Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 7

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 either keep or delete, which by precedence defaults to keep. there are good suggestions towards renaming this, which is for the talkpages, not for AfD. No prejudice against a renom if nothing changes/moves to address deletion concerns in 1-3 months time. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of omitted Bible verses

List of omitted Bible verses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hopelessly POV. Who is to say whether the modern versions omit verses, or whether the KJV added them? StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Does it make a difference? This is a list, with well referenced sources that describes omitted verses from the modern versions. Besides, where is the facts upon you saying that the KJV added them? Tavix (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It's not referenced at all - that is to say, all it demonstrates is that the verses are present in the KJV but absent in modern versions - not the same thing as omission! StAnselm (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The title and intro paragraph present the issue in completely the wrong terms (modern translations are not "omitting" parts of earlier translations, but making different text-critical judgements). Even if the POV is fixed, the list is arbitrary (what's unique about the KJV that makes divergences from it noteworthy?) and unmaintainable (we can't possibly list every verse in the KJV omitted in any more recent English translation, and there's no justification given for listing these in particular). EALacey (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I hate to say delete because I find this topic really, really interesting. However, it constitutes original research if it is without references (and, I searched, couldn't find a single reference). Renee (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I was surprised to learn that the New International Version actually omits verses like Matthew 18:11 i.e., it skips from 18:10 to 18:12. This should probably be moved to "List of Bible verses omitted from not included in the New Interantional Version" and have the commentary removed. Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • They weren't omitted from the NIV; they were added to the KJV. It's simply pointless to have a list without discussions of the Greek manuscripts that drove these decisions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  Alright, they were "not included" in the NIV, and I've changed the comment to so reflect. It seems like a good starting point for an article, given the differences between KJV and NIV. Let's not forget the POV, and perhaps a trip to the DMV in my SUV, and I missed a show on MTV. Mandsford (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  But why pick on the NIV? The issues with the NIV are basically the same as 90% of the Biblical translations done in the 20th century. The issue is the underlying editions of the Greek New Testament.--

Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know that much about which of the Bible translations is the top competitor to the King James Version for English-speaking Protestants; the New International Version sells well, but maybe there's one that's more popular; neither do I know if there are others besides the NIV that have a niche to show where a verse wasn't included (as in the case of Matt 18:11). Not sure how other translations handle the 13th floor issue. The point of the article is that there are verses that are in KJV but that aren't in more recent translations. Mandsford (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The title presumes there's a standard list of verses, some of which have been omitted. There's not. Locating at the article, it strikes me as non-encyclopedic. An encyclopedia article shouldn't be an incomplete list of verses out of context without explanation. What explanation there is WP:POV; see Matthew 18:11 for one example that assumes the verse was removed to change the meaning on the bible. (The quote-unquote reliable source use for that says "F.D. Maurice was the principle man that Satan used to inculcate Unitarianism, Communism, and Universalism into Christianity". Not a source I'd quote as accepted fact.) I can see the value in an article that discusses the changes in the source texts for the Bible, and in fact Textus Receptus does a decent start on this. But neither the title nor the contents of this article are encyclopedic or NPOV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Under-referenced with serious POV issues. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. "they tried to delete Matthew 18:11". The article seems to imply an ulterior motive on the part of biblical translators since the KJV. Prewitt81 (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The article isn't saying that the KJV was used as a standard by which to judge omissions. It merely cites the KJV as the main source of the verses shown. Still, the article gives no information as to what standard was used. Modern Bible versions are increasingly inaccurate and incomplete, with loose, extensively abridged paraphrases such as the New Century Version often presented as if they were translations. A list of omitted verses, however, doesn't really do justice to the problem. Valerius (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Variations among Biblical translations could certainly be an encyclopedic subject, although an essay would be the more appropriate form. If this list had focused on the documented reasons for the variations I would have a different opinion, but this article does not document its claims (in fact, I don't think it even sources its statement that the verses are omitted. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As others have pointed out already, this is hopelessly POV. Klausness (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Rename it Textual Differences,with a redirect from the current title. Then add verses like 3 John 1:15 to the list. In theory, this article could get into the differences between versification schemes at the verse level, as it is a badly written subset of Chapters and verses of the Bible. .jonathon (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  That's probably the best first step toward fixing POV concerns, particularly since people feel strongly when it comes to the virtues of the Bible they use... the way people talk about it, you'd think it was holy or something. Mandsford (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - bad nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, !voting here. "bad nomination" tells us nothing about why you disagree with it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but tag for improvement - this is not POV - it expresses the fact that certain text appears in KJV and not in modern versions, such as NIV. It is a genuine subject, but needs to be developed further. Their omission from modern versions reflects the fact that the verses appear in only some of the ancient manuscripts, and note those now regarded as the most authentic. The translators of the KJV and its predecessors worked from what was then available to them. A properly worked up article would explain the reasons for their omission. The present title is unsatisfactory, as a list it is not really encyclopaedic. I suggest Bible verses not included in modern translations. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Recent changes have made the article a lot better. StAnselm (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. I'm trying to see potential, rather than what's there now. The title is entirely, though unintentionally, POV, as it implies a deviation from "the standard." I like the "Textual differences" suggestion above. There should be some mention of the different underlying source documents (Textus receptus vs. Codex Sinaiaticus and Codex Alexandrinus to provide context for the differences, and go from there. However, I am pessimistic - this has coatrack written all over it. Xymmax (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think this is encyclopedic. Perhaps on Wikisource or somewhere, but not here. The verses themselves don't have any accompanying explanations or anything and I don't see why a list of omitted Bible verses is particularly significant anyway. Well, not significant in an encyclopedia. If anyone wants to move it somewhere else they should feel free I guess, but I don't feel it is appropriate here. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. One difficulty with the article title is that it seems to take a position on which view of the Bible is correct. If the article could be renamed only slightly, e.g. List of King James Bible verses not in contemporary versions or similar (doubtless there is better wording than this), we could get past this issue and focus on whether the list is sourced or is original research. Right now, there are no Bible commentators or scholars sourced, so we don't really know if the list is accurate or if the statement about most translations after 1881 is really true, so right now this article fails basic verification and needs sourcing to avoid a delete. If someone has time to work on this, it would be much better to provide a detailed discussion that explains the different positions taken on the text involved, rather than a simple list, but that's not an AfD issue. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Not sure how it's POV. It's a straightforward list. These are verses in the KJV that are not in the NIV. A more descriptive title would be warranted, as Shirahadasha suggests. --MPerel 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The POV is that the comparison is to the King James version, as if that were somehow the original version. The King James translators made many decisions about what to include and what to exclude, and there's no reason to suppose that their conclusions are somehow the standard against which all other translations should be judged. If this were turned into something like "List of Bible versed not included in all translations", then that would eliminate the POV. But that would be a very different article, and it's not at all clear that the current article would be a reasonable starting point for such an article. Klausness (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete First, the article title is wrong - this is not about "omitted Bible verses" but about differences between the KJV and NIV translations. Further, there is currently no proper sources, instead this looks like WP:OR with a WP:POV selection on text passages. However, the title could be adjusted, and there is tons of literature available comparing those two Bible versions - so the topic itself could have an article. If that seems better than having the information e.g. in Authorized King James Version or New International Version. --Minimaki (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Arguments presented for deletion are not reasons for deletion, but improvement. If there are verses present in past versions of the bible, specially KJV, wich has been used as a standard by several groups, and this verses are omitted in later versions, it is perfectly encyclopedic to recollect said verses. There is ample room for improvement of the article, and probbly a precision in the name "~ from the KJV" or whatever, but this is no reasson for deletion. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep, per above. These arguments are not reasons for "we should delete this stuff". These are things that should be discussed on the talk page; if you feel it is too POV, then propose a change to the article name or the wording in the header rather than push for the removal of the material altogether. Celarnor (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Work on NPOVing the article and consider a more NPOV name such as Bible Verses found only in the King James version. No article should be deleted if the problem can be fixed through editing as per Wikipedia:Delete#Editing.

If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.

This article has the potential to have the POV removed from it, so it is a clear example of keep. KV(Talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it does have that potential. The POV starts with the title, which is not a good sign. And Bible Verses found only in the King James version isn't much better -- it still implies a special role for the King James version, and it's not really accurate (since most of these verses are presumably found in some other versions, just not in all of them). My suggestion above of "List of Bible verses not included in all translations" (or something similar to that) might work, but I've seen no evidence that anyone is actually interested in creating such an article. As far as I can tell, there's only interest in comparing the King James version to the New International version (whether under the current name or under a new, more neutral-sounding name), and I think that has a POV built into it. Klausness (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In reading the comments, it is obvious that the title of the article is wrong. It either should be Textual Differences, and cover the differences between all of the various editions of the Bible (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Old Church Slavonic, Armenian, Coptic, etc) or KJV-NIV differences, and focus exclusively on the differences between the KJV and NIV. [Since there are a dozen versions of the KJV (in English), and half a dozen versions of the NIV (in English) it is theoretically possible to write an article encyclopedic quality on just those two translations --- assuming that Oxford University Press, Cambridge Universe Press, and Zondervan (copyright holders/administrators of the texts in question) don't object on the grounds that the quotes exceed "fair use".] I think an article that focuses on the verse differences between manuscripts would be more useful because it explains why some translations of the Bible omit Mark 16:9-20, whilst others omit Mark 16:8-20, and the other variants on how Mark ends.jonathon (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to soemthing like Textual differences in the Bible or Verse differences in the Bible or whatever. Seems notable, of research interest to college students, and well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 13 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 withdrawn by nominator. Bduke (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Makeoutclub

