipedia is quite new to me so it may take some time. Thx Toemaz (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete lacks RS coverage, nn software TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Of the free scorewriters available for Windows (open or proprietary) MuseScore is the most developed and feature complete. By Travellingcari's criteria Canorus and TuxGuitar would not qualify. NoteEdit and Impro-Visor would squeak by with one news item (see TuxGuitar, Canorus, NoteEdit, and Impro-Visor).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbolton (talk • contribs)

Comment Other stuff is not a valid keep reason, maybe the others should be deleted as well TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: ...maybe the others should be deleted as well... Okay. Done, done, done, and done! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I disagree with the non-notable aspect of the arguments, which actually is the whole argument, because the software has in fact been noted. Close though.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 20:33, 28 April 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 - Nabla (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LinkBunch

LinkBunch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Non notable website, autobiography. Enga3213 (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep Appears to be notable and reasonably established (going by Google). PeterSymonds | talk 09:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. If it had references I'd say keep it, but without them I can't go with that. --JulesN Talk 20:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No WP:RS that can be easily found, fails per WP:WEB Gary King (talk) 19:16, 24 April 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 - Nabla (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Jamerson

Larry Jamerson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Poking around (I'm a book retailer), his books both seem to have been self-published (if they were published at all, I could only find a record of one of them). Article was created by the SPA Adrock13, who hasn't contributed anything before or since. The article's also been tagged for not having any real citations since November 2007. Ford MF (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No refs or assertion of notability. Maybe worth a speedy delete. P.B. Pilhet 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No assertions of notability. Could have been speedied. Edward321 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 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 merge and redirect to Races of Bas-Lag (note that AfD is not the place for requesting merges. Be bold and do it, or request it) - Nabla (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palgolak

Palgolak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very small amount of info about a very insignificant topic in China Mieville's books that could easily fit onto the Races of Bas-Lag page. Tredanse (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per nom. Ford MF (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per nom. --JulesN Talk 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect, per the above votes and nomination. P.B. Pilhet 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Races of Bas-Lag#Palgolak per all of the above. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:33, 27 April 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 - Nabla (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Gray (DJ)

Paul Gray (DJ) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

From the looks of the article this is about a Northern Soul club DJ who now is on internet radio but it appears to be a self written CV. Doesn't appear to satisfy the criteria for WP:MUSIC. Starrycupz (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Zero coverage in secondary sources. Ford MF (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete autobiography of non notable DJ. No way to verify content is accurate and balanced. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --JulesN Talk 20:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, delete: Author obviously took some time with this, but it fails to meet notability requirements, and it has no citations. P.B. Pilhet 21:37, 22 April 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David M. Hayes

David M. Hayes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page has been Speedy Deleted 4 times, restored twice (last time by me). The only reason I'm bringing it here is the question of whether being awarded French knighthood (Chavalier) is in itself enough of a notable achievement for such a bio article. I'd also note that it also appears to be an autobiography given that it has been consistently created by User:Davidmhayes. Currently the article doesn't even give the reason why he was awarded the knighthood. In England, knighthood is usually given for achievement or particular services to the country. No indication of the reason at the moment. My opinion is delete unless much more is added to the article. Pigman☿ 18:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as notability is not even suggested by the information we have here. Ford MF (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment—I added an external link to his personal biography, but I haven't been able to corroborate it with independent sources.—RJH (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I declined the speedy on this in hopes that an article about a Chevalier of France would prove to have notability. I'm afraid that the creator, of the same name as the article, so he should know, has not provided any further evidence of meeting WP:N. In reading the linked bio, I am still not convinced of meeting WP:N. Willing to keep an open mind and hoping for improvement. Dlohcierekim 19:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless salvaged On reviewing the lengthy history of this article, I feel that that there has been ample opportunity for improvement. The lack of improvement may simply be that there are not verifiable sources showing notability. Someone please let me know if the situation improves in favor of the article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability The civilian honor is one of 5 given by France to a US Citizen in 2006. Equivalent honor is our Congressional medal of honor. Agreed about autobio. Recognition for 20 years of advancing french language and culture. Editor two books detailing French culture: "French and Americans: The Other Shore" and "French in your Face," a French/English dictionary of slang.Davidmhayes (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)davidmhayes129.44.86.161 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)davidmhayes129.44.86.161 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)davidmhayes

Equivalent is the Medal of Honor? Not a fracking chance. Nothing in the bio suggest any military service, let alone actions while in combat. You do our men and women in uniform a great disservice with this insulting statement, sir. DarkAudit (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit history is still there. Do not merely erase your comments as if you never made them. Use the strikeout button above. This isn't the Ministry of Truth. what was said cannot be unsaid. DarkAudit (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No good sources. P.B. Pilhet 21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources 3 published sources: [10], [11], [12], Davidmhayes (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)davidmhayes

All provided by your own web page. Invalid as reliable sources. DarkAudit (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NN, WP:RS, WP:V & WP:COI.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk"

• Google news archive search confirms Palm Beach Post article reference searched for "David Hayes" +chevalier . Behind pay wall. Dlohcierekim 01:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The decoration itself seems to not establish notability. Note that Ordre national du Mérite is an award that can be awarded more liberally than the prestigious Légion d'honneur and 10,000 Americans [...] have received [the Légion d'honneur]. - Nabla (talk) 01:39, 28 April 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the temple: the tenth crusade

Order of the temple: the tenth crusade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not indicate notability. Mostly consists of a plot summary. (EhJJ)^TALK 18:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: I tried looking for some info in order to improve the article, but I could not find any. Notability has not been established through verifiable, reliable sources. I suspect anybody trying to do so will have a very difficult time. --SimpleParadox 18:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Searching for "order of the temple" and "michael powell" yields 7 ghits, none of which are about this book. I'm going to guess this is either unpublished or a hoax. Ford MF (talk) 18:37, 22 April 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Ken Idenouye

Chris Ken Idenouye (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography. Does not meet notability criteria. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Certainly does seem to be an autobiography, which raises questions regarding conflict of interest and neutrality. On its own merits, the subject's notability has not been established. --SimpleParadox 18:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable architect autobio. Ford MF (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the author. I absolutely understand where you are coming from. However I always wish there was more information available on the people that have created our environment and impacted our Society. Edmonton is one of the world's most northernmost Cities on the Globe. Who was the first Architect that lived here? What did he build? Who was the first contractor, doctor or nurse? These people may not have been "notable" but I wish there was some history or record. Why did they even come here? I believe that not only do we owe it to the next generation to provide current factual information on "Notable" people and events but we need to some how document the road that got us there. I am new to Wikipedia but I see even greater potential. I don't know if it is a link to Architects or maybe some sort of link to "Less Notable people" as you may refer to. I have run into so many people in my practice and in my travels that are amazed at what has been achieved in this City but without any knowledge of who did what and when. If it is a third party confirmation of my autobiography, I certainly can get others to verify it. Way up in Edmonton, sometimes you just have to do things yourself to get anything done. Hence the autobiography. If we were not these type of people, Edmonton and Fort McMurray and the Oilsands would not exist.

Thanks for your consideration in any case whether this gets deleted or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckidenouye (talk • contribs) 23:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: I certainly appreciate the time you took to write this response, but unfortunately Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, in other words no original research is allowed on Wikipedia. Your autobiography contains both original research and non-verifiable information. You are welcome to add reliably sourced, verifiable information to Fort McMurray, Edmonton, and the Oilsands, but unfortunately your autobiography does not meet the minimum requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 19:38, 24 April 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 keep per near unanimity among respondents (non-admin closure). The sole delete preference was "per Ford MF", where Ford MF recommended to keep. Subject meets notability guidelines per non-trivial coverage in reputable independent music publications, as demonstrated by Corvus Cornix. Skomorokh 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kid Harpoon

Kid Harpoon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Seems like a good article, but needs reliable references. Dwilso 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. If they WERE on XL Recordings, which is a pretty major company (they'd be labelmates with Radiohead) , I'd say they were notable, but the band's discography in the article itself doesn't indicate any XL releases, and there's no mention of them on XL's website either. Searching "Kid Harpoon" comes up with nada, and a quick search didn't come up with any notable coverage either. Changing to keep, on grounds of usefulness. Ford MF (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Ford MF. --JulesN Talk 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep But it does need refs. P.B. Pilhet 21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• keep, this seems to imply notability. And maybe these: [13], [14], [15]. Corvus cornix_talk 23:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as above. I found my way here looking for information on the band, so it was useful to me, at least. --Grace (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Huh. Well, that's good enough for me. Ford MF (talk) 18:35, 23 April 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. EdJohnston (talk)

[edit] Windows Black

Windows Black (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability. Google search reveals some hits. Seems to be a nebulous collection of pirated software. (EhJJ)^TALK 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can dig up some reputable secondary sources. I couldn't find any, and given the profusion of pirated products in the world, I'd say you have to come up with some pretty solid sources for it to pass the bar of notability. Ford MF (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability. No sources to even prove that it exists. DarkAudit (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There are far too many variants of Windows to give this one extra notability. Per WP:RS and WP:N. Gary King (talk) 19:24, 24 April 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 Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tungsten pentoxide

