Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 25

< March 24	March 26 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Discussion on the current notability guidelines Use of global rights on English Wikipedia Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

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

The result was Delete. Tiptoety ^talk 18:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Eckert

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep: This person is very Googleable and has published many textbooks (used in colleges across North America) which now appear on the Wiki alongside their ISBNs. He is also considered to be "A Veteran IT educator" at http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/blog/2007/11/27/skills-and-training-advice-from-jason-eckert/. I have personally read two of his Linux textbooks and found them to be the best on the market for Linux certification. Animalluvr5999 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Seems to fit Wikipedia criteria to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalluvr5999 (talk • contribs) 25 March 2008un

Delete There are 8210 Google hits for "Jason Eckert" but most of them appear to be about other people with the same name, including a digital artist in New Jersey and an instructor at Marquette University[1]. Most of the publications listed are courseware for use with a specific class at a specific school or otherwise not-notable. The article's lack of sourcing and categorization as well as a very weak assertion of notability make this a prime candidate for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete They may be the best text books on the market but an article here is not warnted because it fails the requirements of WP:BIO due to the lack of secondary sources. - Ctempleton3 (talk) 06:03, 30 March 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. Tiptoety ^talk 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jonas Salvador

Non-notable game designer, no claims of notability, but my speedy tag was removed. Just a guy doing his job. Only 65 google hits, including facebook, linkedin, friendster, his own website, and other people with the same name. Corvus cornix_talk 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Not an A7, but the Gsearch really doesn't do wonders for notability. Also note that the original version (less so this one, but still an issue) was a copyvio of the subject's personal website, which implies a possible WP:COI here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete I see nothing significant about working on graphics for video games. How many thousands of people do this for a living? Beach drifter (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Cannot see what makes him notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Not notable.--RyRy5 talk 01:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of notability, short time in the industry and making only minor contributions to a few titles make it very unlikely that it could be positively asserted. - Dravecky (talk) 05:09, 30 March 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 American Idol (season 7) - Philippe 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kady Malloy

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) - She was only a semifinalist on American Idol (season 7) Aspects (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete fails to be considered notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 26 March 2008

Delete also ran Ohconfucius (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to American Idol (season 7). -- Whpq (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect per previous discussions. Unlike Joanne Borgella, there is nothing else to back up the creation of this article. If she comes out with a significant album or remains popular long after Idol ends, then an article can be made, but being a semi-finalist alone is not enough (it only gets her halfway to warranting an article). CrazyC83 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep as notable and verifiable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect. Yawn. Policy is, "no Top 12, no page." ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - that's not policy. It happens to be a frequent outcomes. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to Comment - Check Woohookitty's comment here. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 17:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply - I fail to see your point. It being a common outcome does not make it policy. Examples of policy is verifiability. And I'm not disagreeing with redirecting, but it's not a policy. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I misinterpreted. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 19:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Notability asserted and there are quite a number of reliable secondary sources from around the world (227 in the last month alone [2]) available for immediate expansion of this article. - Dravecky (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
delete - Article asserts she was a semifinalist on an American TV show who can impersonate someone. Article does not assert that she is notable. WP:N states "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Outside of having appeared on a TV show, all she's asserted as doing right now is posting songs on a MySpace page and appearing in a local benefit concert. For now, coverage of her should be limited to the TV show article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- A semi-finalist on the most highly rated show on television is notable as they appear all over the news and internet. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Actually, no. That means the show is notable. She is completely non-notable until she does something on her own to justify an article separate from that of the TV show. For further explanation, see WP:ONEEVENT. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    - She's recognizable to millions of Americans and there is a likely interest in her. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect per WP:NTEMP. She may become notable in the future, but she is not yet, and speculation is not grounds for notability. --CWSensation^t 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Multiple issues here. She has performed maybe 3-4 times on a telivision show that may be notable, but is not notable herself. Her only claim to fame is AI. And no, they do not apper all over the news and internet. A semi-finalist is an also-ran. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

- Contestants are discussed on VoteForTheWorst and TV.com, they appear in segements on such shows as Idol Tonight, The Soup, and Countdown with Keith Olbermann in various segments, which I would collectively count as all over TV and the internet. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  - You're missing my point. Having 15 seconds of fame and possibly being discussed on the internet doesn't meet WP:N. I think that you may believe that all contestants get the same sort of exposure as Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Jordin Sparks et al. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 00:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    - It's good enough for Wikipedia. If editors are interested in the topic and willing to work on the article, then there is no advantage to the project by deleting the article, which even in the worst case would be redirected without deletion to retain the edit history, but there is a possible benefit. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      - There are 2 editors interested in this article, and you seem to be most of them. They have done nothing more than go on tv 3-4 times, 3 minutes each time. She has not signed a record deal. I think that you are assuming that she is getting the kind of exposure that Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Jordin Sparks et al. get. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 00:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        
        She does not need to have the exposure of the top three contestants to justify inclusion of an article. Do we have any idea how many times someone accessed or read this article? Who knows, maybe a potential donor is a fan of hers. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Read what "allglory to the hypnotoad" said. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 11:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

comment - the present warming trend in the northeastern US and central Canada has appeared all over TV and the internet, but we don't have an article Northeast US gets warm on April 1, 2008, because it's not notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that she is notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:05, 1 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 - Philippe 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pickles Park

Unsourced article which I originally nominated as a G11 speedy candidate - the sentence at the bottom pretty much states that the article was created to to promote the initiative. The project is not complete (and may not even be underway) and the build up/planning of the development doesn't seem to have recieved the significant coverage by reliable, independent sources required to establish notability. Once completed it is possible that the development may meet the inclusion criteria but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Guest9999 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Many changes since objections. Please have a look. Perhaps the article would be better titled to reflect the Internet's role in a changing world. In that instance the description would be placed on a pgae such as Urban Planner with a pointer to a Pickles Park as an example of the net's impact. Tomlzz1 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This will probably get some coverage in NYC papers but that shouldn't translate beyond local notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - As far as a dog park is concerned, there will not likely be any local newspaper coverage of the park's completion. It's just a small park. The significance lies in its being a tipping point for the urban planner's role in community relationships. Please guide me as to how I might better communicate that "wikipedia fashion." Tomlzz1 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Does not meet WP:NOTE policy. Specifically, General notability guideline titled "Independent of the subject".Ctempleton3 (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Same comment as above.Tomlzz1 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - City government sources have been linked in. Will add more when the city government entity, which is years behind on posting, makes them available. Tomlzz1 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it doesn't meet WP:NOTE. It may have significance in a conceptual sort of way, but it needs secondary sources. More specifically, it needs specific media coverage. If the park becomes notable in the future, that will be another matter. Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has references to/from official government websites. And it has had coverage in local media - but as a park, not as a technology change force. Tomlzz1 (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - aside from the fact that the article's creator fails to grasp Wiki markup correctly, this fails notability, has no reliable sources, is laden with original research and feels like its an advertisement for the dog park or at least a COI Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - My having a poor understanding of markup is no reason to eliminate an article. If it seems like advertising for the park, I'll be glad to eliminate it ~ "A small park in Queens"? What the article does is inform about technology's impact and the ways it can change a profession's role. At least that's my intention. If I've not communicated that, please advise as to how I might repair. Hoping Urban Planners join me. Tomlzz1 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I said "aside" meaning that was my personal opinion. Its per WP:NOT#ADVERT and everything else I said. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 15:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - "per nom"? Please explain. Tomlzz1 (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you know this, but "per nom" means "I agree with what the nominator for deletion said in his initial summary" Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 15:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Merge The asserted notability is more about the process than the park itself so a merge to Queens Community Board 3 as a section in that too-small article is in order. The actual park lacks sufficient notability for a standalone article. - Dravecky (talk) 05:00, 30 March 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 into Acalanes High School. Tikiwont (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acalanes Lacrosse

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Acalanes High School, the high school whose team this is. Team isn't notable enough for its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Acalanes High School. Even with the number one ranking, there isn't enough meat here to justify breaking out into a separate article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge to the high school article, as per above. Team may indeed be "premier" in a limited geographical area but the note that they haven't "won any league titles" in this unsourced article is clear indication of a lack of standalone notability. - Dravecky (talk) 04:54, 30 March 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.--Kubigula (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indie-electro

The genre doesn't exist The-15th (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment What is your proof that it doesn't exist? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That's a rather strange question. One might as well ask "where is your proof that the Easter bunny doesn't exist". Normally, the default position is not to accept a hypothesis until one has evidence to the contrary, but you seem to be doing the opposite. Ogranut (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  - No notable figures inside the music business (serious music critics) have claimed the existence of the genre and on google search, all that appears are just blogs using the term and last.fm, but both sources are not sufficient to justify the creation of a page for an invented genre. The-15th (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete I find that musical genres in general tend to be a long chain of sub-sub-sub-sub-genres that multiply like viruses. While this term does seem to have a fairly wide amount of use, I've yet to see a reliable source use it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete This is not an actual genre the article even states itself, It is not a true genre Kuro Woof 00:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete not an actual genre. Basically all the uses of it are by people unfamiliar with actual genres like New Rave, Grindie, Nintendocore, Electroclash, Dance-Punk etc. etc. etc. (yes, I do know a wealth about electronically leaning indie rock). Otherwise, no reliable sources to prove its existence outside of blogs and the like 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete as "not a true genre" seems to be the first direct assertion of non-notability I have ever encountered in an article. - Dravecky (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
strong delete - article asserts "not a true genre", above. This means the article isn't even about a genre, it's about the author's neologism. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:08, 31 March 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 - Philippe 23:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Gross

Pure Vanity. Ogranut (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I recommend avoiding terms like "vanity" which might offend the article's creator. The article makes several assertions of notability, but is unreferenced. It appears to be an autobiography, since the creator is User:Scottagross --Eastmain (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep the person seems notable, they co-founded a major company.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs)
- Is the company a "major" one? According to their own website, [3] they are a "small business". If wikipedia had a page for everyone who set up one of those, then that would mean almost everyone over the age of 18. Ogranut (talk)
Comment While I declined a speedy deletion request on this article based upon notability claims therein, I am not yet convinced we should or should not keep the article. Aleta ^Sing 01:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment check this article out Ohconfucius (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep Article asserts notability but needs extensive additional sourcing from reliable secondary sources. The involvement of the subject is troubling but not an immediate disqualification if that independent sourcing can be added. - Dravecky (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - This Scott Gross setup his own biography here with no secondary sources. Until there are secondary sources confirming who he is any information post must be assumed to be biased. - Ctempleton3 (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Per CSD G11, nothing more than self promotion. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:23, 30 March 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 - Philippe 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soumaya Keynes

Non-notable actress, related to notable people but not herself notable. Corvus cornix_talk 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per the nom. Here shows the relations: [4] and here are the actress's hits for google: [5]. I see imbd, myspace, and various biographical/directory minutia. Fails WP:BIO. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete first of all there are no references and the only notable people are her family Kuro Woof 00:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep Added one reference to back up claim of radio show acting credits and a brief run through Google shows there should be enough others available to expand this article. Article needs expansion, sourcing, and cruft removal (what are "college parents"?) but seems capable of being brought up to standards. - Dravecky (talk) 05:32, 30 March 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), with nearly unanimous keep/merge comments. The possibility of merging is left open to editors. Skomorokh 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Imagine In Cornice

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above - it does indeed fail WP:RS and WP:NOTE. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge with discography or Pearl Jam. Also, while the article desperately needs to be expanded, there is [6] which is slightly notable, although, I do not believe this is enough. Fails WP:MUSIC for albums. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge this is not notable on its own, but would be notable information in the Pearl Jam article.Kuro Woof 00:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Pearl Jam as this is useful info but sufficient notability for a unique article is not asserted or likely at this time. - Dravecky (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Unfortunately I cant review the following pages at the moment, but this looks very promising, as does this. Add to that that it's a gold record, and I believe independent notability is established. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:24, 3 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 and redirect to C (musical note) as per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep C. Sandstein (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Low C

This is not a real musical term. Nrswanson (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete the term Low C is not a true musical term. I have a Bachelors degree in Music Education and a Masters in Vocal Pedagogy and I have never heard of this term. I have also looked in three different Music Dictionaries and the term is not mentioned at all.Nrswanson (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete The nominator's evidence makes it pretty clear that this is not a widely used musical term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Dhartung and 23skidoo; may not be "official" but seems widely used. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutral per Nrswanson; this term apparently has multiple meanings and no standard definition. Arrgh. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, the term is clearly in use and has been for a long time. If we can source that it means something different we should. There are 95 books that talk about the low C on a guitar alone. --Dhartung | Talk 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep but source as suggested above. Certainly one of the many Google Books hits linked above should suffice. if it's not a "true musical term" that could indicate that it might be a piece of jargon that has evolved over the years. This too is worth noting - with a source. 23skidoo (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Even a cursory search yields hits that reveal the term is in use - also, per the above link for guitar. WP:IDONTKNOWIT doesn't really hold much water. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment The term Low C when used in instrumentation refers to the lowest C note on that instrument which may fall into a different pitch area depending on the instrument. Low C on a guitar (C3) is not the same as Low C for a flute (C4) or Low C for bassoon (C2). This article is sugesting a standardization of the term Low C which just doesn't exsist. The term really changes from instrument to instrument and is therefore not really a musical term but an easy reference point in instruction. This is why music dictionaries don't include it and neither should wikipedia. But likewise instrumentation books will use terms like low A or low B to refer to the lowest pitches on an instrument so there really is nothing so special about low C to warant an article. If you have a low C page then you would need a Low A, Low, B, all the way up to Low G Sharp page. Its really not a sensible page to have. Nrswanson (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You make a pretty good point, but then isn't this just a content issue? The article could easily be modified the reflect the disparity in the term. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In a way it is a content issue but then we get to the issue of notability. What makes low C special as opposed to low A, low B, low D, low E, low F sharp, etc. ? See my point. When properly understood, low C really doesn't make a great article. The concept of the term "low" used in instrumentation could easily be talked about on the Pitch (music) wikipedia article. Also I don't think the definition given right now is at all accurate but completely made up so I don't think there is a disparity in understanding. There is no universal association between the term low C and C3. Not even within vocal music is there such an association as I have several vocal pedagogy books that define low C for say baritones as C3 and low C for sopranos as C4. Nrswanson (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Term is not included in Glossary of musical terminology--Kleinzach (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

but that's just a WP article, which doesn't establish notability or non-notability. DGG (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless multiple non-trivial third party publications can be provided to support the article. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to C (musical note). It will get some hits in search, so just send it over to that article. Grsz 11 15:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect should go to Pitch (music), I think. Scientific pitch notation and Helmholtz pitch notation have some discussion too. Sparafucil (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep and write the article to explain it properly. The point of WP is to provide information, and this seems like something about which information needs to be provided. DGG (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment There are already other articles that cover this topic so why keep this article?Grsz11 correctly pointed out C (musical note) which seems to be the most logical place to redirect this page in my opinion.Nrswanson (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have changed the definition of this term to be accurate. I still think it should be deleted because it does not meet the notability requirements of a wikipedia article.Nrswanson (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to [[C (musical note)] as the discussion her makes it clear that this is a term in general use, even if the definition is fuzzy, and worthy of some note but not its own article. - Dravecky (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
delete as hopelessly relative, per nom. This article presently reads: "the term Low C is used to refer to the lowest C note in the range of a given instrument or voice type." Okay, if that is meaningful in any way, then we should have an article Rear right fender, with the following text: "The term rear right fender is used to refer to the rearmost rightmost fender on the body of a given model of car." AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:16, 31 March 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. Sandstein (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] K3407

non-notable (and incorrect title). It is one of hundreds of transistors. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete It's not a piece by Mozart, and the article fails to demonstrate why it is notable. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Article is in need of expansion and sourcing but there is quite a bit of precedent for articles of this type. (See Category:Commercial transistors). - Dravecky (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete The nominator is correct the title of the page is wrong. Follow the link for the data sheet. Even if the title was right why do we need a single page with only one line for a transistor. With as many transistors as there are this would overload the server with thousands of pages (that only had one line.) If this data does need to be in an online encyclopedia why can't it be on in a table on one or a group of pages about transistors? I just do not see the benifit of how that it is currently set up - Ctempleton3 (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment With 2,310,801 articles (and counting) on the English Wikipedia I doubt that even a thousand short articles on transistors would "overload the server". And please note that this stub should be expanded, as has been done with the other articles in Category:Commercial transistors. - Dravecky (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I don't know much about transistors and haven't researched on this one, so I'm not going to "vote", but just give general comments. Why is this transistor notable? The fact that it exists and that it has a manufacturer's data sheet is hardly enough to write an encyclopedia article. If there's something special about it and there are other references about it, the article could be expanded and kept. Otherwise, it should be deleted for lack of notability. --Itub (talk) 15:35, 31 March 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 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defiance Regional Medical Center

Sentence!article, incurable WP:ORG failure Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The article is a stub. ---Eastmain (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - This doesn't really fall under WP:CORP. First, the article needs to be expanded, and secondly, it's about the medical center itself. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep "It's a stub" or "hospitals aren't organisations" are not arguments against deletion, but I found at least a few non-trivial sources about them without that much effort, including a local paper's interview with their president, a regional paper's article about an Indy 500 champion sponsoring their cardiology facility, and a national article (Associated Press) about, of all things, their cafeteria. cab (talk) 02:53, 26 March 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. Pretty good discussion, with a narrow keep consensus.--Kubigula (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peanut Williams

Minor league player in the lowest of the lowest minor leagues. Nothing in the article to claim notability, even being MVP of the minor minor league isn't that notable. Corvus cornix_talk 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Holds several records in the Frontier League as well as the GBL and is thus far more notable than a random member of those minor leagues. Article needs expansion and sourcing, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~Tiptoety ^talk 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep, based on Player of the Year and All-star appearance. Gsearch isn't giving really great coverage, though. :(--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, minor league baseball players are non-notable. If he were a Triple A player and participated in the All Star Game, than that might sway me towards a keep vote, but short season single A are the lowest level of the minor leagues. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep He is playing in the Golden Baseball League. That seems to satisfy WP:ATHLETE... --Pmedema (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment There is no consensus at WP:Baseball as to whether this level of play is a "fully professional league", as required in WP:ATHLETE. The season for the GBL is just 3 months long, and salary levels range from $750 per month to $3000 per month, meaning most players earn well less than $10,000 per year, and some players earn less than $2,500 per year. Some people hold that if you are paid the league is fully professional, while others feel that if you need another job just to pay rent and buy groceries, it's not fully professional.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Professional - a person who earns a living in a sport or other occupation frequently engaged in by amateurs [7]. WP:ATHLETE makes no reference to the amount earned (or what they are going to do with their money). It says "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" which Golden Baseball League seems to be in the catagory of... and that there is sufficient reference for the player. Here [8] is one of many... --Pmedema (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep: It has already been decided that minor league all stars are notable. Mr. Peanut qualifies. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:45, 31 March 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 and redirect to C (musical note). The consensus is not overwhelming, but the WP:V issues are not really addressed. The article is still sourceless. Sandstein (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deep C

This is not a real musical term. It does not exsist in any music dictionary or other resource I can find. Nrswanson (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete the term deep C is not a true musical term. I have a Bachelors degree in Music Education and a Masters in Vocal Pedagogy and I have never heard of this term. I have also looked in three different Music Dictionaries and the term is not mentioned at all.Nrswanson (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete I'm trusting the nom here -- someone with a degree in Music Education is probably more knowledgeable than even someone who taught himself to play piano at age four (i.e., myself). This doesn't appear to be a real musical term at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Dhartung, may not be a "true" term but seems widely used enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutral per Nrswanson; seems to be a bit of contradiction regarding this and similar terms so I'll just shut up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, a rare but perhaps obsolete term attested as the bottom of the range of the violoncello. In the memoirs of Hector Berlioz he writes of a deep C on the chromatic trombone. Cecil Forsyth's Orchestration discusses the Deep C multiple times, noting For the sake of completeness one must add that an occasional player of greatness can just touch the deep C, a note which theoretically does not exist on the instrument at all (the valve-horn). --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Again, WP:IDONTKNOWIT doesn't apply. The term is constantly in use. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Interesting that the term has been used sparingly but just because some people have used the term does it make it acceptable to present it as factual term when the wider musical community does not use it or is not familiar with it. I think presenting it as such would be a misrepresentation of the truth. The article should reflect the fact that it is an obscure term and it should cite resources if it is to be kept. As it is now it should be deleted. Also, the term low C is often used in place of Deep C as in the case of most of the bassoon instructional books I use with my students. The author of these articles on the C note seems to be trying to give a standardized terminology when it comes to C where none exsists. Typically low C is used when refering to the lowest C on an instrument regardless of where that pitch falls. Making destinctions between low C and deep C is definitely not common practice as evidenced by most instrumental instruction books. And I challenge the asssertion that Deep C is in constant use now or at any other time in musical history. Seems to be only used incidentally by a handful of musicians. Nrswanson (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Term is not included in Glossary of musical terminology--Kleinzach (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless multiple non-trivial third party publications can be provided to support the article. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to C (musical note). It will get some hits in search, so just send it over to that article.
Delete If Forsyth and a translator of Berlioz have used the term it can still be mentioned in a footnote to the Pitch (music) article, which should discuss nomenclature(s). Sparafucil (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep same as above. Keep and explain better. DGG (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment How can any of you vote to keep an article with no references? I personally don't trust the above mentioned comments that the term was used by certain individuals until they show verifiable resources to back that up (a.k.a adding them to the article). As far as I am concerned the term deep C is still utter fiction until proven otherwise and should be deleted. I commented on the factual inaccuracy on the pages talk page in early February. It has been two months and no one has responded or added verifiable resources. This page has had plenty of time to improve itself and hasn't. Probably because the term is fake.Nrswanson (talk) 03:57, 30 March 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 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dhaka Shishu Hospital

A sentence is not an article, incurable failure of WP:ORG for local orgs. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep there's enough GNews hits to write an article. Please look for sources before coming to AfD. Find sources: Dhaka Shishu Hospital — news, books, scholar. cab (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep and expand - the organization is notable. Please expand it. I've added two references, one being an entry on the hospital at Banglapedia. --Ragib (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Obvious Keep Reliable sources ([9], [10]) are proving its notability. Not fit for deletion.--NAHID 09:50, 26 March 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. Wizardman 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] People Paddle

The organization itself is somewhat marginal and probably fall short of the expectations of the relevant guideline. In any case, the article is written like an advertisement for the group's activities and in no way resembles an actual encyclopedic article. Pichpich (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:54, 19 March 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) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete blatantly promotional, and so tagged. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep pending proper sourcing I had a look at the single reference and it does seem to be a fairly notable event. I have removed the speedy tag and trimmed out the worst advertising from the article. I can try to improve it further, but I certainly think it would be worth seeking further input before deleting. --John (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment My search for notable and verifiable references drew a blank, and the existing one (besides the group's own website) is pretty tenuous. I have trimmed the egregious advertising that was going on, and emailed the article creator asking for input (as I noticed they hadn't contributed for while). It may very well be that this group fails notability; or it may be that this (seemingly quite major) fund-raising enterprise has somehow escaped web notability. My hope would be that there is a paper resource out there that establishes notability, or that my search was flawed. I was surprised that a series of events of such apparent size was not more widely covered on, for example, SFGate. Yet I don't think it is a hoax. Thoughts? --John (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment The problem is that this kind of organization does get some amount of local coverage as, you know, the feel-good story of the day. But there's no depth to that coverage and there's usually no fact-checking behind it, so even these cannot truly be considered third-party references. Pichpich (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    - That could apply to many stories in the national press as well, but we accept them. Ty 07:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete - there is just the one Sentinel article. I don't see other coverage. So it appear that this event is not notable. I can be convinced if other reliable sources can be found, but I've not found any. -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Having unsuccessfully searched for sources, and emailed and messaged the article creator appealing for more reliable sources (ideally the coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle that the creator claimed initially), failing that I have to say this article is not viable. However I would like to propose a redirect and merge of the existence of the group, in view of the borderline notability of the fundraiser. Whether this should be to a sourced mention in kayak, San Francisco (or more likely one of its daughter articles), or some other target I would be loath to see this completely disappear from Wikipedia. What are others' thoughts? --John (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - considering the lack of coverage in San Francisco-based media, I don't see why this should be merged into any article. It would surely look odd in kayak, and city articles aren't for listing minor events. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Kayak in a section at the end. There's not enough for a stand-alone article, but, as John says, this should be kept somewhere, per WP:NNC. Ty 07:00, 30 March 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) per WP:SNOWBALL. The subject is obviously notable. Nominator does not seem have have a clear grasp on policy; all of his AFD's have been meet with a unanimous keep consensus. Possibly a bad faith nomination. -Icewedge (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Samaritan Hospital (Suffern)

Seemingly well referenced but incurable failure of WP:ORG for local organizations. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep I don't see how it fails WP:ORG given the multiple references. Note also that this is a brand new account whose first contributions are four AfDs within a minute. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note, also, that this user's first contribution is the installation of Twinkle. Very suspicious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: there is no AfD on the article and from the history it doesn't appear there ever was one. I don't know how to retro add one. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Creator Keep, apart from the nom's apparent issue with hospitals as s/he seems to have nominated all the Good Sams, this one is definitely notable. It's the only cardiac provider between NYC and Albany and its JCAHO certifications are notable for a hospital this size and the first hospital in New York State to earn both JCAHO Primary Stroke Center certification, along with state designation as a Primary Stroke Center (verbatim and sourced from the article). I admit the history section has primary source issues because it's sourced almost wholly from the hospital's anniversary information, but that doesn't invalidate notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep There is sufficient sourcing to pass WP:ORG. Hospitals are serious, encyclopedic subjects that are important to their communities, and we should have articles on them. Why is there no AfD tag on the article? Noroton (talk) 05:26, 26 March 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) per WP:SNOWBALL. The subject is obviously notable. Nominator does not seem have have a clear grasp on policy; all of his AFD's have been meet with a unanimous keep consensus. Possibly a bad faith nomination. -Icewedge (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Samaritan Hospital (Los Angeles)

Seemingly well referenced but incurable failure of WP:ORG for local organizations. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep USC affiliate teaching hospital with 6,110 news hits, including this one that identifies it as a top performer. While some of those are about persons injured and treated there, there's no question of notability. It needs to be expanded because the article doesn't appear notable but that doesn't mean the subject isn't. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:17, 26 March 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) per WP:SNOWBALL. The subject is obviously notable. Nominator does not seem have have a clear grasp on policy; all of his AFD's have been meet with a unanimous keep consensus. Possibly a bad faith nomination. -Icewedge (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Samaritan Hospital (Cincinnati)

nn unreferenced. Incurable failure of WP:ORG for local organizations. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - This is about a hospital, not an organization. Does not need to meet WP:ORG. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hospital: "A hospital is an institution for health care" ... an institution is not an organisation? cab (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep Nominator clearly did no research to back up his contention about "incurable" failure of WP:ORG. Plenty of good GBooks hits [11], like "FAITH AND ACTION: A History of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati" which talks about its early history; over ten thousand GNews hits [12]. cab (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep unreferenced doesn't mean there are no references, as cab noted above. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:14, 26 March 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. Tiptoety ^talk 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghale bakshian

Although all settled communities are notable, they still need to be verifiable. I am unable to verify the existence of this village. Searches for the name turn up no results that support its existence. And a search for "Bakshi Mohammed Fazaal" is equally fruitless. The artcile fails to meet the policy of verifiability. Whpq (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete-I was also unable to verify the existence of that village, as the nominator stated, fails WP:VERIFY.--TrU Co -X 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I searched at http://web.archive.org/web/20040616075334/www.censusindia.net/results/town.php?stad=A&state5=999 and at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp but couldn't find a listing. However, the spelling in the article is erratic. Perhaps the village's name is given incorrectly. --Eastmain (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Seems unverifiable; didn't find it even in World City database of locations in Punjab (and I looked for spelling variations). I'll correct a few spellings in the article, which may help others in locating a source, but if none is found while the AFD is open the article should be deleted. Abecedare (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete As unverifiable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:39, 29 March 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 --JForget 00:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rawlings legacy

Appears to be a personal essay with no real context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - The author has had some time to improve the article but still reflects a point of view. It was previously nominated for deletion but this was removed. The quality of the article has not changed in any significant way since the first nomination however. This encyclopaedia is not for original research .--Natsubee (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You also listed it at AfD but forgot to finish the process, which is what drew my attention to this article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion is not the same thing as nominated for deletion. Anyone can dispute a PROD by removing the tag. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, essay, soapboxing. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - While WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issues can certainly be improved, this is clearly soapboxing. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - author may be encouraged to contribute to the Jerry Rawlings article, but this is about as for away from an NPOV as you can get. Camillus (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete it as an essay and soapbox article -- Whpq (talk) 13:02, 26 March 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 weakly kept.--Kubigula (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sharkula

I see no assertion of notability in compliance with WP:MUSIC. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete There are a couple sources, but they don't seem quite enough to meet notability guidelines per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep Seems to scrape through criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC (coverage in multiple reliable sources). He doesn't pass that criterion by very much, but at least there's something. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ Tiptoety ^talk 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep/undecided. Some evidence of coverage from first couple of pages of Google results, plus the 2 sources in the article, may be enough. Coverage seems pretty localised but there's a fair bit around.--Michig (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Basically for the reasons stated above, I don't see any news coverage [13]. However, [14], [15], [16] suggest localized/regional notability, barely qualifying the article for WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, article establishes notability as per WP:MUSIC#C7. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:42, 31 March 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) 00:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Svanholm

This article des not meet the notability requirements of wikipedia. Nrswanson (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Few to no notable roles, no coverage in reliable sources, no other means of meeting any criterion of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete-I found 15,700 google hits, which most state that he is a producer for talent related areas. However, that is only less than half of the hits, to me it fails WP:V--TrU Co -X 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Unless it can be proven that the individual did not receive such an award. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment, The International Online Music Awards are not prestegious and winning one really isn't a noteworthy event in itself.Nrswanson (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. There really isn't enough stuff to establish notability. He has sung opera lead roles in Sweden, but in small companies. Last summer he sang Turiddu in one of those outdoor opera thingies near Stockholm, reviewed in a main Swedish paper. [17]. But that really isn't enough. I'd suggest adding the relevant information about his current incarnation to Ignorance (band) where under the name of "Steve John", he was their lead guitarist. Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

PS Bit of trivia. He's the grandson of a Swedish opera singer who is notable - Set Svanholm. Alas for Stephen, this makes no difference to his own notability.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 15:00, 27 March 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) 00:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Goswami Maharaj

Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep Head of an institution. Name should be changed to Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha to comply with no honorifics policy. Wikidās ॐ Thats all folks from me 19:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable (see WP:NOTE) - head of a relatively small institution, contains little information and few sources to establish notability. There are many small institutions within Hinduism and many leaders of these, many of whom are non-notable for their size and relative contributions to the religion. I think the subject of this article is no exception. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Notability not sufficiently established. --SJK (talk) 06:57, 29 March 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) 00:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Take You There (Donnie Klang song)

[18] Non-notable song - mostly aol video, blogspot, youtube, and various unofficial lyric sites. Fails WP:MUSIC for songs. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete-Digital Download? Wow, like the nominator stated its just an underground song, not to notable, fails WP:MUSIC and fall under WP:NN.TrU Co -X 21:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It's a current single, and it's charting, therefore it's relevant. —DMWN (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete No evidence that it's charting yet -- it appears to be a download only, and thus doesn't seem to be notable enough per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:21, 30 March 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) 00:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misses Glass

Future prediction of release non-notable song - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Contested prod. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. When the song is released I doubt it will be notable enough per WP:MUSIC to even warrant an article for itself. At that time, it should be merged. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete-Wikpedia is not a Crystal Ball, fails WP:MUSIC, and is not worthy of an article due to it not being released and its notablility.--TrU Co -X 21:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Easily recreated when (or if) the single is released should it meet WP:MUSIC at that time. - Dravecky (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no information exists on the song yet besides its release date. No prejudice against re-creating once the song receives significant coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:25, 30 March 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; default to "keep" - Philippe 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna Dharma

Book advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable book. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Personal website and no Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep I don't see how this aricle is at all worded like an advertisement, the information is referenced and notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs)

My reason for questioning the references is that they are the subjects personal website. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep Notable writer. [19][20]Wikidās ॐ 19:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Personal website and no Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete - one of the sources above is an article by the subject of this AfD, and the other is a listing of events - possibly fails WP:RS? Need more RS to prove that Krishna Dharma is notable. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 21:59, 30 March 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 Redirected, editors are encouraged to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bexley News