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

Relisted to gather more consensus; previous outcome was no consensus, despite long and contentious discusion. Social networking website that fails WP:WEB, not notable, and borderline WP:SPAM (it was worse early on). Site operators lobbied users on its front page to vote on previous AfD. I'm relisting this largely on procedural grounds, but my vote is to delete; my reasoning from the previous discussion still stands. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest we do to get our entry "okay'd" ? The sources and references provided prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the site has been an influential online destination for nearly 8 years. What more really needs to be done? The tone isn't spammish or an advertisement, although at this point it has been widdled down to a confusing entry that needs some work, which we plan to do. We want to work with wiki here and do this the right way. Please help us. - Gibby Miller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.34.194 (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep because press coverage equals notability. --House of Scandal (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. It disturbs me that this is renominated just 3 hours after the previous nomination was closed. OK, it was closed as no consensus. That was the conclusion. The editors of this page should be given some time to take account of the critical comments of the previous nomination. They should not have to be continually watching AfD to stop it being deleted. This nomination should be withdrawn. --Bduke (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unnotable per WEB, much of the keep argument in the previous AFD appears to be from a SPA username--Professor Backwards (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• SPEEDY CLOSE Bad faith nom. Either take it to DRV, or to the article's Talk page. This is WAY too early to open up a second nom -- RoninBK _{T C} 03:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP The timeline of this entry seems peculiar. The same users are the ones pushing for deletion but unable to convince anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.63.134 (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply to all above: The admin who closed the previous nomination did so in error, as discussions which do not have a consensus are normally supposed to be relisted. I don't know why the "no consensus" outcome was applied without relisting. If the discussion had previously been relisted with no consensus, I could understand the closure. Frankly, even though I favor deletion, I suspected the outcome would be an outright keep. It could be that the matter of open campaigning by the site operators made it difficult to tell which votes resulted form the campaign and which didn't. I think the issue should be resolved one way or the other, so I was bold and relisted it myself. (Note: I didn't nominate it the first time). By the way, RoninBK, DRV would not apply here as the article was not previously deleted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is just wrong. It is quite common as far as I recall for AfD to be closed as "no consensus" without being relisted, and DRV is for reviewing any AfD closure. If you thought the closure was incorrect, you should have taken it to DRV and that discussion might have called for to be relisted, but it might have just endorsed the closure. --Bduke (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't DRV stand for deletion review? I may be wrong about this, but I thought DRV was simply for reviewing deletions. Since there was no deletion, I would assume DRV would not apply. Am I missing some arcane policy here? Not arguing, simply asking. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, after further review, it does appear that a DRV is used in the case of an AfD closed because of a no-consensus outcome. I never would have thought that DRVs had anything to do with this but, by gosh, it's right there on the WP:DRV page. So since I goofed up here, I'll withdraw this nomination, and instigate a DRV — but I'll wait a little while to do that, to see how this all shakes out. I'll comment further on the article talk page. Admins, you many now close this discussion. My apologies for any problems caused. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:31, 8 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. Dreadstar † 05:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Bews

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

A porn star whose notability is questionable, and most of the references for this article appear to be trivial ones. Back in January, I nominated this article as part of a bulk nomination (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josephine James), but withdrew it following comments from other editors who thought a bulk nomination of porn stars was not such a good idea. However, I am now giving this subject its own afd discussion, so what is the view of the community on this particular topic? Egdirf (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO due to the apparent lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, unless these are provided - and I did search for some.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:33, 8 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) 10:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Boyd (wrestler)