Tungsten pentoxide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced one-liner about a chemical - not all chemical combinations are notable and nothing here indicates that this one is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete. It doesn't seem notable; it might be worthwhile enough for a mention in the main article. --mordicai. (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Tag & expand. It has been brought to my attention that there is a category (& sub-cats) for these compounds, which makes me think this isn't just a dangling thread. Tag {{expert-subject|chemistry}} and {{chemical-importance}} & let expand into a stub, I think. Give it a chance. --mordicai. (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Needs expansion, but seems no more or less notable than the rest of Category:Tungstates. Falls outside my area of expertise, unfortunately (I can't really decipher the Google links I'm coming up with), but I see no reason to assume this isn't just a seed article in need of cultivation. The article's less than two days old. Ford MF (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; it's obviously verifiable from the more reliable of sources; it's unlikely that anything that could appear vaguely relevant to the article would touch on libel or even POV. There's only so many basic oxides and other simple compounds, so I see no reason to delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep needs to fleshed out, but that's what stub-tags are for.Yilloslime (t) 23:02, 25 April 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 keep—sufficient sourcing to establish some minimal level of notability.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GMC Terradyne

GMC Terradyne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete not all concept cars are notable, and this is one such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Needs expansion and better sourcing, but it looks like it got reasonable coverage in the literature at the time. Ford MF (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've added some sources and info, so I think that should bump the article to a baseline of acceptability. Ford MF (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

*Delete: Per Carlos. This is a completely forgettable concept car, which is perhaps made evident by the fact that the article's creator felt that two sentences was enough to adequately convey its importance. Hundreds of concept cars come about every year that never make it to production; some of them influence later models with their technological and/or design innovations, but this is obviously not one of those concepts deserving of a wiki page imo. I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep significant RS coverage from which to build an article TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keepseems notable with added sources. Given the timing and nature of the concept 'release', this article isn't likely to get bigger but it might be fine as it stands. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The added information and sources make a big difference. The article is much better now, though I'm still not sure of how we should decide which concept cars are notable enough for Wikipedia and which aren't. This is not an important car, but I guess as long as there's information available on it, it's notable enough. Keep...I guess. I feel like a tourist (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Concept cars are not notable unless there's something very, VERY special about them. That's not the case here. (By the way, the article contains at least one huge inaccuracy: no 5000 Watt generator can power an entire house.)  Channel ®    21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't want to be told Other stuff exists, but there sure are a lot of concept (Silly wiki link doesn't work, or perhaps I'm incapable of working it) cars on wikipedia right now. I would submit that the same thing that makes those cars notable (major press coverage, specific and notable designers, support from major corporations and display at international conventions) probably makes this car notable. That, in a sense, is the "good" side of WP:OSE. Protonk (talk) 00:39, 25 April 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 Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Unanimous consensus discusses the subject's coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate its notability. WilliamH (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chukka boot

Chukka boot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced one-liner about a nn footwear Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of coverage in reliable sources demonstrates notability. --BelovedFreak 18:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I had never heard of the boots before yesterday morning, but when the article Chukka (which used to be a redirect to Polo) was changed [16] I looked up the word and found several references to the Chukka boot, so created the stub. I was interrupted before adding any sources, and forgot to come back and finish editing the stub, for which I'm sorry. :-( Sources have been added now, by Belovedfreak. --Bonadea (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand: Chukka boots refer to particular style of boots, not neccessarily to a specific brand. Vans, in particular, are one company that has had a very successful line of Chukka boots. Go to any online shoe store, and you will easily find scores of Chukka boots from many different manufacturers.I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Plenty notable and as well sourced as we could wish for a footwear article. Ford MF (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Also known as boondockers, as anyone who has been through Navy boot camp can tell you. This style of boot has been around for decades, if not longer. DarkAudit (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Snowball keep. Well sourced and clearly notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 24 April 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 keep. John254 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Our American Cousin (opera)

Our American Cousin (opera) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced one-liner about an opera by nn composer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A cursory search turned up this article which seems to show some notability. I'll look for further information. (You did recognize the reference to Lincoln's assassination, right?) -- BPMullins | Talk 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The sourcing's out there (e.g. [17], [18], [19], [20], etc...) the article just needs work. Dekkappai (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The fairly "new" opera is not as much famous as any operas composed by Verdi or Pucchin at this time. However, it is based on the famous play with the same name and its notability is found easily by googling. It has several reviews by notable classical critic magazines as well.[21] --Appletrees (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of coverage in reliable sources demonstrates notability. --BelovedFreak 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. As pointed out above, sources exist. Ford MF (talk) 18:56, 22 April 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 keep. As a note to Diligent Terrier and to those who took up his arguments, an article cannot be deleted and merged due to licencing issues. Therefore, AfDs should not be opened to propose mergers. Merging an article does not need an AfD (but it does need consensus). Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul

Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An entire article on a U.S. Congressman's legislation sponsorships does not seem like it belongs in Wikipedia. I think we should merge the worthwhile info into Ron Paul's article, but delete this article and the parts that talk about every single piece of legislation the he sponsored - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and merge the good info into Political positions of Ron Paul and Ron Paul. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Diligent Terrier, merge the good info into the article about himself and the one that simply lists his positions. Articles in the style of "Legislation sponsored by" sound like they have the potential to hint at non-neutrality through an implicit guilt by assosciation fallacy, which would be a POV grey area. WilliamH (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit per nom and previous votes. Ziggy Sawdust 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per long-established consensus against merging, demonstrated at this article, Ron Paul, and the prior AFD. Arguments presented by nom are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, and WP:NOGOOD. The other argument is WP:CRYSTAL: a comment in this style sounds like it has the potential to hint at an argument through an implicit fallacy which would be a grey area (it speaks for itself). What qualifies as ungood and why? WP:SOFIXIT. Further, nom has not attempted any of the deletion alternatives recommended prior to AFD: editing, discussing, or proposing merge (which is not done by AFD); nom has only added tags and failed to respond to an offer to discuss: see talk. FYI, similar articles exist for Clinton, Romney, Giuliani, and Kerry. JJB 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I have notified the other editors of this article at this point. JJB 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with this article. It's large and well-referenced, so a merge would be unsuitable. As for deletion, I also disagree, as it's fully-verifiable with reliable sources and a good supplement to the main article about Paul. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Prior AFD !votes were 3 delete (1 nom, 2 per nom), 2 merge, 7 keep (1 strong, 2 speedy). Should never have been renominated. JJB 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: One of the bills mentioned in this article just survived its own AFD as debatably notable in itself. Several other bills have their own articles or sections of other articles. JJB 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Re-noms when the original AfD produced such an overwhelming consensus to keep just scream bad faith, sour grapes, and forum shopping. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep although I'd like to see a merge some day. I still think this was rather a bad idea and largely, perhaps entirely, redundant, but I can't muster the enthusiasm to propose a merge at this time. Deletion is not an option in this sort of case unless it's done right away. Many thanks to JJB for letting me know about this AfD. I nominated it for deletion first time round. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: Honestly, I don't really like this article, but I can't find a good reason to support its deletion. Most (if not all) of the bills Ron Paul has proposed are non-notable as they are the Congressional equivalent of WP:SPIDER and WP:POINT. However, his legislative antics have caught the attention of reliable sources, Congressional Quarterly gave him a nod in their list of 50 ways to be a congressman for his Don Quixoteish behavior. Maybe a move to a more suitable title, like Congressional career of Ron Paul, chopping out the list cruft, and focusing the article more on the the collateral effects of and (significant) reactions to his antics is in order. If the AFD does close in Delete, I would recommend userfying the article to John or myself. Burzmali (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for changing your vote from last AFD's "merge"! But I suppose the presence of V costumes at the White House this last April 15 probably does tempt WP:SPIDER. Please inform ArbCom. JJB 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I was not crazy about this article either, and on first face it seems like notability would be a concern. But the lead paragraph does a great job establishing that notability, and the article is extremely well referenced. I also took quick issue with the fact that the whole article is a list of bullets: in the end it's obvious that bulleted lists are the best way to organize the information, and the formatting is impeccable. I find no good reason to delete this article. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as undesirably selective or nuke and recreate as an article more in line with the aforementioned Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, or merge, as there already is a Political positions of Ron Paul article. According to the Library of Congress, Ron Paul has sponsored or co-sponsored 422 pieces of legislation, and yet a little more than ten percent are represented here. Why? Why those? I think a better way to go would be to create an article about his career out of whole cloth (and, of course, reliable sources), rather than make an incomplete list of his favorite legislations. Because clearly there is an editorial process here selecting what editors feel are the "important" legislations he's supported (e.g. the article omits such goverment-standard wankery as H.CON.RES.125 "Recognizing the health benefits of eating seafood as part of a balanced diet, and supporting the goals and ideals of National Seafood Month.") And while the legislations here are sourced, the editorial process to choose which ones get included isn't, which I don't think is a good thing. Ford MF (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you mind explaining how to obtain your list of 422 bills from LOC? The editorial process is the same as throughout WP: those bills which are deemed notable enough to merit listing in subsections of an article (whether or not they are notable enough for separate articles). Just like we have a list of commemorative days that includes everything not notable enough for its own article (such as National Seafood Month). (Of course since Paul represents many shrimp farmers, this sponsorship is not mere wonkery.) The fact that Wikipedians deem about 10% of the bills notable enough is not a deletion argument. I'll add that HCR right now. Note that is only the fourth bill which was cosponsored rather than originally sponsored, which should suggest the primary editorial process involved here. JJB 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Re: tallying his bills: LoC search, filtering by Ron Paul as sponsor or co-sponsor yields 422 hits. Ford MF (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There's no good reason to delete it. It doesn't diminish other more notable articles (Wikipedia is not Britannica). SteveSims (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep too big to merge into any other article; information is relevant. Monobi (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Much of the legislation proposed by the subject has been the subject of controversy, and as such, is more notable than the regular day to day proposals in Congress. Also, it's too big to merge somewhere else. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Per all the previous keep arguments of the past AfD's. The article was good enough to keep before and I see no major decline in quality since the last AfD. Buspar (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep no valid argument in the nomination for deletion of this article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It passed with a pretty convincing keep decision only about 4 months ago. If content has been added since which jeopardizes its viability, then revert back to the version kept in January, if necessary. 23skidoo (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I disagree with everything proposed by the nominator, and cannot see how it correlates to Wikipedia policy. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Diligent Terrier --Lemmey talk 06:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be notable. Yahel Guhan 23:04, 27 April 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marupaka