Non notable newspaper, no reliable sources cited. Prod was removed with a sarcastic comment by an IP. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. A quick Google search indicates that the Bexley News won a Suburban News Awards honorable mention. I need to verify it against independent sources. Beyond that, this looks like a case of a newbie taking a deletion tag personally. If the editor can get the point about WP:RS, this article might be salvageable. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's only an internal award- Suburban News owns the paper. I don't think we can take that as an indication of notability. J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Actually, Bexley News is owned by American Community Newspapers, not SNA. SNA is the trade group which used judges from the American Press Institute. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    - That's not what the article says... J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Bexley, Ohio which, as the article says, is a small town and "nothing goes on there". It's in the same county as Columbus, O., and I doubt this is much more than a classified advertising vehicle dressed up as a "suburban newspaper". Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, it's the Bexley edition of a suburban regional newspaper.[21] The whole thing could have an article but the paper itself is not sufficiently notable. A good portion of the web hits are to a paper in England and many others are simply unrelated. --Dhartung | Talk 22:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep or merge to Bexley, Ohio. Is only a stub anyway which would slot into a local media section of the parent article. Many well-developed articles on suburbs will have media sections. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete, every small town has a newspaper, their non-notability is actually parodied by the Springfield Shopper. Blast Ulna (talk) 17:32, 3 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 --JForget 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Belli

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Nrswanson (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete the creator has been given time to improve the article, deletion is required, also the article contains near none information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs)
Delete, no indication in the article that this opera singer is in any way notable. Scog (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. Wsanders (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Laura Belli should also be removed from Category:Sopranos if it is deleted Wsanders (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's automatic. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete no evidence she is notable. JJL (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete I've searched pretty throroughly for coverage (also in German and Italian) and in Opera News to which I have a subscription. I've not found anything. Her appearances (listed on her web site) have mostly been in open-air concerts singing excerpts from operas. If/when she becomes notable and gets some kind of coverage, the article can always be re-created. At the moment, it's one line long and doesn't even assert notabiliy. Voceditenore (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Voceditenore--Kleinzach (talk) 14:01, 27 March 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 (note that info on him already exists at Ryabko's Systema) - Nabla (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emmanuel Manolakakis

Not apparently notable, based on what's in the article. CBHA (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

merge with Ryabko's Systema. --Mista-X (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete or merge, insufficient sources for a biography. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep some notability [22]. JJL (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete as NN looks like an advert for the club. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete as notability is not proven and there are precisely no Google News hits for "Emmanuel Manolakakis" or 'Manolakakis "Fight Club"'. - Dravecky (talk) 05:52, 30 March 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 to List of minor Star Wars Rebel characters. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carlist Rieekan

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of the game from which the character comes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge this article is not notable on its own but would be very appropriate in the article, List of minor Star Wars Rebel characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs)

You've already been given a notice about this before. Please sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Gazimoff (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars Rebel characters. This character comes from The Empire Strikes Back, not a game, and has received at least some coverage in secondary sources, albeit usually without the first name. - Dravecky (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge as suggested. I'll start the process. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete and place a one-sentence blurb in the List of.... Migrating unsubstantiated plot summary elsewhere isn't appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete, the level of detail is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Let Wookieepedia have a few things Wikipedia doesn't have. Blast Ulna (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to List of minor Star Wars Rebel characters#Rieekan, Carlist - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 3 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.--Kubigula (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seen The Snow

[23] and [24] reveals no reliable sources that can confirm this upcoming film. As of right now, this is a matter of WP:CRYSTAL. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. IMDb also shows nothing. JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep The article was stated yesterday, more time should be given to find references or more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs)

Comment Time is kinda irrelevant given the nomination, despite it being mine. If the film can't be confirmed then it fails WP:V. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment If time is an illigitamite argument than I would have to concede.Kuro Woof 18:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs)

Comment - if "the critics have complemented the film excellently" it must be out somewhere, and IMDb should know about it, particularly since Julie Andrews is said to be in it. I suspect a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, seems to be a hoax to me. Wsanders (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete after further resarch I found this movie to be a hoax.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs)

Note: I struck your "keep" !vote above since you can't !vote twice. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete Either a hoax or serious crystalballing, given the fact that 99.9% of the article can't be verified. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - hoaxalicious. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Either a hoax or a fantasy, fails every possible test for inclusion. - Dravecky (talk) 05:44, 30 March 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 - Philippe 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Moorcroft

Concerns here regard notability and verifiability. Presuming the accuracy of this information, this individual does not seem to meet notability guidelines for entertainers. The role does not seem that significant, as it (and its actor) don't even appear in the list of cast for the film at imdb (even though the bar of inclusion seems low, given that some of the appearances are "rumored"). There's no evidence of other significant work. The only link currently working in the article is to spotlight.com, which does not meet WP:V as It specifies that "The information in this CV has been provided by or on behalf of the client concerned. Every effort has been made to make sure that the information contained in this page is correct and Spotlight can accept no responsibility for its accuracy." I could not substantiate this information through google in this search or this. This was a creator-challenged PROD. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC) *Keep This article was just recently started, more time should be given to the creator to add references and information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 25 March 2008

Comment Although time may allow additional verification, notwithstanding my inability to find any, I'm not sure how it will address the notability concerns. The article's creator himself asserts that the actor's "most notable acting role is portraying the character Regulus Black" in a film currently in production. The character's significance to the plot of the story is slim. He isn't mentioned in the summary at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix or, as I said, in the listing of characters at IMDB. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete minor role on one film - not notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge after further consideration I concluded that this information would be best suited in the aticle Regulus Black.Kuro Woof 19:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I would likely agree that the material could be included in that section, if the information can be verified. Currently, there are no reliable sources that verify it and hence its inclusion is problematic with regards to WP:V. (By the way, it's customary to !vote only once. If you've changed your opinion and no longer believe the article should be outright kept, you may wish to put <s> & </s> to either side of your "keep" above to indicate your change of opinion. Also, since you seem unfamiliar, I'll note that comments can be quickly & easily signed by placing four tildes (~~~~) at their end. This expands into your username and a time-stamp and leaves a nice link to your talk page for the benefit of other editors.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - there's no indication that the character in question will have anything but a walk-on at this point, and with no other credits, the whole thing seems premature at best. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete and oppose merge. There are simply no reliable sources to confirm information with and merging unsourced information would be a bad thing. -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above Cunard (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete as all the Google News hits for "Thomas Moorcroft" are for one of two people, both older than this actor, and their interactions with the legal system. Given the high level of public and press interest in the HP franchise it's not unreasonable to expect at least some mention when or of this casting is confirmed at which time the article could be easily recreated. - Dravecky (talk) 06:33, 30 March 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 Redirected. Pastordavid (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Fortune Market 250

AfDs for this article:

Originally a scheduled Champ Car event for this season, Champ Car has now merged with the Indy Racing League and the event was cancelled. Only a small Atlantics support race and a Rolex Sports Car Series event are scheduled to still take place, but neither of these series need or have race reports. The359 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Indy Racing League for the moment - if anyone's looking for this race, that article will give them a place to go, anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to the Rolex Sports Car Series as that's what the race is from, not Indy Racing League. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment If it is to be redirected to the Rolex Series, it would probably be better to direct specifically to 2008 Rolex Sports Car Series season. The359 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 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. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conference National 1979-80 Results

Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Furthermore, this information would be much better presented as a table in the Conference National 1979-80 article. – Pee Jay 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Could be included in grid format ( like this) in the main article, which wouldn't take up much room at all. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Wow you said exactly what I was going to do Number57. I know this isn't a vote, but delete because such grids aren't notable in their own right. Peanut4 (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Great minds and all that :) пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - as per nomination and User:Number 57

Delete per nom. BanRay 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't even called the Conference National that year, it was the Alliance Premier League. I think several related articles need renaming. — sjorford++ 23:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- IIRC, all the articles related to the Football Conference have already been renamed appropriately, thanks to User:Number 57. – PeeJay 00:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  - No, they are all named Football Conference 19xx-xx, all (at least the older ones have the Football Conference badge on them, and refer to the Conference National in either the text/infobox quite a lot. - fchd (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Ah, I was under the impression that "Alliance Premier League" was a sponsored name for some reason. – Pee Jay 12:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom after moving any relevant info to Football Conference 1979-80. - Dravecky (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's so incomplete and badly presented, I don't think there is any point in moving any of the info. - fchd (talk) 06:37, 30 March 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 --JForget 00:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Digimon World Online

This game has not been announced by any members of the video game industry, it exists only because this user thinks that it will be released., unless a proper citation is found this page is under criteria for deletion.User:Kurowoofwoof111 18:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete The article even says that no such game has been announced, only that some sites have listed it (and a lot of sites included rumored titles). No proof that such a game exists, so neither should an article. TJ Spyke 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL unless anyone can produce anything official. -- Mithent (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Unless I can see something that bolsters WP:V and WP:RS, this is a simple matter of speculation and a delete is in order. My stance will be rescinded if other editors can find sources that I'm missing in my search. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete' unreferenced speculation. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete until WP:V can be met Hobit (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Gazimoff (talk) 10:51, 26 March 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 - Philippe 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noelle Brooks

This person does not meet the wikipedia notability requirements. Nrswanson (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete not notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete . I don't think we'd regard the Festival Opera in Northern California as notable. I didn't find anything about her New Zealand debut. The Los Angeles Music Center is a venue not a company - it's the home of the LA Opera but I can't find any mention of her singing there. The ConcertoNet link seems to show that she understudied and probably performed Lucia at the SFO but that's all. I'd be prepared to change my vote to 'Keep' if anyone can come up with something more substantial.--Kleinzach (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per Kleinzach.Nrswanson (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It sounds as if she started out with a bang as one of those promising 'young artists', but then nothing after those performances in Walnut Creek. (Festival Opera in Northern California is not a particularly notable company.) Apparently, she also sang Lucia with Rolando Villazon as Edgardo in Guadalajara at about the same time. But again not a particularly notable company and since then... absolutely nothing. I suspect she's trying to launch a new career as a pop singer, at least judging by the article's cats. When/if she eventually becomes notable, the article can always be re-created.Voceditenore (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

*Weak Keep The sources down at the bottom mention her as having performed Lucia with SFO, as well as performing Candide with the California Symphony (which looks professional enough to be notable...). The RS coverage the article provides is mediocre, but I feel like her notability could be better established if the article got some TLC. SingCal 00:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Delete I didn't realize how much leg work had already been done to satisfy WP:MUSIC. She's just not there, I guess. SingCal 02:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment It looks like she was the cover for the role of Lucia at SFO and got to step in for a few performances when Schafer got sick. See Here. Otherwise the SFO archives do not list any other performances with her. The California Symphony is a bit more impressive (it's still only a relatively minor regional orchestra) but it looks like Richardson has abandoned her singing career by lack of work in recent years. She didn't do much in the first place so I am still saying delete. Her article can always be recreated if and when she actually starts to do notable work. Also, there is no evidence that her last name is really Brooks now from a third party source.Nrswanson (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. "The RS coverage the article provides is mediocre, but I feel like her notability could be better established if the article got some TLC.". The coverage that's there, was added by me when the article was being considered for AfD. I wanted to make sure that we weren't missing something. I've searched exhaustively not only in the English language press, but also in Spanish, German and Italian, as well as in specialist opera publications, and via Highbeam Research to which I have a subscription. I'm afraid the coverage just isn't there, no matter how much TLC were to be applied.Voceditenore (talk) 06:19, 31 March 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan and Hayden Whitbread

Non-notable. Two year olds? They have no specific or heavy press coverage and have a lone acting gig in their long careers. Lawrence § t/e 17:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to List_of_recurring_and_minor_Coronation_Street_characters#Freddie_Peacock for now, turn into a real article later. Delete is also acceptable. Do the same for other one-character minor actors who have little notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete non notable one year olds! Dreamspy (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I'm sure their parents are very proud of them, but they're basically just props - actors indeed! Camillus (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable kiddies. I just moved the page to conform with other twins, since they had two articles. They really don't need the one. Morhange (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Question - moved from where? Can it be moved back? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply - Each twin had their own article: Dylan Whitbread and Hayden Whitbread, so I combined them here. Morhange (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment This should've been PRODded or perhaps even speedied rather than AfD'd. Since Morhange obviosly agrees with the prodding, and since but for the fact that there is an AfD in progress, she could have speeded it as the sole editor, I recommend that if and only if there are no objections within a couple of days days we snowball this puppy. I put a notice of the AfD on Talk:List of characters from Coronation Street. That is the only article that links to this article. 2 days should be plenty of time to see if anyone can give a good reason to keep this article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per above, clearly fails to reach notability threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 06:22, 30 March 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 Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus. —Travis ^talk 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bigger Than Us

PROD deleted - Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V - nothing in this article that is not in album article. NrDg 17:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge to ~~Miley Cyrus~~ Hannah Montana, fairly common outcome for non-notable songs such as this (didn't chart, etc.). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 3 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 - Philippe 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bearcat Sports Complex

Non-notable soccer and lacrosse field of a university. Fails WP:N. Nothing to merge as main article already covers all relevant points. Collectonian (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable Wsanders (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Nominator is correct, covered enough in Binghamton University article. AlbinoFerret (talk)
Delete. Irony duly noted. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete no content worth merging. *Restores Bearcat above ;) * TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. nn. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete This article horribly fails WP:N and I doubt it ever will be notable by any standard. Red Phoenix (Talk) 15:37, 29 March 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 to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 23:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alien and Predator Timeline

This article is sadly not based on facts. The only cited sources are the movies; unfortunately, anyone's who's seen the movies knows that there are no dates provided for any of the following: Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, the flashback sequence in Alien vs. Predator or anything in Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem.

The only date that AVP:R provides is a character saying that it's not October. The timeline page, however, insists that it is.

On top of that, there is no evidence of where the Predators landed in the flashback in the first AVP. Obviously, they blew up the location shown and destroyed the temple. Yet somehow the page insists that it's Bouvet Island, where an intact temple is found; in truth, no location can actually be assumed.

That's really the bottom line. This is a page of assumptions and fan synthesis. It can't rightly be called "original research"; it's more accurately just fan fiction. And wikipedia is not a fan fiction page. It's impossible to cite any kind of dates for the events mentioned; with more than half the events listed therefore having no possible dates, there's no possible use for a timeline. --Bishop2 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete as nom Fails WP:NOT on both the grounds of Wiki NOT being a place for original thoughts (this information is not backed up by any of the cited sources) and not being a place for indiscrimination information. --Bishop2 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:N, pure WP:OR in the form of editor synthesis from various predator movies. Collectonian (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete: I'd put it as more fails verification. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. This is probably a more serious matter and better summary. --Bishop2 (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep as verifiable and notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons under the objection subtitle. --Tj999 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Objection: This deletion process was already stopped. I do not know what you are trying to do, because this timeline is a true helper to the people who want a better understanding of the series. I will announce, once again, that:
- Alien vs. Predator gives the dates perfectly
- Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem takes place directly after the first one
- The first Predator movie takes place the year it came out (1987) and in the begining of Predator 2 the date is shown as 1997 (taking place ten years after the first)
- Aliens' date is annouced in the movie and it is said that it takes place 57 years after Alien
- Alien 3 takes place within weeks after the Aliens
- Alien: Resurrection supposly takes place around 200 years after Alien 3

...so if you have actually watched the Predator films and the Alien vs. Predator films then you should know the dates. As for the Alien films, you have to listen good to understand the time table. --Tj999 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The deletion process was not "stopped." As a note, this AfD is for a failed PROD, with the prod removed by a new editor who made only one edit (removing the prod) with the summary of "Deleted Auto delete since the premise for the deletion was not based on information easily available by watching the movies. Also the page is helpful in colating the available info in one place.". Collectonian (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought that it ended due to the two objections in the Timeline's disscusion page. --Tj999 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The article consolidates only primary sources to establish a new topic. While the films are notable, the transcendental timeline through combining these films is not, since no secondary sources are being implemented to provide real-world information or analysis. The timeline is only plot detail set up in a different format; nothing more. This topic provides zero context for the encyclopedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, original research. WP has a serious AvP fancruft problem, which leads to perennial recreation of this kind of article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because it does not offer an original thesis, it is not original research. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for sub-articles and cruft is never a valid argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  - It advances an original argument (a consistent timeline) across a variety of different sources which the original sources do not make (WP:SYN). And cruft is a perfectly cromulent argument to make. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Providing a timeline based on sources does NOT advance an original argument. "Cruft" is an unacceptable argument that cannot be taken seriously. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  - The fact that it basically makes up a bunch of dates and locations to back itself up without the sources providing any verifiable evidence for them is kind of a major issue. I don't know if you can call it "original research" because it seems to be lacking the research part, but it's definitely an original concoction. --Bishop2 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    - The films can serve as verifiable evidence. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep sufficiently notable. WP:OR not an issue here. --- Taroaldo (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability must be established by the significant coverage of secondary sources; these films are all primary sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for sub or spinoff articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when? Taemyr (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep, studying a source carefully is not synthesis. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Studying multiple primary sources carefully and presenting a timeline that transcends any one film is synthesis. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is acceptable on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, synthesis of sources is not acceptable. See WP:SYN, although I am not really sure that this applies in this case. Taemyr (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep because here is proof that there is time told in the movies. This is just one example that I found at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSdp26ahE-M --Tj999 (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant if time is told in the movies. Lots of things are told or shown in movies like these -- weapons, sexes, buildings, ships, etc. There's nothing here that places this timeline in the real world. It's just plot information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The films can be watched in the real world and thus it has notability to real humans who watch and care about them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources do demonstrate thus notability? Taemyr (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That scene is not one of the scenes up for debate. I have asked REPEATEDLY for someone to tell me what scene in the films gives you a date for the "ancient pyramid" flashback in AVP, the events of AVP:R or any of the four "Alien" films. So far NO ONE can tell me a single scene that provides a date for any of these events. For everyone who keeps claiming that this information is somehow verifiable, I find the fact that they can't verify it to be rather damning. --Bishop2 (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep per disproved nomination rationale regarding verifiability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As of yet no one has disproven any of my claims. I keep asking for evidence that any of the disputed facts can be verified; so far no one has given me a single scene where I can find that evidence. If you can, please let me know. --Bishop2 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources given (i.e, the movies) seem to cover the matter just fine. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

But they don't. That's the point. The movies don't give any dates for Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection or AVP:R. Someone said that there's a scene that gives a date in Aliens, but no one can tell me where that is, and I've seen that movie enough times to know that it doesn't seem to be there. And that still leaves us with ONE of those movies getting a date and none of the others. --Bishop2 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Other people don't seem to have any trouble finding them. Some are speculation and properly marked as such, but ignoring those, the majority of the events and dates are sourced with direct statements from the films. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete due to the lack of secondary sources covering the timeline of the Alien films and Predator films. The films are primary sources, and using just the information from them clearly falls under WP:PLOT: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." Here, we're just summarizing the times of the events in all the films. And Chris put it well: It advances an original argument (a consistent timeline) across a variety of different sources which the original sources do not make. There is nothing inherently encyclopedic about this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is encyclopedic per the First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Aliens and Predator. The film articles need secondary sources, a timeline associated with those articles, as sub or spinoff article, only requires primary sources. A timeline does not need analysis. THAT would be original research. The real world context is obvious. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The movies are the sources of the information and that should be all you need for sources because this is a timeline about the films. To give a better understanding of time to those who enjoy the series is what this timeline is. This timeline represents everything wikipedia stands for and I hope that as this argument comes to an end the article becomes a neutral point of view for all. --Tj999 (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Striking out editors second !vote to keep. Please only !vote once to avoid confusion. Eusebeus (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have asked REPEATEDLY for someone to tell me what scene in the films gives you a date for the "ancient pyramid" flashback in AVP, the events of AVP:R or any of the four "Alien" films. So far NO ONE can tell me a single scene that provides a date for any of these events. For everyone who keeps claiming that this information is somehow verifiable, I find the fact that they can't verify it to be rather damning.

I will get back to you on this, I know it is mentioned in the film. Maybe when the archaeologist is talking about the history of it all, but I will watch the film today and get back to you on this.--Tj999 (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a new reference to the timeline. In the "Making-Of" Featurette on the DVD, Anderson describes the story board of the movie and explains that the movie has a past which begins about 3,000 B.C. in Cambodia. "5,000 years from now", he adds which indicates that the year is 2,994 B.C. --Tj999 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian also comments in AvP that the pyramid was about 5,000 years old, so this makes sense. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The timeline of the films is obvious: the AVP films are set after the Predator series, and are prequels to the futuristic Alien series. Alientraveller (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just because something is obvious is not a reason for us not to have an article on it. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  - This is valuable information that is not so obvious to most. And besides, most things on wikipedia are obvious.--Tj999 (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Alien vs. Predator (franchise). If, as claimed above, the years check out, this timeline would complement the franchise article quite well for understanding. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete as original research and failing verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- But it isn't original research and is verfiable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  - We're still waiting on where to verify the date of AVP:R or any of the standalone Alien movies. No one can cite any scenes in those movies that mention dates, although I can cite a scene in AVP:R which actually DISPROVES the date given on the timeline, although that's it. So far it seems there are no dates there, although they did come up with some logic for the AVP "ancient pyramid" flashback date up above and that's it. --Bishop2 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Right, I actually agree with the AvP:R statement because it might actually take place in November. So, I guess we need to wait for the dvd to come out so that we can figure out the exact time. As for the Alien films I do know that in Aliens when Ripley wakes up Carter Burke tells her how long she has been asleep. --Tj999 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The films are obviously notable, but this timeline isn't. No coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is just extraneous plot summary. PC78 (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- This timeline stands to show all the films of the series together in their chronological order with breif descriptions. It is merly to give people a sense of time for the series. This is a helpful page and it should be here on wikipedia as it's own page or merged in with the Alien vs. Predator series.--Tj999 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  - A brief overview should be given in that article. It's not so complicated as to require an article of its own. PC78 (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Then you're arguing for a merge and redirect without deletion per the GFDL. There is no reason to outright delete the article and in the worst case it would be merged and redirected without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      - Erm, no I'm not. If it's oh so necessary to explain the chronological order of the films, then it can be done so in one or two sentences. I'm not suggesting that we keep any of this rather cruft like timeline. PC78 (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        A legitimate search term in the worst case scenario would be redirected without deletion. We only must delete copy vios, personal attacks, and hoaxes. A timeline of a significant franchise is consistent, per the First pillar, with a science fiction encyclopedia. Plus, "cruft" is never considered an academic argument. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The article is complete unencyclopedic cruft. Wikipedia is not a place for synthesizing plot summaries of film series. All of the pertinent plot information is already in the articles about the film series themselves. The article fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT, and to a fair degree WP:WAF. To Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles: Wikipedia is not a "science fiction encyclopedia". It is a general interest encyclopedia about notable topics built on reliable third-party sources. I think you are confusing the mission of Wikipedia with something like Wookiepedia, where this kind of thing would be perfectly appropriate. It is not, however, appropriate for Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article is completely encyclopedic and "cruft" is a non argument. Wikipedia is the place for syntheiszing plot summaries of film series. The article passes WP:N, WP:V, and WP:IS. Per our First pillar, Wikipedia is a science fictional encyclopedia. It is NOT just a general interest encyclopedia, as the First pillar clearly states it is "general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." The mission of Wikipedia according to the overwhelming majority of its contriubutors its to contain articles of this nature which is appropriate for Wikipedia per our policies and traditions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Le Grand on this one too. --Tj999 (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Could you explain how it is encyclopedic exactly? I realize that "encyclopedic" can be a subjective term, but I fail to see how this provides useful information to readers apart from what's already in the main articles about the films and the series. As for your other points about the "specialized encyclopedia" and "policies and traditions", allow me to cite specific policy and guideline points:

1) WP:NOT 1.1: Although there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies"

2) WP:NOT 2.2: "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not previously published." Also 2.2.1: "please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions". As others in this discussion have pointed out, there are very few set dates in the films. The timeline is your own extrapolation (theory) based on things that take place in the films. This constitutes original research and proposing a theory/analysis explaining continuity. I'm not arguing that the films don't flow together. There are few to no continuity issues between them and they clearly follow from one to the next. However, this is already explained in articles that already exist (Alien (film series), for example) so this article is extraneous and not based on any third-party analyses that have been previously published.

3) WP:NOT 2.9: "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Further, 2.9.2: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." The article contains no real-world context or sourced analysis with detail about the series' development & historical significance. As already stated, such context and analysis already exists in articles about the film series. A separate timeline article is ancilliary and unnecessary.

When I say that the article is cruft, I am not using the word solely as justification for deletion. I mean that it is not encyclopedic because it is important only to fans of the series and its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage of the series as a whole. Calling it cruft is not "a non-argument", it is a descriptive term indicating the importance of the article's subject matter, which is the basis of my argument. As I've said, the pertinent information (how each film is connected to the others in the series in terms of timing of events) is already present in the articles about the film series and the individual films. Wikipedia is not Wookiepedia; it does not need this minute level of detail any more than it needs an article on the UD4L Cheyenne. This is especially true considering that most of the article is your own extrapolations (since few dates are given in the films) and since the information is already present in existing articles about the films. Because the continuity between the films is not complex, it does not warrant a separate article on the subject. If it were an issue, it might merit discussion in an article like Star Wars canon (an article which has its own issues with regard to wikifying and lacking third-party sources, but nevertheless is a good parallel example). Such an article is not necessary for this series, however, because there is no "official" canon: the stories of the films do not directly tie in to the stories in any of the other media. Since there is little need to explain the timeline of events (because, again, the continuity is already explained in the individual articles), the timeline article is unnecessary. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said each film has a structured time. The two Predator films and AvP are obvious, but as for the others it takes some research to verify the dates. It would be great if we could actualy contact someone, as a source, who has worked on these films (a director or writer of some sort). I will try to look into it, though it would be tricky. --Tj999 (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Five pillars, it is encyclopedic per our First pillar of one of our most core policies, i.e. it concerns an incredibly notable franchise and presents verifiable information in clear, organized, and discriminate manner. It is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction or Aliens or Predator or all three. There are over 1,000 published specialized science fiction encyclopedias; thus there is no reason for a paperless encyclopedia not to share elements with those. Thus, I am citing a specific POLICY, in first the FIRST PILLAR of that policy when I note that it is an element of a specialized encyclopedia. As for any other possible personal interpretations of other policies that may question the reason for inclusion of this article, then apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, as removing this article "prevents" editors "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia." The article is a legitimate search term created by a good faith editor and defended by at least one other good faith editor. In even a worse case scenario we would redirect the article without deleting it. Deletion, which removes editors' contribution history from the public eye, is an extreme last resort reserved for hoaxes, personal attacks, copyright violations, etc. We do not delete articles when a redirect exist and since we have articles and Alien and Predator series, we have such redirects. Saying sources do not exist or the articles' lack of sources does not mean they do not exist. Considering how much coverage the film series has had in Fangoria, Starlog, et al, I have a hard time believing that given enough time and research the article could not be better sourced, but even so, sub-articles are permitted to rely on primary sources. I can never take an argument that has a word like "cruft" seriously. It adds nothing to any conversations, just as an vulgar or unacademic word does and distracts from whatever other merits the argument may or may not have. The article is necessary for providing the chronology in clear and encyclopedic chronological context. Alien and Predator are not part of Star Wars, so Wookipedia has no relevance to this article. And even so we have plenty of overlap with other wikis, which is fine, vecause we are the most comprehensive overall wiki. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You are very keen on citing the first pillar as a policy that you believe explicitly allows this type of article, on the grounds that Wikipedia "incorporat[es] elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs", with the implication being that a timeline of fictional events is an aspect of a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction. But I read the first pillar quite differently, in that most of its text has a lot more to do with what Wikipedia is not than what it permits. Specifically, the First Pillar reiterates some of my above points: "All articles must follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy", "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Also, with regard to IAR: ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." The point that the editors in favor of deletion have made here is that the article in question does not improve or maintain Wikipedia, and deleting it does not prevent other editors from improving Wikipedia. As I've said multiple times, the information contained in the timeline is already summarized in several other articles. As it is not a subject which merits multiple paragraphs of critical commentary or analysis, it is not worth branching off from the main articles. Deleting the article will not remove any meaningful content, because that content already exists in the articles the timeline was branched off from. Nor is it necessary to turn the article into a redirect, because it is a branch article to begin with and only contains information which was already in the main articles. When I draw a comparison to Wookiepedia, I am not implying that Alien and Predator are related to Star Wars. I am using it as an example to illustrate the difference between Wikipedia, which has notability guidelines to limit the amount of trivial information it allows, to another wiki-based project which does not (and which happens to be in the same field - science fiction - as the article we are debating about). Do not be so curt as to say that the comparison "has no relevance to this article". I make the comparison merely to illustrate how Wikipedia is not a forum for amassing trivial information about fictional topics. Yes, the Alien and Predator films have generated commentary and analysis by many third-party sources which can be used to source articles about them. But are any of those third-party critical sources specifically concerned with discussing the timeline of events in the film series, which is what this article is about? Can we collect any solid, reliable sources indicating that the timeline of events in this series of films is any more significant than any other timeline of events in any other fictional series? By extension, should we have timeline articles for all other fictional series that have articles about them on Wikipedia? No. This is exactly why Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and why we have notability and style guidelines that specifically deal with fictional subject matter. The article is not "necessary for providing the chronology in clear and encyclopedic chronological context". The chronology of events is already presented clearly in the main articles about the film series and the plot summaries of the articles about the films. This is almost certainly not a subject which could be expanded with encyclopedic content and third-party critical sources, and IMHO should not have been branched off from the main articles in the first place. Yes, it "concerns a notable franchise", but that is not a grounds for inclusion in and of itself. If it were, we could rationalize having separate articles on every minor character, weapon, prop...every topic related to the series in any way. The article is purely trivial information about a fictional universe with little or no encyclopedic value in and of itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We are here to write a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that is the sum total of human knowledge, that combines general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs. There is no solid basis not to have this article; there is no benefit to our goals by deleting it. We do, however, have potential gain by keeping it. The topic is hardly "trivial". It concerns the context of a blockbuster and notable film series. It presents the subject in a coherent and discrmininate manner. All this time wasted trying to delete good faith articles could and should be spent finding sources and improving them. Articles that are not hoaxes, not libel, not copy vios, etc. should not be deleted. Can we collect reliable sources? Yes. Should the article be kept? Yes. Is this article representative in part of what Wikipedia is? Yes. A timeline presents material that may or may not be spread out in a bunch of articles in a far more clear and concise manner and therefore serves a valuable purpose. I would be shocked if you cannot find any reviews of the films that do not discuss the chronology and timeline in some manner. All of these are reasons for inclusion. There is no reason for deletion that benefits anyone. The article passes the Five pillars and Ignore all rules and I see nothing reasonably convincing otherwise. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per the above & as unencycloepdic fancruft. Or, put another way, per (Pumpkin)^–1. Eusebeus (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- So in other words, you're actually arguing that the article must be kept. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Oh Pumpkin, how smart you are! That is indeed what I am arguing. I wrote Delete but that is only because I misspelled keep. ;) Comment again please? Eusebeus (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant keep after all. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      - The timeline is fact, not opinion, and it is a helpful refrence to those who don't have time to research the dates of the alien/predator movies.--Tj999 (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Timeline articles are a little like List articles--they sumarize data and put it in a useful arrangement for the readers of the encyclopedia. For complex series, as for complex topics, they really help sort things out. The data is verifiable from the series directly (or by starting with it and then counting, which is not OR). Personally, I think that any argument including the word "...cruft" should be discounted as meaningless, since cruft=IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and that is the reason why we need to keep this article. As for references I have now found valuable information regarding Alien and Aliens. In the movie, Aliens, Ripley recites information from a data log that states that Carter J. Burke told the Hadley's Hope administrator to go looking for the derelict/abandoned ship on 6-12-79, meaning June 12th 2179. --Tj999 (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete I see no secondary sources to indicate notability. Notability is not inherited. Taemyr (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is inherited. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  - You keep linking to that as some kind of evidence that "notability is inherited" even though the article WAS deleted with the summary of "Clear WP:COATRACK for person with no notability on his own. Notability is not inherited, and being mentioned in a presidential candidate's speech does not make one notable." Notability is NOT inherited. Collectonian (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    - More importantly the argument you link to simply states that media attention indicates notability. So you will indeed sometimes get inherited notability, ie. when the notability of the "parent" is significant enough that the "child" gets coverage in reliable independet sources. But then multiple independet sources exists, and the question of inheritance is moot. This is not the case here, since no reliable independet sources have been proposed. Taemyr (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      - Sub-articles only need primary sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  - There is NO consensus that notability is not inherited. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - lack of secondary sources. Also, concur with nom regarding the misinterpretation of the films - aliens teaching mankind is well known conspiracy theory, often credited to Erich von Däniken, which is intended to explain the existence of pyramids in various ancient locations, the same idea is used in the 5th Element and Stargate for example. Finally, the arguments about notability being inherited are spurious. PhilKnight (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sub-articles like this one only need primary sources and notability is definitely inherited in this case. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep and improve or merge into Alien vs. Predator (franchise). The films can be cited, videogames can be cited, comic books can be cited and reviews of all of those can be cited. --Pixelface (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, could you please provide some evidence for your assertion that notability of sub-articles is inherited from their parent articles, and that "sub-articles like this one only need primary sources"? Perhaps some GA or FA precedents to prove these arguments? Both points seem to me to directly contradict Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Specifically, WP:N states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Note the insistence on secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which this article lacks. In fact, WP:N further states that this is an essential criteria for a topic to merit a stand-alone article. WP:V outright states that "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Further: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:NOR states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." This article is making a synthetic claim, in that it is synthesizing events from all the films in the series. The article relies entirely on primary sources (the films). Notability of articles is not inherited from other articles on the subject, and all articles must be built around secondary source material. For a topic to merit a stand-alone article, it must have been the subject of third-party critical commentary published in reliable secondary sources outside of Wikipedia. As I stated earlier, I highly doubt that the specific topic of the timeline of events in this film series has generated enough third-party published analysis to merit a stand-alone article. The series of events in the films' plots are already discussed in the articles Alien (film series), Predator (film series), Alien vs. Predator (franchise), and the articles about the films themselves. A fan-created synthesized "timeline" of these fictional events, relying solely on the films themselves as sources, does not merit a Wikipedia article of its own. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's kind of common sense. Saying that someone mentioned in a president's speech and nowhere else is a far, far stretch of such a statement. However, something like the George W. Bush pretzel incident would not be notable if it wasn't for the fact that it was the holder of national political office that was involved; otherwise, it would be news. The AvP films are notable; no one is going to argue that. The timeline itself is readily given within the universe material. This sub-article allows the editors of the AvP-related articles to keep the majority of this information out of their parent articles and explore it to the fullest extent possible rather than be restricted by being in the main article and suffering loss of content. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Every article on Wikipedia does not have to be GA or FA status. As has been established in discussion on Plot, many have argued that sub-articles or spinoff articles are not the same as a regular or mother article. All encyclopedia articles synthesize, whether they do so from primary or secondary evidence. Anything that uses more than one source, synthesizes from those sources. That is what encyclopedias do. Notability is inherited from article on the subjects. I have a hard time doubting with all the publications and reviews out there that published sources do not touch upon the timeline in some manner. The article does indeed merit a Wikipedia article of its own. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI: If you have noticed in the timeline I have marked Aliens as a reference to Alien and Aliens because there is no time told in the first Alien film. --Tj999 (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete This article on fiction is based entirely on primary sources. It fails Notability (fiction), Notability, and What Wikipedia is not. It also abandons an out-of-world tone after the first sentence. I have yet to see anything in the way of independent, reliable sources. A few general inclusionist arguments are in play, so let me start with "summary style excuses this article from notability". Summary style is intended to allow articles like World War II to split into indivdual articles, each of which is notable in its own right, and thus prevent the parent article from growing unreadably long. It is not intended to allow editors to create dozens of articles of questionable notabilty only of interest to fans of a particular fictional work. Another one is an argument of what makes something "encyclopedic". Unfortunately, it is difficult to figure out what exactly "encyclopedic" means, as many publishers use the word "Encyclopedia" as a synonym for "articles in alphabetic order". I'd rather stick to Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion than a vague idea of "encyclopedic". Another is a misrepresentation the deletion policy, which states that notability and original research are perfectly legitimate reasons to delete articles. These general arguments don't address this article's basic lack of notability and verifiability. --Phirazo 04:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- A spinoff article only needs to be based on primary sources. The article passes Notability (fiction), Notability, and What Wikipedia is. As for the tone, that can be fixed by editing. The movies are reliable sources. Notability is unquestionable here. "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia. The article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. There are no legitimate reasons to delete this particular article which is notable and verifiable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see verifiability being an issue. All you have to do is pick up one of the books or watch one of the movies. It's notability that's an issue. But you somehow seem to think that World War II is somehow better than Aliens versus Predator, which leads down a very, very, very, very dangerous path. As long as something's notability can be shown, and it is verifiable, subject should be of no concern to other editors. When something like that happens, we end up with conservapedia. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"A spinoff article only needs to be based on primary sources." - Again, can you please cite what policy or guideline you are basing this assertion on? I have only ever seen policies/guidelines that state the exact opposite of this belief, never one which agrees with it. And Celarnor, common sense states that World War II is a much more notable topic for an all-encompassing encyclopedia than Alien vs. Predator, for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is actual impact upon history and the course of human events). I say this as a big fan of the Alien series but also someone who is, by education, a historian. But I digress. The issue is whether "spin-off" topics are more notable and article-worthy in one case vs. the other, to which I believe the answer is obvious. It is undoubtable that one would be able to find many, many reliable third-party published sources discussing numerous subtopics of World War II which one could use to reference articles about those topics. For example "Consequences of German Nazism", "Axis naval activity in Australian waters", or "Naval Battle of Guadalcanal". These are all subtopics of World War II in general, and would be too large to discuss fully in the main article. Since numerous secondary sources exist to support articles about each individual topic, each is seen to be notable and therefore merits a stand-alone article. There is even a Timeline of World War II, though as you can see it has its own issues with sourcing. This is simply not the case with the Alien timeline article. There are few to no secondary sources available to support an article about the timeline of events in the series, therefore it is not a notable enough topic (or sub-topic, in this case) to merit a stand-alone article. WP:N clearly states that notability is shown through the topic's coverage in reliable secondary sources. Notability is not derived from the primary sources alone, nor editors' insistence that a topic is notable. Remember, "show, don't tell". Simply because something exists, or is in some way related to another topic that has an article, does not make that topic worthy of an article itself. That is the entire reason that we have notability guidelines. And to reiterate, all articles should cite secondary sources. I have never seen a case in which primary sources alone were enough to support an article. That is the point of WP:V. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You, as a historian, will naturally be biased towards the inclusion of history-related articles. I, as a programmer, will naturally be biased toward computer science articles. We aren't a specialized encyclopedia; the goal of Wikipedia isn't to bias by topic, instead to take anything whose notability can be shown and verified. This prevents the bias of "Well, I don't like topic x, so I don't think we should have articles on it" and allows us to focus solely on issues of notability and verifiability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Very true. And as I've pointed out, Wikipedia bases notability and verifiability chiefly on secondary source coverage of the article's topic, which the article in question is lacking. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is not needed on sub or spinoff articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