Matt Boyd (wrestler) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is only a high school wrestler who has won a state title. There are probably 1,000 such wrestlers each year. There is nothing here that would be at the standards of WP:BIO. This could probably even be a speedy deletion candidate under WP:CSD#A7 if anyone would like to tag it as such. Metros (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Further note According to this PDF, the subject did not win the highest level in the state. Metros (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Notability Confirmed That PDF that you linked to confirms that the article's subject competed in that tournament. How does that dispute Wikipedia notability requirements? Dimension31 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • So every single wrestler in every single high school state championship deserves an article is what you're saying? Metros (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC
      • I don't recall ever saying that before. Dimension31 (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That's essentially what you're saying here. You're saying he's notable because he's wrestled in the state meet of champions which you claim to be the highest level he can ever achieve. So if he's notable, then anyone else who wrestled in that tournament is notable? Metros (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Please do not say I said things that I never said. Dimension31 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I must admit that I am also at a loss for any other interpretation of the "notability confirmed" part of your comment than as an assertion that mere competition in the tournament qualifies. If that's not what you intended, please clarify your comment above. Rossami (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I intended to note that the PDF that Metros linked to is further evidence of the athlete's notability. Dimension31 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, If you look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), notability is considered to have been achieved when an athlete has "competed at the highest level in amateur sports." This individual has competed, and won, in the highest level of competition in the state of New Hampshire. Dimension31 (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The highest level for this wrestler would be the Olympics, not the state high school finals. Metros (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The Olympics does not include folkstyle wrestling. This individual has competed in the highest level of his sport.Dimension31 (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Then he could go on to win at the collegiate level which, even then, could be debatable. Metros (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Collegiate wrestling organizations are completely unrelated to high school wrestling organizations and use different rules and regulations. This individual has competed in the highest level of his sport. Dimension31 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
          • According to collegiate wrestling, folkstyle=collegiate. Therefore, he could go on to the National Collegiate Athletic Association and wrestle when he reaches college. Metros (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Collegiate wrestling using folkstyle wrestling as its style does not mean that collegiate wrestling is a higher level of folkstyle wrestling than high school wrestling. The NCAA is not some kind of wrestling overlord organization -- the sport is made up of many disconnected entities, many with their own rules and regulations. Dimension31 (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; I don't think that Wikipedia:Notability (people) was meant to be interpreted that way; I think we have distinct WP:BLP1E issues here. We have one article in one local newspaper; that's just not enough to cut it, particularly for a biography.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The article has a number of sources on the subject. Dimension31 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The opening statement uses extreme hyperbole. With only 48 states participating in this form of wrestling, wouldn't that mean that there are only 48 state champions in this weight class? 48 is not equal to 1000. This point was brought to my attention by User:Cube lurker. Dimension31 (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I was multiplying that across all the weight classes across all levels/divisions. If there are 14 weight classes and 48 states, that's 672 wrestlers. And that's if you just consider meet of champions winners. If you then consider division/group/sectional whatever the state calls their size divisions like you're insisting we have to do, you have well over 1,000 high school "state champions". He's not one of 48 state champions. He's not even his own state's champion; he's just the champion of his division. He lost at the meet of champions. Metros (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • He was a state champion. You don't seem to be familiar with what the NH Meet of Champions is. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's articles on the sport of wrestling before trying to delete important articles on the topic. Dimension31 (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I know very well what a meet of champions is. It's where the winner (and often runners-up and wild cards) of every group/division in the state wrestler to see who's the top in that event. So, he won his group, but lost amogst all the groups. So there are people in the state who are better at his weight class than he is. Therefore, he is not the state winner, he just won his division. Metros (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • If you had familiarized yourself with the NHIAA policies and procedures you would understand that each division champion is considered a state champion. Dimension31 (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I honestly don't know why we're wasting this much discussion on a page that will be deleted in 5 days. Metros (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't think you have the power to decide on your own that an article will be in deleted in 5 days. Dimension31 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, 48 U.S. champions in this weight class this year. Multiply by the number of weight classes and years, and a thousand doesn't seem high, even before we remember that there are many other countries and states in those countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • True, but the US is the only country that has this style of wrestling, and Metro specified that he was referring to this year. Dimension31 (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • He is not state champion in his weight class. "Division 2 state champion". Division 2 consists of smaller high schools. Division 1 is the higher class. Some U.S states divide high school sports into three or more classes, which would multiply the number of champions correspondingly. Quale (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • He is a state champion in his weight class. Are you saying that the sources in the article are saying things that are incorrect? Also, by the way, the number 1 is less than 2. Dimension31 (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Winning one state HS division championship is not sufficiently notable by itself to warrant an article. We've deleted NCAA state/regional champs and Junior world champions based on the consensus that that was still short of the highest level of competition, I'm going to need more than continual repetition of the claim to convince me that this is top of the line. Also well short of general, as the sourcing is weak. If there was an impressive level of coverage it would be another story.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as an NCAA state champion. NCAA wrestling has nothing to do with the form of the sport that this wrestler competes in -- they aren't some kind of master wrestling organization that goes around dictating what every wrestler in the whole world does. Dimension31 (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I saw NCAA California champion listed as an amateur wrestling accomplishment in a now deleted article. I figured if that one existed it was a feeder to the regional tourney. Regardless, it wasn't believed to be anywhere close to a sufficient claim to notability. You claimed that High School counted as the top level of competition, however it's been pointed out the NCAA uses folk wrestling. Additionally, the AAU holds a Folkstyle World Championship[1] and Nationals along with the Grand National and Ironman that require competition in all 3 versions. So there's a lot above the state HS level to compete in at folkstyle, and I'm not even sure winning most of those would confer notability as a single event.
      It's understandable that NHIA considers the divisional state champs equal. However, that doesn't make it a more notable accomplishment in its own right. Winning the state MOC would probably have swayed a few people. Winning the New England Regional TOC if it's still around may have convinced me to argue for keep, even with marginal coverage. This was a respectable accomplishment, but it's not enough to meet WP:BIO. The sources aren't even ankle deep, and there isn't a large quantity of them which means there's no real claim for general notability either. Horrorshowj (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • There is no such thing as an NCAA California champion. Dimension31 (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. State Division 2 high school champion falls well short of the bar. (Division 1 is a higher level of competition in the same state, and even a divison 1 high school champion wouldn't be notable.) Quale (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Division I is not a higher level of competition. What gave you that idea? The two divisions are split based on school enrollments, not wrestling abilities. Dimension31 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I get it now; he didn't even win state, he won his division at the state level. That is, he won the division level, not the state level.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • He won the Division II State Championship, so he won at both the divisional and state level. Dimension31 (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Dimension31. Nominator may have nominated in all sincerity, but appears not to have read their own cited sources properly - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What exactly did I misread? The subject is a divisional state champion for high school wrestling. He won his division in his weight class. He did not win the entire state during the state meet of champions tournament. This is not the highest level of competition he can achieve as he can go on to the college level to compete. What is it that makes this subject notable? There are thousands of student-athletes each year who achieve the exact achievement he has, should we have articles on every single high school wrestler who wins a state title? In fact, according to this interpretation of the guidelines that is being suggested here, we have to include every wrestler who just competes at the tournament because the guidelines say "competed at the highest level", not just won. So are they all notable? Metros (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Metros, I would like to see some evidence of your claim of thousands of student-athletes winning this wrestler's exact achievement. Also, by the way, the Meet of Champions is not a state championship tournament. Dimension31 (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I showed it right here. 642 would have won if you just consider 14 weight classes with one champion for the entire state for 48 states. If you then consider that a lot of states have several divisions/groups, it just increases. And what do you call the guy who wins the meet of champions? The state champion. He is better than every single wrestler in his weight class across all divisions. Metros (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • You have yet to give any concrete numbers. You haven't even mentioned the fact that some states use a different number of weight classes, and haven't specified the number of divisions in any states. The guy who wins the Meet of Champions is the Meet of Champions winner. You can't accurately compare him to the state champions without additional information. Dimension31 (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete After carefully reading section 2.6 of the WP:BIO guidelines it clearly reads as follows "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Even if the athlete in question has achieved the highest amateur level he can I just don't see where he meets the general criteria of secondary sources. The criteria of secondary sources can be found in section 1 of WP:BIO. The sources provided do not give in-depth coverage of the athlete, most are rosters and placements from the wrestling organization and supplied news sources cover more than just this particular athlete. If there were more media coverage of this particular athlete he might pass the standard.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This athlete does meet the general criteria of secondary sources. Dimension31 (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per PDF linked by Metros. I'm not expert on the subject, but as far as I can tell this athlete has competed at the highest level of competition in his sport, which is exactly what Wikipedia guidelines specify. If there's a problem here, it's with the guidelines, not with this article. Regulator15 (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Struck out sock vote. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• • The state championship for HS wrestling is not the highest level he can achieve. It's already been well stated that he could go on to college and beyond. Metros (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think that that has been well stated at all. All I see is you saying that and others refuting you with strong evidence to the contrary. Regulator15 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Who are these "others"? Other than Dimension31, no one has refuted it. Metros (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The others are Dimension31 and now me. After reading more on the topic I now see that this athlete's sport is a different form of the sport than the other organizations you were trying to say he should compete for. That's like saying some kickboxer should have to win the Olympics in regular boxing to be considered notable in kickboxing. I disagree with you. Regulator15 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I have already shown (as have others) that collegiate wrestling is the form also used in high school. So he could go on to college to wrestle. Metros (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
            • You have not shown that. To show that would be impossible, since they do not use collegiate wrestling in high school. Dimension31 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not how that clause was meant to be interpreted. The arguments to keep require us to parse the notability criteria to such a narrow population that essentially everyone becomes "notable" for something. We do not want and can not support articles at that level. Rossami (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If that isn't how the clause was meant to be interpreted I believe it would have been written differently. I do not think it is up to editors to interpret the guidelines according to our own opinions; we should just read them as they are written. Dimension31 (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • As someone who was here when the page was first written and who has carefully watched the evolution of the page, I can tell you with certainty that we never intended future readers to blindly apply the words on the page. Look at the Talk page archives if you want all the color and nuance. Or apply common sense. The intent was to allow coverage of Olympians or their equivalents. That's not just my opinion - that's demonstrable fact which can be confirmed in the archives. Rossami (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This is a farce. The International Mathematics Olympiad is also the "highest level of mathematical sport" since there is no international maths competition between countries beyond high school competition, and the same applies for physics, chemistry etc. By this reasoning offered by the keep advocates, any guy who got a state award would qualify (South Australia is so bad that none of the top 100 biology students in Australia are from SA), let alone a student from a weak third world country who got < 10% would get a wiki-bio. Nope. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • dude math aint a sport. it's a class. just thought you should know. CApin2win (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a big difference between the International Mathematics Olympiad and New Hampshire high school wrestling. In fact, I do not think that the International Mathematics Olympiad organization is notable enough to merit an article. Dimension31 (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is a big difference, NH wrestling is <<< than IMO. I think you need a reality check. Do you want to compete against kids who have been trained for 6-7 years in specialist science/maths high schools by uni professors who live all year round in a math/science boarding academy? I think you need a reality check. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think you wrote, "I think you need a reality check." twice. Why are you asking me if I want to compete against kids in whatever competition it is you're talking about? How is that relevant to this article? Dimension31 (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • It was directed toward your comment regarding IMO. The IMO is an international competition, that pits the best and brighest from one country against another country's elite students. There have been a number of high school IMO students who went on to become famous mathematicians (Grigori Perelman and Terence Tao, for example). High school wrestling just brings the top people in one school to face the top from another school. That's the difference. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Why would he ask me about wanting to compete against kids though? Dimension31 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
            • He was giving you a "this or that" option. Would you rather face someone in wrestling or would you go against some kid (Blnguyen means high-schooler) who has almost a graduate degree level of knowledge in a particular subject? Anyway, it's not really relevant to this discussion, so let's drop that matter. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I agree. Dimension31 (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, some people are saying that folkstyle is different from freestyle in its variations, so therefore it can be treated totally differently. By this reasoning, a guy who wins the US 50yd freestyle swimming title is on the same league as Alex Popov winning the 50m at the Olympics because of a slight variation. Not relevant. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Freestyle and folkstyle wrestling are different sports. 50 yard and 50 meter freestyle swimming events are the same sport/event at different distances. Your comparison does not apply to this article. Dimension31 (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Blnguyen. He isn't Alex Popov; he's nobody in particular. Forkstyle and Freestyle should be treated as essentially the same thing in this case. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Should sumo and thumb wrestling be treated the same too? Dimension31 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • If it's high school thumb wresting, it's not notable. WP:UCS. Sorry. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Then why should freestyle and folkstyle wrestling be treated the same? WP:UCS. Dimension31 (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:ATHLETE says "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Boyd is not the complete center of focus for any of the sources used. [2] provides the most details about Boyd, but it just offers details about his year, rank going into the tournament, and weight. Also, this article will remain a two line stub for as long as it is on Wikipedia. Unless he stars in collegiate wrestling, there's not going to be any expansion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If an article not having room for expansion is grounds for deletion, then why aren't all the articles about dead people being deleted? Dimension31 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't say that was my grounds for deletion. I just merely pointed that out. Also, short articles on dead persons are sometimes deleted under WP:CSD#A1. The other 2 line articles about dead people can be expanded, but no one seems to have gotten to it yet. I don't see that as being the situation with Matt Boyd. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Why did you say that this article is two lines long? Dimension31 (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Because it looks like two lines in Firefox 1024x768. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't think that all of Wikipedia's decisions should be based on how Wikipedia pages look on your specific computer, on your specific browser, with your specific resolution, with your specific text size. Dimension31 (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I already said that the length of the article was not part of my deletion rationale. If you want to make your case about keeping this article, I suggest you address my real deletion rationale. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• (Personal attack removed by user:Metros) at 02:14, 02:16 and 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC). Restored and replied (below) by user:Nishkid64 at 02:25. The version below was added then modified several times by user:CApin2win at around 02:30.
• NOT SURE i read the rest of this page and it says since he competed he is notable so the article should stay but i read some more and now someone is saying the guideilnes are wrong? wtf is this —Preceding unsigned comment added by CApin2win (talk • contribs)
  • Your vote was deleted last time because you said "DELETE this wrestler sucks he shouldnt of one states". That's not a valid rationale. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough to warrant an article of his own. Despite his accomplishment, we can't have articles about all winners of the "highest level of Division II wrestling in the state of X." Imagine how many articles we would have. He is simply not notable enough -- yet. Khoikhoi 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not convinced the local newspapers cited are reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - there's evidence of some rather obvious votestacking by sock-puppet accounts here. I was requested to run a checkuser here, and can report the following: Confirmed - CApin2win (talk · contribs) = Dimension31 (talk · contribs) = Regulator15 (talk · contribs), confirmed by checkuser - Alison ^❤ 07:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow. Didn't see that coming at all! Strangely, CApin2win initially voted delete because "this wrestler sucks". Why would the one account vote delete while another vote keep? Maybe it's a school IP? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I actually did suspect this. I think the whole CApin2win voting delete was just to be disruptive more than anything else. I've also assumed the other connection with Regulator15 for awhile, so it's good to see the evidence is now out. By the way, check out how CApin2win suddenly started being coherent after hours of nothing but bad spelling. Metros (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not notable; he won a high school level competition. Fails WP:BIO and probably WP:BLP#1E too. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Only in the rarest of instances is a high school athlete even close to deserving an article (I'm thinking along the lines of LeBron James, whose high school games were broadcast on ESPN for crying out loud). This kid doesn't come close. So he won a state championship - congratulations, but so what? (Warning: rough math ahead!) High schools in the United States are typically divided into three divisions based on the number of students, in order to level the playing field when it comes to athletics. Let's be conservative and say there are ten weight classes. That would mean there are thirty high school state wrestling champions in each of the fifty states every year, or in other words 1500 such students do what this kid did every year. There's nothing notable about it. My soccer team won state my senior year - do I get an article too? Of course not. faithless (^speak) 08:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, NH is a small state of 1.2 million people, 0.4% of the US population. It's not like he won in a large state like CA or NY or TX. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:08, 13 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 withdraw. This article is prone to recreation, so this stub will at least help to fend off various unreferenced nonsense. `'Míkka>t 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dendrophilia (paraphilia)