Marupaka (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing to indicate that this surname is notable. WP is not the Nizamabad telephone directory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - doesn't pass notability guidelines. --BelovedFreak 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. Ford MF (talk) 23:08, 22 April 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 redirect. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worcester Preparatory School

Worcester Preparatory School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this prep school is a secondary school or is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Berlin, Maryland#Education. Worcester Preparatory includes a high school and I would support a separate article if someone is prepared to write one. However, the present content doesn't justify a separate page and a redirect is fine for the time being. It should not be deleted to preserve the history for a future possible breakout. TerriersFan (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect without prejudice per TerriersFan. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per Terriers. Ford MF (talk) 23:08, 22 April 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 keep. John254 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rola Dashti

Rola Dashti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biography. Nakon 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The details presented in the article indicate this individual is quite notable in a number of areas - academic career, political activity, etc. Deli nk (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep meets notability criteria, sources provided in article establish this and a quick search shows plenty more available. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Looking at the article now makes it an utterly obvious keep.John Z (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Could use some cleanup and better sources, but passes the notability bar. Ford MF (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The nominator has given no reasoning for the assertion that this is a "non-notable biography". The article has several claims of importance and is well referenced. And how on earth did this get speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 when it said "Dr. Rola Dashti is a leading international advocate in women’s rights"? What policy was the deleting admin (who is the nominator here) following? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:03, 25 April 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zenburn

Zenburn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a color scheme for highlighting text in various programming environments. Not standalone software; doesn't even come close to passing WP:PRODUCT. Contested prod. Jfire (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no independent coverage, and unlikely to ever get any. This is just a colour scheme someone came up with one day. -- Mark Chovain 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Hi, I'm the author of Zenburn. Yes, Zenburn is nothing special, it's definitely not a product, just a color scheme which many people use and have ported to different editing environments. My guess is that the page at Wikipedia seems to have originally been created by one of those users. I agree with the verdict to delete - it clearly does not reach the high standards which Wikipedia demands of contributions. However, I disagree with the comment "unlikely to ever get any [independent coverage]". 90.224.116.18 (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. It already does have some independent coverage on several blogs[22]. It is extremely unlikely that a mere color scheme will get coverage that will count as a RS. Blogs are pretty much all we can expect, and I don't know of any particular color scheme that has attracted such level of attention. I agree that by Wikipedia's standards the article should be deleted, but just wanted to point out that the color scheme does have some level of notability. — Kieff | Talk 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Useless Comment. I am an avid user of Zenburn, and though I also agree that this article does not meet the important WP standards for inclusion (and should be removed), I will be a little sad if it is deleted; I came upon this discussion precisely because I was looking for information on this colorscheme. I wish there were a project devoted to recording passing minutia with as much attention to detail as WP, so that things like this would have a home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.98.125 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Kicklighter

James Kicklighter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sources don't seem to show sufficient notability per WP:BIO NawlinWiki (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Nakon 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - plainly a talented and up and coming individual. However, he has yet to achieve anything notable and fails to meet WP:BIO. BlueValour (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Check the discussion, but per the rules as I interpret them, I should be allowed to be there. There is secondary sources, including news articles and press releases, blogs from independents, etc. The Dub Taylor project, specifically, is the first project to recognize the character actor and will be taken to film festivals early next year. In Georgia, I served on the first Student Advisory Council, which was groundbreaking because it was the first time students directly impacted Educational policy. I know I'm biased as to why it should stay, but there are no opinions in the article, it is strictly factual. Other people, such as Gabe Sachs, have edited their own Wikipedia entries as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Kicklighter (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and for obvious COI. Ford MF (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Fails by WP:RS and WP:BIO and WP:AUTO and WP:COI and WP:Single-purpose account and WP:SPAM and probably a few other guidelines we could throw at him. Also, any admin reading this should immediately block him for inappropriate user name. Qworty (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your own name isn't inappropriate, even if you are creating and editing an article about yourself that, yes, should be deleted per A7. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 27 April 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 Keep (non-admin closure) The consensus is that lists of ambassadors are notable. Darkspots (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mexican ambassadors to Serbia

List of Mexican ambassadors to Serbia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Utterly, utterly obscure topic - almost certainly of no interest to anyone Bazonka (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep nation-to-nation ambassadors have achieved notability, lists of them are fully acceptable, regardless of how obscure the topic is in some people's opinion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete seeing as the page is simply a carbon (red-linked) copy of this website, this should be eliminated. Wikipedia is not a mirror. Eusebeus (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep.--Avala (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Also keep the following: <massive block of related articles removed>.--Avala (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wall of text hits you for 10,000. You die Protonk (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Avala, may I direct you to WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:POINT? I've removed your mega-block of text. Be careful, that kind of editing is not helping and tends to have consequences. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you that we are discussing a type of article here? So if this one is kept all others must be kept as well, if this one is deleted all others must be deleted as well. Also you have directed me at essays, not official policies per which you can remove someone's edit. You are not even an admin, you actually participate in this vote. I will return my edit.--Avala (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when does holding the mop have anything to do with removing bad-faith edits? And since when are we discussing every type of the article? And since when can't people click the diff link I provided to read your WP:POINT violation? No, it is not a policy. But it is a behavioural guideline. People have been blocked for less, and it would do no harm to follow a standard endorsed by the Wikipedia community. And WP:ALLORNOTHING is just common sense. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will add it to the end of the section as a collapsable show/hide table because I have good will but I don't like your threats. I also dislike your unauthorized removal of my edits, especially considering some users have said "Keep per Avala" and then when you removed it, it seems they agreed to my one word statement saying "Keep" and not to my reasoning regarding other articles which must be mentioned. --Avala (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, you misunderstand. I linked to your edit diff, so any interested editor can easily view it. Your mass of text is unnecessary, and as this page is transcluded on WP:AfD, every time anyone loads Articles for Deletion they have to view your WP:POINT, which is extremely disruptive. And it is not a threat, I am informing you of the relevant policies and indicated that administrators (of which I am not one of) don't tend to look kindly on their violations, I can't enforce these rules any more than you. It was a friendly warning, no need to get aggressively defensive. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edits and remove my replies. You may have tried to place it in a collapsible table but in order for that to do anything the table has to actually be collapsed. And even so, it is a completely unnecessary and prime example of WP:POINT. Pray tell, what are you trying to achieve by transcluding your list that I don't by linking to it? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. These lists feature notable persons and are of historical and political interest. Diplomatic relations and the people who conduct them are of great encyclopedic significance. As such historical information is in the public domain, it being taken from a government website is not a reason to delete, but good sourcing. Sandstein (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Avala. If all of those lists exists we either keep this one, or delete the whole lot of them. --JulesN Talk 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Avala. Ford MF (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Despite it being only obscure to non-mexican/serbians this is notable and what makes wikipedia a good encyl. -Kain Nihil (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It might have been a bit POINT-y in its delivery, but Avala's, er, point is well taken. I see nothing to suggest why this article isn't viable and encyclopedic. It also has potential for expansion into, perhaps, discussion of activities, accomplishments, etc. I might recommend removing the redlinks for now. I'm not against them, but on lists like this I do sometimes find them to be a bit of an AFD magnet as it suggests the topic itself isn't notable. If there is a strong feeling that ambassadorial list articles shouldn't be allowed, then I recommend interested parties seek a policy change similar to that pursued by those opposed to articles on TV episodes, etc. 23skidoo (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but only if Avala stops trying so hard to make his point. Ambassadors are inherently notable. As Carlossuarez46 points out, "obscure" does not mean "non-notable". Klausness (talk) 18:48, 24 April 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] County Dublin Beekeepers' Association