LGRdC, your entire arguments on this topic seem to rest on a set of incorrect assumptions. To wit:

1) That "subarticles" or "spinoff articles" are some kind of special category of articles that have their own separate criteria for notability and verification. This is completely untrue. There is no special classification for "subarticles". There are no distinctions between "regular articles" and "subarticles." There are only articles, and the relevant policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT) apply to all of them regardless of their subject matter. If there is enough information and supporting secondary source material to warrant splitting a specific topic from an article off into its own stand-alone article, only then then it is justifiable to do so.

2) That these "subarticles" are exempt from Wikipedia's rules that articles must reference reliable secondary sources, and may be based only on primary sources. Again, this completely contradicts all of the core policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:N, which state the exact opposite.

3) That because Wikipedia incorporates elements of specialized encyclopedias, and that because there are encyclopedias devoted to science fiction, that Wikipedia can therefore not exclude articles about trivial science-fiction related topics. Again, this is an incorrect assumption. A good science fiction encyclopedia, being first and foremost an encyclopedia, will consist mainly of real-world analysis of sci-fi topics (ie. notable franchises, books, and films) and base its analyses on primary and secondary sources. Otherwise it is not an encyclopedia, but a manual, guide, or novel (ie. the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual). Again, all article topics on Wikipedia are subject to the criteria of verifiability, original research, and notability, regardless of what field of interest they relate to.

4) That notability of an article's subject is somehow "inherited" from other articles about the general subject. In other words, since the Alien and Predator movies are notable, editors have free reign to create whatever "subarticles" they wish that relate to the series in any way, and the notability of those topics is somehow "inherited" from the "parent articles" and is therefore not debatable. In all the annals of Wikipedia I have never seen anything to support this idea, and it completely contradicts the core policies and inclusion criteria such as notability, verifiability, and original research.

I'm sorry, and I wish you all the best in editing, but you are wrong in stating that secondary sources to establish notability and verification are "not needed on sub or spinoff articles." This is the last I will say on the subject for some time. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you IllaZilla and I wish you happy editing too. This article does only need primary sources becuase the movies is what this timeline is of. Secondary sources are welcomed but not needed. --Tj999 (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

IllaZilla's comments about science fiction encyclopedias seem mistaken. For example, I have here the The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (2nd edition) by Clute and Nicholls. This cites mostly from primary sources and freely synthesizes in its thematic article such as the one about Aliens (in a general sense). For verifiability, primary sources are usually the best ones and that seems to be the issue here - the accuracy of the timeline. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 1 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle Breutigam

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete - egospam; should have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, so tagged - we don't need to wait to get rid of this. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete total vanity article Dreamspy (talk) 18:44, 25 March 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 03:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglish

Wikipedia:No_original_research

What on Earth is this? I've never heard of this use of the phrase Anglish before. The only times I have heard it is with respect to the Angles or very occasionally amongst Northumbrian/Geordie nationalist types. The main source is a geocities page, total OR.--Him and a dog 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It gets a mention in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language [25]. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - the Hofstadter books cited are real, and Laura Scudder's reference confirms the Jennings one. No reason to suppose this is a hoax, and the references are adequate to support it. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - There are many other usages but this one seems sound. Just don't go calling it a portmanteau as this wouldn't be Anglish. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I've never heard of it either, but it seems well sourced and doesn't read like OR. Scog (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep I concede that I've never heard it called this, but I'm familiar with the linguistic concept of trying to use only those words that have Anglo-Saxon roots, and avoiding those that have Latin, Greek, etc. roots. Review of Google and Google Books indicates that this is what it's called. Mandsford (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, so you haven't heard the phrase before, but we have an article on it with references (see the section called Bibliography). That isn't original research, and your not having heard of it is why there's an encyclopedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No need for comments like that, Dhartung. Mandsford (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not having heard of something is not much of a deletion rationale. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

- - OK, let me give you an English lesson... "K-E-E-P" doesn't spell delete. Yes, I know, your reason for wanting to keep the article is way better than mine, but for purposes of the debate... nobody fucking cares. Mandsford (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The primary source being a geocities page where someone is creating Anglish as a project. That's what marks this out as a bit iffy. The bibliography means nothing for proving its real; I doubt most of us have access to all of those books, it'd be perfectly easy to just make claims there. --Him and a dog 13:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If the external links were sources, I'd think they'd be in a references section. The Anderson article certainly exists, and you can confirm for yourself that "Ander-Saxon" appears in the index of Le Ton Beau de Marot [26]. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

that link doesn't allow access.--Him and a dog 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying we can't have any articles that rely on paper sources? — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

External links are just that, external links. It is not labeled as a source. Have you attempted to determine whether any of the sources are bogus, or are you just asking if they need to be checked out? We have {{citecheck}} for that. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. While the term may be a neologinsm, the phemomenon exists and has analogs in other languages. It is an extreme form of language purism. `'Míkka>t 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. An interesting subject, well worth an article (though I think it is usually more humorous than "an extreme form of language purism"). RobinCarmody (talk) 02:33, 29 March 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 - Philippe 23:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Run Fire Co.

Delete: Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete. Absolutely no notability asserted; pushing stats expected of typical similar subjects does not assert true notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete not notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Bethlehem_Township,_Pennsylvania#Fire_department without redirect as this article contains a few useful sentences that could expand the municipal article. - Dravecky (talk) 06:21, 30 March 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 --JForget 00:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Words: types of definition

contested prod; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is no place for personal essays. This is filled with original research Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be an inferior version of the Semantics article. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd call it an inferior version of Definition, not Semantics. Klausness (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Reads like someone's freshman paper, and there's nothing useful here that isn't already at Definition. Klausness (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete As others have pointed out, the various types of definitions (connotative, lexical, etc.) are pretty well covered in the article Definition. If there's anything useful that can be merged, have at it. Mandsford (talk) 21:21, 25 March 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 a3 and WP:SNOW, no substantive content, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coons age

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:24, 25 March 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. Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elicia Hughes

She was tried for the murder of her husband (unsurprisingly it was reported in the newspapers) and she was er.....acquitted. Why should we care? Doc^g 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BIO1E. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Q is the AfD nom broken? The link to this page from the article is a redlink, but leads to this page... I can't figure it out. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, looks okay now. Ma^t_chups 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

comment I am somewhat, but not totally, swayed by the argument for deletion of this Biography per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. As I see it, the argument for notability is that the court cases are notable. I'd be open to "keep" (and move to an article on the case, rather than a Bio) if someone can argue that case is notable, e.g. by setting a notable precedent, for the ruling that he first trial was won by improper jury stacking. (I see no guideline like WP:N/CA for determining the notability of court cases, but think there ought to be one). Failing such demonstration of notabiloty for the court cases, I recommend delete per nominator's reasoning. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete not notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete no references or clear justification of notability. I personally don't think the court case would be notable either (based only on the information in this article), but agree that there should be an official standard. Who's going to start that discussion? Ma^t_chups 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete I'm not seeing any national news coverage to justify encyclopedic notability. It looks to be mostly local coverage which would be normal for such a trial. Can anyone produce broader coverage to suggest otherwise? Gwynand (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I rather agree with Pete Hurd above - an article on the case may be warranted, but I don't think this, as a standalone article, is really required. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 25 March 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. Article remains without significant WP:V or WP:RS at the time of closing, 8 days after this AfD nomination began. Pigman☿ 03:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MyAnimeList

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/MyAnimeList

Articles for deletion/MyAnimeList (2nd nomination)

Fails WP:WEB. All but one of the "sources" fail WP:RS, with most being nothing more than personal blogs. No assertion of real notability per WP:WEB and WP:N. Note: previous AfD was speedy closed by a non-admin due to issues with the nominator, and as such the article is eligible to be nominated.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a completely unnotable piece of freeware software for exclusive use on the MyAnimeList website. Fails WP:N and seems to be little more than an advertisement:

Collectonian (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. I feel bad because someone has obviously gone to a great deal of trouble to wikify and source the entry. However bottom line is I'm not sure if the sources meet wiki standards for notability and we already have something of a rep for focussing on anime, video games, etc to an obsessive extent and neglecting more real-world issues. Is there a list of anime websites or an article about otaku culture this could be merged with perhaps? Iamblessed (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of notability and the single award the website has won isn't well-known for it to pass WP:WEB. Other then the source referencing the award, all of the other sources fail WP:RS and WP:V. I would also suggest that MAL Updater be added to the AFD since it is a software program for use on this website. --Farix (Talk) 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and added. Collectonian (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep I'm not sure how 2nd nominations are handled with respect to the first nominations but there were other votes for Keep from the first nomination that were not related to issues with the nominator. Link's already provided here but just wanted to draw attention to those without repeating the same points from before. Should also note that this is the third time a deletion attempt has been made on this article (first time was a speedy deletion). Kei-clone (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This site has received coverage. Simply because it is anime-related is not a good rationale for deletion, Iamblssed. It smells of IDONTLIKEIT.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Celarnor (talk • contribs) 23:14, March 25, 2008

Comment One article isn't enough to pass WP:NOTE. And it still doesn't address the verifiability problems with the article. --Farix (Talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply I'm not sure what the problem with verifiability here is. If it is about information regarding the history or other information, the sources for these can be considered WP:SELFPUB, and if not enough then archive.org sources can be added as necessary. Kei-clone (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment The website received one piece of minor coverage. That is not sufficient for WP:WEB. As for the assertion of IDONTLIKEIT, I'm the nominator, not Iamblssed. I've spent nearly $500 on anime and manga this month alone and run my own anime/manga review blog, but I agree with Iamblssed though not its particularly application here as the issue is that its a non-notable website, not that its an anime website. There are few anime websites that meet WP:WEB. AnimeNFO couldn't even meet it, and its been around longer than this site and is far more well known amongst anime fans. The number of deletion attempts is irrelevant. Speedy is intended for quick and obvious, and an admin declined with the note to take it to AfD if desired as assertion was claimed (not necessarily validated). The first AfD was speedy closed by a non-admin because the nomination was done by a new user who was AfDing a bunch of stuff seemingly random, thus invalidating that AfD. Collectonian (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply: I never said you weren't the nominator...? That information is available to anyone who can read, right at the top of the AfD. The IDONTLIKEIT was to his assertion that it should be deleted because it is an anime-related site. Also, I never said anything about the previous. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get at here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: sorry, that was a double reply to both you and Kei-Clone. I also wanted to clarify the IDONTLIKEIT since it was made as a comment to the nom and not to Iamblssed Delete. Collectonian (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply Longevity in this case has nothing to do with legitimacy. The fact that animeNfo is more "well known" is a debatable claim, and animenfo's fame is certainly helped by its age. However in terms of how much attention from the internet the sites get, MyAnimeList is on par with and recently even beats out animenfo despite MAL's newcomer status [27]. Not that the aforementioned particularly has very much to do with what's being discussed, but the point here is that the analogy to animeNfo here somehow declaring MAL less deserving of a wikipedia article is invalid. Kei-clone (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:N. Someone should keep a copy of the article text for a later date in the event of MAL becoming a lot more integral to online anime communities; as is right now, it's little more than a fansite and doesn't deserve the privilege of a Wikipedia article just yet. Terek (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Page has notability in the anime community with refferences from SJ as well as other community representing sources. Aokaado (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC) — Aokaado (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Your first edit is contributing to an AfD? Do you have other sources to show notability? swa q 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:N. It is lacking sufficient evidence to prove notability. swa q 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment I have updated and clarified the source in question. The article comes from Japanzine, a magazine 18 years in publication. Hopefully this should allow it to pass WP:WEB. As for the other criteria covered in WP:N, it qualifies for signifcant coverage since MAL received an entire paragraph discussing its features in detail, compared to other sites such as Anime News Network and Danny Choo, which had to share a paragraph. Japanzine is clearly a reliable source, and definitely independent of MAL. Are there any other criteria that need to be addressed? Kei-clone (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Significant coverage doesn't mean one publication talks about it. Significant coverage means multiple reliable sources have discussed this site. Collectonian (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply On the contrary, according to WP:N:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]

Mentions nothing about the number of sources. Kei-clone (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note sources as in plural, not a source. Collectonian (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Now you're picking over semantics... how about we consider the larger issue at hand? According to WP:N, the criteria

"Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.

So let's really consider the source at hand here. The source listed isn't just some random mention of the article and what it does, it is pretty much making a statement that this website is more than just "notable", it is among the "Best of the Web". If you take that into account, as well as MyAnimeList's very common use as a method to display someone's list all over the anime community (look on popular anime forums, I will provide links upon request), it is pretty clear that we are indeed dealing with something notable here. Kei-clone (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. A single mention in one magazine does not make it notable at all. If it were "clearly notable" then we wouldn't be here. As for the ability to dosplay someone's anime list and being popular, your point? DVD Aficionado is far more popular for the same function, having been around much longer, and from my experiences it is still the more popular tool used in popular anime forums. Note it also has no article. Either way, popularity doesn't equal automatic notability. As per WP:N, WP:V, and WP:WEB it must be verifiable and covered in multiple substantive sources to be considered a notable website. One source does not mean we presume its notable. In two days of discussion, no one has to find even one more reliable source that shows any possible notability. It doesn't have the notability of being industry supported like AnimeOnDVD.com (which also has no article though it very easily meets WP:WEB and WP:N, nor is it industry supported with significant coverage like Anime News Network. Collectonian (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We keep going back and forth repeating a lot of the same points. In any case, I feel there are a lot of issues being dealt with right now, so I will break this down:

DVD Aficionado: I don't know what forums you've been to but that's not something I can really argue with. My experience obviously says otherwise. What I can show you, however, is numbers, and with these numbers I don't see how that can be more popular than MAL.
AnimeOnDVD: I refer you to WP:OSE
WP:V: I have already dealt with this issue in my reply to Farix above.
WP:WEB: Site meets criteria 2, since it has won an "award" from a well-known (to those interested in Japan that is) and independent publisher
WP:N: Nowhere on this entire page does it explicitly state that multiple sources are required, and to imply that simply because a plural form is used is erroneous, because the page merely states

Multiple sources are generally preferred.

Therefore you can't simply cite the fact that it has only one source as its only rationale for deletion. Kei-clone (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we keep going back and forth and I guess in summary, I feel it does not meet WP:N nor WP:WEB and have yet to see any evidence otherwise, while you feel it does on the source of a single minor magazine mention and because you like it. Collectonian (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Notable, sourced, certainly should have an encyclopedia entry. The article is well written and the nearly immediate renomination for deletion smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and trying to keep nominating until editors get the result they want. Ursasapien (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, no it doesn't. The first nomination was closed by a non-admin because the person who nominated it was basically a new editor on an AfD spree that invalidated the AfD. It has nothing to with IDONTLIKEIT or trying to get the result they want. The bad nomination simply called this page to the attention of other editors, one of whom (myself) renominated it under a proper reason. Please give specific evidence that this is notable per WP:WEB and WP:N. It is primarily sourced from the site itself, making it no better than an advertisement when almost no outside reliable sources exist except for the one magazine mention. Collectonian (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kei-clone already presented sufficient evidence. You remain entrenched in your view. I remain entrenched in my view that you do not like ~~anime and related articles~~ this site or it's article. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree. Ursasapien (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh (even if you struck it out). My bank account probably wishes I didn't like anime (or worse, manga) :P I actually have no problems with the site, though I wouldn't use it personally because of the fansub section and its having no real content of value to me. I have my own databasing system for tracking all of my anime and manga. I, however, can look past my own love of anime and manga to look at the site neutrally, and I have yet to see any evidence that it meets Notability by high standards. Kei-clone points to the same article that was there when I nominated. By my reading of WP:WEB and WP:N a single magazine mention is not enough for notability. If it were, every local celebrity in the world would have an article because their 15 minutes of fame got them mentioned in a paper once or twice, or they won a local award. They don't, and I don't feel this particularly website is notable enough for one either. Neutrality requires one to be objective. Regardless of my personal feelings for a site, I only nominate them for AfD if I feel they do not have the necessary notability to meet WP:WEB and WP:N. I like, and love, many anime sites, but I also acknowledge that they do not need articles here as they are not notable. Conversely, I absolutely abhor Crunchyroll, but it is notable for making national news in getting venture capital for distributing illegal content and possible causing conflict between Japanese companies and their American distributors. Much as I hate that site, I would not support the deletion of an article on it (if someone created it and I'm suprised no one has) because it has considerable notability. MyAnimeList does not. Collectonian (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured striking would be better than deleting. List of Meerkat Manor meerkats is a FL, yet it is sourced in the main by the program itsself. The site has won an award, it has a mention in a reliable source, and it is well-travelled and considered important to many. Again, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. Ursasapien (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Meerkat Manor meerkats is a list based on Meerkat Manor, not a standalone article. Besides that, it has notability on its own in that several of the meerkats have received coverage in major news outlets, particularly Flower upon her death. Most of the sources are from the show because it is a list about the show, however there is also extensive real world sourcing. Either way, if you want to compare, compare another website article, which has different notability guidelines than the characters/stars of an multi-award winning television series that has received wide-sweeping coverage (not just one little mention in one magazine section). Collectonian (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again Collectonian, your entire paragraph is moot because of WP:OSE. I suggest you read it before you make more irrelevant arguments such as those. Kei-clone (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read it and I suggest you watch your tone. Collectonian (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - the sole applicable source for demonstrating notability hardly gives significant coverage. Rest of the sources fail WP:RS, and in the absence of other sources to assert notability, deletion is warranted per WP:WEB. I tend to believe that if the article is notable, more of such sources providing notability would be available. Also, to the warring parties above, tone down the rhetoric. There's no reason you can't express your opinions in a civil manner. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The software can also be used without a MyAnimeList account in offline mode, as it has a few specific functions for such purpose, such as tracking anime being watched in the user's computer, send the current playing information to mIRC and MSN, find and open next episode of current watching anime, find next episode in torrent websites; all of these features do NOT require an account in the mentioned website. Kotori (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC) — Kotori (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Funny thing is I've got an account there (hmm, need to update that..) but didn't notice we had an article for it. I'd be interested in seeing if we can find any more sources for it, since it is a nice little site. However, my first impression is that not a lot of people have really heard about it, and it seems unlikely that we have the sources needed. I'll poke around the internet and see if I can find anything, if not, oh well. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete as failing to demonstrate notability through significant coverage in reliable sources but without prejudice to a future recreation of the article(s) should circumstances change. My own quick trawl for references has not been successful but I would consider reviewing my !vote should Ned dig anything up. nancy ^(talk) 08:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I think there are a satisfactory number of sources for the website, and I feel it is notable enough to be on wikipedia. I do agree that there are not enough sources adhering to WP:RS. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 11:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment All of the sources given except for one fail WP:RS. And even the one that does pass WP:RS doesn't provide significant coverage to pass WP:NOTE. Your comments are more along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep as referenced article and sufficient community interest indicated above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if community interest can really be a reason to keep an article. It might mean it's more likely to be worked on, and thus finding sources, but in itself isn't proof of anything. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - As of right now, the portion of the "Reception" section had all opinions of web bloggers, and their respective references as sources removed (by me). Obviously they do not pass WP:RS. I also believe that although the article does have it's issues (despite the removal I just spoke of, some portions of the article still feel a bit like an ad), I believe it can be fixed. My own writing skills are probably not up to the task to be honest.

As for notability, MyAnimeList I feel passes. It's been "addressed in detail" by a reliable source. Saying that the source isn't reliable enough is putting a subjective spin on it.

In summary, the article's sole purpose is not to be an advertisement, it's to be an encyclopedic entry about a website called MyAnimeList. Yes, it currently has issues with sounding like an advertisement, but this is something that can be worked upon by editor's. It's the potential of an article that should be used to determine AfD rather then it's current state.

Also, "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This statement from WP:N doesn't apply to the article in question, as it does have a reliable third-party source. CanadaAotS (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You have one reliable source to assert notability, and it hardly goes into the "significant" level of coverage WP:N stipulates. Moreover, the common interpretation and application of the notability guideline is that if something is really notable, then it should be able to express such notability through coverage by multiple sources. As far as we can see, this site was simply lucky enough to garner hardly a paragraph in that particular source, and we don't have articles on the rest of the mentioned websites either (save Anime News Network, which has asserted its notability adequately). Show multiple sources for the assertion of notability, or the article really shouldn't be kept. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly call a mention in an article that's titled "Best of Web" in an 18 year old publication "Lucky". I think we can all agree that MyAnimeList had to attract quite a bit of attention, present itself as quite a useful resource, and garner quite a bit of "notability" (at least in Japanzine's eyes, but apparently not enough notability for Wikipedia's eyes?) in order for it to garner such a mention. WP:N clearly states that multiple sources are preferred, and leaves it at that. Perhaps more sources are needed, but this can be fixed, and a deletion is hardly necessary when it's quite clear to many of those here that this site will only grow more notable with time.

I don't think it's really fair for you to throw out these rules (either do ________, or deletion!) or somehow tell us how WP:N should be interpreted. I realize you're an admin and all, but if WP:N doesn't reflect what you say, and what you say is correct, then perhaps WP:N should be modified! Kei-clone (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability in Wikipedia's eyes is significant coverage from multiple sources independent of the topic. If the only mention this website is receiving is a lone paragraph in a single publication, then it isn't really notable. Yes, multiple sources are not required, but the brevity of the coverage in that particular source necessitates the need for more coverage. As for your claim of future notability, see WP:NTEMP. In any case, whether I'm administrator or not is irrelevant to the current process, as by voicing my opinion here, I've forfeited the ability to close this AfD. Administrators are not intrinsically "higher" than other editors; it is simply a user type with additional tools (naturally these tools require someone of particular competence, but the position itself conveys no special privileges in regards to user conduct). Anyways, the whole purpose of discussions here is to see whether these articles meet our policies and guidelines, and our interpretations and derivations of these aforementioned policies and guidelines are what we're all using in our arguments. If you want to change WP:N, then see WT:N. AfD is not a venue for changing policy. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the people at Wikipedia should focus more on the inaccuracies in their historical articles, as well as the areas which have needed "cleaning up" for over 2 years. Selective.yellow (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) — Selective.yellow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Which is relevant to this AfD why? Please keep discussion pertinent to the topic at hand. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:31, 2 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheer Zone

Delete: No sign of notability. Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - should have been a speedy. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Does not meet WP:NOTE policy. Ctempleton3 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 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. Sandstein (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eargasm

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eargasm

Articles for deletion/Eargasm (2nd nomination)

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the previous deleted version of this article was about a different group. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple eargasms? Oh my. --Dhartung | Talk 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per nom's fine summary. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Non notable nonsense. Operating (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this qualifies as nonsense in any way.