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

there is no solid evidence that such paraphla exist other than in various lists circulating in the internet. The two references provided are just dictionary definitions, without any confirming evidence. `'Míkka>t 23:14, 7 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd

Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Company has received only trivial coverage in the media. Article was previously deleted in October 2006, and has been continuously tagged as an advertisement since it was recreated in November 2006. —BradV 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Only trivial coverage in the media? I've added a reference to the article from one of the 559 Google news archive hits which says that this is the leading drug manufacturer in the world's 7th most populous country. You can't get much more notable than that. If there are problems with the content they can be fixed by editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep Per Phil Geoff Plourde (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - silly nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 9 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 unanimous delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kellie Pickler sophomore album

Kellie Pickler sophomore album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

All but one source from fan sites, too early for article Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Eric444 (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:06, 12 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 My bad… I misread WP:N! Speedy keep due to withdrawal Computerjoe's talk 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Blenkey

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

Only temporarily notable. NN murderer. Delete Computerjoe's talk 22:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is not temporary. If he was notable at any time, he's notable, period. Chuck (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Why is he 'NN'? Why does notability expire exactly? There's no rationale for deletion here. Nick mallory (talk) 23:04, 7 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 unanimous delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pleasure P's untitled solo album

Pleasure P's untitled solo album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and almost no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, a link saying he's going to release an album yet includes no details, and no further sources, means there is no way there's enough information to warrant a separate page here. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not think that Myspace is a very reliable source. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:07, 12 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 Mathematical constant, redirect to disambig. --Salix alba (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constant

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

Two users have expressed their doubts (see talk page or below) as to the legitimacy of the existence of this article. Also, I think this article may need to be deleted.

"I have not really thought about it, but it might be best to have a disambiguation page here instead of an essay "constant" about concepts that are not really that related to eachother. Some constants are defined, others are mathematics, others are measured, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)"

""I really do think that the scientific concept of a constant can be dealt with as a whole". Here we clearly disagree; I think the various notions that are called "constant" are too diverse and disparate to be amenable to a meaningful joint treatment. --Lambiam 13:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)" Randomblue (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Mathematical constant, which is what I think that you three guys have been talking about on the article's talk page. Most of the recent edits have been done by the three of you, though there have been some minor edits for form, and some vandalism that is being policed appropriately. I hope that you can accomplish the merger smoothly, then do the appropriate redirect. Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep on procedural grounds: AfD is not the appropriate forum for this discussion. No-one's suggesting that if someone types "constant" into the search box and presses return they should only get a page of search results. The argument is not over whether there should be an page on "Constant" but whether it should be a disambiguation page or an article. There's already a separate Constant (disambiguation) page. The question seems to be over whether to merge and if so whether the page should be a full article or a disambig. Suggest you read and follow WP:merge and WP:DISAMBIG. Qwfp (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (or userify, if requested) this indiscrimate collection of information. Whether the dab page should be moved here, or a redirect made to it, or whatever, is (as Qwfp says) another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Either keep or merge. If this is deleted, most of the information in it should get merged into one or more other articles. And constant (disambiguation) should then get moved to this title. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Most of it does appear to be in the linked articles; the only omission I can see is the claim from here about Apery's constant and the gyromagnetic ratio. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. It's a vital article, and it's at AfD. I have no opinion here other than that.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That says more about WP:VA than anything else; but a redirect to Variable, as an antonym, would be one possibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The real problem with this article is its first sentence, the article would be improved if it were replaced by "A constant is a number which is frequently referred two by a name related to a formula or equation which references it." And that's a really bad sentence. The problem is that the concept is so intuitively clear that it's hard to find a verbal way of expressing the idea. But just because fixing a problem in an article is difficult doesn't mean we should give up and delete the article. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Censure nominator for wasting AFD's time - it says right there on the front page that you only nominate stuff for deletion - you've brought AFD an editorial matter you could have solved yourself with a bit of WP:BOLDness - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Response "wasting AFD's time", that's nice of you. As you can see, the issue isn't that trivial. Indeed, I would have gone for redirecting the constant article to the disambiguation page and merge the article in mathematical constant, but out of the 6 who have replied (not counting you), only 2 have proposed merging, which isn't an overwhelming majority. I think consensus should be reached before I waste my time doing anything that doesn't please the community! Randomblue (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I do not understand the nomination by Randomblue (talk · contribs), who created this article. He can merge the content into mathematical constant or into the articles about the different constants listed there, if he wants to. As I suggested on talk:constant, this article can be made a disambiguation page. There is no need to delete it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Split/merge generally I prefer this article to Mathematical constant which is just a list. Adding some explanation to the individual constants gives a lot more context, whereas the list only fits the needs of mathematicians who already know what these constants are. --Salix alba (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Mathematical Constant. This should definitely not be deleted. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - or merge or rename or refactor or whatever - but why is this even on AfD when (almost) no-one is suggesting that this page or its contents should actually be *deleted* ?? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Ok, I'll redirect the article to disambig page and merge content to mathematical constant How do I close this AfD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomblue (talk • contribs) 12:41, March 11, 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 WP:PORNBIO criteria. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 08:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Damon Dogg

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

Does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria; unreferenced AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't find any reliable third-party sources covering this person, and Google just turns up gay porn - as one might expect.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Damon Dogg meets the criteria for the inclusion of Pornographic actors on Wikipedia as per WP:PORNBIO as having made a "unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre". He has conceived, created and starred - with his name in the title in a series of (currently) NINE full length feature videos collectively entitled DAMON BLOWS AMERICA. He has in each video gone to a different city across the country. To date this has included Portland, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, New Orleans, New York, Los Angeles and most recently Fort Lauderdale. His list of movie credits at imdb.com show 15 titles that he has starred in since 2002 in addition to numerous DVD's in which he is credited as either the cinematographer or the editor. He was also recently featured in the book "Rough Gods" by photographer Michael Alago. Cainebj (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Starring in a series of movies that shows him giving bj's to guys isn't a unique contribution to the porn genre. You said he conceived and created the series. You know this how? Where is the RS that states this? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note, this user has claimed he works for the company that produces these movies (here), which is a WP:COI, and you can read the full discussion here of the COI and copyrighted image issues. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A gay adult performer who gets title star billing in a series of videos is a unique contribution to porn in my opinion. He is listed as the director on these works on aebn (http://theater.aebn.net/dispatcher/movieSearch?theaterId=24356&searchString=Damon+Dogg&searchType=DirectorName) and he is credited as the cinematographer and editor for them on the imdb.com. In addition, I have just learned that Mr. Dogg was also nominated for an AEBN 2007 VOD PERFORMER OF THE YEAR Award. (http://www.gayasiantheater.com/dispatcher/starDetail?starId=23579&theaterId=43045).Cainebj (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, it does indeed fail WP:PORNBIO and I can't find any significant third party coverage. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:07, 12 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 unanimous delete as advertisement and COI. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DefenceIndia

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

Notability not established, article reads like advertisement - --House of Scandal (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nominator's reasoning; perfect for an ad, not for WP AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - so many bad articles like this come out of India it embarsses me! --Raj Krishnamurthy (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement and conflict of interest - its creator, User:Amanbandvi, whose sole mainspace contribution this is, acknowledges he is the site's editor on his user page. Biruitorul (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nonm. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, advertising -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:07, 12 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 hoax; WP:CSD#A3. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bithlo High School

Bithlo High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bithlo High School does not exist. See www.ocps.net, the county's school board website for confirmation. Mteevin (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with nom; appears to be a hoax. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It may well be a hoax, but check out the fourth comment down, by the blogger herself. Odd. I still assume it's a hoax, based on the Google results. Maybe there's some local lingo that involves Bithlo. I can't believe there's a spelling mistake involved. Noroton (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Apparent hoax school. The Orange County Public Schools website doesn't even list the school [3] Ctjf83Talk 04:04, 8 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 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Type-7 particle weapon

Type-7 particle weapon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable on it's own. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 21:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, apparently this is not part of the game itself, but is part of a user-created mod. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable article. Macy (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Re-write anything that's salvegable into F.E.A.R. (re-write to avoid GFDL concerns but there really is nowt here) Pedro :  Chat  23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC).