County Dublin Beekeepers' Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organisation whose only claim to fame was coverage in a TV documentary on beekeeping. A Google search finds mentions only in other beekeeping sites. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Julesn84 (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no indication or claim of notability. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:N. Guliolopez (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't agree but I'm realistic enough to know that my ignorant & subjective opinion doesn't count for much. Dublinblue (Simon in Dublin) (talk) 19:06, 26 April 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 Speedily deleted, non-admin close TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beak 'em Hawks

Beak 'em Hawks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't confirm either the current version of the article or the previous version through a gsearch. Phrase does get about 2700 non-wiki ghits, but I'm not convinced these show notability. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It's not really fair to judge this article on the most recent, childish, edit. However, looking at the previous versions, I don't think this is notable even in Lawrence, Kansas. There are few cheers that are familiar off campus ("Hook 'em Horns" or "We Are Marshall" are some of the exceptions). Even if notable, the reliability of the information is in question, and the lack of reliable sources might be a clue to the obscurity of this term. Mandsford (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Julesn84 (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as 'obviously' nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Only exists to disparage the "creator" of the phrase. Rock Chalk, Jayhawk is notable and unmistakably linked to the University of Kansas. This one is as generic as they come. DarkAudit (talk) 18:42, 22 April 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waverley Action for Youth Services

Waverley Action for Youth Services (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Regionally notable, but not Wikipedia notable. Kingturtle (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks RS coverage necessary to establish notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, a worthy cause? Definitely. But probably not notable yet, due to lack of third-party references. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:47, 26 April 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 keep. A very clear consensus that this athlete meets notability standards. Incidentally, there is a further source available here. If the nominator wishes to pursue a merge/redirect then this should be done separately as an editorial action. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dario Poggi

I want to make something very clear from the get-go of this AfD - I am NOT attempting to get this page deleted - I only want to see it converted into a redirect. I attempted to do this on my own, but was reverted; therefore I am bringing the issue to AfD. Here's my simple rationale. In this AfD, it was decided, for various reasons, that WP:ATHLETE does not supercede Wikipedia's general WP:N requirements. In cases where there are no sources and it is impossible to write a neutral article about an individual, an athlete page redirecting to a relevant list is permissible. Speculation is not good enough; saying that "there may be sources" is irrelevant. I have performed a good-faith search, and the onus is, and always has been, on the person who adds the material to provide notability and sourcing. There are literally hundreds of pages on Wikipedia that say nothing but "So and so was a bobsledder from country X who did not medal at the Olympic games" and have no potential for expansion. There is nothing that could not be presented in a bigger list. Cheers, CP 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect - per CP. Chris (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - He competed in two Winter Olympics and did finish in the top ten in one of them. It also fits the notability requirement of WP:BIO regarding athletes. Changed from redirect after some thought and review. Chris (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect per CP. Julesn84 (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose There hasn't even been a talk page created for the article. After the redirect, then the revert, IMHO the next step is discuss on the talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Finished sixth is notable enough. I think its important to counteract systematic bias and include people from early periods. It is a shame if there isn't much info about but I genuinely believe the sportsman is notable enough ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. An olympic athlete is notable. Since he competed in two winter olympics the redirect to one of the events (and not even the one the article indicates was his best result) was clearly inappropriate and the revert was correct. Quale (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect appropriately. The guy finished sixth. How far down the ladder do we go for Olympic notability? Seventh? Eighth? Dead last? Ford MF (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Olympic Athletes are not notable in their own right. According to our Olympics article, there are roughly eleven thousand athletes competing in any given Olympiad, and clearly we do not need an article on every single one of them. Ford MF (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Why not? Wikipedia isn't paper. Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think every competitior should have an article either. but I certainly think Top 10 fits notability and competing in two olympics. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Cube lurker. Please keep AfD for Article for deletion. Editor disputes go elsewhere and step 1 was Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • AFD has been the only way to get any serious discussion on this important issue going, so I stand by my decision fully. I've tried to discuss things identical Olympic athlete issues numerous times on other forums and nothing - either for or against my ideas - ever comes out of it. Per WP:IAR if a rule prevents you from improving [...] Wikipedia, ignore it. Cheers, CP 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Since this guy played in two Olympics, there's no obvious single target for a redirect. An individual article is more appropriate in this case, even if the article is very short. There's nothing wrong with simply saying as much as we can about him. After all, articles in real encyclopedias vary wildly in length.

Out of curiosity, where did you search? I think the best source of information would be Italian newspapers from the 1930s and 1940s, most of which won't be archived online. Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I never say anymore what kind of searching I do for two reasons: For one thing, people just use it as an excuse to tear apart your argument but, more importantly, what everyone seems to forget is the onus is on the person who adds the material to do the searching to prove notability and the existence of sources. If we did it the other way (ie. the person who wants to delete has to prove non-notability) then nothing aside from obvious hoaxes would ever get deleted, because people could just say "well there could be sources. I will say that Google was not my only search mechanism. I've kind of given up on this anyways and decided to rant on my user page instead. Cheers, CP 13:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - official 1936 Olympic report source added to article. Chris (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think so Zagalejo. I;m certain there would something in Italian libraries and newspapers on it. The Internet is still really in its infancy, but I am certain over time more info will spread online. But we can't ignore people because google isn't coming up with the goods. If they wer researched I'm sure they could be expanded. It is partly our task I think to get stuff onto the web that has never been here before ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And, as per above, we can't assume that everyone is notable despite an absence of Google sourcing. It's an imperfect method, but it's certainly better than saying "let's speculate that this person is famous even though we have no evidence," which is why the onus is on the person who "gets stuff onto the web that has never been here before" to provide those offline references. Again, as per above, I've kind of given up on caring anymore. Cheers, CP 13:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It used to be accepted that Olympians were inherently notable, by virtue of their accomplishments. As long as we can verify that they played in the Olympics, I don't see any problems. Zagalejo^^^ 23:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Just participating in the Olympics meets established notability guidlines for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. per WP:ATHLETE: Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports. The article is thin, but that is to be expected when the article is about someone from the 1930s in a non-anglophone country. Participation in the Olympics illustrates that you are top-of-the-field at the national level. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:ATHLETE. I find Blofeld of Spectre's reasoning compelling. We know Poggi is notable, so we should have this article. What a shame: 1948 should have been his fourth Olympics, not his second, in a different world. Darkspots (talk) 00:13, 28 April 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 Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marguerite Knight

Marguerite Knight (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn unsourced Ziggy Sawdust 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep — "Unsourced" does not mean "unsourcable." That an article does not have any sources listed is not a valid reason to delete; rather, the correct solution is to find sources. Just because you're not willing to do so yourself--just because you're more interested in deleting new articles and driving away new contributors just because you've never heard of the subject and would rather mindlessly and lazily click a button than actually do some real, meaningful, constructive work--doesn't mean you should try to make it impossible for others to do so as well. Your activities over the last couple of days are a real problem; you are going WAY overboard with Twinkle. I suggest you stop for awhile and reconsider whether or not you're doing any actual good. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep From the same site in the other AFD. [[23]]. This article got 180 seconds, with a litle mote time further references are likely available.
• Keep per Kurt Weber. See similar argument wrt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Devereux-Rochester. Julesn84 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep because of Presidential Medal of Freedom, OBE, and Croix de Guerre listed at [24].--Michael White^T·C 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: There's not a lot on which I agree with Kurt, but he's dead on accurate here. Exactly what fact checking could the nom have done in less than 180 seconds? Nom has already been blocked for using a bot to indiscriminately speedy and AfD, and it doesn't seem to have made much of an impression. I'm almost comfortable with declaring this a bad faith nomination.  RGTraynor  16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Kurt Weber and RGTraynor. I'm not sure if this is bad faith or ignorance, but the end result will be the same if this keeps up. Please go read WP:BEFORE before someone blocks you for disruption. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Withdraw this entire mess because I was a moron to nom it in the first place Ziggy Sawdust 18:09, 22 April 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 keep. A very clear consensus that competing in the Olympics meets notability standards. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Bozon

Really nominating as a test case. I don't believe that someone who's sole accomplishment is to have finished 21st in the bobsled at the 1936 Winter Olympics is notable. Julesn84 (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:BIO on athletes on "competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level of amatuer sports with secondary sources published about them." The Winter Olympics in bobsleigh are the highest level of competition outside of the FIBT World Championships and should be kept. Chris (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC) (Changed back to keep after some thought and consideration. Chris (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
• Keep. Cheers Chris. Should have checked that myself. Query: How does one withdraw a nomination for AfD? Julesn84 (talk)

Keep/Weak Redirect per CP.Julesn84 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect Per my argument in this AfD. Cheers, CP 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per CP Chris (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Redirect where? I'm assuming there's a list of bobsled competitors or 1932 Olympic competitors, where the exciting story of Mr. Bozon's 21st place finish can be recounted ("Sacre bleu, zere were twenty people who finished ahead of me!" he said). Mandsford (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Olympic athlete is notable. Redirect poses problems, as if more information becomes available (birth and death dates and places, etc.) there isn't a natural place to merge it in any likely target. Redirect also defeats categorization, and is problematic in lists that then may link to a redirect to themselves. It's best the way it is. Quale (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. If I may make an analogy here; even if you make it to the Superbowl and lose, you're still a notable football player. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Meets standards for notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:21, 24 April 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 The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete rationales. NAC. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speed Racer (2008 video game)