Delete, although it's just possible this could be sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, improperly sourced article about a seemingly non-notable group.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:12, 27 March 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). WilliamH (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yavneh Day School (Cincinnati, Ohio)

Non-notable, no WP:RS cited. Bstone (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Nobable. Also, sources do exist. For example, [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], etc. Thanks. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Education in Cincinnati per established precedent. Notability has not been established in the article. I don't have access to the full text of the sources but the summaries are not sufficient to indicate notability. TerriersFan (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Sufficient improvements have been made for the page to be a Keep. TerriersFan (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi TerriersFan: Please see the entirely reworked expanded article now eith reliable sources added. In any case, it would make no sense to "merge" a private Jewish day school with an article about a general topic that covers all of education in Cincinnati. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Leaning toward merge per TerriersFan. School's restroom apparently won an award for design. Established and overseen by notable people per Google News search. Needs more evidence of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep (change of vote) per improvements to article and other available coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, only links are lists of schools that all schools have. There is no real media coverage. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Albino: The article started as a stub about 24 hours ago and it has been fully expanded since then. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete As the article is written now, it is nothing more than a listing of the school, and is not notable. Avi (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Avi: It's been re-written fully. Take a look. IZAK (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Keep Article has been vastly improved by IZAK, and demonstrates notability sufficient for wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep as this article was only created less than 24 hours before this nomination. It was also marked with two stubs templates ({{edu-stub}} and {{Judaism-stub}}) to alert any editors who chance upon it that it needs help, but not deletion. It's part of understanding Jewish life and the updated History of the Jews in Cincinnati because Jewish schools, like synagogues, are the central core of Jewish life of any vibrant and dynamic community. The article was split off from Yavneh Day School (Los Gatos, California) which was improved, and now this article will be improved. The nominator is requested not be hasty in the future, but to seek help in improving such articles rather than having them deleted. The article is part of Category:Jews and Judaism in Cincinnati and Category:Jews and Judaism in Ohio and like most articles relating to Jews and Judaism must be seen in perspective that the numbers of Jews are small in relation to the general population (6 million vs 300 million in the USA) and should be granted no less consideration than soccer players and their teams that have articles about them in the thousands and noone complains. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: The article has now been fully expanded to show its importance and notability with multiple sources. The nominator is kindly requested to reconsider. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, notable due to historical background, among other things. --MPerel 20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep: Article is too new to delete if there's a reasonable chance of notability, and the length of the article (post-expansion) seems to indicate that. I read the article but haven't reviewed the sources yet so I have no opinion toward future !votes. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep per WP:Hey. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Meets Notability requirements; has outside sources other than School website.AJseagull1 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 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 a7, didn't assert notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 63G

Delete: Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:49, 25 March 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. Whether or not to merge can be decided elsewhere, without the need for AFD discussion. — CharlotteWebb 21:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Cook (programmer)

No assertion of notability beyond being involved in the production of a number of games. -- Mark Chovain 04:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ No sources, and possible COI issues as well. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 21:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Despite the potential WP:COI issue, [33] reveals a few non-trivial mentions [34], [35], [36]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Metaweb. It's not a lot to go on but as you say it is non-trivial. However, I think the article on Metaweb should suffice. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 23:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

However, I think Metaweb already says everything about him that needs saying: He founded the company. -- Mark Chovain 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete not notable and unsourced and unreferenced Dreamspy (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable programmer. Operating (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. References have been added for notable features. Bungopolis (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Invented and patented an animation technique, authored a published game, founded a company. I think the notability issues could be addressed by simply stating the preceding in the opening sentence. --Zippy (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Robert Cook is a well-known futurist, visionary, and a highly respected ontologist. His ground-breaking work at Metaweb is revolutionary and is well documented in articles and books around the world. Colinhevans (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep enough references & notability for an article DGG (talk) 13:36, 30 March 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. Sandstein (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abdulfattah Jandali

Fails WP:BIO. Notable only for being the biological father of Steve Jobs and Mona Simpson. Sources are so scarce that the article was first assumed to be a hoax. Those that do exist mention him only in connection with Jobs or Simpson. His academic career does not seem to have been notable, and according to the Fortune article, he is now a "food and beverage director" at a Reno casino. Jfire (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete not notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete GoogleScholar turns up essentially nothing and GoogleBooks turns up two books by the subject that do not seem to have been cited by other sources. Fails WP:PROF and is not notable as an academic. The only other claim to notability is that he he Steve Job's father. that is not enough to justify having a separate WP article about him. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
delete per nom & Nsk92. fails WP:BIO & WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete -- the GS hits are is MA and PhD thesis. Given the years, one wouldnt expect to find citations there, but I cant find any books in LC, WorldCat, or BL. Although the first name is capable of various forms, the last name is very rare. There's an assertion he was Chairman of Economics at AUB in the google result "Maingate Magazine Between 1951 and 1954, it was headed respectively by Abdul Fattah Jandali, late Elie Bouri, Thabet Mahayni, and finally Maurice Tabri. ..." http://wwwlb.aub.edu.lb/~webmgate/spring2007/online1.htm" , but I cannot find it in the cited article text. DGG (talk) 18:42, 30 March 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. Wizardman 03:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elena Delgado (Without a Trace)

This page has been deleted before under a different name, see notice here Schmloof (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

However, all the other characters on Without a Trace have their own articles... Perhaps she deserves her own? This is her third year on the show, after all.... Schmloof (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete still not notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep probly could make a good article out of it.[37] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:42, 25 March 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deep Crow

This seems to be a barely recurring joke from Penny Arcade and thus has not been covered by any secondary, reliable sources. The page is fairly deceptive in that there is a phony reference listed as well as unrelated external links. Wickethewok (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, merely appearing in Penny Arcade doesn't make this notable, and it's also written misleadingly as if this was a real species (other than the word "fictional" and the Penny Arcade reference. Irrelevant external links don't help the article or establish notability. -- Mithent (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I vote for deleting it as well; it's funny, but the history written seems to be made up on the spot - not even pertaining to Penny Arcade - and deserves to be on some kind of fan page or other wiki. There's already a link to its comic under Gabriel's paragraph in the list of Penny Arcade characters, and it will most likely be featured as a Minor Character if established once more. Pylze (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, for pretty much the same reasons as above. A redirect to Penny Arcade (webcomic) might be another option (as was tried earlier), but on the other hand, if you've just read the comic and search for deep crows on google, finding the Wikipedia article but then getting redirected to Penny Arcade's article will probably leave you just as confused as when you started. --Chaos386 (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. One for Uncyclopedia, perhaps. JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete what? - not notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Um... delete and put anything that's actually sourced and usable into the Penny Arcade (webcomic) article. This is entirely OR. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Penny Arcade - I (and many others) were brought to this page via Penny Arcade - and it could easily happen again. BananaFiend (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a problem with this, however, is that the Penny Arcade article probably won't even mention "Deep Crow" (its only mentioned in a couple strips after all). It seems weird to redirect to an article which won't have any information on the redirect subject. Wickethewok (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Merge then - they have many inventions that crop up occasionally and there is a section for recurring characters on the page, if it's not worth a mention on the penny arcade page, it's not worth an entire article! BananaFiend (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete not notable and no evidence that it will be. Sorta funny though... Hobit (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete: This article was created as a joke, writing about a fictional thing as if it were real. It was meant as a joke, but on Wikipedia it's vadalism. Things like this are why you can't site wiki as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.148.178 (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Delete: While this article may not be related to a living creature, it has been adopted by many of the Penny Arcade community. It has even been adapted into a Dungeons and Dragons monster and has been given a stat block for version 3.5. While this entry should be rewriten to better convey its purpose, it should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.138.105 (talk) 16:04, 29 March 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 due to his professional debut. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen King (soccer)

Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTYN as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

- Move to withdraw as the player now qualifies. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

~~Strong~~Weak keep. Player appears in Chicago Fire Major League Soccer roster. That's even in the article! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant. The criteria is that he must have played a game for them! пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Reply. So what, it's just a guideline, not yet policy. Soccer, even at the national level in the US, is fledgling. With such a short roster, I can't believe he hasn't even played for them. Will research. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    - WP:BIO is effectively accepted as policy and is used in all these debates. He clearly hasn't played for them as the season hasn't started yet, and he only signed in January. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      - He is also the NSCAA player of the year. ~~How many of those per year? Just one. That's notable... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)~~ I take that back, they have multiple categories and regional rankings. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        Every league has its player of the year; it doesn't make them notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        National-level organization is different. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        How? The Conference National footballer of the year would definitely not merit an article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        The player has multiple attributions, which collectively suggest notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep. Player is drafted to the Chicago Fire of Major League Soccer, as provided by a reliable source within the article. --65.16.61.35 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- As noted above, that's irrelevant. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete no appearances, no notability. --Angelo (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep While the comment that he has yet to play a game for then is valid, it is worth noting that the MLS season has not begun yet, so it would have been impossible for him to play a game for them. Also worth noting that he did play at the top level of amateur soccer (college soccer) in the United States. And it also worth mentioning that it will be highly unlikely that he would not play a game within the coming weeks. Is it worth deleting the article now, just to be re-created in a week's time? Common sense should apply here. --Eastlygod (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your entire argument relies on WP:CRYSTAL. How long would we have to wait without him making an appearance for the club before deleting the article? Also, football is not an amateur sport, so that doesn't count. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Please note there's no existing notability policy in the Wikipedia, they're all guidelines (even WP:N). And WP:IAR must be used with common sense, otherwise it becomes sort of anarchy, read WP:WIARM for more details. --Angelo (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As noted by Angelo above, in WP:WIARM," The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored. (See also Wikipedia:The rules are principles.)" I think, in the spirit of commen sense at least, we should at least wait until after the first game of the season on Saturday. If he fails to play in that game, I will agree with deletion under WP:BIO, and the page can be re-created when he does. --Eastlygod (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Pages can be easily restored by an admin (I'm an admin myself) once the player makes his debut, so this is not really a problem. --Angelo (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notable player. TheProf | Talk 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to move the page to Stephen King (Footballer) after this AfD is finshed. TheProf | Talk 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For an AMerican player in the national American league, soccer would be more appropriate, IMHO. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

However, "soccer" players are known internationally as Footballers. (Ps. Good luck in your RfA!) Cheers. TheProf | Talk 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Player has yet to play a match in a fully professional league. Please re-create article once he has.Keep Now that King appeared in a professional match. Jogurney (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- ...in four days. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Do you have documentary evidence that he definitely play in four days? If not, then that's still WP:CRYSTAL balling. It takes a couple of clicks for an article to be restored if things change, but a lot more effort to have to go through another AfD if they don't. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    - I don't oppose keeping the AfD open for another 4 days (and then deleting if King doesn't feature). By the way, you may find this AfD instructive ([38]). The Eboigbe article was deleted as being premature, and then after he finally played later in the season, the article was easily restored. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Has not played in a match yet. No independent third party references that help assert notability outside the game of soccer so until he plays delete this. This is a clear case where WP:BIO#Athletes applies even though it is just a guideline. There have been other athletes that have not played but have shown to meet the base requirements for notability as in this case and are kept. This is no such article. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would just like to point out that WP:FOOTYN does not seem to take into account the varying circumstances that the MLS has to most other worldwide professional leagues when it comes to the draft system. In most other leagues, if a player hasn't played a professional game, he is most likely a reserve/youth player. However, draft picks in the MLS already have considerable experience behind them, and are expected to slot straight in the first team squad. I know it still isn't covered by WP:ATHLETE, but I thought it'd would be worth mentioning, as maybe an update is required. --Eastlygod (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- But lots of English players are also in the first team squads at their clubs, but don't get an article until they have played a game (see this AfD for a Arsenal player with a squad number). I don't see why the basic criteria of having played a game needs to be changed. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep - All of the above arguments saying "he has yet to play in a game" are completely ludicrous: the MLS season hasn't even kicked off yet! Oh I get it, he was supposed to have traveled forward in time to play in a game, come back, tell us about it, and then try to support this case? How about waiting until the Chicago Fire actually play at least ONE game? That's probably too hard for the deletionists though. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ludicrous? How about waiting until King "actually plays at least ONE game" before creating the article? Your argument is just WP:CRYSTAL again. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability in full compliance with WP:BIO. The mad rush to AfD is only made more ludicrous by the fact that the MLS season starts in four days, counting down on the team's website. Alansohn (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is no "rush to AfD" - I just nominated the article as soon as I saw it. The timing of the start of the season is irrelevant unless you want to get into WP:CRYSTAL territory. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  - You may want to check that crystal ball; No knee breaks, he wasn't cut from the team, a meteorite didn't land on the stadium. All that was needed was the most basic common sense. None was exercised in pushing this AfD. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
KeepHe is a current squad player which makes him IMO notable.BigDunc (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Being in a squad is not enough; he has to actually play. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  - False. The reliable and verifiable sources provided establish notability, and his selection by the Chicago Fire and his making the squad only adds to it, even without playing a second of a game. This is simply obsessive deletionism at its worst. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    - No, it is called sticking to policy, which would be nice if a few other people tried. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      - Actually what you are demanding is an arbitrary and inaccurate interpretation of one policy. WP:BIO doesn't require deletion of articles for athletes who have not played in a game; it clearly states that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". The sources provided establish notability. Your demand for deletion as " sticking to policy" is one of the most foolish excuses ever made for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep No part of WP:CRYSTAL applies, especially when the season begins in a matter of days. If he hasn't played in a month or two re-nominate it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely. It's not "mere" speculation if it's going to happen in four days. And looking at his skillset, it is more likely that he will play than get hit by lightning, a car, or die in a freak knitting accident. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked some online reports of the Fire's pre-season friendlies, and it appears that King was generally used as one of many 2nd half substitutes (although he did start against a college "select" team on the 19th). That is a good sign that he may play at some point during the season, but it's not a given that he will see action this weekend or any weekend in the near future. Jogurney (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This is why I believe in the invocation of WP:IAR in this case: It is smart thinking to do research and publish an article on a national-level athlete a few days before his first league game, and better organized than many technically notable player articles, too. It one-ups the last minute fan-users who might plop out something inferior, which may shape the future of the article for some time. This effort assists in creating a better Wikipedia, and therfore I think WP:IAR applies neatly in this single case, as it would for similarly skilled scheduled players who may not yet have played in the league. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well as he will supposedly make his debut before the AfD ends, then I will withdraw it. However, should he fail to play, then shall I expect everyone who has voted to keep to reversve their votes? пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  - I agree to that, as I mentioned above. But I also think changes need to be made regarding MLS articles procedure. Due to the college draft system, many players are highly notable and have a large amount of media spotlight before they've even played a league game, especially those picked in the first couple of draft rounds. If we waited every time till they played a league game, we are missing out on highly valuable editing time, and a large amount of articles will be rushed through by inexperienced editors once they make their debut. --Eastlygod (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep for now per CobaltBlueTony. Common sense dictates that there is a good chance this athlete may meet the guideline of WP:BIO at the weekend. Let's see, and if he does not play, re-evaluation may be needed. I don't see which policy is being violated by temporarily keeping this article. EJF (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I have to agree with EJF. The player in question is in fact listed on the roster provided by CobaltBlueTony™ four days prior to their first game, and as far as I see that's an extremely convincing sign that this player is about to meet the exact letter of WP:FOOTYN 1 in all but four days. Citing WP:CRYSTAL at this point just seems like a petty concern we can ignore for now so close to the fact. This whole AFD just seems premature. Shallon Michaels (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I feel like anyone who can read English can understand that WP:CRYSTAL applies only to the content of articles, not to the context in which they are discussed on AFD. Also, I feel like WP:FOOTY has an unfortunate tendency to deify the WP:BIO guideline (despite what you may think, it's not a god - it's not even a policy!). It's one reason why we have AFD - to discuss articles that technically violate notability guidelines but that common sense or the more overarching guideline of WP:N tells us we should keep. ugen64 (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Odd that, I thought WP:FOOTY spent months reaching consensus over WP:FOOTYN in order to supercede WP:BIO, a very strange way to treat your God. The BIO people have continually tried to shoot WP:FOOTYN down because they don't like people changing the status-quo. English peasant 14:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep WP is not a bureaucracy and WP:IAR. If he's darn likely to play in 4 days (or even 2 months) there is no point in deleting. It's just following the rule to spite the spirit IMO. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete If we start allowing articles on players who might play a game in '2 months' then the flood gates will be open to every reserve team player and youth team hopeful in the world. The arguments used for ignoring WP:CRYSTAL here are specious. There is no certainty that this player will play, and even if he does, it wasn't inevitable that he would do so. If allowed to stand this will act as a precedent which will waste hugely more time in pointless discussions of the notability of nonentities than would be saved by allowing this to stand. Nick mallory (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment So is it permissible to remove the tag from his page then? Jrcla2 (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, you are not allowed to remove it until the AfD is closed. As noted above, I won't be withdrawing it as we're all waiting to see if people's crystal balls are working correctly and he does indeed make his debut on Saturday. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  - I'm in England and don't have a way to watch that match on TV. I've heard a rumour that it will be broadcast as either live or nearly live on the main MLS website. My question here is can that part of the website be accessed by a non-american IP? If yes, to save me the trouble, could someone post a direct link to the part of the MLS site that shows it on my talk page? -- Note: This does not count as using wikipedia as a forum because that match directly effects this article and this AfD discussion. Thank you TheProf | Talk 10:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
~~delete~~ is not a published author - Keep notability does not hinge on just one criteria Agathoclea (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless he has made a professional appearance before this AfD is closed. It shouldn't matter how many people !vote keep I like it or he will definitely play soon. If it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTY/Notability then it shouldn't be kept. What is the point of inclusion criteria and notability guidelines if they can be ignored in cases where enough people vote to ignore them because they like a particular article. The article will not be lost if it is deleted, it can be restored if/when the player ever actually plays at professional level. English peasant 14:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This is ridiculous. He is on the starting roster for a Major League Soccer team. If that doesn't count as notable by WP:FOOTYN, change WP:FOOTYN. And what happens if the consensus is to delete a few days from now, he plays on Saturday, and the AfD closes as 'delete'? Does anyone else agree that sounds silly? Relata refero (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean "he is on the starting roster"? He is listed as number 33 in the club's squad. As noted above, if he plays on saturday I'll withdraw the AfD as he'll qualify. If he doesn't the article should be deleted and then restored when he does. We can't keep the article just to wait for him to play. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  - He's in the first squad, right? I can't imagine why that doesn't make him sufficiently notable by our standards. Seriously, can anyone imagine this fuss if he was playing for a European club? Relata refero (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    - No I can't; if he had been a European player the majority of votes would be for delete (see this AfD on an Arsenal player who has even appeared on the bench and in friendlies - the admin's closing note is worth noting too)! We only seem to have this problem with trying to delete articles on MLS players who don't meet the criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  - I remember the Gavin Hoyte deletion. Mistakenly closed, in my opinion. There's a difference between a primavera squad and a first squad, and I think all members of a first squad are "competing" in the league in question. Relata refero (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    - I don't think the people handing out the medals see it like that :) But on a serious note, we can't have articles on players just because they are in the squad - there are numerous players with squad numbers in the top 4 divisions in England who will never make an appearance for their clubs, and I assume that's why WP:BIO#Athletes developed like it did - the only way we can guarantee notability is by the player actually crossing the threshold between squad member and player; until then everything is just WP:CRYSTAL. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      - But this is America. We're lucky to even have full squads! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - yet to make an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:N. Just being on the roster for an MLS team does not confer notability. GiantSnowman (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete the lack of notability/CRYSTAL issues can be spotlighted by the following question - if he broke both his legs today so badly he never played sport again, would this article be anything other than a speedy if created a year later (he was a player who sadly almost but never quite did something notable)? Until he crosses the whitewashed line, he has no notability. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NB before someone misconstrues my words, I wish him all the success in the world. I'd be delighted if he picked up a World Cup runners-up medal. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete no pro apps BanRay 16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - If he hasn't played a professional league game - delete. Sunder land 06 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep per CobaltBlueTony, sufficient notability is in place, professional-level play not withstanding. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep WP:FOOTYN does not deal with the American soccer structure well. There aren't European-style academy systems in the US. It's also not an official policy. Let common sense prevail. --Balerion (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but he also fails WP:BIO. Can't really get more official than that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Would you care to explain how exactly this person fails WP:BIO as a whole? There are quite obviously a number of people here who disagree with that claim. (jarbarf) (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Strange that you should mention WP:BIO and "official" in order to refute the idea that we should apply common sense before WP:BIO, considering that the prominent box at the top of the page says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." ugen64 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    - He fails WP:BIO as a whole because he doesn't appear to have substantial coverage in independent sources - the only coverage reference in the articles are either his former team, or the competition in which his former team played. "Stephen King" + soccer gets five hits on Google news, none of which are about him, whilst "Stephen King" "Chicago Fire" has only four, of which three mention him, though only in lists of new signings or match reports. And of course he fails the WP:BIO specific to his job, i.e. WP:BIO#Athletes, which states that he must have competed in a fully professional league (which he hasn't). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: While WP:ATHLETE is often cited as an exclusive reason for deletion, reading the section heading at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria is instructional. quote Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Waving around WP:ATHLETE criteria as if notability established in normal ways (non-trivial coverage in multiple reputable sources) can be ignored is simply bad for the project. Neier (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I noted above, he doesn't seem to meet the "non-trivial coverage in multiple reputable sources" criteria either. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Since no-one else could be bothered in actually checking for other references instead of just shouting delete, I've placed a handful of good sources on the talk page of the article. I'm sure you were all just about to do it anyway... 86.21.74.40 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

They don't make him notable in his sport, only a major appearance does that. Nick mallory (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope - a mayor appearance makes one notable even if there is no other coverage - but a lack of a mayor appearance does not make one non-notable. Agathoclea (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Satisfies WP:ATHLETE criteria of "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." - I've also added an additional reference to the article. Since we've been here many times before recently, I'll offer my counter-argument to the argument that will inevitably follow, and that's already been advanced a few times above.

Playing in a professional-level game is not the only way to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. A sports league can be professional or amateur. An individual participating in a sport can be professional or amateur. Football is not a "professional sport" - in fact, there are few sports that can be exclusively described as professional, and football isn't one of them. In North America, there is professional football - such as the MLS - and there is amateur football - such as the NCAA. As a result, a football player - or hockey player, or baseball player, or basketball player, or American football player - has two ways in which they could satisfy WP:ATHLETE.

Also, regarding the concern raised above that allowing this article to stand will set a precedent, assuming that we can satisfy that adequate secondary sources exist, the precedent has already been set. Within the last several weeks, articles on Sean Franklin, Patrick Nyarko, Pat Phelan, Chance Myers, and Julius James were all kept following Afd discussions, and that's kept, rather than closed as no consensus. These articles have several similarities, not least of which that all the players involved are 2008 MLS SuperDraft selections from the NCAA. They all survived Afd largely because members of the community were able to demonstrate sufficient secondary sources to satisfy the second point of WP:ATHLETE. Yes, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a dirty word around here, but sometimes it's a valid consideration.

Unfortunately, until we can get a general understanding that WP:FOOTYN, while an extremely valuable starting point and a valid framework for that project, is superceded by the broader guidelines of WP:BIO, this exercise will repeat itself every year. There will be a 2009 MLS SuperDraft, articles will get created about many of the top choices in that draft, all of whom will likely have sufficient secondary sources to establish notability despite the fact that they haven't played in a professional game, they'll all get tagged with a prod or an Afd, lather, rinse, repeat. Sigh … Mlaffs (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Well, Stephen King just made his debut for the Chicago Fire....--Balerion (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep As per Balerion, King made his debut in Chicago's first match of the 2008 season. Havermeyer (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment The fact that the sole excuse for deletion was promptly rebutted during the course of this AfD only emphasizes the utter foolishness of creating it in the first place. That the nominator is an admin only adds to the embarrassment. Alansohn (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any embarrasment, and I said I would happily withdraw the nomination once he played. Just because the people using WP:CRYSTAL turned out to be right, it still doesn't justify their use of it - if he hadn't made his debut, where would we be now? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:37, 30 March 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. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B K Birla Centre For Education

Non-notable private school. Only a handful of relevant Google hits. Only one source cited aside from Wikimapia and the school's own web site. Very promotional in tone, though it's better now than it was at first, but that doesn't fix the lack of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Nomination withdrawn. It now appears that this school is a high school (at least in part), something that wasn't readily apparent at first. Per longstanding Wikipedia precedent, high schools are automatically notable. This AfD discussion may now be closed. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete no notability claimed or inherent Dreamspy (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Here's another reliable source that only took a few seconds to find. Can we please stop wasting everyone's time and effort with these high school deletion nominations? They simply distract from the task of building an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: But is this a high school, though? Honestly, it's hard for me to tell (and I'm not that dense). If so, I'll be glad to withdraw the AfD. But this seems to be some sort of private school of some other kind, and the precedent — particularly outside of U.S. schools — isn't quite as clear-cut. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment. I didn't mean to imply any density on your part - I hope you didn't get that impression. The school caters for pupils up to grade 12, and follows the CBSE syllabus, which is a standard high school syllabus, so I guess that makes it a high school. I've tidied up the refs and external links a bit to make things a bit clearer - there were lots of distracting irrelevant links there before. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    - The "dense" part was self-deprecating humor on my part, or an attempt at same. Back on topic: Yes, this is a high school at least in part, so it's automatically notable. I'll withdraw. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Am I missing something? When did high schools become notable just for being high schools? Is there a Wiki policy you can point me at so I can see for myself? Dreamspy (talk) 22:32, 29 March 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. Wizardman 03:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NACwall

The NACwall article is primarily marketing for Network Clarity Inc, who hold the trademark on the term 'NACwall' and own the nacwall.net site. The term NACwall is not widely used in network security. A Google search as of March 24 for NACwall finds only 22 references, all of which are either Network Clarity marketing or unrelated. After the article was proposed for deletion on March 24th, Network Clarity revised the article to remove some of the marketing spin and moved the focus to "NAC firewall". Whether or not that is a valid article for Wikipedia is a separate discussion Bregence (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Google search results are almost all PR hits. Search NACwall -wikipedia -prweb -businesswire resulted in a mere 10 hits. Even those were nearly all PR releases. DarkAudit (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional "NAC firewall" -wikipedia -prweb -businesswire resulted in 311 hits. "NAC firewall" by itself 310. DarkAudit (talk) 16:07, 25 March 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. Wizardman 20:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manufacturing Execution System

Article has been tagged as non-notable since April 2007. A recent PROD was removed, but the notability tag still applies. Procedural nomination to resolve. —BradV 15:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Plenty of book sources available: book, chapter in this book. Jfire (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, strongly. Article is about a management fad three letter acronym for which no notability is shown in text, and articles like this do not get the benefit of a doubt. When deliberately bad prose and empty, evasive buzzwords are used in the article —
complex solution integrated throughout an enterprise monitoring and controlling all resources used in the manufacturing process from cradle to grave and touching other enterprise systems

— the word solution is used inappropriately, one can't escape the suspicion that this is stealth spam designed to promote a business or consultancy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete There is little in the article to recommend anything else. --Stormbay (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete I concur with Smerdis of Tlön, this appears to be an advertorial for some sort of consultancy "solution", but there are no reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:56, 28 March 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 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McLeods Daughters - The Second Season

There are many different articles for the Australian TV series Mcleods daughters, these articles include an article for each season, it is not un-common for a tv series such as Lost to have an article for each season but these articles go into depth about each season unlike these articles that are nominated for deletion. The reason these articles are listed for deletion is that most of the content listed in these articles can already be found in one form or another on the Mcleods daughters page, and anything from these articles that isn't included in the main article can be merged easily enough but i personally don't think there is. There is no need for these pages and it just makes the whole subject matter a mess as it currentlly is, im working on it, but it will take me a while. Printer222 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles that are nominated in this deletion request are

Conditional keep. Although these articles don't have much by way of content, they are expandable and indeed may well be expanded soon. The current move away from allowing individual episode articles for TV series are pushing the creation of full-season articles in lieu of ones on individual episodes. I say to keep these for now to allow time for them to be expanded, with no prejudice against revisiting the issue in a few months if nothing is changed. I checked the main article and it's pretty clear the intent is to do spinoff articles like this. If the "community" doesn't want individual TV series episode articles anymore, then full-season articles like this should be encouraged. 23skidoo (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep for now. These aricles are only one month or so old (why do they have cleanup tags that say Nov 2007?), and proper time should be given (3 months at least) to develop them. MLD is also a long-running show where season articles would make sense. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep per the growing concensus that lists are the best way to handle episode information. Whether for this show individual season lists is the best way to organize this, as opposed to one central list, is an editorial matter best handled by a merge proposal. Having not much content is, per policy, not a problem. Let them grow at their own pace. (ETA: oops, forgot to sign that: —Quasirandom (talk) 16:21, 27 March 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 deleted as vandalism. DGG (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bookworm Short Stories

Complete hoax article. Admitted by the author of the article (who is a sockpuppet) here Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per G3 as admitted hoax. Hoaxes are now speediable. DarkAudit (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as vandalism. Hoaxes are not speediable unless they rise (or, rather, fall) to the level of nonsense or vandalism. The link above is sufficient evidence of vandalism. DGG (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

"Blatant or obvious hoaxes" are now listed in the G3 tag. This one is admitted, and therefore blatant. DarkAudit (talk) 15:38, 25 March 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), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sirat al-Mustaqim

Wikipedia is not a propaganda site. Ultra! 15:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment the article was ~~recently~~ edited a few months ago and changed dramatically in style and content by an anonymous user[39], the version before this change[40] does not appear to contain any "propaganda". Guest9999 (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to previous version[41]. Guest9999 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep then Ultra! 19:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Reverted version looks fine (though the previous version did look pretty delete-worthy). Klausness (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep current version; much better than the version that existed at the time of AFD nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 25 March 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. Despite the addition of some more sources since most opinions below, they are not WP:V or WP:RS. Pigman☿ 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regal Lager

subject fails WP:CORP; uses only one source, and was started by a promotional name account. New user editing removed prod without discussion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Original author is in all likelihood an SPA. Google search resulted in mostly shopping sites, with a few beer pages thrown in. One award from one newspaper, even the AJC, is not sufficient coverage, no matter how many copies of the same article pop up around the internet. The award isn't even related to their core business. DarkAudit (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per my prod rationale: Promotional in tone, and the only reference is written by the company itself, so hardly independent. Suggest deletion on grounds of WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs) 15:49, March 25, 2008
Delete. Cites no sources, asserts no notability; fails WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Lacks notability. Lawrence § t/e 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability have been improved with addition of references. Neutrality is on par with other articles of this type.TurinDesk (talk) 18:47, 28 March 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. Wizardman 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Dasen

Weak claims of meeting WP:Notability. Person gets 5 non-wiki ghits, 4 of which are used as sources here. None of the 5 hits show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The only thing that saves it from a WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion is "head of Hilary Clinton's caucus and campaign in Samborn, Iowa". I don't think that's even close to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Article Regarding: Weak claims of meeting WP:Notability. Person gets 5 non-wiki ghits, 4 of which are used as sources here. None of the 5 hits show notability. The references are valid and person is notable. Poster did not check sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.67.131 (talk • contribs)

As I've already told this IP user on the article's talk page, yes I did check all the sources.

"http://www.pafways.org/obituaries/mcgg/1996/mar4.htm" is a dead link. The latest copy available in the wayback machine shows this is an obituary of Ralph's sister, and Ralph is only a passing mention in the obit.

"http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=113740" is a passing mention of this person, in a list of "Veterans for Hillary"

"http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec00/gibill_7-4a.html" does not contain the word "Dasen" anywhere on the page (no, I did not watch the full streaming video, however the summary seems extensive)

"http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2484" is also just a passing mention, listing this person in "Veterans for Hillary"--Fabrictramp (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Article The man is a legend. The sources are indeed valid.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.240.49 (talk • contribs)

Keep Article Ralph is a God he was the best mayor our town ever had. He opened a school for the homeless children and saved our town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.240.49 (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please do not remove other's coments as you did. Nabla (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Per nominator. Nabla (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
speedy delete - no assertion of notability. "Head of Hillary's caucus and campaign in Samborn IA"? Does the guy from Podunk MA get an article here too then? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:38, 31 March 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. Wizardman 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matlock United F.C.

Non-notable English football team. Never played above Central Midlands League Premier Division (what is now Level 12, and the usual split for notability has been Level 10 in the past), and they're even lower now (they pulled out in 2006, and now ply their trade in the Midlands Regional Alliance Division One) fchd (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. BanRay 17:00, 27 March 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 selectively merged to Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations (i.e., one sentence about the women not yet mentioned there). Sandstein (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Clinton's sex scandals

Seems to me like a POV fork, created earlier this month. Clinton's sex scandals are covered in exhausting detail in several other places. Each of the women listed here has their own article which covers these issues in depth. If this is kept, all those should be merged and redirected here. I don't see a clear rationale for having yet another layer of coverage of the same issues, but I see real potential for maintenance and BLP nightmares. AllanBColson (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)]

Comment. You may be right. It may yet be worthwhile, though, to tell us what you think it is a POV fork of. I would indeed be surprised to learn that this is the first time an article has been made on the subject.
Lord knows, there are reams of coverage and commentary about Bill Clinton's amours. Still, Clinton is remembered for other things besides them, and as such having an extensive listing in his article in chief may well be giving undue weight to this aspect of his Place in History. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations. That describes the basic issue, and provides links to the main articles that give details. Obviously, there is also fairly extensive discussion in the various article about the Lewinsky affair. The question is not whether this should be covered, or even undue weight. It's already covered, appropriately, and extensively so, in the main articles provided for each woman. The real problem here is that this adds no information to the encylopedia; that's why it's a fork. The POV isn't too hard to pick up from the history. AllanBColson (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge it with Bill Clinton under [[42]]and Re-Direct this page to [[43]] , i don't find a reason for a separate article with this title , all infos are available quite enough if more is available then we may add it to the same . this will give the opportunity for users to get the best out of wiki .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge per @ the $un$hine's diffs. Also not notable as its own article. ArcAngel (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations, to avoid duplicating existing information. New information in this article, if any, about specific women should be moved to the articles about the specific women. I don't think the Sexual misconduct allegations section needs to be significantly longer than it currently is, but it should at least have links to the three women (Gracen, Perdue and Browning) that this article lists, but aren't currently in the Sexual misconduct allegations section. Red Act (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Bill Clinton unlike any other Human being's sex scandals lead to his impreachment and had a global impact on politics.Hence feel we can keep it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- - well i think u havent visited this [[44]] hope laer u wont expect to hav another page with same infos .

- Impeachment of Bill Clinton, Lewinsky scandal, Bill_Clinton#Sexual_misconduct_allegations, I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica_Lewinsky#Scandal, Troopergate, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward Gracen .... I believe we've got it covered. Exactly how many articles on Clinton's penis do you think we need? 07:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment What, no article on The Clenis, Clinton's left testicle and Clinton's right testicle? Surely it is insufficient to merely have separate articles on every non-notable putative girl friend or assault victim, given the special obsession with his real or imagined sex life. Edison (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Smerge (selectively merge) with Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations. Edison (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

merge this is the only solution , keeping this article as it is will duplicate Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations , if a keep is decided then merge the Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations with this one and place something like Main article: Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations so that we may give people a chance to expand them , but i wonder weather an expansion is really necessary since every single person involved in this topic have their own full article where these expansion could be done , we dont need to have two articles for a same information , if we do then where are we taking our users ?? so my recommendations are to just merge and redirect this page to Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations and close this AFD .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 15:30, 27 March 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 (non-admin closure), Closing AFD after speedy deletion (G11: Blatant advertising: nn) by User:Jimfbleak Whpq (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete Hart

Non-notable. Very little found on the Web. Very little in accomplishments. Kingturtle (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Lots of name dropping, very little substance. Article is attempting notability by association. No attempt seems to be made here to satisfy WP:CORP. DarkAudit (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete blatantly promotional article about a non-notable company Ohconfucius (talk) 03:33, 26 March 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seishin Management Suite

Notability not asserted, no tp references. ukexpat (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

delete no assertion of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Existence is insufficient rationale for inclusion. This article barely even does that. DarkAudit (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Pretty obvious advertisement. The only other contribution of the creator of the page is a link to it in some list article. Bikasuishin (talk) 19:57, 30 March 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 a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aunty betty project

Almost speedyable as unintelligible nonsense. Virtually no Ghits for this "project", and does not appear to be verifiable. Prod removed without comment by article creator. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:49, 25 March 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Jayne

Singing group that has released one single (and one radio "buzz" single—whatever that is). Their song spent only one week on the charts at #99 (out of 100). I'm usually pretty liberal in my interpretation of the "had a charted hit on any national music chart" criterion at WP:MUSIC, but one week at the bottom of the chart just isn't a hit. Google doesn't turn up any non-trivial coverage and the article's only references are the record label's website (which just bounces you to the group's own website) and their MySpace page. Their debut album has been pushed back multiple times—the way the industry works, the likelihood its release is dubious at best. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
neutral After a long search, I came up with this. I'll remain on this nice neutral fence for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - That source gives a strong, sourceable opinion of the single. It says virtually nothing about the group, doesn't mention an album and says very little of substance about the song.