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Pedro and also WP:GAMEGUIDE. Reputable game sites appear to note its existence as a weapon in the game, but little else. The article is a poorly-sourced game guide entry. • Gene93k (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 19:27, 11 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 separate season articles once again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One Tree Hill DVD releases

One Tree Hill DVD releases (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have worked a lot on this article in the past, but following a number of discussions stemming from, amongst others, a discussion on a talk page about a similar for Lost here, and a Featured List candidacy that I put forward, it now looks to me that it looks like WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:FAN, WP:ADVERTISING, and WP:DIRECTORY. And without mentioning something about how many units have been sold, or whatever, it also seems to fail WP:Notability on WP:PRODUCT. These points were raised in a number of discussions A list of this kind can never stand up to be the best that Wikipedia can offer, which is after all what Featured Status is all about, so I think this page should be gotten rid of. Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge a condensed version with the main series article. Discussion of DVD releases is a viable topic for series articles, but you probably don't need to go into extensive detail. See Twin Peaks for an example of how DVD discussion can be incorporated into a series article (though maybe without the images as that's a no-no now). 23skidoo (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge each DVD to its appropriate season page for the show. The page has plenty of good, reliable sources. Ctjf83Talk 04:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as I don't like the idea of it appearing in the season articles Russell [ Talk ] 13:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into seperate season articles as the product itself isn't notable. This is "listcruft" but the information could be relevant merged into other articles. If this closes as merge I'll be happy to do it myself. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My issue with a merge is that did that once already and redirected the page to One Tree Hill (TV series), but then it was all reverted, and put back into this page. I fear it will happen again. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is reverted you should point them to this discussion, revert them and tell them that they can have a seperate page if they can show that there is a consensus to have it (by talk page discussion or deletion review). -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, you could ask an admin to protect the redirect if people start edit warring over it. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, merge the information as you did before, then redirect the page and solicit protection based on this discussion. Eusebeus (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a sub-article of One Tree Hill (TV series) and perhaps start a merge discussion. --Pixelface (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as was already done before, and lock the redirect to keep it that way. The individual DVD releases of a television series have no notability and should only be covered in the main series article or in the relevant episode list. Collectonian (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and lock per Collectonian. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 14 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 not notable --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A.WOLF

A.WOLF (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable rapper. Enough of a notability claim to forgo CSD. Still, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Previous AfD (as A-Wolf) in May 2006 ended in no consensus, artist has not increased his notability since then. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Has not released a notable album and his radio airplay is limited to 2 radio stations. -- Atama^chat 22:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, just a local San Francisco musician. Ctjf83Talk 04:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not notable -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:08, 12 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. faithless (^speak) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TBS-MBS 6pm

TBS-MBS 6pm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The unnotable time slot of a single television channel. Mostly OR and NPOV stuff. Collectonian (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - mostly a POV, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Zenlax ^{T C S} 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, and looks like an ad to watch those channels at 6pm Ctjf83Talk 04:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, do we have other articles on timeslots? Either way it seems to be mostly POV and has no sources. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:08, 12 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. Maxim_(talk) 13:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Udo Prambs

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

Non-notable chef. This was already through AfD once before, in 2005, and was deleted then, but I don't know how similar the two versions are. A chef in Campbell, California and Dayton, Ohio doesn't seem particularly notable. If he were a four-star chef who writes well-received cookbooks, that might be a different story. Corvus cornix_talk 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-representative summary. He is not a chef in Campbell, California; he is a Chef Instructor at the Professional Culinary Institute there. He was a chef in St. Moritz, Switzerland. And at Hunstrete House near Bath, England, as well as the Four Seasons Hotels in London and Hampshire. And in Eilat, Israel, at the Neptune Hotel. And in Venice, Italy. And in Stuttgart, Berlin, and Munich. And at L'Auberge, in Dayton, Ohio. The only one you mentioned accurately is perhaps the least notable; L'Auberge only has a four-star rating, and that only for the past 17 years. The rest are 5-star. Maybe he is an actual chef, and not a book author? Could that still be notable? Eleven even (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, he worked in Five Star European hotels and restaurants including the Kulm Hotel (Switzerland), Maritim Group (Germany), Da Ivo (Italy), Four Seasons Group and Hunstrete House (England), and the Neptune Hotel (Israel). Based on the article, he might have been a busboy. Corvus cornix_talk 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. He is a chef. The work a chef does is cooking. Eleven even (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But really your comment did give me pause. So I researched a little; he started his career in Germany. Before he left for Switzerland, he was a Certified Master Chef, a Certified Master Restaurateur, and a Certified Master of Hospitality Business. Overqualified to be a busboy. Eleven even (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And I saw pictures of his work; Tear drop Salmon, slow poached in olive oil & filled with asparagus served on a rectangle of chardonnay sauce with beads of beluga caviar, and wild sauteed mushrooms in an asparagus crown served on a yellow pepper sauce. Gorgeous. Eleven even (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete He's a bit of a borderline case because he's "notable" to the extent of doing product endorsements. However, I couldn't find any mention of him that wasn't an independent reference. Mangoe (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW I found the page from 2005 quoted elsewhere: I can see why it was deleted. I copied it to the article's talk page. Eleven even (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Also, Udo is included in a list of 28 top US chefs, including Wolfgang Puck, Julia Child, Jeff Smith (the Frugal Gourmet), Paul Prudhomme, and James Beard, here [4]. Eleven even (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC) He's on page 2 of this web listing of "Celebrity Chefs". a[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleven even (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC) OK I'm reaching. Didn't I say somewhere that I wasn't attached to this article? Eleven even (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

comment, based on the lack of opinions (only three editors participating to date), and the recent introduction of new assertions of notability brought by User: Eleven even, I'm relisting this for a stronger consensus. Abstaining, this is not an endorsement of keeping or deleting this article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless 3rd party reference is provided.--House of Scandal (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm, I kind of want to keep this due to his job here and this article does seem to have some mention of him (but I can't see, it's a paid access site :(). However, I can't find anything else so his notability seems to be very limited. Delete with no prejudice to recreation if more solid sources are later found. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:09, 12 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 00:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liquid Image

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

Non-notable band with no 3rd party references. Probably is CSD-able even, but author contested prod tag, so I'm going through this process to get consensus. Jaysweet (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable music band. Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete No sources, no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC - no inherent notability, no notable members, no awards, no charting, no reliable coverage in secondary/third party sources. Hits on google turn back myspace, official website, blogspot and other trivial mentions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, notability not asserted. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I removed the speedy tag, but my only reason for doing so is that the article has been around for over a year, so I'd like to let the AfD process run its course. I doubt it will survive, but let it run through. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If I saw this while on Huggle, I would tag it with db-band. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:11, 9 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. Nandesuka (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Canadian Travel Company Ltd.

The Great Canadian Travel Company Ltd. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable travel company Think outside the box 16:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I added three newspaper articles as references. --Eastmain (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (unless further sourced). No significant reliable coverage from independent sources. The three newspaper articles (so far) look like advertorial reprints of press releases. Any newspaper "article" about a tour operator that goes down a list of offerings and ends with the phone number to call the operator does not look like the kind of impartial editorial process that would verify the claims or establish that the subject is worth noting. Looking at the fundamentals it has several dozen employees and $20 million in gross revenue (if one trusts the article claims). It's not clear if "gross" means their gross agency fees or it's based on the entire cost of the package. In the latter case that's about $3,000 per exotic package they sell X 7,000 packages per year, or about 20 tourists per day. That's a large-ish independent travel company to be sure, but unless there's something special that sets it apart I'm dubious that such an outfit is really worth covering here. Wikidemo (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The newspaper articles are independent and represent the results of editorial filtering and judgment. Providing contact information at the end of an article is no different than providing the name and address of the venue at the end of a concert or play review. The newspapers considered this company notable because of its distinctive and uncommon offerings, such as trips to view polar bears in the wild. --Eastmain (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, not in this case. Every one of the newspaper articles is written uncritically, in more or less the same style as a neighborhood paper would announce the opening of a new store. A concert or a play is a more singular thing, but those kinds of reviews don't establish notability either. If that were the case then every restaurant in in the world would be notable. Wikidemo (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GreenJoe 20:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Spam doesn't travel well. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as the secondary sources cited are clearly promotional pieces and not reliable, so there is no evidence of notability. Overall, I would say the tone and content of this advertorial fail the spam prohibition.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:54, 11 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 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suzanne Elder

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

Person/politico of strictly local note. Lots of sources, but tangential to the subject, and lost primary. Paddy Simcox (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - has plenty of reliable sources which seems to prove notability. Meets point two of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. EJF (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete She hasn't held an important office. She's not notable at all. Nick mallory (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• 'Keep per above. --House of Scandal (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per substantital coverage in reliable third party sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - subject is clearly at least locally notable, and it's a reasonably well-written article that mostly preserves NPOV. Hell, it's better than fancruft. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, fairly obviously I'd have thought - David Gerard (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, for both local significance and the study on abortion. Marc Alexander (talk) 20:55, 10 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. WjBscribe 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysia Airlines destinations - Codeshare with Alitalia

Malaysia Airlines destinations - Codeshare with Alitalia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

It is WP:AIRLINE policy not to include codeshare destinations of airlines, as they are used for marketing purposes only, meaning that airlines, particularly those of the large airline alliances could potentially market that they fly to thousands of destinations. Russavia (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:AIRLINE Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 11 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 Malaysia Airlines destinations. Maxim_(talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap.

[edit] Malaysia Airlines destinations from Kota Kinabalu International Airport

Malaysia Airlines destinations from Kota Kinabalu International Airport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Squarely goes against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Info is covered already in Malaysia Airlines destinations and Kota Kinabalu International Airport articles. Russavia (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as duplicated information as per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Malaysia Airlines destinations. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 11 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. Maxim_(talk) 13:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

NB: Most of the content was merged into Brigitte Gabriel. --Maxim_(talk) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Because They Hate

Because They Hate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Polemical book that does not appear to meet any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books) and has no reliable sources to verify notability. I've found no evidence that it's been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. I've found a number of mentions in passing, but no actual reviews of it. The mentions in passing are basically a small number of interviews with the author, a Jan 1, 2007 Publishers Weekly brief (basically a short PR puff that promotes a book to retailers) and a Michigan Daily article of Dec 5, 2006 that mentions the book in connection with a speech by the author [6]. As for the other criteria of notability, it certainly hasn't won any literary awards, it hasn't been adapted for film or television, it isn't used for educational purposes and its author cannot be described as "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable" (a sample indicator for "historical significance" is "a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study", like Shakespeare or Lincoln). One "external resource" is linked from the article - a speech by the author that in no way corroborates its notability.