Speed Racer (2008 video game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn crystal-balling unsourced Ziggy Sawdust 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Game is the basis of a Reuters/Hollywood Reporter [article]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesn84 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Made a major correction wrong game title references for the game from major game outlets [25][26]

[27][28] [29] Dwanyewest (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Per sources noted above.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — Another completely ill-conceived AfD by Ziggy Sawdust. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs expansion and clarification but it should be given a chance before a rapid call to be deleted.Dwanyewest (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Dinoguy1000 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Nominator needs to read WP:CRYSTAL, especially the part where an announced product sourced to multiple reliable sources is not crystal-balling. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Withdraw this entire mess because I was a moron to nom it in the first place Ziggy Sawdust 18:09, 22 April 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 Speedy Keep/Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure). Unanimous consensus to keep based on nominator's misunderstanding of deletion policy and speed in nominating recently created article for AfD. WilliamH (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Devereux-Rochester

Elizabeth Devereux-Rochester (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced, nn Ziggy Sawdust 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Premature nomination. The article has only just been created, let it stay for a while to see if it gets the references it needs. Julesn84 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Found this [[30]]. Not sure that it's the best source but if the article was given more then 60 seconds to grow...--Cube lurker (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Ziggy Sawdust has been at this for awhile; he recently got Twinkle and has since been on a spree of trying to speedy-delete (and when that fails, AfD) articles based on his own assertions of "notability" even though he clearly actually knows absolutely nothing about the subject. He needs to get a grip on himself, fast. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and delete Ziggy Sawdust :-) He's much faster than we can be, do we have to go through this process on everything he tags?Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: This is insane; AfDing less than one minute after the article's creation? Definite bad faith nomination.  RGTraynor  16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is geting silly. Go read the guide to deletion and the relevant policies. Until then, lay off the twinkle. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Clearly notable, sources easy to find, whap the nominator with a rolled-up newspaper for NOT DOING THE TRIVIAL RESEARCH and for biting new articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Withdraw this entire mess because I was a moron to nom it in the first place Ziggy Sawdust 18:10, 22 April 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dejan Lopez

Dejan Lopez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable blogger/activist. Google generates very few hits, and it is not clear from the article why this guy is of any importance. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unless any third-party references can be found, I don't think the subject of this article meets WP:BIO. Deli nk (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

jfshalman I already deleted it because the same reason. I propose to wait one month. If a third party doesn't appear we should delete it.

• delete. No evidence of notability. That's blogger/activist/crank. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 25 April 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 redirect to Chris Jarvis (presenter); the definite article + capitalization distinguishes it enough from Anorak for a redirect. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Anorak

The Anorak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn character Ziggy Sawdust 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No context, almost no content, no sources and no assertion of notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Dawn Bard. Finally a good nom from Ziggy Sawdust. --Julesn84 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Chris Jarvis (presenter). The Anorak would have use as a search term.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and DO NOT redirect as above since Anorak is a common term and the presence of a definite article should not randomly privilege such a trivial use of it. Eusebeus (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to the actor, no problems come of it. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 03:26, 23 April 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 keep. John254 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Cejka

Mike Cejka (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn television anchor Ziggy Sawdust 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm not completely sold on the subject's notability, and there looks to be WP:AUTO issues, but this is another in a string of insta-nominations by Ziggy (this one less than 120 seconds after the article's creation), and the creator has been continuing to improve the article in the meantime. Bad faith nomination.  RGTraynor  16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per User:RGTraynor. --Julesn84 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Withdraw this entire mess because I was a moron to nom it in the first place Ziggy Sawdust 18:10, 22 April 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Rolando Espinosa K-8 Center

Dr. Rolando Espinosa K-8 Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete as elementary school that is not yet open. No indication of notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I originally nominated this for a speedy when I shouldn't have; apologies for that. I decided to step away from the issue and let someone else nominate for AfD, and here it is. School does not exist yet (per google search and article itself), no apparent notability. Fails multiple aspects of the proposed WP:SCHOOL. Tan | 39 14:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into Miami-Dade_County_Public_Schools#Elementary_schools. Elementary schools are rarely notable; unopened schools less so.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Even when opened, it won't have notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per CRGreathouse. Cunard (talk) 22:11, 22 April 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 speedy closed. Nominated in the wrong venue, unlikely deletion candidate even at WP:RFD. --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I-8 Freeway

I-8 Freeway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

this redirect also exists in universal capitalization as "I-8 freeway" Hgrosser (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't this go to WP:RFD instead? STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 14:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close Don't even bother with an RFD. This is a perfectly legitimate redirect; very likely that someone would type that into a search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close. Wrong forum and a valid redirect. PC78 (talk) 14:54, 22 April 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 no consensus, thus a default to keep.

This was a very close call, and some explanation of the rationale is in order and will hopefully be useful going forward. A simple tallying of the !votes shows 10 in favor of deletion and 8 in favor of keeping—a fairly even split as was the case with the first AfD, but with more folks in the delete camp this time around. Obviously what ultimately matters though are the arguments behind the votes. The key issue here is whether this character (who is clearly of some importance in a very notable fictional universe) is notable per WP:FICT. More specifically, the question is whether the character can be discussed using reliable sources to the point where a "real-world context" is established. Delete voters argue that there are no reliable sources since most of the coverage is on fan sites. Many of the keep voters did not engage directly with the question of sourcing, though a couple of users suggested rather marginal sources. The delete arguments here are quite strong, but there do appear to be a handful of (less than ideal) sources (for example this one) that provide a small amount of real-world context.

This article is teetering on the edge of deletion, but I don't see a robust enough consensus for that at this point—particularly given the heavy allowance we seem to have made for Star Wars-related material and the extent to which this article is referenced in other SW articles on Wikipedia (per LtNOWIS). The article remains deeply problematic though in that much of its content is plot summary. Stubbing this down or possibly merging the content elsewhere are options to consider. If sufficient progress is not made in the months ahead in terms of dealing with the sourcing and WP:PLOT issues, then a third trip to RfA would be completely appropriate. Keep voters who insist there is more third-party reliable coverage out there should work with some alacrity to bring such sources into the article. In a sense this close could be considered a final reprieve—if little progress is made on this article in the upcoming months then the third time might indeed prove to be the charm for those seeking deletion. If there is a future AfD on this article, it might be useful to consider Jacen Solo and perhaps other similar articles at the same time.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jaina Solo

Jaina Solo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Still no references, not even for the primary sources, let alone any reliable third-party secondary sources. Actual improvements since the last AfD in January have practically not happened. The people who voted to keep the article have not done any work on it. To this day, there is no assertion of notability, and I have yet to see an explanation on why this article needs to be split from the parent article in the first place; which in turn reflects another, even more serious problem: namely that the creation of this article was done due to a complete lack of effort to write from a real-world perspective. The persistently insufficient style of this article merely follows from that initial flaw. This happens when people count on eventualism to make things better. Eventualism in Star Wars articles means: eventually someone will come along and make the article even more in-universe. At best. Dorftrottel (talk) 20:05, April 21, 2008 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep as she is unquestionably a notable character, I think the sourcing problems can be resolved by at least adding some of the sources found here, and there has been some work on the article over the past few months. The suggestions above are definitely valid, but I believe can be rectified. Moreover, there is a clear interest in this article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Add at least one single reliable third-party source to verify the character's independent notability (which I couldn't find) into the article, and I promise I'll withdraw the AfD on the spot. Alternatively, tell me why this article should be split off from the parent article, and where this parent article is, and whether or not it is a proper summary style spin-out (probably List of minor Star Wars characters or some such). Dorftrottel (talk) 23:22, April 21, 2008

• She is covered in the following: [31], [32], etc. By the way, we agreed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostytutka. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, those are of course not independent, third-party sources. The novels were all published by Ballantine Books, and both character guide books were published by Ballantine branch Del Rey Books. They are purely commercial tie-in and thus cannot possibly serve to verify any notability. They are basically repackaged content, if you actually bought those books you have been ripped off — I assume you have bought or at least read those books since you seem convinced that the content they contain about Jaina Solo is sufficient for... whatever you believe it's sufficient for, you didn't say that above. What exactly is the content about Jaina Solo in those books? Does it e.g. include real-world information? Dorftrottel (warn) 02:17, April 22, 2008

• There are sufficient sources here that can be used to establish notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Which ones in particular? (And btw, you didn't answer my questions from above wrt to the character guides you mentioned.) Dorftrottel (warn) 09:00, April 22, 2008

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep , but sources are needed here. She seems to be a major character, but no sources are in the article. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. This stuff should not be tolerated. Eusebeus (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia:PERNOM. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh Pumpkin, stop being so tedious and stop linking to that until you have actually read it - and feel free to check the edit history - and oh you should - while you are at it since you seem to be so keen on that section ;) Also, could you respond to this comment as well please? Eusebeus (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • As it states: "Also, this response ["per nom"] should not be used to hide a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position--stating your true position in your own words will assure others that you are not engaging in this deceptive practice." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