Delete both - Yes, they had one song that charted, though just barely. But there are no third-party, reliable sources providing anything substantial about the group or the album. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep A charting single definitively establishes the group's notability and is generally indicative of widespread popularity. No one has thought to check All Music Guide, which, sure enough, provides a third party source - here's their biography page. Chubbles (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep now that we have the AMG page. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - hitting the Billboard Hot 200 is not a trivial occurrence, no matter what chart level the song reaches. The AMG bio helps out with sourcing, though we should definitely keep an eye out for more. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Were there substantial coverage in reliable sources about the group and the album, I'd agree with your assessment. However, there isn't and it didn't hit the "Hot 200", it briefly appeared on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop - a much lesser accomplishment. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Chubbles. Cloudz679 (talk) 11:50, 26 March 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), WP:SNOWBALL closure on my own nomination. I disagree with having these sorts of articles, but if this is Wikipedia policy to keep, it should of course stay regardless of my opinion. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 08:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Turkish people

Listcruft and completely superfluous to having a category. Besides, there already are articles such as List of Turks by net worth, List of Turkish diplomats etc. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep per WP:CLN. Article has been around since Feb 2004 and is actively maintained. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled. Most nations have lists of notable members. why not the Rturks? Thomas Babbington (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington
- exactly me too think the same . so iv voted keep since i feel it becomes necessary for such a list .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

keep i think this list is needed at least as a category or something else . but sure this collection will do a lot good for users . me too watching this page so u may comment here . since im bit interested about this article due to its mass collection sure will take part in this debate any where be it here or in the articles discussion page .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep for now. There are national sub-categories for people by career, so I think most of the entries on this list can be merged into such categories.—RJH (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep, I guess... "List of Turkish people" sounds kind of odd (sort of like a list of all Turkish people, which would be silly), so I'd suggest renaming it to something more similar to corresponding lists for other nationalities -- something like "List of Notable Turks", perhaps. Klausness (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

- - yup changing the tittle would work , this title (List of Turkish people) isn't that good for this article or any .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability is implied with entrance to the list. Thus, there is no need to say 'list of notable people', as all people on the list should all already be notable. That's how it works on List of British people, List of Americans, List of Chinese people, etc. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not that fond of those titles, either. But I'm OK with leaving this title as it is, too, if other people aren't bothered by it... Klausness (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your problem with it. "List of Notable Turkish People" is redundant. All of the people in it are notable (or they shouldn't be in there). They are notable by default; non-notable entries to these lists are an exception, not the regular; thus, they aren't required. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

well then im backing up my change . its the same as earlier .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Categories do not replace lists. The others you list include another layer of speciality, such as net worth. This one contains only the requirement of 'turkish'. Removing it would put a hole in our navigation system. There's really no reason to delete this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Move, to "List of Notable Turks". The idea implied by the title of having a list of all Turks is risible! Tim Vickers (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessary ... inclusion in any of the "List of people from whatever country" lists ALREADY REQUIRES notability to be established on that. We only include notable things by default; doing what you propose would be pointless, as that is already what this list, and every other list like it, is. Notability is already required for inclusion, just like anywhere else on wikipedia. What you propose would require us to go through every single article, every single list, and change it to Metallica (Notable band), Stephen King (Notable Writer), List of notable Americans, List of notable British people, List of notable politicians, List of notable Cubans, etc. That's a slippery slope that introduces unnecessary ugliness and redundancy to Wikipedia, which should be avoided when possible. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:13, 26 March 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. Merging, (if warranted), is a non-AfD decision better warranted to talkpages of articles/relevant Wikiprojects. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Jacob Bridge

Most probably a non-notable bridge in Ljubljana.[45] Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. References almost certainly exist, since newspapers would have reported on the discussions at the city council or national parliament level which led up to the approval of the design and construction of this briodge. There may also be articles about this bridge in civil engineering journals. http://www.ljubljana-tourism.si/en/ljubljana_az/29931/podrobno.html is an official City of Ljubljana page which describes the bridge. --Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?

How long are they
What sort of construction are they?
- arch
- suspension
- cantilever
- whatever
When where they built?
Who built them?
Why were they built?
What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
What kind of effort went into them?
Provide a picture! Or several!
What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
What makes them worth an article?

It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and I think nothing makes it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

constructed to technically innovative designs sounds promising. Honestly, this bridge is not a part of sightseeing trips usually. Put some good references and a photo and it can be passable. --Tone 16:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Simply put, fails reliable sources, notability and verifiable. The onus is on the article to meet guidelines and not for editors to expect that it meets the guidelines. 02:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep for now, but tag for notability. All these bridge articles should be considered for merging or deletion in (say) a month. Nominating for AFD stubs that may be expanded into good articles is a bad practice, and liable to discourage new editors. This applies to all the nominated Bridge articlesPeterkingiron (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn straight. - Denimadept (talk) 03:10, 31 March 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. Sandstein (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human quality

Is this saveable from Original Research? Has existed since 2006 and hasn't come to much. Camillus (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete looks more like a dictionary definition than anything else. Also, did you notice the vandalism done just before the afd? Reverted now. BananaFiend (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete can't make up my mind whether this is a neologism or not, but there is no source to this combination of words. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete with the way it is now. ~~The topic does seem to have some opportunity for rewriting into a legitimate article though.~~ TecmoBo (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Actually, maybe it doesnt. I just searched the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Philosopher's Index, and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and there wasn't one hit on the topic. Virtually none even mentioned the phrase "human quality" in the context the wiki article does. My philosophy teacher taught me all wrong! Any chance this topic more commonly goes by another name? As far as I know the topic is a philosophical concept. TecmoBo (talk) 04:04, 26 March 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Bores

non-notable YouTube host. While he seems to have gotten himself into hot water with a couple of various "bad taste" humour sites on the web, there are no reliable secondary sources that attest to his notability. Note that the article on his YouTube programme Irate Gamer was speedied CSD-A7 on March 19. Prod tag removed without comment by IP user. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - anyone can set up their own website/upload some videos onto YouTube. Doesn't make you notable. Camillus (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7. No assertion of notability. Seems pretty straightforward. Also a WP:BIO1E as host of the show itself, which has already been deleted. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Nonnotable. The page is basically about an individual that posts on YouTube. -DevinCook (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please note: The IP User 220.238.168.62 removed the deletion template from the article. I noticed this only after I added the speedy delete template. I have restored the original deletion template and also preserved the one I added. -DevinCook (talk) 14:04, 26 March 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. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Šempeter Bridge

A non-notable bridge over Ljubljanica in Ljubljana. Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?

How long are they
What sort of construction are they?
- arch
- suspension
- cantilever
- whatever
When where they built?
Who built them?
Why were they built?
What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
What kind of effort went into them?
Provide a picture! Or several!
What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
What makes them worth an article?

It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and I think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Simply put, fails reliable sources, notability and verifiable. The onus is on the article to meet guidelines and not for editors to expect that it meets the guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:19, 30 March 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. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prule Bridge

A non-notable bridge over Ljubljanica. Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?

How long are they
What sort of construction are they?
- arch
- suspension
- cantilever
- whatever
When where they built?
Who built them?
Why were they built?
What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
What kind of effort went into them?
Provide a picture! Or several!
What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
What makes them worth an article?

It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and I think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The people in Minneapolis thought much the same about their bridge I-35 bridge over the Mississippii beofre it collapsed. Is there nothing even mildly interesting here? - Denimadept (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this make it worth an article? Under which criteria? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Simply put, fails reliable sources, notability and verifiable. The onus is on the article to meet guidelines and not for editors to expect that it meets the guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:20, 30 March 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. Nicely improved.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] APRIL

not notable, doesn't seem to physically exist, the sole findable reference is the one cited in the page

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. --moof (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Description in reputable scholar literature is well enough for inclusion. I wonder if the proposer knows what scholar literature is.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. So, the main paper on APRIL has plenty of citations. But is there more about it than that? It's hard to search due to the common word as its name. Put another way, how many of those 334 citations are trivial mentions of it among a list of other RISC architectures, and how many use the APRIL architecture specifically in a nontrivial way? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment User:SummerWithMorons is the creator of said article, which only had one edit prior to RFD. And yeah, I'm familiar with "scholar literature" [sic] - which is precisely why I'm questioning the notability, having been all too acquainted with one-shot research projects that are rather unnotable. At very least, the article should be tagged a stub; if the article should stay in wikipedia, IMNSHO, it should at least give information other than "it's a CPU that (through some unstated means) is purportedly good at context switching." --moof (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep but rename. It turns out that APRIL is not really a standalone CPU architecture, but a set of modifications to another, much more well known architecture, the SPARC. The combination of APRIL and SPARC is known as Sparcle, and is the basis for a multiprocessor called Alewife. I refactored the article to put more emphasis on the big system and less on the context-switching CPU modifications, and I now think it stands alone well enough; a Google scholar search for the alewife multiprocessor found 1230 papers referring to it, 41 papers on this system with "Alewife" in their titles, and all four of the papers now mentioned in the article are well cited in Google scholar. But, with this new emphasis, the article should be renamed to Alewife (multiprocessor); I was bold and did that part already. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep: looks like it's been whipped into shape.--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:56, 2 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

[edit] Peter Shaw (Australia)

Not notable person, only hit from google was for this wiki page. All others not this Peter Shaw. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 12:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of verifiable notability Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
~~Placeholder undecided~~ I removed a speedy tag because there are some notability claims here. This guy actually could be notable for any one of a number of reasons, but I worry that he's actually achieved lots of nn things that amass to look quite good, but don't stand up to scrutiny. Specifically, I wonder about whether he played 1st XV rugby for Victoria, which would seal this for me as a stone cold Keeper. As it stands, I'm undecided, leaning toward Delete, but have solicited expert input from a Rugby Union specialist. --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Nothing compelling has emerged here to suggest it should be kept. Doesn't seem very notable to me. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete -- As per nom. Playing rugby in Victoria (1st XV or otherwise) does not constitute notability. For the record I placed the original speedy tag on the original article. Cheers! Xdenizen (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete - I don't believe that this article is a hoax, but unfortunately I have not been able to find independent sources that confirm Shaw played for Victoria. If these can be found then I believe he meets the notability criteria, and will change my vote to keep. Representing his state is certainly a notable achievement, even if he only played one match for them. However I havn't been able to successfully verify this, so have to vote delete at the moment. - Shudde ^talk 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Victoria is not a rugby playing state - it has no teams in any pro league, not a first class team. Prorbably no Victorians have ever played for Australia, for instance. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Although I understand what you are trying to say, I think you are wrong. Victoria has had several Wallabies, including some that have played during the professional era. As well, Shaw's article says he played for Victoria some time between 1994 and 1996, which means he probably played for them in the amateur era, or very early in the professional one. Certainly back then there was no distinction between professional and amateur state teams; obviously rugby is not nearly as popular in Victoria as in NSW or Queensland, but it's still played there. They have had something of a professional team there recently as well (see Melbourne Rebels) and did bid to have a Super 14 team (which went to Western Force instead). Anyway, point is, just because he's Victorian doesn't mean he's not notable. - Shudde ^talk 03:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Weary Dunlop comes to mind as a Victorian Wallaby as does Ewen McKenzie. Also Bob Cowper's father Denis "Dave" Cowper. Bob's nickname was "Wallaby". Having said that, I don't believe that playing rugby for Victoria (which at this stage we have only the word of the author to substantiate) makes one notable. It is neither professional or at the highest possible level of the sport. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  - In 1994 and 1995, bar playing for Australia, it would have been the highest possible level. No teams were professional back then. I would also like to query, had Melbourne got a Super 14 team instead of Perth, would that make him notable? - Shudde ^talk 04:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    - That make the Wallabies, not Victoria - the highest possible level. Having stood in the outer at Olympic Park in my youth watching many Victorian teams beaten 80+ to nil by touring teams I have no illusions about the level of rugby played. To claim that Victorian players in the pre-professional era are as notable as as their equivalents in the Waratahs and the Reds (weren't they the Maroons then?) is not a viable suggestion. As for the Melbourne getting the Super 14 franchise changing things, my answer is no. The Victorian state side would have remained a different entity from the S14 team and the playing list would have little, if anything, in common. The Victorian state side would be made up of players from the VRU competition while the S14 team would draw its players from the Sydney of Brisbane club competitions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Here is a picture - [46] -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment The article had its AfD notice removed and a note left stating that this discussion was closed and the result was to keep. I reverted back, as this is not closed, and as far as I can see, there is no consensus yet. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 09:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Many of the web hits come from the Local Hero website, whose co-founder is ... Peter Shaw. I think subject lacks genuine notability, and largely agree that his sporting exploits are for a minority sport in Victoria. Murtoa (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Look I'm a newbie and removed the delete flag (cause I have heard of him, used LocalHero) but on review I say delete. He is well known (not as a rugby player though) but not notable as per the guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australiafelix (talk • contribs) 09:42, 27 March 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 - no WP:RS, no evidence of notability, per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Thaxton

This survived a VFD in 2004 (see talk) but I just can't see the notability. He seems to have gone to prison for his part in a riot, but beyond that? NB I removed the unreferenced prison allegations per WP:BLP (plus a lot of speculative psycho-analysis about his distrust of men) but if this is notable the prison stuff could be replaced if sourced properly. I'm also suspicious of the PD nature of the image. Doc^g 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Completely lacks context & notability. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete I lived in Eugene, Oregon when the riot happened - it was a comparatively minor incident that attracted a fair amount of local press coverage, but died down rapidly. The anarchists (as well as the fratboys, fancy that) in Eugene rioted every year and tossed rocks at cops, nothing special there. I suppose I could find a couple of reliable sources about his conviction and incarceration, but this is a clear WP:BLP1E deletion. Skinwalker (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As an addendum, perusing this cat[47] shows a large amount of unreferenced vanispamcruftisement. Emma Goldman is undeniably notable. Juha and Darren Deicide are not. Skinwalker (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 02:40, 27 March 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. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steelworkers' Bridge

An unimportant bridge crossing Gradaščica in Ljubljana. Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?

How long are they
What sort of construction are they?
- arch
- suspension
- cantilever
- whatever
When where they built?
Who built them?
Why were they built?
What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
What kind of effort went into them?
Provide a picture! Or several!
What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
What makes them worth an article?

It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and I think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Simply put, fails reliable sources, notability and verifiable. The onus is on the article to meet guidelines and not for editors to expect that it meets the guidelines. Then delete the template or replace it with one that does not link to the deleted bridge articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:21, 30 March 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. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Podutik Bridge

An unimportant bridge in Ljubljana. Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?

How long are they
What sort of construction are they?
- arch
- suspension
- cantilever
- whatever
When where they built?
Who built them?
Why were they built?
What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
What kind of effort went into them?
Provide a picture! Or several!
What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
What makes them worth an article?

It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Simply put, fails reliable sources, notability and verifiable. The onus is on the article to meet guidelines and not for editors to expect that it meets the guidelines. Then delete the template or replace it with one that does not link to the deleted bridge articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)*Delete. Simply put, fails reliable sources, notability and verifiable. The onus is on the article to meet guidelines and not for editors to expect that it meets the guidelines. Then delete the template or replace it with one that does not link to the deleted bridge articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:22, 30 March 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. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fužine Bridge

An unimportant bridge over Ljubljanica. Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?

How long are they
What sort of construction are they?
- arch
- suspension
- cantilever
- whatever
When where they built?
Who built them?
Why were they built?
What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
What kind of effort went into them?
Provide a picture! Or several!
What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
What makes them worth an article?

It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Denimadept. All bridges crossing a major river in the center of a large national capital city are important. --Oakshade (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This bridge is not located in the center (much less Center) of the city at all.[48] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I see what you mean. It looks like it might have some nice guard rails, but otherwise I don't see anything on the satellite imagery. If this bridge, and the others, is to be considered "of interest", we need more information in the article. Tell us more about this bridge, as I said above. Include a nice picture, perhaps. - Denimadept (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can expand on this. I've created a number of these "crossings" lists. I'll pick one to use as an example: List of crossings of the Taunton River. You can see that I've documented the first few bridges (first 3, really, but included one demolished and one under construction), but not nearly all of them. Someone else came along and made another list based on mine, List of crossings of the Assonet River. None of those bridges have links, note. On the other hand, in my first burst of documentation, I started creating articles for all the bridges on the Connecticut River, including Route 10 bridge, Northfield, Massachusetts and US Route 3 Bridge over the Connecticut River. I'm not big on AfD, you might say, at least for bridges! - Denimadept (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find anything useful in a local library in the following days but don't expect miracles. These lists seem much more reasonable imo. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently working with others on the List of crossings of the Danube River, if you're interested. I'm reformatting it, as you can see. - Denimadept (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete It would have been decent if somebody had told me about this. I stubbed a few of them believing some SLovene users could expand them but according to Eleassar it isn't notable so delete ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we request that they build a nicer bridge so we can document it? :-D - Denimadept (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, just don't forget to enclose a big check with the request. :-D --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the bridge on the highway ring, right? Out of those nominated in the series, this would maybe be the most noteworthy but without proper references it's hard to say. The best solution would indeed be a list of bridges with photos. --Tone 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

An interesting article, just in time... --Tone 16:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, judging from the pictures, there's some good stuff there. Needs a translation, though. Nice arch bridge, the one with all the columns looks neat, the one with the walkways going up and down and what look like turned pillars in stone is good too. MOAR INFO! - Denimadept (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The one with the pillars is Čevljarski most, the one up and down is Tromostovje and the one with the arch is the Dragon Bridge. The others are Prule, Moste, Šentjakob and Šempeter bridges. --Tone 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. No, this bridge is not located on the highway. I have provided a link where you can see it.[49] The article you have provided is a copyvio of what has already been found.[50] I am very much for the articles Čevljarski most, Tromostovje and Dragon Bridge etc. but some others are simply not worth to have an article. I think it is best to have a list of bridges with photos, as has been proposed. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea to have a list of crossings where one column might be small pictures. Hm.

Crossing	Location	Built	Coordinates	Image
Ponte Romana Sertã	somewhere over the rainbow	120 CE

- Denimadept (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Simply put, fails reliable sources, notability and verifiable. The onus is on the article to meet guidelines and not for editors to expect that it meets the guidelines. Then delete the template or replace it with one that does not link to the deleted bridge articles. Existence is not the same as notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 30 March 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. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Črnuče Bridge

An unimportant bridge in Ljubljana. Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?

How long are they
What sort of construction are they?
- arch
- suspension
- cantilever
- whatever
When where they built?
Who built them?
Why were they built?
What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
What kind of effort went into them?
Provide a picture! Or several!
What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
What makes them worth an article?

It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Simply put, fails reliable sources, notability and verifiable. The onus is on the article to meet guidelines and not for editors to expect that it meets the guidelines. Then delete the template or replace it with one that does not link to the deleted bridge articles. Existence is not the same as notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:24, 30 March 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. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cockbridge

An unimportant bridge in Ljubljana. Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?

How long are they
What sort of construction are they?
- arch
- suspension
- cantilever
- whatever
When where they built?
Who built them?
Why were they built?
What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
What kind of effort went into them?
Provide a picture! Or several!
What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
What makes them worth an article?

It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Simply put, fails reliable sources, notability and verifiable. The onus is on the article to meet guidelines and not for editors to expect that it meets the guidelines. Then delete the template or replace it with one that does not link to the deleted bridge articles. Existence is not the same as notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:25, 30 March 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 per WP:CSD#G7 (only one author contributed substantially to the article and that author has requested here that it be deleted). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Batterley Algorythm

Delete - From the author: Just delete this article. The relevance of the comments within here I find either self serving (viz David Eppstien's self serving wikipedia entry and reference to David Eppstein's blog) or debasing for no good reason.

The article was included in good faith, and we politely asked Batterley's permission to publish the algorithm (rather than it be lost to commerse alone).

We agree that peer review is important, however don't kid yourself on that one. Journal's are equally as competitive by default, and quite frankly the algorithm stands up on it's own merit.

Just delete the article. Thanks.

Viev (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Thank you for your comments, Mr Epstein. You had nothing to offer useful. It's the author's right to request deletion of the article. For the benefit of anyone so interested, if RHaworth may interpret chronology in one way, who is Epstein to interpret it differently? Who is Epstein?

Delete - no Ghits, even with the proper spelling of "algorithm", OR – ukexpat (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - The article author likely knows or is the inventor of the algorithm, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish research. Once the algorithm has been published in some peer reviewed journals, the article might be re-created. --Minimaki (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary to this edit is tanatmount to an admission that this is original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Erlang C entry in Wikipedia has no references and has no cited published source that I can see. Erlang C was the result of commercial personal research. It doesn't matter that the creator of an algorythm is alive or dead (like Erlang). To confirm, the author does know the creator of the algorithm. That does not diminish the importance of Batterley's work.

The author did not create the algorithm. In fact it took 5 years to divest the information from Batterley.

You are not suitably qualified to make judgement on the effectiveness of the algorithm unless you belong to the fraternity of mathematicians and schedulers whose job it is to perform very large calculations on a weekly basis in order to save money for the company you work for. The algorithm is put here for prosperity and so that it may not be forgotten.

Erlang used his formula in business. Is it possible that we are being hypercritical and too judgemental in wanting to remove this article?

Or is it that we should remove the Erlang C reference as the output of private research? Viev (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) — Viev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - From the author: Just delete this article. The relevance of the comments within here I find either self serving (viz David Eppstien's self serving wikipedia entry and reference to David Eppstein's blog) or debasing for no good reason.

The article was included in good faith, and we politely asked Batterley's permission to publish the algorithm (rather than it be lost to commerse alone).

We agree that peer review is important, however don't kid yourself on that one. Journal's are equally as competitive by default, and quite frankly the algorithm stands up on it's own merit.

Just delete the article. Thanks. Viev (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. In case anyone else is wondering why my name is mentioned here, as I haven't expressed an actual opinion on the AfD: I did some minor editing, including, among other things, putting the comments back into chronological order after Viev shuffled them. Apparently this was not appreciated. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 26 March 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) as there were no !votes to delete; possible merge pending talkpage consensus. Skomorokh 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LewRockwell.com

A largely self-sourced article on Lew Rockwell's website. Rockwell is notable, is his site independently notable? Doesn't look it to me. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment This article notes that the page "disclaims" it is no longer associated with Lew Rockwell - it is not his site, (may make it less notable). BananaFiend (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, thanks, Guy, but there is plenty of independent notability. I added two reliable sources just now. To a degree a bit of self-pub would be allowed to permit a brief paragraph on LRC's positions, and that paragraph is currently too long, but aside from that the contributors list alone is a showcase of notables. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Lew Rockwell. Even if the site doesn't necessarily represent his positions all the time he's still inextricably tied in to the site and as I understand it he does a lot of editorial and writing work for it. The article needs some work but there is good stuff in there--I would hate to see someones efforts disappear. Iamblessed (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, website is independently notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say so? It might be, but it's better to provide evidence instead of simply asserting it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This Google text string search for "lewrockwell.com" yields about a quarter of a million hits. Thousands of these represent indications of notability. It is likely the most noted and widely read libertarian website on earth. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. These things aren't always obvious to those of us who don't live in the political world. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge i see no indications for notability in the article, and while there may be alot of Google hits, i found that most of these where either links or blogs (and a large combo of those). Where is the independent coverage of it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge. Rockwell and his web site are effectively the same topic. I can't think of anything you could say about LewRockwell.com that would not be relevant to the article about Lew Rockwell. NCdave (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. LewRockwell.com is a long established site which publishes original content six days a week. It's not a one-man operation. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. LRC was built by Lew Rockwell, but there are multiple individuals who assist in editorial matters and post content independently. LRC is not merely a germane detail in discussions of Rockwell, but rather an independently notable entity which merits independent coverage. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Lew Rockwell - there just isn't enough meaningful content to warrant two separate articles at present. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment, article size is of lesser relevancy when it comes to this level of notability. You ought to expand it rather than remergeing. Lord Metroid (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. He is the editor in chief and his name is on the website, but it isn't his blog or anything -- it's a widely cited (for good or ill) publisher of primarily libertarian though, and though sifting through sources to find the stuff about the site is tricky with all the mere citations of stuff on the site, it's possible. According to America's Right Turn: How Conservatives Used New and Alternative Media to Take Power by Richard Viguerie and David Franke, it had higher readership than the National Review Online. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would like to note that there have been no delete comments (other than the nom's) and a merge discussion would be more appropriate on the article's talk page. I don't think AfD is the place for this discussion. May I suggest WP:SNOW? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep --RayBirks (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
merge to Lew Rockwell as suggested. Mcmullen writes (talk) 19:11, 26 March 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. Fram (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial Elite

Lack of notability

Delete, notability is not established by the one self-published source. --Explodicle (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, this is a self-published source, and from a blog that itself may not pass a notability test. BananaFiend (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Against Deletion: This article is on a piece of work which was posted on a source not owned by the writer and, is a summary of that. I fail to see how this vague term of 'notability' is relevant, I suggest those users with issues on this article re-read Wikipedia's deletion policies, specifically those on stubs.
- User:125.238.255.174, I suggest you create a user account, add your signature with a timestamp to your comments, and read the Wikipedia:Notability project page. --Loremaster (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I just re-read the deletion policy and notability is right there. --Explodicle (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
delete - article says this was a "phrase coined in a blog" last year. Good, so it's a neologism - anything more? If this is nothing more than a phrase someone made up one day, then it fails. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Against Deletion - That is inaccurate. The blog was only the host for the article written. The person who wrote the article and the blog owner are different people. The reason the blog is referenced is because that it is currently the only source (as far as I'm aware) that hosts Purdon's article on the internet.
  - It doesn't matter and, as I said earlier, in order for your vote to be taken into account, please create a user account, add your signature with a timestamp to your comments, and read the Wikipedia:Notability project page. By the way, you can only vote once. So stop acting like a teenage bully. --Loremaster (talk) 10:39, 3 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 as there is, on inspection, nothing to merge, and the merge target is not unambiguous. If there is a disambiguation page for Tindals, one could mention him there with links to the two elections, but perennial losers have to do better than this to achieve independent notability. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Tindal (2nd nomination)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chris Tindal

Articles for deletion/Chris Tindal (2nd nomination)

Non notable candidate for Canadian Federal parliament. Fails Notable politician criteria. This person is already mentioned in Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election but additional text could be merged from this article into that one. Suttungr (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge per Reggie Perrin. Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy merge, per Reggie Perrin and several precedents. CJCurrie (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. We have an article on El-Farouk Khaki, and he wasn't elected either in the same election. GreenJoe 03:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- El-Farouk Khaki article appears to stand on its own even without election participation. Tindal's article doesn't. Atrian (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  - This coming from an NDP supporter. GreenJoe 03:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    - I don't see the difference between this article and Rebecca Coad - they both got about the same percentage of the vote in their respective ridings (Coad did slightly better) and they both came in third place. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Khaki meets WP:BIO for other things independent of his political candidacy; even if he hadn't been a candidate at all he'd still merit an article. Tindal doesn't meet that threshhold. And it isn't an NDP bias issue, as almost everybody to have !voted merge in this debate has also !voted to merge NDP candidate Rebecca Coad. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Chris Tindal gets 31,000 GHits. GreenJoe 19:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So? That doesn't make him notable. As a candidate in a high profile by-election (thanks to Bob Rae), I'm surprised he didn't get more hits. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

El-Farouk Khaki got significantly less, and he's supposively notable. GreenJoe 13:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Google hits aren't an indication of notability. Tindal is also an extensive blogger and contributor to online publications which does not make him notable but does drive up the number of google hits he gets. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment What about X? is not considered a strong argument at AFD. Stick to this article's strengths or weaknesses. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Atrian (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge. I always ask myself on these AfDs whether the subject would meet WP:BIO if one removed all the information concerning the subject's candidacy and participation in an election from the article (because running in an election, absent some special circumstances (e.g. John C. Turmel), does not in and of itself confer notability). Once that is done here, it is clear that the subject does not meet WP:BIO. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

delete - Being a candidate in an election doesn't make one Notable. Getting Elected does. But he didn't. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. [I was going to close this AfD as "delete", but JzG tagged it with {{closing}}, so I'm voicing my opinion instead] Can't really merge any additional content to Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and in reality, this article is relevant to Canadian federal by-elections, 2008 as well. However, he's simply not notable in any way other than the fact that he was on a party's ticket twice, and lost twice. He should have an article when he wins an election. That time is not now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:13, 31 March 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. Inadequate reliable sources to make an article Mr.Z-man 23:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crew change Guide

There is no claim to notability. Murderbike (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

delete no sources, totally unverifyalbe, and just plain odd. A series of dubious statements held together by typos. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:V and does not appear to be notable whatsoever. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
comment - I reverted some uncorrected vandalism and got the article back to a better condition. Please review again? I'd personally like to see this article stay, especially as it seems to document a type of book or zine that is a useful tool for a small underground movement. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment, "I like it" is not a reason for keeping, the information must be notable and verifiable. This subject is neither. Murderbike (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

comment - you didn't notice that I didn't vote or give a reason for keeping. In any case, the amount of egregious vandalism in this article's history - I guess in an attempt to keep its topic "secret" - makes me feel that this article is too much trouble to keep. So I'm keeping out of it. Though I'd personally like to see a good proper article on it, if it were possible. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

comment - also, a quick Google search shows that this is at least notable to the freight-hopping community, although no sources were found that could pass WP:RS. No mentions were found in Google Books. Thank me for finding proof for you? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment, No, because we don't need to find proof that it's not notable or verifiable, we need proof that it IS notable and verifiable. Murderbike (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - easily passes WP:V per Ghits: [51].. Not sure how notable the term may be. Rescue? Move? Merge? Bearian (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Added a ref from a RS. Suggest moving to Crew change guides, as the phenomena of guides is more notable than a particular guide. The absence of many published (print) resources about the guides is not surprising given the community that the guides serve. Pastordavid (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Merge a 1-sentence mention of this to Freighthopping. It's real but hardly rates an article of it's own; as a self-published underground book it fails notability criteria for books. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, Bearian's link shows 50 results, mostly primary sources and mirrors. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 3 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, with the fate of the content (merge, transwiki, cleanup, etc.) decided later. `'Míkka>t 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eye candy

Unreferenced original research. Dictdef. Mikeblas (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I've added some references, although the article still needs work. The article is also more than just a definition entry, citing both PhotoShop and PowerPoint. Andareed (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This looks more like a dictionary entry than an article, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. BananaFiend (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Not a dicdef. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Not a dictionary definition, and capable of expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not so sure about that... Every paragraph is dedicated to the definition of the term - one of the only two links is a dictionary link. 194.149.77.201 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete as BananaFiend stated. Also, I feel there is no encyclopedic value to this article. ArcAngel (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep --Reinoutr (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Decoration or Ornament. Deletion is no good as a computer gamer will soon recreate it and it is a valid search term. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. More than a dicdef. A cultural saying with cultural meaning. Operating (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary, just because a dictionary definition lists several meanings of a term, doesn't mean it isn't still a list of definitions. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, or transwiki to wiktionary. All examples that are listed are... examples. JFW | T@lk 03:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This is more than a mere dictionary definition. I'm also surprised we don't have more coverage on the Adobe Photoshop plugins by the same name. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:19, 27 March 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. Singu larity 00:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus H. Christ

Article covers only usage of "Jesus H. Christ" when it could cover usage of "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" as a more profane term as well. Propose deletion or move to Jesus Christ (profanity) or similar. Suggestions encouraged. . — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 10:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge per nomination AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep Jesus H. Christ is perhaps of interest in and of itself, it has been addressed specifically in the straight dope (which is linked from the article) with much historic speculation on the middle h. BananaFiend (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep not sure what part of the deletion policy this article meets, and by the sound of the nomination, that point is iffy. If the article is to be moved or merged, that could have be handled outside AfD. Since we are all here, in theory, I would not oppose having a larger article on the use of "Jesus" and similar variations as an expletive. However, we do not currently have such an article for which this article to be merged. The closest we have is Jesus (name)#As expletive or attribute. So I say keep, and if we ever get enough content in other places to require a larger article, then we can propose a merger then.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. An article that answers a legitimate subject of curiosity. Uncertain why this should be deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Can you imagine an entry like this in Britanica? Maybe shrink & merge (as a couple of sentences at most) in blasphemy. But much of this article is just unsourced speculation, anyhow: this short article uses "may," "perhaps," "likely," "some regard," "are obscure," "it is plausible," etc. about 8-10 times. NCdave (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it could do with some cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. Many articles in Wikipedia would not be found in Britannica :) BananaFiend (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I think it's significant enough to have its own article. And look at the references - (at least) 2 articles in the jounrnal American Speech - Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 15:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopedic. --- Taroaldo (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Christ#Slang usage. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, mostly encyclopedic. I.e., Greek backronyms, Twain, and such. Just needs a rewrite. 209.243.55.22 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. In the name of Herman and as per above. --Bobak (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep The rampant facist vain of Immediatist, Exclusionist, Deletionist drivebys has got to stop. 198.163.53.10 (talk)
Keep: No reason for deletion given. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep No reason better than "I don't like it" given for deletion. Mark Twain discussed the term [52], and it gets over 200,000 Google hits, with 697 hits at Google Books [53], including "The American Language" by H.L Mencken (1945). It is discussed in religious texts like "Behold the Man: The Real Life of the Historical Jesus" (2002)by Kirk Kimball, p 689 [54] . Far more notable than "Christ on a pogo stick" and other miscellaneous Jesus obscenity. Edison (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It is articles like this that drew me to Wikipedia in the first place. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It could use some cleanup, but that's not a reason to delete it. Ketsuekigata (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I believe that the profane term "Jesus Christ" should be seperate from any other article. --68.224.192.118 (talk) 18:59, 29 March 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. Wizardman 14:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dragon Ball planets

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball planets

This is just a list relating to the features of a game/fictional scenario, and is incomplete to boot. Deb (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Um, not a game. Lead clearly states it's settings from a manga and anime series. (No comment yet on the proposal, though it's not looking very WP:FICT-worthy.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
*throws up hands* I can't tell WHAT to do with this information. As far as I can tell, the subject of the article does not pass WP:FICT on its own and it does not seem to be a valid spinout of any specific Dragonball article -- or if it is, it's not clearly so marked. I can't figure out the best place to put any or all of this information. In short, it should go away, but someone who knows the subject better will have to decide where. —Quasirandom (talk)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral right now, leaning to delete Not sure what to make of this. It could be a decent article if you toned down planet to mean, you know, what it actually means (and not Afterlife planets and whatnot), but on the other hand, it seems excessive in a franchise that is already clogged down with cruft. I'll give it some thought and do a full vote later. JuJube (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"World" might be a better term. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:16, 25 March 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 Mahopac, New York. Closed per WP:SNOW as clearly, the content of this 3 sentence article was duplicative of the far more expansive target. Probably could have been a CSD G6, but redirect preserves a plausible search term. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahopac

An article on Mahopac, New York already exsists. Also the link for Mahopac Falls, New York in the Mahopac, New York article links to the Mahopac, New York article and I believe there used to be a seperate article for Mahopac Falls. I believe this article may be vandalism because the a link for this article was inserted where Mahopac, New York used to be, but I already fixed that.EMT1871 (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Mahopac, New York. If separate articles on Mahopac Falls and Lake Mahopac are ever created, this can become a dab page. Deor (talk) 12:25, 25 March 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. --jonny-m t 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Midway Arcade: Trilogy Pack

Article makes no attempt to assert verifiability or notability. The lead paragraph states that the subject "was an unconfirmed release for the Sony Playstation 2". The game was never released. The rest of the article is a list of classic arcade games that would possibly have been included in the release. I feel that the article is listcruft, crystal-ballism, unverifiable and not notable. Gazimoff (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gazimoff (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Gazimoff (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete If it is unreleased to this point, then it fails WP:N and is nothing more than a crystal ball. ArcAngel (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete these packs are nothing more than wrappers, if they're released and reviewed then all well and good. Unreleased? Pheh, delete. Someone another 21:40, 2 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. Singu larity 00:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pringle Baronets

Doesnt make sense Hot200245 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Article states exactly what it is about, contains references, and links to relevant other wikipedia pages. Are you claiming it's a hoax, that it's not notable, etc (i.e., the criteria for deletion), that it is poorly written (i.e., it needs editorial work, which is not a criterion for deletion) or just that you don't understand it? DMacks (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep as an apparently properly sourced article on a notable subject. If there is a contention that the sources are not accurate or independent or factual (as they appear to be on a cursory review), then please ping my talk and I'll take another look - but I'm not clear on any other concerns that would warrant deletion of this article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep what Ultraexactzz sez. --moof (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep & snowball close as above --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:13, 25 March 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. --jonny-m t 08:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Williams (film producer)

Assuming that refs can be provided, is this guy notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't seem to have any real claim to notability, other than a few (minor?) awards for his documentaries that are not supported by references. Basically he's worked in film and television, without apparently achieving significant notability.--Michig (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Since there's no references listed, fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 16:32, 25 March 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. Not a single delete vote. (Note: For mergers please use {{merge}}, and possibly Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, not AfD) - Nabla (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Srija

Merge into Chiranjeevi page. This comes under WP:BIO1E. Notability only for one event. Furthermore, the subject cannot inherit importance of her celebrity parent. Mspraveen (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

- - but this subject is notable , the search engine's results prove it . so it becomes a necessary for it to be a subject of importance by which deserves an article . i voted to merge due to unavailability of exact infos , only some incident in the persons life has been explained .