It's not enough for a book to be mentioned only in passing (that's why Wikipedia:Notability (books) talks of non-trivial references). To quote: "The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Also, when assessing third-party references to the book, bear in mind that the reference itself needs to be a reliable source: "'Non-trivial' excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable."

(I should note that the editor who created and maintained the article, CltFn (talk · contribs), was banned by the Wikipedia community in January 2008 for extensive disruptive editing. I've not notified him of this discussion for the obvious reason that he can't participate in it.)

I realise that some editors may have strong views on the book's political thesis but please confine comments to whether or not the book meets the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Please bear in mind that deletion discussions aren't votes and their outcome is determined on the basis of the evidence put forward. Unsubstantiated assertions aren't useful in helping to determine a course of action. Please provide verifiable evidence, with reference to Wikipedia standards, to support any recommendations that you make. ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Author may be notable but the book is not, in my humble opinion. No articles about it in google news that are part of the mainstream press, all 3 are conservative publications or brief mentions. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete, there is a smattering of coverage, but I agree — I haven't found anything that is both non-trivial and published in fully reliable sources. (I say "fully reliable" because I'm not all that familiar with some of the conservative and U.S. Jewish-community sources at issue.) Also, it apparently made it to #12 on the NYT bestseller list [7], which actually leads me to be surprised that there's not more coverage, especially given the, shall we say, incendiary views of the author. IMO a single review from a mainstream publication, even if it was just a few sentences, would justify flipping my vote. <eleland/talkedits> 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia isn't the daily kos. 'Conservative' publications still count. Since when is it 'incendiary' to write about muslim terrorists? Nick mallory (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, "Please provide verifiable evidence, with reference to Wikipedia standards, to support any recommendations that you make." What criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books) do you think the book meets? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Notability has nothing to do with the particular POV expressed by a given book. This book isn't notable, and it doesn't matter what the subject matter is.PelleSmith (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, the publication in question is not notable and does not appear to have non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 20:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, plenty of books in Category:Books critical of Islam are less notable than this. I don't think we have a clear enough policy in general in regard to both "pro" and "anti" Islam books but I think we need to so that we can support neutrality across articles and eliminate systemic bias of either deleting "anti" Islam books and keeping "pro" ones or vice versa. That being said, I favor inclusionism and would like to keep but I don't want to keep this one if it will create bias when other books of similar note are removed. gren グレン 06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That may well be the result of a single, now banned, editor cultivating a walledgarden of such articles. I'm in favor of applying WP:NOTBOOK evenly whenever articles come up for deletion, and proposing non-notable books for deletion whenever I find them. <eleland/talkedits> 07:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Two points: first, notability is not inherited (the argument that it is has long been regarded as one to avoid in deletion discussions), and "other stuff exists" is likewise generally regarded as an invalid argument. Second, in response to Eleland, you're right that CltFn did create a number of articles on books critical of Islam. Several have been deleted after being PRODded or through AfD (I nominated one of them - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom). I've reviewed the rest and am satisfied that they meet the notability criteria. This one didn't, hence this deletion discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Brigitte Gabriel. Sole book by this author. Appears to have spent some time on New York "Times Political Best Seller" list. Objections to the creator and content notwithstanding, we have notability, but the article is very sparse. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oddly enough, "appears on a bestseller list" isn't a criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (books) (I'm a bit surprised by that omission). However, merging sounds like a workable solution. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• merge into Brigitte Gabriel, no afd necessary. If the article on Brigitte Gabriel is itself judged to fail WP:BIO, consider merging into Criticism of Islam and/or Islamophobia. dab (𒁳) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merged. Redirect article to Brigitte Gabriel pending outcome of this AFD. I'm not sure if it is proper for redirect pages, but it might be desirable to leave the existing categorization so Category:Books critical of Islam still links to this item. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom.Bless sins (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Being polemical doesn't make it non-notable, if anything notoriety increases notability. Being #12 on the NYT Bestseller list certainly makes it notable enough. --MPerel 08:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, appearing on a bestseller list isn't actually a notability criterion. We have to use the criteria we have, not the ones you wish we had. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Frankly, the guideline appears to needs work, it defies common sense since appearing at the top of the New York Times bestseller list is obviously notable. And actually on quick perusal, it appears the book does in fact meet the first criteria which includes television reviews, since the author has made rounds on the talk show circuit discussing the book. There are interviews with conservative hosts Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, Townhall.com[8]. She also discusses her book in this CNN interview, this Hannity and Colms interview, and this Duke University interview. Gabriel also presented the book on Book TV CSPAN-2. --MPerel 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I saw those interviews but they fail the first criterion of WP:NB, that the sources should be independent of the book itself (note the clarification below, which specifically excludes sources "where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.") Looking at the WP:NB talk page, it seems that the issue of "notability deriving from sales figures" is one that's come up before and has been rejected as a criterion. I can sort of see the point in that, given the appearance of trivial things like sudoku books in the bestseller lists. Brief public popularity doesn't automatically equal historical notability - after all, what is the notability of the #12 book on the NYT bestseller list of 11 March 1908? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I suppose I can see the logic of a book's notability not being based on exposure on the public talk circuit, which is really mostly about marketing. I am a bit surprised that after being on the NYT Bestseller's list and being highlighted on these major talk shows, there doesn't seem to be any book reviews of substance out there that I can find. Mind you, I still think the guideline has set the bar too high on book inclusion, but then I would find an informative article on just about any book valuable and see no good reason to be exclusionary. --MPerel 07:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I've not looked at the timing in any detail, but it wouldn't surprise me if the book's appearance on the bestseller lists was directly related to its exposure on the public talk circuit. The exposure is actually entirely about marketing - post-publication interviews, talks etc. are invariably arranged by the author's or publisher's publicist with the specific intention of boosting sales. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 12 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, taking into account that there isn't any real content. If it exists, it comes back, presumably under a different title.Tikiwont (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inho Village

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

Very short stub for village in South Korea that I'm not sure exists. In the history, it was longer, but is unclear but implies that it is fictional (there is a link to a Disney Channel website, but I couldn't find more information there). I couldn't find any mention on a Google search. It's an orphan. Rigadoun (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• comment - suggest contacting the author of the page and asking for a reference of some sort to obtain the veracity. I'm loathe to label this as a WP:HOAX. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Couldn't find any links to it at all except the Wiki site. Renee (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - NN at best, some kind of in-universe cruft at worst. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete although I tend to believe that the spelling is incorrect and thus cannot find any links.Thright (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright
• Delete without prejudice. If it is found to actually exist as a village, it should have an article as all towns/villages are inherently notable and it can be re-created.--Oakshade (talk) 21:16, 10 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UEFA Euro 2008 warm-up matches

UEFA Euro 2008 warm-up matches (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although this set of matches has defined inclusion criteria, these matches have never been officially designated as part of the UEFA Euro 2008 competition. In actual fact, they are just friendly matches that involve one or more of the teams that will play at Euro 2008, and so they are not inherently notable in themselves. – PeeJay 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete a mere, not notable, list of friendly matches. --Angelo (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: nobody said that these matches are a part of UEFA Euro 2008, but they are an important part of preparation for the competition. UEFA.com, for example, launched a predictor and a fantasy games for Euro 2008, and these games will include the warm-up matches starting from March 26. I therefore don't see how these matches are not notable.  ARTYOM  20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The concept of 'UEFA Euro 2008 warm-up matches' as a sporting event is not notable and only seems to appear in SPS. Are there are second party sources to be found? --neonwhite user page talk 22:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: everybody is interested on those friendlies before the big tournament - take a look at Uefa.com . P.s.: some users should concentrate on making positive contributions to Wikipedia for once...--Jcer80 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you sure everybody's interested in such friendlies? I'm certainly not. – PeeJay 18:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Me neither; and please note Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports almanac. --Angelo (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure, you're only interested in edit wars and deleting contributions from other users --Jcer80 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Less of the personal attacks please. – PeeJay 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Stop hiding behind "personal attacks": it's true, just try to be more constructive--Jcer80 (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
          • There's a difference between being constructive and just creating articles with gay abandon. In fact, I would deem this AfD as constructive as it is helping to weed out the unnecessary articles. I'm still yet to see a reason why this article is necessary. – PeeJay 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, a list of things that have nothing to do with each other. Punkmorten (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Punkmorten BanRay 11:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nominator is, despite sincerity of nomination, apparently ignorant of the topic area - David Gerard (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you care to explain what that accusation is based on? I've been contributing to football-based articles on Wikipedia for about two years now, so I'm fairly sure my knowledge of the topic area is pretty good compared to most people. – PeeJay 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, here it is the explanation of your behaviour: you're better than the other users!--Jcer80 (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Nice of you to say so, and you're right, I would consider myself more informed about this subject than the majority of Wikipedians (that's everyone, not just the ones who contribute to football articles). Anyway, can we stick to the matter at hand please? – PeeJay 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• My sincere apologies for intruding your "conversation", but I think I should mention that this very article has been referred in several locations as the BEST and ONLY complete list of pre-tournament friendlies. Sadly, I cannot provide any links, but you may take my word that a link to this article has been given in at least two Finnish newspapers, and I use it as my reference when writing articles to a Finnish magazine. Deleting this article (or even discussing about it) only seems like a horrible waste of time. There are numerous articles in Wikipedia that are less useful than this. --130.232.125.28 (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If that was a vote to keep this article, then I doubt your motives very much. You say you use Wikipedia as a reference when writing your articles, presumably as a primary resource. However, Wikipedia is by its own definition a secondary or even tertiary source. This whole website is built on information that has been sourced and verified from other sources, so obviously the information in this article can be found elsewhere. If you want a list of friendly international football matches, I suggest you look at FIFA.com, which has a full and comprehensive list of all friendlies that have been ratified by FIFA (here). Nevertheless, the matches documented in this article are almost as non-notable as they come (perhaps apart from a friendly between Guam and Samoa) and do not deserve an entire article about them. – PeeJay 14:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It was not a vote, merely a comment from an "outsider". As far as I'm concerned, I am not allowed to vote as an unregistered user. I am very aware of the resources that have been used in creation of this article (FIFA, Futbolplanet), since they are also listed in the "External links" -section of the article. However I prefer this article since it usually is the first one updated when a new friendly match is decided. It takes several days before FIFA adds these events on its list. It also lists ONLY the matches of Euro 2008 -teams, while from the other sources the same matches have to be filtered from amongst several other international matches. Basically the differences aren't that remarkable, but this Wikipedia -article is remarkably easier to use. It is also not important to talk whether or not these friendlies are "notable" or not. Most coaches do think the results are irrelevant, but the matches are not. Notability in this case is a matter of opinion, and should not be a reason to delete the article.