        You are right that this invalidates the observation that In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient. Can you reply to this comment as well please. Eusebeus (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

        Sure thing. AfD is not a vote. It doesn't matter that more people support a position if that support doesn't amount to a new argument or a new piece of evidence. There are clearly a large number of people interested in this, so to add another line saying only that you support a nomination is not helpful. It would be like me saying "Keep per --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)". It doesn't add anything to the discussion. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Solo_family for lack of reliable sources -- 50% of the article's sources I just deleted as a citation to an unreliable, fan-generated encyclopedia. Something so notable, especially after what was supposed to be a kick-in-the-pants-AfD several months ago, should have more substantiation (and, ideally, out-of-universe substance) behind it. Perhaps these random offspring articles are best conglomerated into the family blurbs. The latter right now aren't that much better, but perhaps the minuscule data on this characters individually can come together to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no reason why even in a worst case scenario we would not merge and redirect without deleting per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. If a redirect is possible, then there's nothing to gain from an outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Major character in about a dozen bestselling novels, and a major young adult series. That fact is self-evident. -LtNOWIS (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, that's the closest to a valid keep argument in this AfD so far. I still don't agree, but I acknowledge that point. Dorftrottel (canvass) 06:42, April 23, 2008

• I am not sure how valid a point that is because one still needs to demonstrate per the spinout principle at fiction that it has acquired enough critical reaction to provide for a real-world focus, no? Eusebeus (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• True, that's why I said "closest to". It's mainly in comparison to other arguments. Dorftrottel (canvass) 15:31, April 23, 2008

• Delete as this article has no real-world content, fails WP:PLOT and contains no real-world evidence of notability. There are no sources to verify its content, which must be classed as original research. There is no consensus to keep this article, which fails all of Wikipedia guidelines, policies which express standards that have community wide consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The article has significance to people in the real world, passes WP:PLOT and contains evidence of notability. Sources have been mentioned to verify its content and there is no evidence of original research. There is no consensus to delete this article, which passes all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • has significance to people in the real world - Where's the cited source to substantiate this? passes WP:PLOT - how so? The article is entirely plot summary of the text she appears in. contains evidence of notability - substantiated by what? Being notable in the EU ≠ being notable in the real world. The Databank article substantiates mattering in-universe, but says nothing about development, critical reaction, merchandising, or any of the other facets of/reactions to fiction that an appropriate treatment of fictional material requires. Sources have been mentioned to verify its content - where are they in the article? Your understanding of reliable sources seems dubious, as the source you added was a fan site blurb that cited a fansite encyclopedia for background information. --EEMIV (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • This link demonstrates that it has significance to people in the real world. It passes Plot by being organized and having some out of universe information. Being notable in the EU = being notable to people in the real world as thousands of people will be familiar with this character. Your understanding of reliable sources seems dubious as the link to the Wookipedia article shows that a large number of sources can indeed be used to cite this article, but just need to be added. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia traffic is no way a metric for real-world notability -- it's a metric of Wikipedia traffic. Where are the professional critics commenting on this character's literary significance? development? Where is there a professional review of one of these EU books where Jaina's characterization is a key component? Where is the press release from Hasbro or LucasArts or Ertl indicating the release of a JS toy/game/model in response to the character's popularity? The article being "organized" has nothing to do with WP:PLOT; the only out-of-universe info. are three sentences about appearances -- but, again, nothing beyond "Hey, here she is." And rather than once again take an editor's phrasing and try to turn it around, please take a look at WP:RS -- if Wookieepedia has sources that "can indeed be used" in this article, why aren't they here in this article now? My guess is that it's all just another collection of primary sources and in-universe "encyclopedia"s substantiating gobs of plot summary. I note that two days after User:Dorftrottel's offer to withdraw the AfD, no one has yet cited a source a third-party source to substantiate the character's real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • • What have you found in your source searches and where have you looked? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Wookieepedia, fan sites and the database article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                • The fan sites demonstrate popularity and Wookieepedia provides a list of sources, while they and the database article may be primary in nature, they are reliable primary sources and the database article can be used for some out of universe information. Are there any Star Wars magazines that can be researched as well, especially ones with online archives? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • Fan sites ≠ notability. The sci-fi.com forums are hugely popular -- producers like Ron Moore post there -- but they aren't notable. Internet phenoms are popular, but few are notable. --EEMIV (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                    • Fan sites = notability. They may not be the best reliable sources (although some are, such as this one, which typically cites reliable sources). Popularity is a sign of notability. Something that is a "phenomenon" is likely notable and likely to be covered in more and more sources over time, especially because Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                      • WP:N: Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it. The assertion that "this is in EU, EU is popular, therefore this is notable" doesn't hold water. Find and cite some reliable third-party source that says this character is notable, or that demonstrates notability by discussion criticism, development, merchandising, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                        • We're talking about a character who appears on the cover of at least one novel in addition to as indicated below being made into a miniature figurine. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Same here + promotional material from the publishing companies. Dorftrottel (criticise) 17:36, April 23, 2008
                • Would you consider this article a reliable source? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • It would substantiate a sentence along the lines of, "The Jaina Solo character has been merchandised into a Star Wars Miniatures figure." The rest of the blurb there is gameguide trivia.--EEMIV (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                    • But coupled with the primary sources, it adds some out of universe context and is therefore a start. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                      • Given this article's history -- particularly the lack of improvements the nominator pointed out -- I simply don't have faith that letting it linger here under the vague premise of "a start" will yield an appropriate article. Perhaps the best solution would be to entirely delete the plot summary, move that blurb about appearances and that miniature bit to Solo family or one of the myriad List of ______ Star Wars characters. --EEMIV (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                        • I have plenty of faith, considering all the articles that I personally came across as stubs and that were stubs with no sources for months (even years) and was able to drastically improve in even a few minutes of editing. It only takes one person knowledgeable about Star Wars with access to printed sources that even I don't have to suddenly find an article about a character from a notable franchise and develop it accordingly. I see no "gain" in deleting the article, especially since even in the course of this discussion at least some effort has indeed been undertaken to improve the article. Heck, imagine what we'd accomplish if all the time spent on the AfD was instead spent further looking for sources! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep a suitable topic for a specialist encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Um, would you mind elaborating a bit? How is that an argument to keep an article on a topic which has not received any coverage by reliable, third-party sources? Dorftrottel (ask) 15:42, April 23, 2008

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Above it is asserted that this topic appears in specialist encyclopedias. So it is also suitable for Wikipedia. Catchpole (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• (a) No, it is not. Reliable, third-party sources are invariably needed. (b) If you're talking about those tie-in character guides, they're not encyclopedias by any stretch of imagination. So you're in favour of appropriate deletion as far as our core content policies are concerned; everything else is negligible. Dorftrottel (complain) 17:30, April 23, 2008

• No, I'm in favour of not limiting our coverage because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I fail to see why starwars.com and Star Wars fanzines are not reliable sources for Star Wars related material. Catchpole (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Please assume good faith; I'd guess that most of the folks arguing for deletion are Star Wars fans (the article's on our watchlist from previous editing), and IDONTLIKEIT doesn't apply. True for myself, at least. Starwars.com I think is a fine reliable source in that there is a distinct, professional editorial process to oversee content; what it is hit-or-miss on, however, is providing out-of-universe material (i.e. the Behind the Scenes tab in databank entries) required in articles written about fictional topics. The various Star Wars "encyclopedias" or "Guide to X and X" are encyclopedic in name only; in practice, they are simply a regurgitation of plot detail and lack, again, the necessary out-of-universe perspective. It's a shame the SW "guide" publishers didn't do what Mike Okuda and Rick Sternbach did with the TNG Technical Manual and provide out-of-uninverse footnotes. An explanation for why fanzines/fan sites do not meet the reliable source guidelines is articulated in this part of Wikipedia policy. --EEMIV (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I find it hard to assume good faith of someone who is blocking and reverting improvements to the article in question. Reliable sources come in all colours of the rainbow, this isn't a black and white issue. Catchpole (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• As I've linked here, on your talk page, on my talk page, and in the edit summary: WP:V states that self-published sites -- e.g. fan sites like theforce.net -- are not reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't The New York Times self-published? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Self-published" refers to people/groups whose barrier to publication is simply money -- as the policy states, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published." The NYTimes and other *professional* publications maintain professional standards for credentials, content, accountability, and general editorial oversight. Same thing with, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica. --EEMIV (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yet, even so called reliable sources have given us Jayson Blair. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's the journalistic equivalent of Reductio ad Hitlerum. The NYTimes and other professional publications -- i.e. reliable sources -- have also provided hundreds of thousands of quality articles and coverage cited throughout the Wikipedia and countless other projects. There's a whole building dedicated to the press -- even with their Jayson Blair (and let's not forget Steven Glass and Janet Cooke pimples. Regardless, though, this is a stretch of a tangent of a keep argument if ever there were one. If you take exception to the press and other sources being recognized as reliable sources and theforce.net not, then the discussion you need to have is at WT:RS, not here. Change the policy (entirely possible) and my !vote would possibly change. --EEMIV (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• At the same time, something like theforce.net has proven quite reliable as a source for Star Wars material and again, its articles are often sourced to other mainstream outlets. Some "fan" sites have developed a level of respectability by those familiar enough with the subject that they are nearly if not as reliable as published sources. I don't think it's right to dismiss them all outright as some are more reliable than others just as some publications or newspapers are less biased or less notorious for errors than others. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Needless to say, I fully agree. And yes, I am a SW fan too. I just happen to also think that on Wikipedia, the distinction between fan enthusiasm and encyclopedic enthusiasm is non-trivial. Dorftrottel (criticise) 07:15, April 24, 2008