Strong Keep Google hits over 40000 exclusively about her.[55]and in Yahoo [56] She is a household name in Andhra Pradesh and known in India.feel enough notablity for a person clearly passes WP:BIO and WP:N for an individual.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge into Chiranjeevi page . there is not enough information provided for it to stay as a independent page , if the page is rewritten with more about the person in particular then a separate article is indeed necessary . but right now seeing the contents its better to Merge with Chiranjeevi .--Pearll's sun (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

comment but if this article is rewritten and some more infos are added then im ready to change my vote .--Pearll's sun (talk) 13:23, 25 March 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 (no consensus) - Nabla (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zettai Ryōiki

Unverifiable original research on a non-notable neologism. Original prod was disputed --Farix (Talk) 10:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 11:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment I was the person who removed the prod, with the statement: "Giving the article the benefit of doubt: the japanese wiki article states that the term was explained on tv, being used by the porn industry, and being trademarked by Banpresto." Further investigation into these is warranted, and so I will not vote keep for now. _dk (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete for the following reasons, quoting the entire text of the article:

"Zettai Ryōiki (絶対領域, Zettai Ryōiki?) is an anime/manga related term for describing the area of bare skin exposed on the thighs between the skirt and socks for female characters." This is a dictionary definition. "The socks are preferably over the knee type." This is one editor's opinion. "It is a common Tsundere/Meido attribute." This is original research. "The term Zettai Ryouiki loosely translates to Absolute Territory in Japanese." This is plausible, and has no apparent relation to the meaning of the term. "The ratio of exposed skin to the skirt and the socks is generally agreed in standard anime geek/otaku lore as 4:1:2.5 (Length of the skirt : Skin on thigh exposed : Length of the sock above the knee)." This is unreferenced, and I don't anticipate a scientific poll of anime geeks/otaku to find its way into scholarly literature soon. We may have to settle for a careful meta-analysis. "The term is said to have been inspired from the Neon Genesis Evangelion's AT field, but this has no relation to its present meaning." This is unreferenced, and even if a reference were provided, would not elevate the article above a dictionary definition of a neologism. One wonders how much information having no relation to the meaning of the term being defined belongs in its definition. "Anime characters known for their Zettai Ryouiki include Rin Tōsaka from Fate Stay Night, Louise from Zero no Tsukaima, and Karen Stadtfeld from Code Geass." What is the charactistic of their "zettai ryouiki"? Who has noted them? Is there any reason why Wikipedia should have this statement? References: Two blogs and a user page (I think) on some wiki. In short, this is a one-sentence dictionary definition of a term that, as a neologism, does not deserve coverage in Wikipedia, and refers to a concept that itself is not worth an article, even if mentioned on Japanese television (what's not?), used in the porn industry (that doesn't help its case) or trademarked (making something a trademark doesn't contribute to its being noteworthy). Apart from the article, Google claims hundreds of thousands of matches, but #871 is the last one it serves up. Fg2 (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that people don't decide what's notable, sources and verifiability do. (Granted, I don't have the sources and I can't care enough to look for them) You may not think that Japanese TV and porn and a trademark can help its case, but that argument is just based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Clearly this article needs to be rewritten, and I wouldn't mind the article deleted so that a better article can be written anew. _dk (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete what might conceivably be worth an entry in a dictionary, and perhaps transwiki it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Never heard of this myself, and it sounded.. well.. just like one of those things that someone just kind of pulls out of their butt, or tries to make into a meme. However, _dk's comments do make me pause. I'll see if I can find anything before the AfD ends. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This is a pretty well-known moe element, which has found its way into dictionaries (see this colloquialism dictionary entry for example) in Japanese at least. International fans have been using it rather liberally for some time, as they did with tsundere a couple of years ago (when similar doubts as these ones were being raised on the talk page), and look where we are now.

As a side note, I believe Akiba Blog should qualify as a reliable source: despite its name, it's not really a blog but a personal news site that is held in pretty high regard, and certainly has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Bikasuishin (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more: the Akiba Keizai Shimbun (a reliable news source of Digital Hollywood Entertainment) has had several headlines mentioning the term, including this one, which is rather in-depth (and mentions the 4:1:2.5 "golden ratio" as well). Bikasuishin (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge the info in this article would be notable in the articleTsundere as this article even cites Zettai Ryōiki as being a very common attribute among Tsundere characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No. _dk (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep, per Bikasuishin. This one seems borderline, but there seem to be some reliable sources so I think it should be given a chance to be sourced and expanded. Cattus ^talk 11:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep: Bikasuishin has demonstrated that sources exist. Tag for cleanup and remand to the Japan Wikiproject to fix up when they get to it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:42, 1 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, with suggestion to merge to Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. - Nabla (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Dent

Wikipedia is not a memorial. This person appears to be no more notable than children who are notable for being murdered. Grahame (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge into Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. I think this falls under WP:BIO1E. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 10:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete I think it would be more appropriate to mention him in the main article Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 or even under euthanasia if warranted. BananaFiend (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. I do think a mention of him is warranted. It's written poorly now, yeah, but that can be fixed when merging (which I'd be happy to do). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - A classic case of WP:BIO1E. Perhaps a redirect to the Act may be appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Dent was not merely notable as part of the piece of legislation; he was the public face of the euthanasia legalisation. I saw the name in the new articles list and instantly recognised it, more than ten years after it happened. He deserves an article of his own, and considering the press coverage at the time, it should be plenty easy to write up a good one. Rebecca (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Rebecca. I recognised the name too, but then I was living in Darwin at the time. I can therefore support the view that there will be plenty of press reports. --Bduke (talk) 07:58, 28 March 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. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preston Zimmerman

Contested PROD about a footballer who plays for Hamburg's reserve team and never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. The PROD was contested under the claim he meets WP:FOOTYN#4, which is a bit weird since it is about "Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers", which is definitely not the case. Angelo (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Question Hamburger SV II play in the German Regionalliga Nord, could someone confirm that this is not a fully professional league? Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've jsut found this discussion in the WP:FOOTY archives about the issue. --Angelo (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Which appears to say it isn't a fully professional league yet, in which case Delete. Struway2 (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Save Zimmerman was signed to a contract with the Hamburg senior squad a couple months ago, article hasn't been updated to reflect this. Also he is an up and coming American player. The fact he signed at 17 is a significant event in the American soccer community. He has also represented his country in the U-20 World Cup. Oh Snap (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that he joined the senior squad is completely irrelevant. He has never actually played for them, which is what matters in this case. "Up and coming" is not a reason to keep. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep The Regionalliga has a few amateur teams, but then so does the Belgian League. Hamburger SV II are certainly professional. Zimmerman has also been called into the full US national team. [57] --Balerion (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If Hamburger SV II is a professional (rather than amateur or semi-pro) side, then I would support keeping the article. Does anyone have support for this? (I found the attendance for their opening home match was 2400: [58]). Jogurney (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure they are a pro side BanRay 23:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Balerion BanRay 16:55, 27 March 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. Wizardman 19:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trevor Steedman

Article was proposed for deletion with rationale: "Non-notable stunt actor." PROD was contested with request to list on AfD. Procedural nomination, I abstain. B. Wolterding (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete he's certainly been in a number of productions as a stunt man but there's no RS Coverage (one hit is a clergyman, so quite likely not the same) and ghits don't assert any notability in his field. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete - He seems to be the archetype of the minor stunt actor; in fact, he has a fan site that celebrates his complete obscurity. However, it's self-published, and the "sightings" section doesn't have any sources with significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete A fairly large body of work that doesn't seem particularly notable. If a definitive source is available, my opinion would change. --Stormbay (talk) 00:58, 29 March 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. DGG raises an excellent point below--as laymen, we are uniquely unqualified to evaluate the quality of a given professor's work. However, their relative importance and general notability in the field they work in can be evaluated, and based on the discussion below it is clear that the good professor is not noteworthy by our standards.

It should be noted, though, that a change in status or the coming to light of relevant sources could impart new relevance on the topic and that any creation of an article based on these factors would not be subject to speedy deletion. To that end, if anyone would like the text in order to userfy and work on the article a little more, I will be more than happy to provide it.

Finally, with regard to the renomination of the article, I agree that a month seems to be a sufficient amount of time to improve on the article. --jonny-m t 08:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Herrmann

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Peter Herrmann

Articles for deletion/Peter Herrmann (2nd nomination)

This is little more than a padded resume. The article has been tagged since December as having notability problems, and the first AfD resulted in No Consensus. There's been no subsequent improvement of the article. Let's get rid of this thing now. An editor with a similar name did some work on it, so it may be autobiography, and the sources leave much to be desired. Qworty (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, does not meet notability, or does not support a claim for notability. BananaFiend (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep on the grounds that the previous AFD was little more than a month ago. Articles should be given at least a few months to allow potential improvement before renomination. I have no personal opinion one way or the other on this particular article; this is a procedural "vote". I'm citing the third paragraph of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED that says sufficient time should be allowed for an article to be improved upon after it has survived an AFD challenge. 23skidoo (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral What constitutes "sufficient time"? I've seen some articles listed within hours with little to no dissent, others nearly a year later are met with howls about the previous AfD. DarkAudit (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As for the argument that "sufficient time should be allowed for an article to be improved upon after it has survived an AFD challenge," allow me to respectfully remind everyone that the previous result was not Keep, but No Consensus. Thus, the article did not really "survive the challenge"--the process was just kept on hold for a while. Since no consensus was reached before, this is our opportunity to reach consensus. That's what Wikipedia is all about, remember?--reaching consensus. Qworty (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete On one hand, 17 books counts for something. On the other hand, I found little evidence, in terms of awards or citations, that his work has substantially influenced others. Google Scholar, WOS and Scopus turn up very little in the way of citations. GoogleScholar did give 25 citations of his book with Tausch, "Globalization and European Integration", but on close inspection most of these citations are by Tausch himself. As DGG wrote in the first AfD discussion, Herrmann's books are not widely carried by the U.S. libraries (although I must say that I give much greater weight to citations, h-index, awards, etc. In most universities the decisions about which books to get are made by librarians, not by the respective academic departments). As a test, I have looked up two random Associate Professors in the Political Science department at my university. They both generated substantial number of citations per GoogleScholar (the first one I checked, had citation hits of 144, 113, 83, 59, 25, 21, etc). The second one had citation rates a little lower but still, by an order of magnitude higher than Herrmann. In both cases they authored some books and their CVs listed a bunch of "mid-level" academic honors and awards, such as best book prizes, top/best paper prizes from various conferences, etc. I have not seen anything of the sort mentioned on Herrmann's web site or in the WP article about him. In my view he does fail WP:PROF, and, absent some new information, the article should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment What is really needed is someone who has at least some vague knowledge of the field, rather than attempting to decide whether this guy has achieved anything based on some pseudo-scientific numerological method of evaluation. Also, there are languages other than English in which people can be well known, especially people who do speak languages other than English, and who have a first language that is not English. Of course, if some journalist in a publication like Time or The Guardian has mentioned him, case closed. The fact that a journalist wrote it is, apparently, what counts for determining notability per WP:N and WP:BIO. What is really needed, then, to clinch it, is a few quotes from the mass media! [59]--203.214.15.223 (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The AfD discussion you mention, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Dutton is about a person who is primarily notable as a media personality rather than as an academic. Notability as a media personality is established, per WP:BIO, primarily by covergage of that person in the conventional media. Academic notablity is notability primarily for one's academic/scholarly work. In the main, such notability is established by looking at the impact of the person in question in their academic field, see WP:PROF. This means that in most cases to establish academic notability one has to look at things like academic honors and awards and coverage of the work of the person in question in scholarly publications (scholarly journals, conference proceedings, books, etc), looking at citation rates, h-index, etc. Yes, this is harder to do, yes more mistakes are probably made and and yes participation by experts is helpful. However, editing Wikipedia is open to everyone so ultimately anyone can express their opinion. You may not like this aspect of the Wikipedia model (and it is in fact mentioned in Criticism of Wikipedia), but that is the way it is.

Going back to WP:PROF, it does say criterion 1 of WP:PROF can be satisfied if there is a substantial coverage of the person in question, as an academic expert, in conventional media. In practice this happens very rarely since most academic subjects are quite technical. But sometimes there are articles or interviews in mass media about famous scientists, or a journal like Scientific American can honor someone with a SciAm50 award as one of the top scientific innovators, or some biologist is repeatedly quoted in mass media as an expert on some schientific developments in molecular biology etc. One could argue that this is the case for Denis Dutton, but I think that his notability is primarily as a notable media pundit on general cultural and literary matters rather than as a media expert/pundit on some academic subject. Nsk92 (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply Unless a person has at least some vague knowledge of the field it is certainly not possible to evaluate whether this guy has achieved anything based on some pseudo-scientific numerological method of evaluation, and/or award counting. The citation evaluation methodologies you are quoting and using aren't even the best. And the best are nowhere as valuable as the evaluations of the top scholars in the particular discipline and sub-discipline. Numbers, do, of course, look impressive. They do impress the ignoratti. --203.214.15.223 (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:PROF. Springnuts (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep Fundamentally we evaluate scholars by reputation: whether they are considered notable. To judge by what we personally think of the work would be truly foolish, and show ignorance of encyclopedic standards. We are laymen, and we accept the demonstrated judgment of the experts in the field (just as we accept the judgment of reviewers for books, of critics for actors). One does this for academics by looking for what constitutes notability: professional rank, awards, publications. In this case, all of them are borderline. He holds an intermediary academic profession, not a professorship. there are no significant awards. We evaluate publications are seeing how widely they are held, and much they are cited. Other scholars in the field evaluate the publications by citing them. There are many books, not very widely used or cited. What we do not do is evaluate the intrinsic quality of the person's research--we are not qualified for that, so we see how the qualified experts in the field have evaluated it. Those who abandon numbers in this show that they do not recognize how scholarship in science or social science operates. h factors have limitations, but their use as a rough indication between people in the same field is appropriate. If we abandon objectivity, we get hand waving. I evaluated it as keep before; I say weak keep now. If I judged by the arguments used by the promoters of this article, I wouldn't say even that. A month is enough after a no-consensus close to make another try--it of course would not be if it had been a keep. More impressionistically, "With Tausch’s influential work and in cooperation with him " shows rather clearly that he's a junior colleague of Tausch, and thus not as notable. 12 books is however worth considering--Nova is a low grade publisher in science, but respectable in social science. DGG (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, User:DGG gives me plenty of reasons why he might be considered notable, plus my threshold of proof of notabilty is very low on topics I know nothing about.Callelinea (talk) 03:22, 3 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 per lack of notability. --jonny-m t 08:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Warner

Very sloppily written self-promotional article. User who created it has the same name as the article. No notability whatsoever established. Qworty (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. All of these achievements are commercial ventures, none seem to meet the notability standards required. Perhaps he is on his way to meeting WP:BIO, but I think not yet. BananaFiend (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite. I don't want to judge on notability, but the article needs to be made more factual and less ad-like. Kai A. Simon (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:LINKSPAM violations; whilst notability is asserted, it is not demonstrated. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete as Ohconfucius and Qworty. Springnuts (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Article has been rewritten. Kai A. Simon (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment ... but is no better. The problem is not with the article, it is the lack of notability of the subject. Springnuts (talk) 10:56, 29 March 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 (criterion A7: unremarkable person). Waggers (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mackeson

Non notable sports person and public speaker. A google search turns up no reliable sources Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

&Delete - A search with "australia sport" added returns NO hits whatsoever. Camillus (talk) 23:39, 25 March 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. I'll be more than happy to provide the deleted content for another article or project in the future. --jonny-m t 08:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FITcon

Non-notable convention held sporadically by a non-notable club with exactly one chapter at one college. Qworty (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 11:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Very Weak Keep - Searches for news articles turned some sources; a newspaper Florida Today [60], ~~an anime news network article [61] , and the guests such as George Manley and Michele Knotz are notable.~~ However, to say the convention lacks notability due to the fact it is organized by a "non-notable anime club" is not solid reasoning. Non-notable people can organize a notable event. Still, in the past 4 years there have been only two conventions. I would support a stronger keep if more third party sources can be produced verifying notability. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Revised my statement. I am searching for other significant coverage. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete The ANN link is to a press release so it doesn't count towards notability. Neither do the guests. It's not that hard for a con to get "notable" guests. The Florida Today article is heading in the right direction, but I don't think there is enough in this single source from which to presume notability. --Farix (Talk) 20:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:ORG - just another college club; having notable guests does not making a convention notable, and lack of reliable third party sources (excluding directory listings) suggests that it is not notable. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
'Keep the con has had some very notable geusts and has been running annually for two years, its seems like a notable topic to meKuro Woof 06:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs)
- A long-running convention running for only two years? Sounds quite a bit like puffery there. Since it is organized by an official organization associated with Florida Institute of Technology, merge salvageable information with the article about the college.B.Wind (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Do not merge into main university article. This convention has been held by a fairly large organization on campus (I'd know... I go to Florida Tech). However, this convention, as most other student activities, does not have enough standalone notability to satisfy on its own. The contents of this article does not fit into the current university article body and will change the tone of the overall article. If this article is to be deleted, portions of this article (trim-to-stub needed) that is not-notable and not directly cited by WP:RS should be removed and merged a new generic article called Florida Institute of Technology Student Life and merge with other notable campus events held on campus that also have WP:RS. (Note: I am not affiliated with this organization, so WP:COI is not an issue here. I just posses a clearer picture of whether to keep this article or not...:D) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete I know the FITcon guys are going to kill me in real life for voting to delete this article, but the truth is there hasn't been enough of a standing tradition or reliable sources (using the anime club website or the Florida Tech Crimson really doesn't count). I'd say archive this article's current source code, research on other university events and create a Florida Institute of Technology Student Life article where you may merge significant points on this article into it. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:04, 2 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. --jonny-m t 09:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Rukus

Utterly non-notable hip hop group. There's little to say about them in this nomination, and there's even less to say about them in the article. Qworty (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable - fails WP:BAND. Springnuts (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - only locally known non-notable group. Agree that it fails WP:BAND. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 20:53, 27 March 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 to delete, which defaults of course to Keep. The article needs some serious TLC, so I'm marking it for post-AfD cleanup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electrocutango

I rejected the speedy A7 on grounds of the mentioned award. Procedural nom, I haven't done any research on it yet Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reject deletion; support article's presence. Electrocutango is known among dancers of tango nuevo... Binksternet (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment some of the Norweigan hits look like reviews and semi-professional based on format. Can't read the language. Can't verify the award in English ghits. Anyone know a Norwegian reading editor? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am Norwegian: the reviews are good. The band/album is great and widely used, and considered to be in line with Gotan Project and Bajofondo - it definitely needs a Wikip article. It could be better, but I haven't had time to do more for now. If your deletion policy is as strict as Martijn Hoekstra suggests here, The Beatles and Elvis will be the only musicians to have pages here...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambivaline (talk • contribs)

You may have misinterpreted my comments. The article was tagged for speedy deletion, which I believed was not valid, if only because of the mentioned award. I listed the article here so discussion could take place, and so far we have two people who support keeping it, and none that are arguing for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

ETA: no article on the Norwegian Wikipedia, but it's mentioned here and in an article on the founder. No language translator could help with it, however. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no reliable sources. I'll change my mind if such can be found an referenced. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep... They've been tapped by Putumayo World Music for a compilation of tango around the world. That's Starbucks-level exposure. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 3 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. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United Hospitals' Challenge Cup

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/United Hospitals' Challenge Cup

Non-notable cup competition for a select number of university teams. Only possible claim to significance is the age of the cup itself, though there are no references or sources to back this up (attempts to get an editor to provide sources merely elicited facetious comments and abuse). Was originally prodded, but was removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:N - no reliable independent sources, no notability. --Angelo (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable competition between university teams rather than proper clubs. Qwghlm (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. BanRay 16:50, 27 March 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. Waggers (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cracc

Mixtapes generally fail notability per WP:BAND, and this one doesn't appear to be any exception. faithless (^speak) 09:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - utterly fails WP:BAND --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete, clearly non-notable band. ImperviusXR (talk) 12:30, 3 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. — Scientizzle 17:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Earthoid.com

Procedural nom. The article was speedily deleted twice in two days by two different admins per A7 under the name Earthoid. The creator then gave it a slight name change seemingly to avoid detection. I have no real opinion, but since several editors felt that the article was inappropriate already, I figure it should at least be brought to discussion to see if that is the consensus. It does seem slightly spammy. No real assertion of notability. faithless (^speak) 08:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Agreed, lack of notability seems apparent. BananaFiend (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete – ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete Another non-notable website. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:19, 30 March 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 move to a serious subject. `'Míkka>t 00:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eyeball search

To these eyeballs, this looks like a definition, and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

keep. Historically significant expression. `'Míkka>t 08:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Not a dicdef. Didn't even read like one. Although it does need cleanup. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge Seems to be mostly humour (geddit) but the useful bits can go into Visual search which is a better article on the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- A good suggestion, but IMO rather different subjects. Yours is a rather low-level perception related research area, related to analysis how vision works and cooperates with brain. `'Míkka>t 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also you have a good point about "mostly humor". Humor stripped, the correct article title would be visual inspection, a missing topic with millions of google hits. So I am bold to rename and let it grow with serious material. `'Míkka>t 23:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

note that, while looking for relevant articles, I found another slangy one called vdiff which I turned into Visual comparison. One doesn't need AFD to do this cleanup work. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:05, 26 March 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. Singu larity 00:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Dahmer Community Involvement Scholarship

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete - A nonsense article. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not nonsense, but no assertion of notability whatsoever. DarkAudit (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete not nonsense, but WP is not a directory of scholarships, especially those for one school TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is nonsense in the gala of texts (no matter what it is) have been added with no regard for what is typed. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:33, 28 March 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 (WP:CSD#A7). WODUP 08:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FWOOOFM

Delete: Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete under WP:SNOW as made-up and utterly non-notable group. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete, {{db-club}}, no sources, no evidence of notability. Bunch of guys watching footy on the telly and playing video games. Weregerbil (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's also a recreation of previously deleted content. User has a slew of warnings on his talk page. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:50, 25 March 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. — CharlotteWebb 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Chilton (game developer)

From the few diffs that I analyzed none of them seem to establish this person's notability, the two given sources seem to be of questionable reliability, also given the sourcing problems BLP issues seem to frequent this article. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Having just entered a lull in an INSANE vandalism war on this article, I don't think it's particularly notable anyway; the only thing that seem to make him notable is the World of Warcraft game, and there hasn't been any coverage of him outside of the game's news (i.e, he's been in interviews about aspects of the game, but not much else.) I'll change my !vote if anyone can come up with anything from a more traditional reliable source. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep, he's the lead game designer of World of Warcraft, a game with over 10 million subscribers worldwide, and a quick Google search turns up several sources. Since this is the biography of a living person, all poorly sourced material should be removed. --Pixelface (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound incredulous, but could you list a few of these sources? I'm all for keeping the article if some can be listed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WorldofWarcraft.com lists Tom Chilton as one of three Lead Designers for World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade[62] WorldofWarcraft.com lists him as one of six Game Designers for World of Warcraft.[63] The pages for panels at Blizz Cons on Blizzard.com list him as Lead Designer[64][65].

I would consider this person notable, since World of Warcraft has over 10 million subscribers. He was one of the key designers of World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade, working on the Player vs Player aspects, and that game was the best selling game of 2007 in North America and Europe and the fastest selling PC game of all time.[66] I believe this person meets WP:BIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

There is an interview from GameSpot on YouTube about The Burning Crusade, interviews on Gamespy, WorldofWarcraft.com, GameSpot, an wow-europe.com, a podcast and transcript on blizzard.com (which was covered by ComputerAndVideoGames.com), information on WorldofWarcraft.com, an article on Shacknews about the Death Knight in World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King — although in many interviews he is talking about the games, and there is a clear lack of information on Chilton himself.

There is a picture of him with Rob Pardo on Flickr (where this article's image came from), and also an interview on UO.com when he was lead designer on Ultima Online: Age of Shadows. There it says he went to the University of Arizona.

There is an article for Tom Chilton on WowWiki, and I suppose that may be an alternate place for this. Considering the recent vandalism to this article by upset gamers and the lack of information on Chilton's background, I *am* wondering though if it's worth it to have an article. But I think semi protection will take care of most of it. --Pixelface (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think WowWiki is the place for something like this. Most of the articles are tenuous at best with their connection to him. This is mostly fan coverage and in-game material. While the World of Warcraft game itself is certainly very popular and notable, I don't think Chilton himself is. Also, regarding your citation from our biography guidelines:

Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Fansites and interviews about PvP sites don't meet that criteria. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Fails [Basic Criteria] for notability, also considering WP:FAN ... trivial coverage at best - one of the links in fact resolves as a 404 error page. Delete unless good secondary sources found. Springnuts (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Pixelface. Vandalism or poor sourcing are grounds for reverting or removing unsourced content, not deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But there is no reliable source that discusses the subject in depth. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Springnuts & Celarnor (plus N/V/RS concerns) Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - The subject's work is known to and/or used by millions of people, he is certainly notable! The (original)sources suck and certain claims need rock-solid refs, but this is a valid and viable entry. Doc Tropics 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A valid and viable entry wouldn't be glaringly absent of reliable sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done an extensive rewrite using some of the sources I mentioned. --Pixelface (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Pixelface has made significant improvements. It seems that most of the original objections no longer apply. Doc Tropics 01:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Reference number 3 doesn't even mention the subject. References 2 and 4 don't assert notability and merely say "This guy works here." If that is a notability assertion, then I'd like to see articles for the rest of the Blizzard employees listed there. References 5 and 6 are not independent, and are just "This guy will be at the convention for the company he works at." They also don't assert notability. This leaves us with 1 and 7, which are the ones we had at the start of the AfD. Not much has changed. We still don't have any reliable sources to establish notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WorldofWarcraft.com IS a reliable source. I really don't see how you can say a lead designer on the fastest selling PC game of all time is non notable. WP:BIO says "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." and "The person's work...has won significant critical attention." Tim Chilton clearly passes WP:BIO. --Pixelface (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And reference number 3 is the source for the fact that Burning Crusade is the fastest selling PC game of all time, and comes from the Burning Crusade article. I'm sure another source could be found for that claim. --Pixelface (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Our guidelines on reliable sources lists independence from the source as one of the criteria. As the World of Warcraft website is not independent from him (i.e, he was the developer), it is not a third-party source. A third-party source would be a book, a news site, a special on tv or radio, or something along those lines. If it is as popular as you say it is, and the person is so notable, it should be easy to find some sources independent of him (i.e, not the website of the company he works for) to help bolster his notability rather than all of these non-reliable, non-independent, and sometimes not even mentioning the subject (as is the case of #3), sources.