I must also mention that I do not like this deletionistic trend in Wikipedia. I sincerely believe all articles that make sense (=aren't rubbish) and are important to just a few people more than the original "contributor", should be conserved. I'm certainly not the only person on this planet who regularly visits this very article and finds it extremely useful. My personal opinion of Wikipedia has dramatically dropped during the last months, since it starts to look more like a playground of wannabe-politicians than an encyclopedia created to provide information to normal people by normal people. Lastly I beg your pardon for going slightly off-topic and for possibly writing horrible English, since it's not my native language. --130.232.125.28 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: I would like to follow what we have done at 2006 FIFA World Cup. There is no warm-up matches articles there. All matches are not compulsory enough to mention before the game started. Raymond Giggs 04:41, 14 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ZADZADZ

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

Doesn't seem notable - many references are that of the actual website. RT | Talk 07:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems very notable. Houston Chronicle. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Numerous University papers. TheDroidsYoureLookingFor (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The articles in the Houston Chronicle and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel qualify as multiple, non-trivial sources.
  Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Do)
  19:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - bad nomination, per noted sources - David Gerard (talk) 13:23, 9 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Partlett

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

This person seems to have done very little if anything noteworthy. As the current dean of a law school he certainly merits mention on the article about that school. It seems he has done nothing more of particular note other than being the dean. Aar☢n Bruce^Talk/_Contribs 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Reads like a resume. I agree with the nom, put a short mention on the school's article unless sources can be identified that prove notability beyond the fact he is the dean of a law school.
  Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Do)
  19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). SWik78 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that he passes WP:PROF. His citation record reported by Google Scholar looks distinctly underwhelming. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:23, 9 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 attack page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Angus Crotchpuncher III

Angus Crotchpuncher III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

SPEEDY candidate: name change vandalism. emerson7 19:14, 7 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 00:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kylie's eleventh studio album

Kylie's eleventh studio album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minogue's tenth album was *just released*. It hasn't even been released in North America yet. This is WP:CRYSTAL as well as having an informal tone to the article's title. Completely unnecessary article. eo (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless some references can be given. If someone finds some, at least rename to Kylie Minogue's tenth studio album. Rigadoun (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Albums should never have articles until, at minimum, the artist or the label has provided a firm title and track listing. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete until a hypothetical article on the album can provide the title, tracklist, and specific release date, and have this information cited from reliable sources independant of the artist and record company. At which point it will be created at the correct title anyway. -- saberwyn 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, I'd say this is all speculation, but what speculation? WP:CRYSTAL I guess. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
• Delete -- per WP:CRYSTAL. - Longhair\^talk 21:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 04:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - it's been said GetDumb 07:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per pretty much all of the above. tomasz. 09:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL and no reliable sources. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:04, 11 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Canadians

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

I do not understand why this should be up here. This page just gives a few names, no references. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Canuckle (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, perfectly valid disambiguation-type article, although I'm not sure it really warrants the {{disambig}}. --Dhartung | Talk 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, ditto, although I think this could be more than a simple disambig; I've known people who were "three of the above" but identified as British rather than (any one of (whichever of) the three. And what about Manx Canadians? Cornish Canadians? Skookum1 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I wonder if this might be more considered a disambiguation page for the nice four ethnic group articles that are listed there. It should also be noted that this article was less than 3 minutes old when nominated. (Edit conflict: Dhartung agrees). DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment If retained, I guess this could become the main article for Category:British Canadians or its master cat Category:Canadians of British descent? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's also already a tiny section on this at British_people#Canada. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That said, I do agree with the above comments that if retained, it should be as a disambiguation page, as articles like Scottish Canadian do a fine job of chronicling the histories of each of the UK national groups in Canada. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and replace with a category. GreenJoe 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories already exist, per above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, per Skookum1. Black Tusk 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This serves no purpose except to tell us that English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh Canadians are also "British Canadians"... perhaps the author speaks for all of Canada, but I can tell you that "Irish-Americans" sure as hell don't think of themselves as "British Americans". Thus, I question whether this is someone's point of view rather than something that can be sourced. Mandsford (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to Canadians of Northern Irish, which doesn't have or I suspect doesn't merit an article, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain you're aware that at the time of Canada's settlement, Ireland was part of the British Empire? And certainly only some Canadians are "Northern-Irish-Canadians"? The point is to help the person with the wrong/obsolete/too general term find the article they want. --Dhartung | Talk 06:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Coincidentally, at the time of America's settlement, Ireland was a part of the British Empire too, but you don't see the Union Jack on St. Patrick's Day. For that matter, a lot of the world was "part of the British Empire" when Canada was being settled, an argument which would cut both ways. I think the point that Shawn is making is that the majority groups are "British Canadian" and "French Canadian", and that within the British Canadian community (sources would be helpful here), and that there are further ethnic divisions among English, Scottish and Welsh, more so than in the USA. For instance, I'm not aware of any American celebrations of "St. David's Day" or even a strong "Welsh-American" community (you sometimes see a bumper sticker); and there's no analog in America to Canadian tartans to symbolize Scottish-Canadian pride. However, I picked up that context from reading the articles, and I urge Shawn to put more context, with sources, in the page itself. Mandsford (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  But if it ends up being retained as a disambig page, which now seems likely, should we be populating it with a lot of text? I don't think so, per MOS:DAB.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as disambiguation page. "British Canadian" seems just as likely a search term as any of English Canadian, Scottish Canadian, etc. EALacey (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a valid disambiguation page as EALacey says above. --Bduke (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing the cats and placing a disambig tag on it, as there seems to be a consensus on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - any nomination with the words "I do not understand" is liable to wide quoting as an example of systemic problems with AFD in general - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• No making vote Agree with you. I have problem with nominations made with the words I do not understand, but I am learning for new words the meaning each day, so I understand the words, email, I will explain, OK. 63.84.72.153 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as disambiguation page. Coffee4me (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - My initial reaction was to call for the deletion of it and of the articles, listed, but I now realise that the article is describing genuine published research. Since Canada was largely settled by British colonists (except Quebec), I very much doubt that being of English, Welsh, Scottish, or Ulster is a defining characteristic for most Canadians, and I presume that intermarriage has meant that many Canadians fall into two or even three groups. I would therefore oppose categories for these groups. The present page should be retained as a disambigation page, and tidied up to look more like one. The Northern Ireland article is missing, and should become a red link, or initially a redirect (with possibilities) to an article on Canadians of Irish descent. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can tell on personal experience that being English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish is a defining characteristic for many Canadians, rather than any generically British origin. Regardless, we agree that this has value as a diambiguation page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 11 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ZUIAF

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

Non-notable company. Claims to notability in the article appear to be false: Google results are few, and the references listed at the bottom (particular the 7.5 MB PDF file) don't even mention the company. —BradV 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.
  Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Do)
  19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. OF course the pdf doesn't mention the company: it only lists the top 25, and zuiaf happens to be the 26th. Too bad we can't verify it! Fram (talk) 08:43, 10 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 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Gbemie

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

Contested PROD. Has not played in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Article states he's a "member" of the Liberia squad, but provides no reference to suggest he's played for them, and a search on Google provides only this article as a source to suggest he has anything to do with the national team. robwingfield ^«T•C» 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 18:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete---The section on his personal life is definitely not in Wikipedia format, and he does not show up on any Google searches for playing on a professional team. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per everybody. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 12:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 13:49, 11 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. faithless (^speak) 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Daze (Austin band)

The Daze (Austin band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local band. Their main claim to notability, and the reason that the article survived CSD, is that they were filmed for a 2009 release movie. Will (film) mentions them in passing, but they appear to be far from the center of the movie. But IMHO this still does not satisfy notability requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm the one who removed the speedy tag yesterday as I felt the article asserted notability, and I wanted to give the creator a chance to show it in the article. However, I could not come up with reliable source references that the band meets WP:MUSIC and I don't think that the movie appearance is sufficient for notability under the basic notability guidelines. Xymmax (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I too have made an attempt to find sources, in Google News archives and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. I found nothing. Delete in the absence of reliable third-party sourcing. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. SingCal 01:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• There is a picture of the band on set. The name of the band is on the bass drumFitzsimpson (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the band actually performed for the movie, but whether that performance is enough to get past the notability requirements as set out at WP:MUSIC. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:52, 9 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. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Ashley Chase