• Delete due to a lack of independent, reliable sources about the topic. The phrase “Jaina Solo” gets a lot of Google hits, but mostly to fan sites. The published works appear to be official guides that do not provide the information needed for this article to pass WP:PLOT. I do not object to a redirect to Solo family, but that page is not any better.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, an article on the ever growing Star Wars franchise has a realistic shot at potential. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• 'Comment You would have hoped for some improvement since the last AfD, but since there has been none, a realistic shot of notability is unlikely. Sincerely,--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Aside from the fact that "nobody's working on it" is considered an argument to avoid, the reality is that there has been improvement since the last AfD and so a realistic shot of notability is very likely. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's good practice to provide a more specific search term to not give a false impression of the results, since ~90% of the returned results in your query are unrelated. Eusebeus (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as this is just plain fancruft. She is a character only in the Star Wars "expanded universe", not in any of the Star Wars movies, that alone makes her not notable enough for her own article. At best, merge half a paragraph into The Last Command, otherwise delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Cruft" is never a serious or valid reason for deletion. And if we merge, then we legally cannot delete per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for sharing. Changing !vote to strong delete per almost everything I said above minus the word "fancruft" and the partial merge suggestion. Take strong issue with User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles challenging every delete !vote. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • You don't seem to understand how AfDs work. For one thing, it is a discussion and not a vote. We do not just go down the list of AfDs voting to delete as many articles as we can, because we personally do not like certain kinds of articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  Except when it suits you eh? Answering every comment is obnoxious, annoying, a breach of good faith and wikiquette, especially since all you do is repeat ad nauseum the same tired old points. Eusebeus (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  If you believe that, then why do you do it to me and others? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and reference better. Google News recognizes fansites and fanzines as legitimate news. Please take a peek at this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Google might recognize fan sites/zines as "legitimate news," but Wikipedia does not accept them as the kind of reliable, secondary sources required to establish/sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You will have to show me the rule that says that Google News sources are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia if they concern Star Wars characters. Thats a new one for me. Show me the link to the rule. If Google lists it as a news source, its a news source. The rule for Wikipedia is that the magazine or journal or website must have "editorial control". That distinguishes news from homemade fandom. Subject matter is a rule you just made up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Articles are substantiated by reliable sources, and self-published fan sites don't meet the reliable-source criteria. Just as no one would cite "Google Images" for a picture they found online using image search, one does not cite "Google News" as a source. "Google News" is a service that more narrowly focuses users' searches and sites like theforce.net and anakinweb.com (to half of the search results you linked to lead) are still unreliable fan sites regardless of whether one stumbles onto them via Google News, regular Google search, Yahoo, whatever. --EEMIV (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Additionally: another of the links Google News dug up is to a comingsoon.net forum post -- again, Google News spitting it out doesn't automatically lend if reliable-source status. I can't make heads or tails of the French sfmag.net link, but perhaps you can rummage through the remaining links for any material you think can substantiate a claim of the subject's notability or offer an out-of-universe perspective. --EEMIV (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • There has to be some kind of sci fi or other sorts of publications that have a realistic chance of having additional sources. If you have any suggestions in that regard, I would be happy to see if I can locate any. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. There is a very excellent article on Wookieepedia for this character. I see this as a marginally notable character from the Star Wars universe. Obviously not completely non-notable due to her being the subject of several books, but at the same time lacking sturdy secondary sources. Trusilver 23:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We should use the sources from the Wookieepedia article to improve our own article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Which ones exactly? Dorftrottel (vandalise) 07:23, April 24, 2008
• That would be fine except the criteria for what makes a notable source in Wookieepedia are a great deal murkier than the criteria we have for a reliable source. Trusilver 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• keep There are many sources about her. For example she is discussed apparently in "Who's Who in Rogue Squadron" in the 59th volume of Star Wars Insider which is the official magazine of the Star Wars fan club. Another article was in the 57th volume. I also disagree with claims that The Essential Guide to Characters is not sufficiently independent. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Who's Who in Rogue Squadron" sounds like an in-universe plot blurb. Anything in these issues offering/substantiating an encyclopedic, out-of-universe treatment? --EEMIV (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't have access to the articles at the moment but I understand they are fairly long. Furthermore, independent commentary in reliable sources is enough generally for starters to have an article. While ideally we want a lot of out of universe commentary the bottom line is that even material that focuses on the universe itself that allows us to avoid original research is good. That's why WP:N is phrased the way it is. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails to assert any notability through reliable verifiable sources independent of the subject material. She's certainly been present in quite a few novels, and I'll defer if critical reception is shown, but as it stands, the article should be deleted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I cannot say any reason why an outright deletion would be wise in this case. Even in a worst case scenario there are certainly merge and redirect without deletion locations. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Le Grand Roi, would you mind detailing the logical steps you undertook from your Strong keep above to "well, then at least merge and redirect it instead of deleting"? Dorftrottel (bait) 07:19, April 24, 2008

• I still believe the article should be kept, which is why I say above "worst case scernario" would be a redirect without deletion. By the way, I sent you an email yesterday. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - after reading it, logic dictates it is a clearly central character. To my knowledge, Wizards of the Coast are independent of Ballantine. The nom is preoccupied with article quality, to whit emphasis on plot, which is not grounds for deletion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that my preoccupations are not grounds for deletion. However, not a single third-party reliable source has been found, and that is. Also, no one has explained why this article should exist as a spin-out. Dorftrottel (troll) 15:25, April 24, 2008

• What about Wizards of the Coast linked to somewhere above? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• You mean this article, to which you did link? As EEMIV correctly pointed out, it would be a suitable primary source to verify a sentence along the lines of "The Jaina Solo character has been merchandised into a Star Wars Miniatures figure." Dorftrottel (criticise) 16:34, April 24, 2008

• I don't mind notability guidelines and I don't mind honest debate. I do mind the, "nope, can't see any other sources" with eyes shut that seems to occur frequently in these debates. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Super. You just accused me of intellectual dishonesty and of being unable and/or unwilling to recognise and do what's best for the encyclopedia. The best thing is that you did it an either intellectually dishonest or just plain clumsy way. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 22:09, April 24, 2008

• Weak Delete - The article is poorly written fancruft. I'd switch to keep if the article were actually improved, but despite numerous discussion here on AfD, no one has actually taken up that mantle. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:ITSCRUFT and also note that edits have indeed been improving the article during the course of the discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Humm... you're right about the first one; I won't do that anymore :-)
    • I guess I was in a bad mood. But looking over the history, sources have in fact been removed, and my main contention is that its written in the context of Star Wars and not real life (for lack of a better word). How do we fix this, Le Grand? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      • We look at or tap any kind of SciFi or Star Wars magazines that are likely to have articles on this characters. Publications might not have online archives, but as we know Star Wars is covered widely in magazines, which ones can be searched through to find additional sources here? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. What about claims that the article is written from a too in-universe perspective? Half the reason I voted delete. Convince me otherwise! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Since the discussion began, we added a section on Jaina Solo#Creation and development, but we just need to keep expanding it and if any sci fi or Star Wars publications do come to light that I can search through, I am willing to do so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
            • That's good. What about the in-universe stuff that's already there? Can it be trimmed to essentials? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per LtNOWIS. Edward321 (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Unless the prose is changed dramatically to avoid an in-universe perspective, I don't think this article is too salvageable. I would be willing to switch to keep if the article were brought down to a stub and rebuilt primarily from a non-fiction perspective. I realize that is an editorial concern, not WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:V, but the entire article is practically a plot summary. Perhaps the summary portion can be transwikied and the remains can be kept as a stub? Protonk (talk) 18:57, 27 April 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metaphysically wrinkle-free

Metaphysically wrinkle-free (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A contested prod, this article is little more than a neologism. Claims are made (see bottom paragraph) of being something other than a neologism, but the reasoning is weak, to say the least. Badger Drink (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO, as neologism, and WP:FICT, as minor component of fictional work. --John Nagle (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I prod2'd this article. It's WP:OR. Only 1 usable news hit, and it's only used as someone's nickname. No secondary sources. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this piece of original research. As far as I can gather, the phrase is only known for appearing in a single movie. Any other appearances of the phrase are non notable. So Awesome (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable, agree with John Nagle above - minor part of a fictional work. - Special-T (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable secondary sources, non-notable neologism. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NEO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:42, 24 April 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tomb Raider level editor