All you've really done here is establish the notability of the World of Warcraft game, which has already been done on the appropriate article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't address those two criteria from WP:BIO I mentioned. --Pixelface (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If his work on the project was as notable as you say, then there would be sources to show it other than his attendance at company-sponsored conventions and a few brief interviews regarding PvP in WoW. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Gazimoff (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep he's the lead designer for the largest game of all time, there is no question he is notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 17:28, March 26, 2008

Delete. This person is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. He is only known within the World of Warcraft(WoW) community and that is only due to his attendance to company (Blizzard) sponsored conferences. There are not Wikipedia article about the lead designers of Microsoft Office or Visual Studio,are there? The work Tom Chilton has done with WoW is intellectual property of Blizzard/Vivendi, it belongs to that company, not Tom Chilton. Also, citing Blizzard's websites as sources is not adhereing to WP:NPOV. The company is not a reliable source for unbiased information regarding its development team.66.191.253.210 (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you suggest a more accurate source for who developed Blizzard's games than Blizzard, or perhaps the game itself? --Pixelface (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  - This isn't about WoW or Bliizard. This is about a person named Tom Chilton and whether he is noteworthy enough to have an article about. Stay on topic please.66.191.253.210 (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  - I don't believe that his code contributions make him notable. While it is certainly verifiable that he was one of the developers of WoW, that in and of itself doesn't make him notable. He fails the basic criteria for notability; he hasn't received significant secondary coverage, and that's all there is to it, really. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep: The note worthy thing about this boy is that he has successfully been lead designer and been responsible for

mass account deletions by the player community, Successfully destroyed Ultima Online (former largest MMORPG), Currently is in the process of ruining WOW and if you disagree check out the deleted accounts since 2.4 patch.( possibly most unwanted patch ever). This guy is HATED by millions of gamers and they still hire the guy.. I guess they.. eh .. I don't know why. Keep him though in history no one in this industry is more loathed and hated. . . and wiki should reflect that more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.109.27 (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - per above. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete As per the previous two posters, if any idiot can have their say, I may as well have mine. Tyranny of the majority FTW. 72.189.248.245 (talk) 14:20, 2 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 already deleted by Alexf (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights); G11. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zebtron

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete this article, created by User:Zebtron is blatantly promotional, so tagged. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - self-promotion, non-notable and fails WP:RS ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:26, 25 March 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, both due to consensus below and because the debate has sat for a month or so without resolution. (!) UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth C. Bucchi

Vanity article being used to promote author's book (and his promotional article about it...). Subject fails WP:NOTE and all references to him seem to be FROM him. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - I'm putting this up for CSD as non-notable person. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 06:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete; no substantial third-party coverage of him or his works that I could turn up. --MCB (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep - User:Phil Bridger has updated the article with a claim of notability that leads to any number of news stories (see [67] and [68]). I'm a little hesitant to go with a full keep because of WP:BLP1E, but considering he's been on TV multiple times talking about this, I think it's worth a second look. --jonny-m t 09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep - multiple reliable sources (I add the 2nd, see also CNN), verifiable, and appears to have some effect. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Subject has notability from reliable sources. I've tidied it up so it ~~no longer appears as a vanity article~~ looks neater and is in the tone expected. WilliamH (talk) 13:08, 4 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. Wizardman 14:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alki Steriopoulos

Seems non-notable. I see no assertion that makes them notable per WP:MUSIC, does anyone else? αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 06:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep The "press" section on his website leads me to believe there's been enough non-trivial coverage on him to satisfy WP:MUSIC, but sources need to be found and posted, in addition to the massive cleanup this article is screaming for. SingCal 07:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Gsearch for reviews gave 39 hits, vast majority of which are for commercial sites and one trivial mention in the NYT; No sign of independent reviews. The subject Ohconfucius (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Agree that this article fails to provide any reason to consider this subject notable by any criteria set by wikipedia. There are no links back to the article and all external links are commericial or the subject's own site. Jazzfanman (talk) 07:05, 1 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. Wizardman 03:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Draughon

Non-notable stub — TAnthony^Talk 05:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep - Some of the programs he has worked on in a 'high-up' job may make him pass notability. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 06:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, soaps go through writers like most people go through soap. Tiny bit of coverage for theatre ventures ca. 1990, nothing since then. No sources for an article, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 25 March 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 --JForget 00:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kuching International Airport Flights

Disputed prod, prod was concerned about the notability of the subject. Myself, I'm pushing for "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". And there's lots more reasons too. Join the fun, find your very own reason for deleting this "article". UsaSatsui (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete With Fire - How about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of constantly changing and tremendously inaccurate data, useful only to a small few? Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 05:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
*Delete to blinking fluorescent hell of tiny lost/unclaimed luggage office staffed by the incredibly rude Article is entirely without sources, fails WP:V. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:V and seems unencyclopaedic. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 06:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:V ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:33, 25 March 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. Wizardman 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Dutton

Non-notable individual does not me WP:BIO criteria Ursasapien (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete If he is included then there is good reason to include an obscene number of others. What has he done? Plenty of others have founded webpages. Plenty of others teach at universities. As a philosopher what ideas has he contributed? The important question is, is Wikipedia to become some sort of Facebook? There are quite a few others currently in Wikipedia who have not done anything of significance to justify a biography. Unless Wikipedia becomes ruthless on this type of self (or friend) promotion Wikipedia is liable to be overwhelmed by 'Facebook' entries. I suggest delete and search for other candidates to delete. Their presence only encourages others to put in more 'Facebook' entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs)
~~Delete~~Keep - I'm now satisfied that he meets WP:NOTE for academics. Good job in chasing up notability. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 18:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC) ~~The NY Times link in the article does not even actually mention Dutton by name. There are no other references.~~ Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 05:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - the material in the article strongly suggests some indep sourcing shold be available. I am prepared to assume good faith that those who can find some material can get it in there eventually. Also, independent bits and pieces should fulfil notability. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) *05:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find some more indep sourcing on the man himself, I'd change to a keep. But independent bits do not by any stretch automatically confer notability; "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep - Seems notable, just need the sources fixed up. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 06:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, what about this person appears notable to you? He seems extremely non-notable to me. Ursasapien (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep, the founder of Arts & Letters Daily is clearly notable~~, but I am concerned about the lack of sources~~.-gadfium 07:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Make that Strong keep' per comments from dramatic, and the new sources found.-gadfium 04:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Only strong keep? How about purple clusters at least? [69] [70] [71] [72] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Only your clusters are purple, I suggest you treat them more carefully :-) dramatic (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - His upcoming book has a reasonable sales rank for something which is still a while away from being released. This may indicate its/his importance. Also, his new website has already been acclaimed by the Times of London.
Delete DD's new website has not been acclaimed by the Times of London. I suugest that others follow the links. It has simply been listed. And along with other sites that show that the new DD site is full of nonsense. Regardless, plenty of writers have books with reasonable sales rank etc., (although 651,175 in books doesn't seem all that 'reasonable') and there are plenty of other climate change skeptics/deniers who have achieved something other than denial. This type of denial is likely to be a passing fad anyway, rather like hula hoops, or flared pants in the '70s. Evolution denial, that is, creationism (God did it) or intelligent design (someone like God did it), is a much more noteworthy reason for inclusion. Creationism and ID are likely to continue longer and do give people somewhat more to laugh at than climate change denial. The questions are: What has DD done that merits inclusion? And should Wikipedia become some type of Facebook or fan site for any blog writer who currently has a few fans? Do we really want to include in Wikipedia the authors of all 651,174 books that placed higher in sales rankings? If Wikipedia included every self promoter who wants the Wikipedia imprimatur to further advance themselves how many extra donations and resources will be needed to accomodate them all? If he actually does achieve something then, when he does, he can always be included.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Note: this is 203.214.15.223's 2nd !vote in this AfD Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Climate change denial? *rereads article* climate change denial? *sifts article history* are you sure you're commenting on the right article? Yep, your edit history suggests you are.. so this non-sequitor is just linking someone you don't like to unpopular views that he might well not hold? I'm having a really hard time following the logic, or is that intentional? Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification for the hard of thinking. The comment re:climate change is, of course, not on the article but is on the claim that a new website on that topic is grounds for DD being notable enough for inclusion. I am sorry that you find logic hard to follow. As for the suggestion of malice for having views, I have had many good laughs at climate change denial arguments but the topic is becoming passé. I really think that DD's fans should aquaint themselves with the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. He may be an amusing companion down at the pub but as far as inclusion goes, he is just not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Nsk92 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - would be notable simply as founder of a highly-notable website, but in this case there's also significant coverage in at least one reliable secondary source, this salon.com writeup from 2000. I found this with only a few minutes work; I imagine further searching could turn up more independent sourcing. Scog (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Here's a more recent write-up, in the context of his new website. Sadly, I don't have time right now to figure out how best to add this to the article. Scog (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - the Salon.com interview is sufficient to establish notability: creation of Arts & Letters Daily, editor of Philosophy and Literature, creator of Cybereditions. --D. Monack | talk 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest a Merge to Arts & Letters Daily, which is the principal source of notability here. He is only an associate professor, and there do not appear to be many sources indicating independent notability per the WP:PROF standard. Keep per the points raised below. Eusebeus (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge sounds right to me too. Note that this article seems pretty much a WP:COATRACK for the contest/flap with Butler, which has a closer association to Philosophy and Literature than Arts & Letters Daily... Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge seems sensible; Dutton is really only notable for A&L, not in himself. --Helenalex (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Stong Keep It will take time to sort out the most appropriate references from the 10,000+ google hits he gets. I oppose a merge because he is notable for multiple things:
- Arts and Letters Daily - [73] gives a good sense of its notability.
- Cybereditions.com
- Being an outspoken (cited in NZ Parliament) board member of New Zealand's national radio broadcaster.
- Being a prolific author and speaker on aesthetics and philosphy of art.
- President of the NZ skeptics society (often in the news)

also note that New Zealand Universities have relatively few Professorial chairs - an Associate Professor is not equivalent to that title in the context of US faculties - it is about two grades higher. It will be easier to develop and improve this article than to have to recreate it from scratch. dramatic (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a point to answer the first question "as a philosopher what has he contributed?" His ideas on evolutionary psychology and aesthetics are a reasonable contribution (among other things in aesthetics). This is what his upcoming book is about, also. Also, he is no longer president of the skeptics society. He was, however, the founder.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.106.217 (talk • contribs)

Very strong keep - very prominent and widely respected New Zealand academic. An author, his publications range from to articles in the New York Times and reviews in the Washington Post to contributions for encyclopedias. Also note Dramatic's comments- in New Zealand, "Professor" is one step down from "Dean", right at the top of the academic tree. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Extremely Super Very Strong Delete with purple clusters, gold bars and silver bells but if not delete then merge – There are criteria for inclusion. The DD entry doesn’t meet the criteria. But clearly, DD has some fans. I suggest they copy the entry and start a fan club. The fans seem quite fanatical. I do not deny that he has fans and friends, and a flare for self promotion. However, claims for inclusion are exaggerated and show that fans and friends either have not read the guidelines or feel strongly that an exception should be made for DD. As for the awfully dramatic claim of 10,000+ Google hits… So what, even if they are all his (and they are not). John Smith gets about 4.7 million hits (and a statue). The fan club’s Denis Dutton is not the only Denis Dutton. The Google hits are not references to him alone. For example, there is a Denis Dutton at here who was nominated for two Primetime Emmys. Clearly more notable but without a Wikipedia bio, and I would say, also not notable enough. Another Denis Dutton is at here. There is also a disturbing element of parochialism in the special pleading for retaining the DD entry. NZ is a small country, 4 million people. International standards should still be used. There are lots of notable academic NZ residents and NZ born who are not in Wikipedia. And those that do have relatively tiny entries. Take Peter Phillips, one of the world’s best econometricians, for example (see [74]). Instead of wasting time with all these Facebook entries, and DD is not, by far, the worst I have seen, why not spend the effort on adding people who are notable? On the parochial topic, the NZ system of academic titles is the same as is used throughout the Commonwealth. NZ Professors are the same as Australian Professors and British Professors and those in HK and South Africa and so on. They are equivalent to Full Professors in the American system. They have chairs. They are not Super Professors. And associate professors, readers and more senior lecturers are about equivalent to the American Associate Professor. Lecturers and some less senior, senior lecturers are about equivalent to American Assistant Professors. In the last twenty years the status of academics in NZ and Australia has declined as various, previously non-academic, institutions have been turned into Universities and their staff given various academic titles. The new competition has necessitated ‘old’ Universities promoting more staff into higher titled positions. The Salon article is over the top and is not exactly written by an independent party and does not make DD notable. As for the claims about DD’s contributions to evolutionary psychology, lets hear an expert say that he has made a significant contribution. If he has, where are the refereed academic articles, in good journals, to support the assertion. I have never met DD. I imagine I would like him. I imagine I would be happy to have a beer with him at the Bush Inn. Now, have I been there or did I just find it on the web? He seems like a entertaining rogue. But notable? Not. Let’s maintain some standards folks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Note, this is 203.214.15.223'd 300th delete !vote in this AfD. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Professor Dutton has, in his career, crossed a number of paths, some of the nastier consequences of which had been slanderously included in the article about him (prompting my clean-up some time ago). I suspect that our anonymous friend here has something of this motivation since the personal animus is palpable, and only poorly masked by these repeated bleatings about policy. I suggest that Ursap withdraw this nomination, since the article will clearly not be deleted; a civilised merge discussion can continue on the talk page. Eusebeus (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is all very amusing. I came across the DD page having seen many other pages of people who are not notable including some people I do know. DD I don't know. But a little investigation shows that he is not notable either. I tried to clean up his page, consistent with Wikipedia standards, admittedly I did add a bit of humour because a page on a non notable person invites humour and then I am accused of being a fan of Prof Butler's, someone else that I have no knowledge of. For someone who cleaned up the DD page to remove slander, you seem remarkably free to slander yourself. There is no personal animus. And if it was palpable your comment would not be required. Have you heard of argument ad hominem? Whether someone is anonymous or not it is their arguments that should be evaluated, not their alleged motivations. I am sure you can find this principle explained elsewhere in Wikipedia. As I said this, DD's entry, is not the worst example I have seen in Wikipedia of a non notable person entry. Some of these entries are written by the people themselves. I have seen pages clearly written by the person who uses their name to write them. These entries are a joke. Overall Wikipedia is a great concept and a great resource but surely it is not and should not become Facebook! The people who contribute are, overall, doing a great job. However, many of you do take yourselves far too seriously.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Full professor in respected university, founder of notable website, one of the editors-in-chief of a notable academic journal, author, coverage in secondary sources -- I don't think we're in any danger of descending to Facebook here. Opposed to merge because there are multiple sources of notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Not a full professor. DD is an associate professor. Founder of a website, yes. Editor (in chief?) of a non notable journal. Written a few books. Little academic achievement in peer reviewed journals. Vocal and, seemingly, a bit of a showman. Why exaggerate? Many fans, apparently. Probably a jolly entertaining fellow to have a beer with. Suggest set up a fan site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep One could argue about whether or not DD satisfies the requirements of WP:PROF (GoogleScholar produces very little but there seems to be quite a bit of coverage of him in conventional media sources, so that one could argue that criterion 1 of WP:PROF is satisfied). Regardless, I think that he does satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO as a notable media personality, a kind of Bill Nye the Science Guy media expert on literary matters. There is quite a bit of coverage of DD in conventional media that treats him in this fashion. NYT alone has a bunch of articles by him/about him/mentioning him, e.g. [75],[76],[77],[78],[79],[80],[81]. E.g., a quote from [82]: "Denis Dutton, a cherubic 56-year-old philosophy professor, has spent most of his professional career writing books on the theory of aesthetics and teaching Plato in New Zealand. But recently he has turned into a minor media celebrity, a cyberpublishing prophet who is invited to speak at e-book conferences from Los Angeles to New York." That describes the nature of his notability rather well. Nsk92 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Checked all your links. Nothing new. Comparison to Nye a very long stretch. I can understand the reticence to delete (or merge), especially amongst those who may have worked on the entry. However, I have the advantage that I don't know DD. I have multiple nationalities and have lived in several countries, so I am not parochial. To edit you have to be ruthless. Not notable. Delete or merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, DD is not as notable as Bill Nye. But WP:BIO does not require being a major media celebrity as a necessary condition for inclusion. being a "minor media celebrity" (using the words of NYT article) is certainly enough to satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. In this case we have a relatively rare situation where notability is not just implicitly implied but explicitly asserted ("minor media celebrity") by a reliable source, like the NYT. Regarding the "nothing new" comment, I am not sure what that means. The links I provided simply go to demonstrate that the subject is sufficiently frequently mentioned by significant media outlets as a sort of media pundit on literary matters. Regarding your other comments, I can claim the same "advantages" as you. I also have lived in several different countries, I also do not know DD. I have not edited his article here in Wikipedia and have no beef to grind in the matter, either for or against DD. Nsk92 (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Bill Nye is more a minor media celebrity than a major one. When there are so many gaps amongst the notables (or, if you will, the more notable) why waste time on the non notable (or, if you will, the less notable). Everybody is notable, to some extent. That's the idea behind Facebook. If you want a NZ based media celebrity who is not already in Wikipedia, how about Brian Edwards? [83] How about Judy Callingham? [84]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the only strong delete !votes here seem to be coming from one anon - the same one who proposed this for deletion. A quick check of Special:Contributions/203.214.15.223 is enlightening, to say the least - dangerously close to being a SPA. (SPA? The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a specific non-neutral agenda is clearly established. ... New users acting in good-faith will often begin to edit topics in which they have an interest. Such accounts will warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines.) I assume that there is good fait in this nomination, but the vehemence of it (mely Super Very Strong Delete with purple clusters, gold bars and silver bells???) is worrying to say the least, especially since =some of the comments on this page suggest that the nominator knows the area around Canterbury University pretty well (Bush Inn?). And indeed, how about Brian Edwards (New Zealand)? Grutness...wha? 22:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment- What vehemence? How about sticking to facts and arguments? Surely you recognise that 'Super Very Strong Delete with purple clusters, gold bars and silver bells' is merely a parody of some rather silly 'strong keep', and 'very strong keep'? If there is no intention of following Wikipedia's criteria, why develop those criteria in the first place? Many years ago I lived in Christchurch so I know my way around. I was even in the country and that city last year. Clearly, some of you have some strong emotional attachment to this entry, regardless of it not by a long shot meeting the criteria. That has well and truly been demonstrated in the discussion, to any disinterested party. Why are you fellows so emotional? A bit like someone threatening to take a toy away from a small child. One small correction, I simply raised the point why the DD entry. I didn't nominate. I wouldn't know how. Why do you fellows take this all so seriously? Lighten up! Thankyou Mr Gruntness for adding Dr Edwards!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Nsk92 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- So you're saying that "Super Very Strong Delete with purple clusters, gold bars and silver bells" isn't supposed to indicate some vehemence in your opinion? And that it is somehow less emotional that a simple "very strong keep"? I for one have no "strong emotional attachment" to this article whatsoever - my own comments were based purely on the subject's notability within his field, and are totally in keeping with Wikipedia's criteria on the notability of academics. There is nothing emotional about it - certainly not in comparison to an anon making nearly 20 edits to this AfD, plus a further dozen or so to the article itself and its talk page. But you're right, my apologies, you were not the original nominator. As to me adding Brian Edwards' article, it's been on the NZ Wikiproject's to do list for a long time, so it was about time. And the name is Grutness, not Gruntness. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
keep (changed from merge above) Nsk92 has convinced me that he passes the standard usually required at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators for keep. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Evaluating the notability claims Everyone is notable to some extent, in the same way that everyone is special. The important question to be determined in this discussion is, is DD notable within the commonly accepted meaning and within the Wikipedia criteria for a biographical entry? I suggest that he is not, so let’s examine the claims for the areas in which it is suggested he is notable.

First, is DD notable as an academic? No.

He has a rather pedestrian academic publishing record for an associate professor and is not recognised as having contributed any notable ideas in any area. This can be ascertained simply by looking at his own list of his most important publications. If this is disputed where is the leading scholar who says differently? The journal he founded and edited is not notable amongst academic journals. Indeed, it is more a magazine than a serious academic journal. If this is disputed where is the leading scholar who says differently?

Second, is DD is a notable web entrepreneur? No.

Admittedly Arts and Letters has a following but so do various community newspapers, specialist publications, webpages and blogs. Arts and Letters aggregates and provides links expected to be of interest to the webpage’s readership. In this respect, it is much like any of a very large number of local newspapers which consist largely of material created not for the newspaper but by others, elsewhere, and initially, for others. Also, not exactly unique as a webpage. Meritorious yes, but notable no.

Cybereditions is not a new or original idea, has not been a roaring success, does not have an impressive list of titles, and has been done better and more successfully by many others - Amazon.com, for example.

Climatedebatedaily is but one of a myriad of other such offerings and only started recently, at a time when that debate, in the mainstream at least, is well and truly over. In comparison, AnswersinGenesis [85] covers another area where rational debate has concluded but is more notable because a large polity in the USA seems wedded to the irrational side. It is also a leading site amongst Creationism exponents.

DenisDutton.com is not at all notable, there are an obscene number of such offerings, and blogs, on the web.

Third, is DD notable as a notable libertarian media commentator/activist? No.

There are plenty of notable libertarian media commentators/activist that are, and were, notable for other things before they became commentators. Gary Becker and Richard Posner, for example, to name just two. As for media commentator/activist, or commentator/activist, starting a few organisations of little if any note, there are so many people, even in NZ, who have done this that this is just not notable. Being on the board of RNZ is no big deal. Writing a report criticising alleged failings of a public broadcaster is also not notable. Allegations of bias and of failings made against a public broadcaster (and against private media) are so common in any country that they are certainly not, of themselves, notable.

Fourth, is DD notable for controversy or some controversy? Not really.

This is an area in which DD appears to have worked particularly hard in to try to become notable. The ‘bad writing’ contest which seems to be what DD is most well known for, did, apparently, ‘briefly become a cause célèbre in the world of academic theorists’, although still not sufficiently to make him notable.

On the topic of ‘bad writing’, criticism and controversy, now I am not going to claim that the following analysis is not a cheap shot but it does show that the game of simply critiquing is one anyone can play, and is rather easy. Take for example this sentence from the first paper in the online sample (Philosophy and Literature 29.1 (2005) 1-23) of the journal DD edits:

An evolutionary view is revolutionary, in that it rejects the taken-for-granted, the apparently (locally) true assumptions about human nature; it adopts a larger, more comprehensive vision; it makes possible genuine and valid interdisciplinarity, through a connected, coherent, cumulative, and relentlessly self-critical body of knowledge, and not the kind of interdisciplinarity that is just a dilettantish smorgasbord (a dash of chaos theory or quantum physics here or Lacanian pseudo-psychology there); and it historicizes, it provides a genuine historical vision, that takes into account both immediate and long-term causal factors.

First, the sentence is long, just as the Butler sentence is long. But more importantly, isn't it possible to make a similar point to the one 'George Meyer' makes in an episode of the Simpsons: "Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?" Don't "larger, more comprehensive vision", "genuine and valid interdisciplinarity", "connected, coherent, cumulative, and relentlessly self-critical body of knowledge", "dilettantish smorgasbord", "genuine historical vision", and "immediate and long-term causal factors", although grand sounding, involve rather vacuous descriptors? Do they tell the reader something or are they so vague that they are open to claim that they are just meaningless phrases that dumb people use to sound important? Isn't the sentence really equivalent to "I don't like Lacanian psychology and associated critical theory?" And if it is, so what? Does this qualify as academic scholarship? I think not.

Rather than publishing this paper in an obscure, non notable, journal, shouldn't the editor (DD) have nominated it for a 'bad writing' award?

Butler, in her NYT response to her award, accuses DD of using the 'bad writing' award to take pot shots at those whose political philosophies he takes exception to. The evidence suggests that she is right.

Now it so happens that I am far more likely to hold views more in common with DD than Butler (for example, I am not a great believer in relativism, and when I was a student I was frequently accused of being ‘to the right of Attila the Hun’, whatever that means, and I used to enjoy ridiculing the vacuous arguments of those with a 'left' orientation, a bit childish I admit, given they are such easy meat) but academic scholarship is supposed to involve more than "I don't like x". It is supposed to involve original contributions, original ideas, supported by tight arguments and evidence - more than simply the recycling of derivative ideas, and empty invective against ideas or people you don't like. Now just because my political persuasion is somewhat different, I think it only fair to give Butler her due, clearly she is one clever woman and although I do not have the requisite knowledge to understand the technical material she writes, I would be very surprised if it does not count as scholarship. If it does present serious ideas that one disagrees with, one should engage and critique them with serious analysis. If it is all nonsense one should demonstrate it. Simply saying it is all nonsense is rather lazy and is not good enough for academic scholarship.

Within critical theory schools, which I really know nothing about, I imagine that there is a deal of pretension. I think the efforts of Alan Sokal well and truly demonstrate that. (In fact I intend to get around to purchasing and reading his book, which I expect to enjoy.) But, to be fair again, there is considerable pretension throughout the 'Arts' and beyond. I am not blind to considerable pretension amongst those who have views similar to mine, and even occasionally I manage to see my own pretension. Being able to see flaws and pretension in your own arguments and in the arguments of those whose conclusions you agree with is an important part of critical thinking.

To summarise, DD is not a notable academic, not a notable web entrepreneur and not a notable libertarian media commentator/activist. He is not notable as a jack of several trades. Plenty of others, Herbert Simon for example, are notable in several different areas, so there is no need to make someone who is not notable in any area, notable, simply because they do more than one thing. In short, DD is just not notable.

And just because you like someone, or like their views, or think they are a jolly good fellow, does not, in itself, make them notable.

--203.214.15.223 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

An articulate and spirited expostulation of your views elaborated in the best Socratic tradition. Since you are clearly not going to win this battle, however, may I urge you to take your obviously prodigious talents and apply them usefully elsewhere to the project? Mr Dutton's meagre accomplishments seem beneath your intellectual dignity at this point and you will find, if you have not already, that Wikipedia has a serious problem discriminating between notable and newsmaking. This later is inevitably confounded with the former and that fact is that for most of us Delta editors a reference in the NYT or other rag is enough to dazzle us into a conviction of notability. This will be kept; it could later be merged. But it is highly unlikely to be deleted, no matter how vigorously you present the evidence adduced. Eusebeus (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Both the Arts&Letters website and DD himself are notable because they received substantial coverage by independent sources in mainstream meadia. The same cannot be said about an average blog or a facebook page. Look up WP:V. It is irrelevant for the purposes of deciding if DD satisfies WP:N if his notability is well deserved. The fact that substantial independent coverage exists is the primary relevant consideration. Here is a quote about DD from an article in Time magazine: "A few years ago, Mathew Gross, 32, was a free-lance writer living in tiny Moab, Utah. Rob Malda, 28, was an underperforming undergraduate at a small Christian college in Michigan. Denis Dutton, 60, was a professor of philosophy in faraway Christchurch, New Zealand. Today they are some of the most influential media personalities in the world. You can be one too."[86] When a Time article calls a person one of "the most influential media personalities in the world", that fact alone closes the case regarding whether or not that person satisfies WP:N and WP:BIO. But in this case there is more. There is a NYT article that I cited above that calls DD "a minor media celebrity, a cyberpublishing prophet who is invited to speak at e-book conferences from Los Angeles to New York." [87] Again, it is quite irrelevant if the judgement of the journalist who wrote this is correct or if DD has earned it. The fact that they wrote it is what counts for determining notability per WP:N and WP:BIO. A few other quotes from mass media. USA Today: "Human beings, by and large, don't know what they're interested in," says Denis Dutton, a professor in New Zealand who started and edits the highly acclaimed Arts & Letters Daily, perhaps the most eclectic, serendipity-driven Web site out there."[88] Here is another one from Guardian: "Arts & Letters Daily should be, Prof Dutton promised, "the place people would like to look at every day, just to see what was new in the world of the arts or ideas". The popularity it now enjoys would suggest he has been good to his energetic word. Today, the site claims more than 2.5 million page views a month - with Britain supplying the second-most users after the US - and a name recognition second to none among the internet's cornucopia of sites cobbled together by other academics, a majority of whose weblogs would typically measure reader numbers over an entire year in the high hundreds at best."[89]. Nsk92 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep To judge by what we personally think of the work would show ignorance of encyclopedic standards. We are laymen, and we accept the demonstrated judgment of the experts in the field (just as we accept the judgment of reviewers for books, of critics for actors). The main notability is in connection with Arts and Letters Daily, a very notable website . His own personal importance is not as great, tho we do generally hold that the editor in chief of a really notable scholarly periodical is notable. In this case he's co-editor in chief. and also co- founder. That is probably enough by itself in my opinion. Buy he was also editor of a scholarly journal,Philosophy and Literature -- a very controversial journal, but that makes him all the more important. Not really noted for his philosophy, but certainly for his academic journalism. What anyone here may think of his political or philosophical or literary views is irrelevant. Eusebeus and Nsk has it right. DGG (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply "To judge by what we personally think of the work would show ignorance of encyclopaedic [proportions]. We are laymen, and we accept the demonstrated judgment of the experts in the field (just as we accept the judgment of reviewers for books, of critics for actors). and What anyone here may think of his political or philosophical or literary views is irrelevant."

My points exactly, and what I have been consistently arguing throughout. Where we differ is on who we think are experts. Journalists are not experts simply by virtue of being journalists. They may be experts for other reasons. Newspapers, magazine, and various other media are by no means authorities. Although their believability does vary, even the best contain fanciful nonsense and are regularly deceived by those who have an agenda. Plenty of people earn a very good living principally for the services they provide in deceiving the media. I must admit that when I was young and more callow than I still am now, I used to think "if it is in the newspaper it must be true".

As for the often pseudo-scientific methods used to evaluate citations... They are, indeed, laughable. Eight or nine years ago a friend and I decided to have a look at which economics journals the Social Sciences Citation Index ranked as being the best. We were most amused to find that the clear and easy winner, based on their formula, was The Economist magazine! Now although The Economist is a good read, it too frequently contains nonsense and, more importantly, it is not even a journal. Any citation in The Economist should be given a relative weight close to zero. Following this discovery, we took the data on citations from articles in one journal to another (including those involving The Economist) and we used what appears to be the best method for numerical evaluation of citations to estimate weights of journals based on the implicit hierarchy in the data. In the journal ranking based on this, The Economist had dropped from sight. The ranking of journals at the top made sense and were relatively consistent with the ranking evaluations of experts. Unfortunately, even this apparently best numerical method is not foolproof. We tried it on some other disciplines and found that there were cases where the ranking results were complete nonsense.

On a similar point, in the past, when I have had to do a literature search, I tried, a couple of times, to use our librarian (I always prefer someone else to do the work where possible). The results were several inches thick of printouts, almost completely dross and the few nuggets found not worth the effort. As a consequence, if I do need to do something like that now I always do it myself. When people who don't know what they are doing try to evaluate things where they don't have the requisite skill, or knowledge, or capacity, the result is always amusing. Once I had the pleasure of watching someone who is colour blind sorting bottles into green ones and brown ones. Unfortunately, the bottles he was attempting to sort had already been sorted. They were all brown. He had seen other people doing similar sorting, and, although he is colour blind, he thought he had worked out how to do it. Most amusing!

As for who I try to convert, I don't try to convert anyone. I don't try to convince my opponents and don't try to convince the audience. Whether they are convinced or not is not entirely in my hands and if convincing them was my objective I would use sophistry, not rational argument, as sophistry is more effective. That said, I do hope to convince any independent, intelligent, disinterested person. Debate can be fun, as long as you don't take it, or yourself, too seriously. --203.214.3.114 (talk) 06:41, 1 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 and merged into the Portage, Indiana article. The consensus is that the article was not notable and not deserving its own entry. The parent article has a subsection on Parks, and so the information has been moved there. Keegan^talk 06:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robbins Pond

not a notable location Metanoid (talk, email) 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Probably aesthetically pleasing and scenic, but unfortunately there isn't a shred of notability - [90] and [91]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Aren't bodies of water inherently notable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. very good article and well written. Dwilso 06:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete As it stands its closer to the legendary List of Puddles than to notable bodies of water. Compare any one of thousands of Florida streetside overflow canals or Woop County slurry pits/quarries/sloughs. And with respect to Edwardian Script above it isn't very well written but that's incidental.Plutonium27 (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep A web search turned up a number of links including DNR reports and fishing reports. Seems notable if just barely. Hobit (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, this is either a hoax or a mistake--check the coordinates. Both sets lead to nowhere near Portage. Even if it were a real pond, it not notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment, it's a real pond [<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Robbins+Pond,+Portage,+Indiana&sll=-19.642588,-19.6875&sspn=125.908866,236.953125&ie=UTF8&ll=41.588422,-87.14716&spn=0.007736,0.014462&t=h&z=14&iwloc=addr&output=embed&s=AARTsJo2Apt8P-CY_78g0ONZl4zasq0kiw"></iframe>
<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Robbins+Pond,+Portage,+Indiana&sll=-19.642588,-19.6875&sspn=125.908866,236.953125&ie=UTF8&ll=41.588422,-87.14716&spn=0.007736,0.014462&t=h&z=14&iwloc=addr&source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a> see here]. The coordinates are for Decatur, Alabama though, about 600 miles away. So fix the coordinates if this is kept. No opinion as far as deletion/inclusion goes. Needs better indications of notability in reliable sources. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Portage, Indiana possibly? If not keep it and ask for notable references. ChessCreator (talk) 02:39, 4 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, author request. Canley (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PetroVietnam Twin Tower

No reliable third party sources. WP:BALL: I'm living in Vietnam, but there's no information about this building , PetroVietnam Twin Tower is described only on Wikipedia (Vietnamese version and English version) and a Internet forum. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Magnifier (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - It doesn't seem so notable, but it definitely isn't non-notable as per such. If this building is genuine, then it seems encyclopaedic and relevant. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 06:21, 25 March 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 --JForget 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unfinished Confessions

Non-notable bar band. The article was previously speedied [92], then it was immediately recreated, so it should be deleted and salted. No third-party verifiability presented at all. Qworty (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete A7 Band article that doesn't assert notability; I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources either. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
old-fashioned slow-boat-to-China delete. While this band certainly does look CSD-A7 deletable, the recreation of this article suggests that it has to go through a full AfD so that we can CSD-G4 all future recreations. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Complete failure of WP:MUSIC. I can't find any sources which can confirm the purported recognition. [93] and [94], [95]. No WP:RS. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete - No plays at last.fm! None at all! Def. not notable. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 06:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable per WP:MUSIC ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:41, 25 March 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, based on consensus that the subject and album fail to qualify notability guidelines. Keegan^talk 06:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zatopeks

Completing unfinished nom for Beeblbrox (talk · contribs), apparently Twinkle choked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unbiased Delete to the artist and album, neither of which appear to be notable per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep per [96] Sputnikmusic is somewhat reliable, as is, minorly, [97] jersey beat. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete - Last.fm has very few plays, and doesn't seem to be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asenine (talk • contribs)

""Keep"". They are a notable UK band, relevant to US labels that have worked with them. Also, sources such as Last FM or similar are not always reliable in the punk genre. - JoeThird —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeThird (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally, the nom shows up. Sorry all, had problems with my ISP. The otters put it as well as I could've anyway. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
delete - no proof of any notability whatsoever. They opened for Tuuli? So did my co-worker's daughter! In fact, I have a friend who necked with Courtney Love twice, is Sarah McLachlan's first cousin, and appeared in a movie with Michael Ironside. Meanwhile these guys have done some split-releases, and compilations on non-notable labels, played shows here and there, and that seems to be it. There are no reliable sources. Utterly fails WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete As per nom.Clearly fails WP:N Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Fails WP:N, but most likely because it's punk. Mark article requiring sources. ChessCreator (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - If you sincerely feel that the article fails notability criteria, then shouldn't your !vote be delete? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:29, 4 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. Grand master ka 03:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avi Zolty

The article shows no evidence that the subject is notable due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. I don't think that such sources exist for this topic. Guest9999 (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per A7 as tagged. This AfD is unnecessary; the creator still has not asserted notability. Dethme0w (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A7. No need for AfD. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:58, 25 March 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. DS (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raljoball

Non-notable game with no references played by one group of friends. Somno (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am currently working to add refrences and improve the page. I haven't put much time into editing, and am still learning the process. The game is growing popularity for college students. Ohio State students are implementing it as a club sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyman103v (talk • contribs)
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of notability DJLayton4 (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no chance of real sources on this one. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 05:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - No notability [98]. Also, WP:MADEUP. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete no notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Dumb college kids doing dumb things. No one cares, really. Delete JuJube (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait I would give it a few days. The author said it's being improved. But for now, delete. Mm40 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFT. No reliable independent coverage. It's about as notable as Bongwarriorball. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ Delete considerably less notable than 43-Man Squamish. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless some sources appear. A search turns up very little indeed. Hobit (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Made up in school. Not notable. Maxa megalon 2000 05:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait It was not just some game made up in school one day or anything. It has been played for about 4 years now. It's starting to get pretty serious and people have asked why there isn't any website for it. It is most commonly played by high school and college students. User:Andyman103v 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: The above is the author of the page in question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep It sounds like a pretty serious game and should be given credit. The author put in a lot of work. User:M102046 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: The above is a single-purpose user who tried to delete all the "delete" votes [99] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - clearly WP:NFT, no serious google hits. Mitico (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait I say we wait to see how the author of the page handles creating the rest of the page.IIIhomicide (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The above is also a brand-new, single-purpose account. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete due to failure of verifiability/lack of reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete—non-notable variant of Four square. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- If so, then maybe it deserves a one-line mention in that article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Possibly. That wouldn't be unacceptable. Although, it may appear out of place. One of the unreliable primary sources would have to suffice. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    - The point being, that's the most it should get, if it's a simple variation on a game that already has an article. We used to play Monopoly with house rules, like many have, and house rules are discussed on the Monopoly page, not in their own separate article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep- Raljoball is a growing new sport. It is currently be spread around Ohio State University and Penfield High School.Greg4444 (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: User:Greg4444 was created today. The user's only edits have been to this page, to the Raljoball talk page, to the user page of User:Raiders fan6969 (see below) and the vandalizing of User:Baseball Bugs talk page. It appears to be an SPA. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, no independent sources to show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep- It looks like an interesting sport and it is really not any sort of variant of four-square. There is an actual link to a website, so it could probably be acceptable to keep it.Raiders fan6969 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note User:Raiders fan6969 was created today. Its only edit has been to this page. It appears to be an SPA created to comment here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete no sources (indeed no Google hits other than YouTube, Myspace, Wikipedia, and forums). Fails WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NFT. Hut 8.5 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. "people have asked why there isn't any website for it" - so then go and get a website provider and create a page, Wikipedia isn't here to be your web provider. Corvus cornix_talk 18:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind that the mere presence of a website about something doesn't necessarily make it either notable or reliable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  - This is true. Corvus cornix_talk 20:37, 28 March 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. Singu larity 00:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KaLiNco

Non-notable autobiography. This rapper does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. I was unable to locate any reliable sources that discuss the subject, and none are present. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete This guy is non-notable. The article was created by User:Doopa0ne. And, the user has not made any contribution outside this article. Fails WP:MUSIC. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Fails notability guidelines. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Being the son of an ambassador isn't notable. Having two mixtapes released on the internet isn't notable. Only 122 google hits doesn't look promising. The only reference provided doesn't even mention him. Marasmusine (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Wikipedia has really become ridiculous and lost what it is set out to do. It is meant to spread information, that is true, throughout the world. Now, KaLiNco is a real rapper, the son of an ambassador, and has performed at events before. A wikipedia page is in order here. Just because he isn't on MTV.com or something does not mean that people should not be able to find out information about him on wikipedia. He has a large following, and people would be interested. Marasmusine has 123 google hits, I have 733. I personally find it horrid and appalling that if KaLiNco were to be put on mtv.com, all of a sudden his page would be noteworthy, just like that. It is noteworthy now. Do the right thing. Wikipedia is now doing the opposite of what they have set out to do by censoring legitimate and important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpgorbosjr (talk • contribs) — Gpgorbosjr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - The above user's heart is in the right place, but, he/she is failing to comprehend, or is simply not aware of, wikipolicy per WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTE. We need reliable second and third party information about the musician. See here: [100]. There is none. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Gpgorbosjr's evaluation of Wikipedia may be reasonable, but not for the reason he/she states. IMO it has already been overrun with articles not in keeping with WP:NOT. --- Taroaldo (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Response I understand that Wikipedia is trying to root out people who want to abuse the fine service it provides. However, I can assure you KaLiNco is not one of those people. He is a legit artist, has performed in his career, has many fans, and sells his music although sadly not yet through a label. He will also have a website launching soon, which is not run by him and therefore cannot be considered bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpgorbosjr (talk • contribs) — Gpgorbosjr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Junior

Vanity, no evidence of notability. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:11, 25 March 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 SNOW-delete.. WODUP 06:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evan D'Angeles

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Evan D'Angeles

absolutely non-notable, COI vanity piece twice put up for speedy, uploader (subject/author of article) removed the tags. Okay, we'll do this the long way Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable actor. Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable and trying real hard to hide it. Stakhanov (talk)
Delete. See also Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Terraxos (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete and consider imposing a block. User not only removed the tags, he expanded this from a declaratory statement to a full-blown self-promotional piece.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- He's still at it more than two and a half hours later, merrily ignoring all attempts at contact. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete - Bunch of garbage created to self-promote. Enigma ^msg! 06:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - self promotion, and entirely unreferenced. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:37, 25 March 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, redirect to Memorandum. Singu larity 00:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Memorandom

Non-notable music group. No independent sources provided. Does not meet WP:BAND Mattinbgn\^talk 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If deleted, recreate as redirect to Memorandum as plausible misspelling. No stance on the actual deletion of this article. -- saberwyn 02:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. (Or redirect per Saberwyn above.) Terraxos (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as I originally nominated. Original "assertions" of importance are not verifiable and highly suspect. This band is not even close to being notable and has no place at Wikipedia. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
Delete - not even in AllMusic.com, and that is saying something :) -- Mark Chovain 11:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment and question: I've been looking at this article for a few days now, trying to decide if I wanted to nominate it for deletion. My question is, are they signed to a label? Who released their two releases? Corvus cornix_talk 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried finding that out myself. The second CD is apparently available from Amazon, but they don't list the label. I suspect it is an independent release. The UPC is 6890760490616, if that helps anyone.

This says, "Tunnel Vision is available from all good record stores through Green Distribution (MGM).". The link itself is a PR release so not reliable, but does anybody know what Green Distribution is? Corvus cornix_talk 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess, this -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for that link. Based on that, I'm going to have to say delete, they don't have a record label, Green Distribution is just a distributor for bands that have released their own material. Corvus cornix_talk 18:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails this. ~EdGl 23:26, 29 March 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 as full of lies. DS (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Ussuri republic

Apparent hoax. The 'references' provided do not mention any 'Ussuri republic' or 'Battle of the Ussuri River'; Google does not return any results for either apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Reading the article for Mikhail Frunze, it seems quite unlikely he was in the Russian Far East in 1920, since he was involved in battles elsewhere at that time. This calls the accuracy of the whole article into question. (It was created in its entirety on January 18 by User:Ussri Bobby.) If the information in it cannot be verified, it should be considered a hoax and deleted. Terraxos (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete G3 (blatant hoax/misinformation), so tagged. I couldn't find any information about this supposed republic either; the utter lack of sources seems to indicate that this is indeed a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Hoax! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is ridiculous! This article is a hoax and this article has survived on Wikipedia for two months! The creator of this article (User:Ussri Bobby) should be blocked from editing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Blocking the user may be kind of pointless, however as he/she as been inactive since January 18 2008. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 06:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Lets get rid of it, but it is clear what it purports to say, so it is not blatant nonsense, & not a speedy. 08:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable and almost certainly a hoax. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. A hoax.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, 25 March 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. Singu larity 00:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Knapp

Book advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable book. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non notable person. Non notable book advertisements. No Wikipedia:Reliable sources in article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable guy. There is no reliable source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice for recreation if notability can be established. But, at present, there seems to be no sources on the subject really independent of him. The ISKCON website is the only one I think really independent of him, and it probably doesn't qualify as sufficient for these purposes. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:NOTE (non-notable) and WP:RS (no reliable sources). Also, his works are self published, and neither famous nor notable. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non notable person. Non notable book advertisements. No Wikipedia:Reliable sources in article. Thanks.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:54, 26 March 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 consensus is that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Welch

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bill Welch

Non notable mayor ButtonMyShirtImGay (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, well below WP:BIO standards (mayor of municipality pop. 38,000). Nominator is an WP:SPA with a name violating WP:IU, but the nomination is valid. --Dhartung | Talk 02:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, he's very well noted in State College politics. Many people have recently been upset over his announcement over the same sex marriage and has receive quite a bit of news coverage. The article should stay.--StateCollege102 (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, To quote WP:BIO, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." And Welch passes the test of significant coverage. The population threshold is the figure for presuming notability, even if the significant coverage can't immediately be shown. --Eastmain (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - As a politician in a town with a large student population I feel that this mayor is notable, despite his small precinct. The article is sufficiently sourced and he is well covered enough to make that possible. DJLayton4 (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:46, 25 March 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 close Closure made by nominator, who forgot to place closure rationale at the top so I'm doing it for them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feminist historians (United Kingdom)

Virtually no content, no sources, and only assertion of notability is the claim that it is important. Very few edits in three years. Redirect to feminist history. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close If you wanted this to be redirected, AfD is not the place to go. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Afd isn't for redirecting articles. You can do that yourself. Withdraw and redirect it yourself. Remember to always be bold. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously You are, of course, right. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 25 March 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 all. Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shyne Records, Zeo (rapper)‎, Zeo discography, and the surrounds

Nonnotability and nonverifiablity bordering on hoax. Created by a new account user:Yung Smile which look like an old nuisance to me, who creates various fictional and noonotable rap artists for quite some time. `'Míkka>t 01:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete all per G3 as non-notable/hoax (except the label, already tagged as A7). A search for "Shyne Records" + "Zeo" turns up nothing outside of Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete and tagged as A7(Shyne Records). Unremarkable company. No assertion of importance. (additional comment - Contrib history of creator may indicate WP:COI in several related articles.) --- Taroaldo (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete all, thank you for playing. Good bye. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:36, 25 March 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 - Philippe | Talk 21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Safe hands

I was going to tag this article for speedy deletion but I decided to play it safe and list it here. The band seems to fail the WP:MUSIC criteria, making them non-notable. They're not assigned to a major record label and they don't even have their own website, only a MySpace page. On the other side ^Contribs|@ 01:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete and tagged as such - it has been speedy deleted once and I see nothing in the recreation that enables it to meet WP:MUSIC. There is also a hint of WP:COI from the name of the creator, User:Safeanth. TerriersFan (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as noted above. -- Taroaldo (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The case for:The case for keeping this page alive, basically I believe notability is covered for by the fact that Safe Hands have had press coverage in media works such as internet music sites, print street press and newspaper. Some of which I have now referenced the atricle back to, more of which I am trying to uncover as we speak. Also another criteria of notability is covered in the fact that Safe Hands contains members of previous acts of notoriety, Lights Out Berlin and Immune. Both of which I will gladly create an article for in the near future if all should go to plan. Hope you will take these factors into account before deleting. But I also do understand that you guys are just doing your job and appreciate you "doing what you gotta do". Thanks.Safeanth (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete The sources added don't seem to meet the criteria for reliable sources; MySpace is definitely not reliable. Otherwise, this band seems to fail WP:MUSIC entirely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:50, 25 March 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. Singu larity 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Hunt

Article is about an actor, but no page on IMDB; unverifiable in reliable sources and fails WP:BIO. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless reliable sources are provided to show notability. Terraxos (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, no refs per WP:RS – ukexpat (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - see Wikipedia:Help desk#Daniel_Hunt, Actor. Subject explains that a former student wrote article. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - If an actor doesn't even appear on imbd (not that this is the best meter stick), there is some questionable notability a foot. I can't find any reliable sources detailing anything, so, as it stands, this is a failure to meet WP:BIO. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I don't think IMDb would cover a theatre actor but we need some references. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 27 March 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. Consensus is that WP:WEB is not met.--Kubigula (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wind Repertory Project

Website which fails any fair test of notability, be it WP:WEB or WP:N. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep The article cites one source which seems to be reliable. The article also does no harm to anyone and might be useful to a few. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Please see WP:HARMLESS the only non-primary source cited is a blog, http://www.musicedmagic.com/blogtales-from-the-podium/the-wind-repertory-project.html which does not meet our guideline for reliable sources. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete it sounds interesting, but not yet notable. No evidence it's had any reliable coverage anywhere. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I swear that there was a speedy deletion criteria for websites like this, but can't seem to find it. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no sources and this site is less than 4 months old. How could it possibly achieve notability in such a small time? So delete per WP:Notability.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Metrics

non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - The article reads too much like an advertisement, but the references justify it, especially the Ann Powers quote. The article needs to be wikified and peacock language needs to be taken out.

Disagreement - Website is well-documented for notability, as witnessed by multiple references included on page Wkreth (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Very good article, but needs to be lengthened. Dwilso 06:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As per requested, removed and toned-down the "peacock" language Wkreth (talk) 01:22, 26 March 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. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OEDN

non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 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, fails the relevant notability guideline due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Travel International

non notable company Gray5512 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete not notable, article reads like an advertisement for the company. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. But needs more References. Dwilso 06:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete no evidence of RS coverage, it's just another travel agency. Don't think the owner's award, even if it were veriable, establishes company notability per WP:CORP TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added more references. SherAbdul8 (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Teh references added ar only references to their own web site. 13:42, 30 March 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. — Scientizzle 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psychopedia

non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 736 thousandsths and 19 sites linking inwards demonstrates it's pretty non-notable Ohconfucius (talk) 04:15, 26 March 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. — Scientizzle 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FeedZero

non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Does not meet WP:NOTE policy. - Ctempleton3 (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I see blog posts and whatnot, but no articles about the site, so no reliable sources = no notability in this case -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 26 March 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. — Scientizzle 17:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The League of Laboring Poets

non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete as quickly as possible. The site doesn't even have any content.Helixweb (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no independent sources nor evidence of notability. --D. Monack | talk 15:12, 25 March 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. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MyAnimeList

non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Has some notability [101] and looks to be a growing active community. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Article has references to establish notability. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 01:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep per AlbinoFerret, also, editor who nominated for AfD seems to be spamming quite a bit of AfD nominations. Kei-clone (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: A good number of the independent references that seek to establish notability do not seem to be reliable sources -- only the last two appear to qualify, but I'm not certain those are enough per WP:WEB. Perhaps someone with more experience with applying that guideline should chip in. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:26, 25 March 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. — Scientizzle 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NiceTorrent

non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete article is about a website that is new and not notable. NiceTorrent is less than a month old, created March 7th 2008. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:WEB. No coverage, not even trivial. No awards. DarkAudit (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

merge or delete : merge with BitTorrent (protocol) if not then delete it . may become a reason for more such torrent articles . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge or Delete I agree with entry above. OneHappyHusky (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete and oppose merge - there's no coverage and wikipedia isn't a directory service so there's nothing to merge -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete I think this article screams of WP:CRYSTAL. It claims the site is one of the most popular torrent sites, but the site has only been up since March 7, 2008? No wonder it's not notable, this article is several months premature, if it ever returns at all. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball to what might be notable in the future. Red Phoenix (Talk) 15:34, 29 March 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. — Scientizzle 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ShareSource.org

non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. No indication of any coverage by reliable, verifiable, and independent sources. No indication of any awards won. DarkAudit (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:NOT#DIR. I fail to see notability. I believe the creator, also the principal editor, to be working in good faith, but he/she has claimes it deserves equal treatment to the Sourceforge entry merely because the service performs a similar function. Throwing more references into the article does not appear to be increasing it's notability. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 13:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Alexa rank in the 1.16 millionths appears to confirm its non-entity status Ohconfucius (talk) 04:18, 26 March 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 template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socialroster

non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per A7. This article does not indicate notability. AfD is not necessary. Dethme0w (talk) 08:04, 25 March 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lip Service Radio

non notable website, service. Gray5512 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

~~Speedy~~ keep Seems notable enough to me, given the multiple reliable sources. Also, will someone take a look at this user's contributions? I try to assume good faith whenever possible, but when a new user suddenly comes out of nowhere and makes a bunch of en masse AfD discussions with the same rationale... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutral, Still unsure why the article switches subjects to "BlogRadio" then back to "Lipradio". Dwilso 06:23, 25 March 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. With few exceptions, the "keep" arguments are weak, as noted by WLU at the end, and do not address the notability guideline issues that have been highlighted by several editors. Sandstein (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battlestar Wiki

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Battlestar Wiki

Articles for deletion/Battlestar Wiki (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Battlestar Wiki (3rd nomination)

Fails WP:WEB. The research indicated is only an article from a PhD CANDIDATE and was not published in any journal. As for the AOL mention, if AOL was to have a page detailing the top 20 fan sites for every TV show out there, 99% of them would be rejected outright as NN. It should be considered a link directory, which means it cannot be used to satisfy #1 Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete There are a couple of notability assertations here, but I still don't think it's enough to meet notability guidelines for a website, especially given that the sources are either primary or trivial in nature. On top of that, two different articles on this subject have been deleted before -- though I don't think it's time to break out the saltshaker yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make it a speedy candidate as "recreation of deleted content" or is this version of the article different from the previously deleted ones?--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Last version was deleted in July '06; this version was created in November '07. I doubt this is the same content that got deleted before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:RS. This article has been deleted twice at AFD already, and I don't think its claim to notability has become any better since then. Terraxos (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as recreated content, or delete regularly: I'm sure it's an utterly groovy site, but Wikipedia is not a web directory or a directory of wiki's. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
Comment/Observation: By the logic noted above, then you should probably take a look at The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5, which has absolutely no citations of any kind (aside from a comment from JMS and a note from TV Guide) yet has seemed to have avoided WP's chopping block literally since that article's inception in 2006. Further, Memory Alpha is written more like a POV puff-piece than anything else, with a citation to being a noted website on "Sci Fi Channel's weekly newsletter" (of which they have a one candidate per week, or 52 a year, which does add up -- and probably 90% of them aren't "notable" either, to boot). Also, Nick's comments about the AOL mention are dubious at best. Unless he can prove with empirical evidence that AOL has run numerous "Top 10" or "Top 20" fansite lists, then there's no reason that the AOL reference to the website is invalid. Since he made the assertion with the word if, he's FUD-ing/weaseling out of his point a bit, at least from an objective point of view. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Additional comment/disclaimer: I should probably note that I am involved with the Battlestar Wiki as its project leader. Further, I believe that all three sites (BW and the two I mentioned) do warrant entires on Wikipedia. (This is the problem with deletionists, you aim to get rid of all the good stuff when you should really be putting your efforts in developing articles to higher quality standards. But I may be speaking to those who don't care to listen on that issue, so I'll save my breath.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 14:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Joe, you might want to look into WP:WAX; other pages are irrelevant, but you are welcome to review WP:AFD and nominate the other page for deletion. WLU (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment I'm aware of WP:WAX and all the other WP:ACRONYMS that people refer to (and acronyms of its nature should really be avoided, since it's very much "newspeakian"). But anyway, were I to nominate those other two articles for deletion, I would more than likely be labeled as a "disruptor" of Wikipedia for trying to prove a point and some other worthless string of acronyms. Having been an active administrator on Wikipedia, I am fully aware of all the double standards employed by the cliques (glorified "World of Warcraft" clans, really, and that's sad) vying for domination of their POV on Wikipedia, which really goes against the spirit of "neutral" point of view. My point in bringing up those two articles is really to point out the fact that Wikipedia's rules are not universally or consistently applied as they absolutely need to be... But the two articles I bring up -- primarily Memory-Alpha -- can be deleted under the same reasoning as explained in this very "AFD". Now, the question remains, do I want to run Memory-Alpha through AFD? No. Because I believe the article deserves to exist on Wikipedia. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 05:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And my reply would be as my initial comment - review WP:AFD and nominate it for deletion. Fortunately the acronym is wikilinked, so you can review it. WLU (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. The link for the wiki is on the article Battlestar Galactica. I would suggest a redirect to Battlestar Galactica#External links. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Joe Beaudoin. DrWho42 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above. Mikebar (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no real assertion of notability. A bare mention on one independent site, a whole bunch of citations to blogs and the battlestar wiki itself, a conference presentation (?) privately published and apparently no mention in any actual journal or book of conference proceedings, and a broken (?) link to the AOL external site. That last one, were it working, might let it pass WP:N, depending on its contents. If it is working, and the only mention is the one sentence, which lists numerous other sites, then I withdraw my previous tentative support. Aside from the one possibly viable source, I see no assertion of independent interest in reliable sources. After 3 deletions, I'd say salt the earth; recreation can occur on a sub-page and be moved after an admin clears it. WLU (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The link to AOL isn't broken and hasn't been changed since the AFD template was added, so why didn't you take the trouble to click it and see for yourself? For the record, the AOL link lists 10 (not 20, as suggested earlier) Battlestar Galactica fan sites that stand out in some way (like "Best image resource"). Battlestar Wiki is mentioned as being "Most comprehensive". Every site is on a separate page with a screenshot and some 50 words about the site. --217.121.125.222 (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The link is working now, not sure why it wasn't in the past. BW still gets three lines. Insufficient in my mind. WLU (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep As I said above, the AOL link is much better than most people here seem to assume. Toton's paper was presented at MiT5, an event organized by (you guessed it) MIT (this is more or less coincidental, however: MiT5 stands for Media in Transition 5), and was published on MIT's web site. Toton is indeed a PhD candidate, but that's not as meaningless as the nominator suggests (people who aren't believed to have PhD potential aren't accepted as a PhD candidate). Also, the article has been expanded recently to mention Bradley Thompson's involvement and Wikia's buyout attempt. --217.121.125.222 (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Toton's paper isn't published aside from the on-line vesion, indicating no editorial oversight once presented, and wasn't considered worth printing in any anthology that came out of the conference. Many of the sources are to blogs and battlestar wiki itself. Given the AOL link, it's borderline meeting WP:WEB, but nudging to delete. WLU (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete it really isn't all that notable, plus its been deleted before.--UESPArules (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The page reads like a very good justification for having it as an external link at the Battlestar Galactica page, which it is already, but with no description, so... is there a "merge into external link description?" Quoting first paragraph:

External links

Battlestar Wiki - an encyclopedic reference for topics related to the Battlestar Galactica fictional universe, both the original and re-imagined series.

Keep. Battlestar Wiki is a well-known wikia. Tremendously popular among fans of BSG, which includes millions. -- Crevaner (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Joe. Ausir (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. The fact that a notable member of the show's writing/production staff uses it for "official communiques" suggests that it has a more-than-trivial connection to the show. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Joe and Spencerian (on Talk:Battlestar Wiki#Deletion). It is very notable and should exist equally with Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia. Blue cadet84 (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - to everyone saying 'keep per Joe', I can't see what Joe's argument is. If it's 'other pages are just as bad', this is explicitly pointed out as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically under what about article x? and further expanded in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. This is not a clear argument to keep the page. The relevant criteria are found at the pages on notability and notability of web content. Specifically, articles must have been the subject of multiple non-trivial and independent published works, won a well-known independent award, or distributed by a medium independent of creators. WLU (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is his argument. Let me quote it from him: This is the problem with deletionists, you aim to get rid of all the good stuff when you should really be putting your efforts in developing articles to higher quality standards. But I may be speaking to those who don't care to listen on that issue, so I'll save my breath. He's calling us deletionists. My argument is below. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep - I don't know, it seems like it could be notable and worthy of keeping, but it's not really evident right now. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It's worth noting that this article has been deleted twice before. Has anything changed since then? Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:42, 31 March 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. Tiptoety ^talk 18:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pat McGinn

unreferenced sub-stub article on a non-notable local district councillor; fails WP:BIO. It has been tagged as a stub for two years, but unchanged for 18 months. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Although google news results aren't hot, a web search hits a ton of things that look like news articles but aren't on the news search. That meets WP:BIO. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Perhaps there is a lot of interesting news about mr. McGinn, but based on the information (mayors change regularly, and there are a LOT of councilors in Ireland) it does not meet WP:BIO. It seems unlikely that it will move from this state as it's been around for more than 2 years. If someone finds something notable, they can create the page again. BananaFiend (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete: A minor official from one of the major parties. Furthermore, the article is a substub, consisting merely of an identification. That's something for a phone book, not an encyclopedia. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete nothing actually notable.DGG (talk) 13:38, 30 March 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 article to concurrency (road) (seems to have been done already), Delete the list. Tikiwont (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong-way concurrency

Unsourced. Tagged Unencylopedic for a six weeks with no changes to the article. Pure Trivia and worse a neologism. A google for "wrong-way concurrency" site:gov shows ZERO hits. KelleyCook (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete These things happen a lot in U.S. highways; I know of one less than an hour from me. There is very little chance that this could be expanded beyond a dicdef, as no reliable sources seem to use the term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't look like this'll ever make WP:N, sadly. Transwiki to Wiktionary, maybe? Also suggest listing List of wrong-way concurrencies with this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the list per your suggestion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and because I didn't make this clear, I favor deletion if a transwiki doesn't happen. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

~~Fails WP:NOTE but is a suitable term for a dictionary. Delete here and Transwiki to Wiktionary with appropriate Wiktionary formatting. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)~~

IMO the subject has info which goes beyond a dictionary def. --- Taroaldo (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: There is also a dictionary definition at Wiktionary. Also, the article does have more than a dictionary definition and has the potential for more. I change my vote to Weak Keep. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Its way beyond a dicdef, and may be known under other names, its the concept not the name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I can see both sides. There may be issues with some criteria, but somehow the topic seems worthy. Perhaps a merge with Concurrency (road). --- Taroaldo (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete/merge into Concurrency (road) - insufficiently notable term for an article in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge into Concurrency (road). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Smerge a small discussion into concurrency (road), delete the list. This is one of those things that roadgeeks (I'm cured, honest) find endlessly fascinating, everybody else, not so much. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost ramp (second nomination). I would suggest a transwiki if there were a Wikia for roads & highways (there is one for UK roads only). --Dhartung | Talk 07:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete: It's trivia for highway spotters. The explanation is obvious, the incidence is not remarkable nor significant in its own right, and it does not lead to a phenomenon that is meaningful in other contexts. It's trivia. "List of roads with bumpy and then smooth and then bumpy surfaces" would be about as significant. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge with concurrency (road) or weak keep if that outcome isn't acceptable. Has a small bit of notability, but not enough for an article IMO and he target is fine size-wise. Keep the list. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete the list; redirect the term. It's an interesting bit of trivia but can be covered in concurrency. --NE2 23:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

RedirectConcurrency or delete: If we forward this to concurrency then the article does not hoave to be delete. This may sound un-encyclopedia or WP:CRUFT--Freewayguy (Webmail) 00:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge to concurrency (road). I'd be willing to host the list on my personal website (keeping the list page under the GFDL), which has some other roadcruft it'd fit in with. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge per Hobit. Keep the list, merge the info to a new section on Concurrency (road). --MPD ^{T / C} 02:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge to a new section in the Concurrency (road) article as this subject appears notable enough for coverage but not enough for its own article. - Dravecky (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge to concurrency (road) and keep the list, basically what MPD01605 said --Lukobe (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge wrong-way concurrency with concurrency but delete the list. IMO, it's far too common an occurrence to have a list of all of them. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge wrong-way concurrency with concurrency and delete the list. My views echo the ones stating that there are so many - if this is seen, expansion can get out of control. — master son^{T - C} 21:29, 31 March 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. Singu larity 00:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rima Anabtawi

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Does not assert importance or significance. Taroaldo (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Look her up, she is important enough to be included because of the work she has done for the palestinian people, Al-Awda is a very famous organization and her work has won her recognition around the world.

Delete - Fails WP:N and there are no references. Macy (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, article fails to establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutral. Stricktly speaking, there is one ref, there just wasn't a reflist; I've fixed that. However, my searching hasn't led me to anything useful quickly, or even looking like I'll find anything useful. It seems to me that someone as important as this would be more visible online. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutral plenty of references on-line if you know where to look. Google News gives nothing but Ixquick gives lots - the difference being the lots are primarily in leftwing activist press and in pro-Palestinian websites. I don't think Al-Awda (organisation) currently has an article (as opposed to Al-Awda the concept). If not then perhaps the editor who created this page might be better starting there? In the meantime, suggest going slowly on the deletion as the issues may be solved by editing. Nick Connolly (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- *kindly relist or extend the time limit for this discussion .. me too Neutral a lot has to be done before deleting , this person mentioned is of high notability , so i think that we must wait for more members to comment . i need some time before coming to a decision . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Time alloted for discussion is sufficient. Waffling endlessly serves no purpose. --- Taroaldo (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

- - well i see that the overall comment seems to be towards delete , so i think saving it for some more time may or may not make much difference .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment the deletes are based primarily on a failure to establish notability. However it is a noted issue that Wikipedians may find it difficult to establish notability for persons in (or associated with) developing countries. While the exact nature of Palestine is a matter of great dispute, it is, in effect not unlike a developing country in relation to establishing notability.
    - Comment This is a good point, notability in war torn or developing countiries is difficult, internet isnt a common thing and major news stations and TV dont follow closely the stories and people in those areas.
Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. Terraxos (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Lacks notability.--RyRy5 talk 07:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Doing good work is good, but nothing seems to make her frequently commented upon by others, which is the measure of fame necessary here. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, does not appear to be much in the way of references from reliable third-party organisations available here. I agree with User:Utgard Loki above that good work is good, but that doesn't mean she's notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
Delete The organization may be notable and she could be covered there, but there's no evidence from RS of her notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep She is notable in alternative new sources, it is not unsurprising that big news organizations do not cover that sort of news. You would not find articles on notable relief workers at Fox news, just like you dont hear about all the events that happen there that are notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.68.152.12 (talk)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin closure), deleted as (G11: Blatant advertising) by User:Orangemike. Whpq (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel Yak

Concerns about notability - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not myspace. Highly promotional article about a 20 year-old professional arm-wrestler with the majority of the bio would fail WP:V Ohconfucius (talk) 04:26, 26 March 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.

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Jason Eckert

[edit] Jonas Salvador

[edit] Kady Malloy

[edit] Pickles Park

[edit] Acalanes Lacrosse

[edit] Indie-electro

[edit] Scott Gross

[edit] Soumaya Keynes

[edit] Imagine In Cornice

[edit] Low C

[edit] K3407

[edit] Defiance Regional Medical Center

[edit] Peanut Williams

[edit] Deep C

[edit] Dhaka Shishu Hospital

[edit] People Paddle

[edit] Good Samaritan Hospital (Suffern)

[edit] Good Samaritan Hospital (Los Angeles)

[edit] Good Samaritan Hospital (Cincinnati)

[edit] Ghale bakshian

[edit] Rawlings legacy

[edit] Sharkula

[edit] Stephen Svanholm

[edit] Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Goswami Maharaj

[edit] Take You There (Donnie Klang song)

[edit] Misses Glass

[edit] Krishna Dharma

[edit] Bexley News

[edit] Laura Belli

[edit] Emmanuel Manolakakis

[edit] Carlist Rieekan

[edit] Seen The Snow

[edit] Thomas Moorcroft

[edit] 2008 Fortune Market 250

[edit] Conference National 1979-80 Results

[edit] Digimon World Online

[edit] Noelle Brooks

[edit] Dylan and Hayden Whitbread

[edit] Bigger Than Us

[edit] Bearcat Sports Complex

[edit] Alien and Predator Timeline

[edit] Kyle Breutigam

[edit] Anglish

[edit] Nancy Run Fire Co.

[edit] Words: types of definition

[edit] Coons age

[edit] Elicia Hughes

[edit] MyAnimeList

[edit] Cheer Zone

[edit] Eargasm

[edit] Yavneh Day School (Cincinnati, Ohio)

[edit] 63G

[edit] Robert Cook (programmer)

[edit] Abdulfattah Jandali

[edit] Elena Delgado (Without a Trace)

[edit] Deep Crow

[edit] Stephen King (soccer)

[edit] B K Birla Centre For Education

[edit] NACwall

[edit] Manufacturing Execution System

[edit] McLeods Daughters - The Second Season

[edit] Bookworm Short Stories

[edit] Sirat al-Mustaqim

[edit] Regal Lager

[edit] Ralph Dasen

[edit] Matlock United F.C.

[edit] Bill Clinton's sex scandals

[edit] Concrete Hart

[edit] Seishin Management Suite

[edit] Aunty betty project

[edit] Dear Jayne

[edit] List of Turkish people

[edit] Saint Jacob Bridge

[edit] Human quality

[edit] Chris Bores

[edit] Šempeter Bridge