Tomb Raider level editor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was deleted on September 14, 2007 and it was recreated on October 27, 2007. It was already deleted two times. here and Here. According to both the article. It says it fails WP:NOTABLE,WP:RS and WP:V. As a nominator i vote the same. Google show only few results. It does not warrant the article. Also this article is to be salted has it should not be recreated again. SkyWalker (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge: into Tomb Raider (series), which already has a stub section for the Level Editor. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 06:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Tomb Raider (series), some info will fit in well. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 14:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for preference, or merge without most of the exlinks if absolutely necessary. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Because there's nothing to merge. User:Krator (t c) 22:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per my reasoning in the second nomination.--WaltCip (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:SALT if necessary. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:20, 24 April 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 No Consensus defaulting to Keep, there is significant disagreement over whether this article should be kept or deleted with the main disagreement being over whether it meets the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mecca Time

I created this article early today thinking it was a significant development in the political sense. A little later I found that only a BBC report and a Gulf Times article are the sources of this information - all other sources have picked the BBC article, nothing else. The participants in this conference in question are virtually unknown, and I couldn't find any background information on this idea or controversy. I had a discussion with Erechtheus, who had first raised the point, and Johnbod, whose feedback I had requested. Yet, I feel the best thing to do is gain a wider community opinion, since I don't think I could satisfy their points nor my unease regarding the notability policy. Vishnava (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep published in multiple reliable sources. Royalbroil 14:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - It has stirred up some internet debate since the BBC's report. Controversial statements about Islam do have a place Wikipedia whether its Rowan William's dicussing Sharia law or the BBC reporting on a conference which has probably raised eyebrows in the scientific community. Just reading our own article on Earth's magnetic field the participants have really conjectured something at the conference. -- BpEps - t@lk 15:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe one shouldn't create articles that they intend to nominate for deletion later. If anything, this article is more of an illustration that there are idiots who work at BBC and at Fox News. The BBC story begins "Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Mecca time...", from the same school of journalism that starts with "Experts believe that..."; implying, of course, that the view of a few people at a conference represents the view of all scientists who happen to be Muslim. FOX reports that GMT "could be replaced by Mecca time if a group of Muslim leaders get their way" (quick, call Homeland Security!!!). It's your basic Skittles story. It might be worth a mention in the article about Greenwich Mean Time, or about bad journalism, but the whole point of the reporting is to stir up ill feeling about those "crazy" Muslims. Mandsford (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mandsford, I did not create this article with an intention to nominate for deletion later. I am simply being mindful that I may have made a mistake, and I'm asking for the community to help me find the solution. Thanks, Vishnava (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So how does the publication of this story mean that there are idiots at BBC and Fox News? Is it because they're "Islamophobes"?--WaltCip (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don’t know if it should be deleted, but I can’t make much sense of it.

* What is the "true center of the Earth"? Unless you think the Earth is a flat surface this makes no sense.

* For is meant by "Muslim scientists"? Is it merely scientist whom happen to be Muslims or is it scientist whom take their primary inspiration from the Koran.

* "Mecca was in perfect alignment with the magnetic north" The magnetic north, besides constantly moving around, is currently somewhere in north-eastern Canada – nowhere near any longitude running through Mecca. In fact it is closer to Greenwich than Mecca. Rune X2 (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is whether this concept of "Mecca Time" is a legitimate and notable one, or is it just a casual act of anti-West propaganda not worth noting. I agree that it makes no scientific sense, but that's not the point of having the article. Thanks Vishnava (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call it "anti-West propaganda" so much as one of many true-believer types of things on the order of the (perhaps folkloric) slogan "If the English language was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me." (Is that a line in Inherit the Wind?) There are plenty of Islamic scholars out there with quirky fatwas and such and the West often misinterprets this as monolithic hierarchical doctrine as in Christian sects such as Catholicism. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Edit and Merge/Delete with Prime Meridian. Julesn84 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep note that my own personal opinion is to keep the article. I only nominated this article to get the community's view on the notability policy issue. Vishnava (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wouldn't a request for comment be a better venue for that? —Quasirandom (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• My recent experience with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Nepal is the reason why I chose AfD. The arguments were fairly similar; plus, if the verdict is that the subject is non-notable, then obviously deletion will take place. Vishnava (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. My intent in raising the notability issue was to put article readers on notice that it's not clear at this point whether or not this is something that's important enough to have an article. I don't think we'll really know for around 6 months or so, really. I think there is technically not quite enough significant coverage to be notable but that it's close enough to the borderline that it doesn't hurt to take a wait and see approach for a while. ETA: I often vote delete in cases like these. The thing I think makes this a weak keep is that the subjects anti-majoritarian position makes it almost the poster child for under-inclusion of such concepts in the project. Erechtheus (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete a few quick articles by notable news sources are not enough. You get this much with the average murder, etc. Would change mind if more sources. gren グレン 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This article would just be an absolute springboard for WP:NOT#POV, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and WP:COI.--WaltCip (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, I think Vishnava did a good job of making the article informative rather than POV-ish. « D. Trebbien (talk) 14:28 2008 April 27 (UTC)

• Keep per Erechtheus and others. It is better on it's own than merged with Prime Meridian (or Paris Meridian), though it should be added to the list of candidates there, with a quick note. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There is also a Mecca watch article that is closely related to this one. Oore (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, its the same thing. The editor must not have realized that a prior article existed. Vishnava (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the mecca watch is a device unveiled at the same conference. Oore (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Mecca watch could well fall under CRYSTAL, at the moment, in that it is a purely conceptual. -- BpEps - t@lk 07:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. At this point I don't feel this proves it's more than unnotable news. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It was my understanding that specific, doctrinal requirements for time-keeping were lunar, not earthly. Even scientific efforts exist to push for a more precise lunar calendar (scroll down). It is entirely possible that I'm either wrong or missing the point. It is also possible that my being correct about the timing/calendar business doesn't impact the notability of an effort to change GMT to "Mecca Time". Protonk (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the lunar calender with Salat times which is always dependant on the position of the sun. - BpEps - t@lk 07:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Entirely, 100% possible.  :~( Protonk (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, BBC has not removed it so Wikipedia should keep it unless it becomes clear (not apparently clear) that this report is not worth discussion or at least a point in history. This might not be important in terms of its scientific significance but somehow people do look at wikipedia for all kind of things to dicuss from most dumb to most scientific. Unless we are not sure about it we cannot catagorize it or even merge it with GMT. I think we have to wait and if some evidence comes in line with this everybody should try to link to it so people can unfold the whole story. If this there had been a conference there must be a call for conference papers and names of such scientists and BBC should have these soruces. It not something like somebody left a paper in the BBC bin outside their office with this report on it and they thought to publish it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farrukhsubhani (talk • contribs) 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

^{Off Topic?}

• Question over status of Mecca Watch article what happens to the Mecca watch article over the decision of the AfD? Should it be included in this AfD? The subject and news is exactly the same; the author must not have realized that an article already existed. If the decision here is to keep this article, is it appropriate to redirect the page to Mecca Time? Vishnava (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've moved the content of Mecca watch to Mecca Time and created a redirect. Its notability is directly related to that of Mecca Time and the aforementioned news report. (EhJJ)^TALK 18:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article Mecca watch fails everything, I haven't Speedied it because it was brought up here (OT -- I did prod it and have reverted the directs on the grounds of CRYSTAL. It has absolutely no nobility because it doesn't exist yet. Unless you can prove its real existence then it is a dream for now. Whether or not the Mecca watch is the worlds biggest seller in 6 months, is not a concern at the moment. It can easily be re-created if deleted-- END OT. --BpEps - t@lk 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

^{end off topic}

• Yes, merging was best, for now. I notice the article has now had a useful wikilink to one of the participants added. This seems to boost notability somewhat, as he seems a very well-known cleric. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Over the years people have advocated dozens of places to replace Greenwich, ranging from the Great Pyramid of Giza to El Hierro to Paris; see Prime Meridian#History for a partial list. These other attempts aren't notable by themselves, and "Mecca time" isn't either. "Mecca time" is appropriate for a news article about some publicity hounds; it is not notable for an encyclopedia. Eubulides (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, we do have an article on the Paris Meridian, which was widely used for centuries by many people, not just the French. We could do with more on the more significant others. The detail-less, and mostly reference-free, list now at "Prime Meridian" is pretty poor, and a wholly inadequate treatment of the subject. A case of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST ? Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Paris Meridian was used by millions of people for centuries and was the basis of legal time for a large fraction of the earth's surface. Maybe in a couple of hundred years the Mecca meridian will reach that level of notability. Maybe. For now, it's just a publicity stunt, and it's nowhere near as notable as the Paris meridian. Eubulides (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Glad to see you know more on the subject than your comment above ("replace" etc) suggested. It is not however necessary for the Mecca idea to be as notable as the Paris Meridian to be sufficiently notable to have an article. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think the point of the article is of how scientifically notable the concept is or will be - right now its more of a political-religious subject, significant from that viewpoint. Vishnava (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)