No evidence of notability; the only source is an obituary in his company newsletter. Notability requires independent sources, and/or multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. This is just an article written by a family member, for vanity essentially. Dicklyon (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Just an employee and auditor, a noble prefession, but no one special. Emeraude (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep One of the founders of the largest entertainment companies in the world should be intrinsically part of the historical record. The source material is good enough for me since I found it in about 1 minute when looking through WB archives. People that want to remove this article are doing it due to their own vanity because they have not been successful with previous attempts to do so.Joegillus (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep One of the founders of Warner Borthers? There is certain to be more material. keep and expand. DGG (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. Don't understand why it was put up for deletion, but it undeniably must be expanded. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's because there's nothing published about him, as far as I or anyone else has been able to find. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weakest of weakest of keeps. I hadn't seen that this was nominated again. Last September it was kept. I'm not persuaded that he merits the description "one of the founders of Warner Brothers". There certainly are not any sources available online to credibly expand the article other than his NYT obit. (the sole result on GNews Archive) --Dhartung | Talk 19:22, 7 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 (author request). Canley (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halo Math

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

I have nominated this page for deletion because upon first review, the content suggested that the upcoming games name was "Halo Wars", not "Halo Math". I then proceeded to move the page to the appropriate title, which already existed. Therefore, this page is a duplicate. — Johnl1479^(talk) 17:21, 7 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 original research is a core Wikipedia content policy, and synthesis is original research. An article that cites sources that don't support the statements they are claimed to support is worse than bad -- it's deceptive. Nandesuka (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human trafficking in Angeles City

Human trafficking in Angeles City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lots of original research, a probable POV fork, undue weight, mess of a thing. The sources don't really describe any detailed problem with human trafficking in this city and it appears to only exist because of undue weight concerns in the main article. A good example of sourcing that doesn't source the article subject. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What is the "main article"? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Angeles City Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you suggest this information (where sourced and so forth) be merged to that article? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not convinced its even worthy of that. what large city doesn't have prostitutes? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That argument has been made before here. Since the early days of Clark Air Base, Angeles City has become known as a center for prostitution. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes and it appears this article is an attempt to circumvent the concept that it wasnt worth including in the main article. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
            • "Wasn't worth including" is one perspective. Someone else might call it tendentious editing by editors WP:OWNing that article. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
              • The sourcing is so poor in this article that it appears that the nameless ones you're talking about were right. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete.

The first sentence alone has three sources, the first of which references prostitution in 1989 [9], the second of which mentions Angeles once, amongst a list of twenty two cities an organisation is going to concentrate on [10], and the third saying that a man arrested for sleeping with minors owns a club there [11]. Whilst these suggest that there is an issue of prostitution in the Phillipines, they (a) don't actually state that Angeles specifically has a 'significant' issue with it and (b) I'm not convinced that the fact that a city has prostitution is really worthy of a seperate article - as 'Weighted Companion' notes, what city doesn't?

After reading most of the sources, I think it might be worthy of an article of human trafficking in the Philippines, but I don't see the justification for having one specifically for Angeles, as a lot of the sources mention Angeles briefly and usually talk about the wider issue of trafficking in the Phillipines. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're understating the significance of the 3rd link.

Agnew, who lives the life of a millionaire, moved to the Philippines seven years ago from Northern Ireland where he served as a sergeant with the RUC. And he soon opened up a string of go-go clubs in Angeles City. ... Next week Agnew will learn whether or not he will face a more serious charge of trafficking in females.

And the article has 100 more references. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My point is that none of the sources back up the statements made - this is a case of WP:SYNTH. As I stated, I have reviewed the rest of the sources and imo in the majority of cases they don't actually say what the article says. The use of the first three sources was just to make my point. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete The nature of the article, with the long quotions in the references, makes it clear that this is a POV essay in guise of a WP article. The references are individual articles about individual events, amounts to the use of OR. Not saying a suitable article cant be written, but this is not it. Better to start over. DGG (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, but tag with WP:NPOV. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, The article is extensively well sourced, one must review all the sources and look at those sources as a whole, rather then picking one or two. When for example, one looks at the documentary http://www.hopeinheavenfilm.com/index.htm it may be asked how many cities in the world have documantaries made about the human trafficking problem...very few indeed. How many vities in the world have thousands of children as young as 10 years old forced to service up to 20 customers a night...not many. This is a stand alone article, it is a very valuable addition to wikipedia, and an article that is offers a good reference point for those researching the suject of human trafficking in Angeles. It may be there are some issues with the presentation of the article, but its only a matter of some experienced editors being involved.Susanbryce (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not really, I see documentaries about prostitution in my home city of Sheffield on TV all the time. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. While there are some sources talking about Angeles City in particular, most of the sources discuss the Philippines generally (for instance, citation #27, Amnesty International). The current article fails WP:SYN badly. It may be salvageable if rewritten extensively to deal with Human trafficking in the Philippines. I have no idea why the author felt this particular city was important enough amidst the wider problems to merit its own article, but there certainly do not seem to be sufficient sources dealing with Angeles City in particular to support some of the claims. That, using the same example, Amnesty International has pointed to abuse of prostitutes by police in the Philippines should not be used to support a claim that police in Angeles City did so, unless cited much more carefully than the current article does. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It is little more than a POV fork. The sources do not reflect the specificity of the article therefore, per Dhartung, it would better if the material was about the Philippines as a whole. As it is, this merits little more than a line or two in the article about the city. Rockpocket 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Human trafficking in the Philippines and clean-up - significant amount of reliably sourced content. Addhoc (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• strong delete POV article of a clinically paranoid and raving nature. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - POV fork as far as I can see, and as brought up, many of the sources don't back up the central assertion. Really, what city doesn't have prostitution and human trafficking issues? If the city is really that notable for it, mention it in the main article. But this is unnecessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep as we should not be deleting good quality material, which this is. We give endless coverage of the first world but when we get some good third world coverage people want to get rid of it. Which totally baffles me. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • i see little in this that qualifies as good quality material of any world, first or third. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to a well-sourced article (one candidate is mentioned above) about human-trafficking issues in this region in a broader context. The emphasis on one particular city appears to be disproportionate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per those pointing out this is a POV fork, pointing out that this is synthesis, and pointing out that it seems to be the focus of ownership by one editor with an agenda to push. I could perhaps see an smerge of a sentence or two to a broader scope article, per NYBrad... ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep or strong transwiki to Wikiversity. --Emesee (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons stated above. — Κaiba 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Stubbify, and Completely Rewrite -- The article in current form is very much a diamond in the rough. There are a number of good sources, but the content is a quagmire of purple prose, yellow journalism, and other colorful text. --SSBohio 01:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The nominator's rationale does not justify deletion. He said: "Lots of original research, a probable POV fork, undue weight, mess of a thing". "POV fork" to what? The entire article is not OR and includes a number of supporting sources. Any content problems (undue weight etc.) should be simply fixed. No reasons for deletion.Biophys (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Have you read the sources? Barely any of them support the claims in the article. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Whatever content that is not OR in this article can be added to Human trafficking in the Philippines and this article can then be deleted. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I would echo some of the comments made by the editors that have posted a delete. I have followed this article since its inception and believe that it has always had some severe WP:NPOV problems. The edit wars and debates on this article have always been pretty intense. I would also like to point out the original author of the article posted the user talk notice they received about the AfD to the following user's talk pages. User_talk:Gscshoyru, User_talk:Addhoc, and User_talk:SqueakBox. The guidelines on WP:CANVAS seem quite loose. So I simply provide this as additional information for all to consider. I would characterize this article as WP:TEND using WP:SYN by an editor that seems to clearly have an agenda. I also strongly agree with the comments from User:Merkinsmum, User:Dhartung, User:DGG and User:Lar
  Dhartung, you mentioned:

  I have no idea why the author felt this particular city was important enough amidst the wider problems to merit its own article, but there certainly do not seem to be sufficient sources dealing with Angeles City in particular to support some of the claims.

  FYI, the author of this article has previously admitted to growing up in Angeles City --HurryTaken (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • While this was posted top my talk page I dont believe the poster knew which way I would vote, and besides I cannot take the blame for that. once I had been informed I analysed the situation (as one does with any afd on an unfamiliar article) and made my decision, so whatever my comment is as valid as anyone else's. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It was not my goal to suggest that anyone did anything wrong or that anyone's comments should be discounted or invalid. I tried to word the above information about the User Talk page posts are neutrally as possible and as an FYI given the notice at the top of this page that states: "This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here."--HurryTaken (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think posting 4 notices on talk pages is at all excessive, unusual, or appropriate for a comment. That notice at the top was not appropriate if that's all the "canvassing". DGG (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The {{!vote}} template is not hurting anything. For what it's worth, this AFD has also been listed in Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think a merge or redirect to Human trafficking in the Philippines would suffice. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ThankYou Lenticel, your input here is much appreciated. I should offer an explanation here as to why I started a seperate aeticle human trafficking in Angeles to human trafficking in the Philippines as for those people who are outside of the Philippines it is hard to understand. Although most places in the Philippines suffer from problems of human trafficking, we can say that human traiicking within these places is there, but it does not control the city.

In Angeles it is a completely different situation, the whole city was built around the human trafficking trade after the closure of the base. Organized crime shifted from Manila to Angeles and took control of the city. They control everything through restaurents, hotels, police, polititions, elections, etc. As such, the article has been kept seperate from the human trafficking in philppines article, so as not to give the reader or researcher the wrong opinion. Human trafficking in Angeles is vastly different from the rest of the Philippines, and if we merge the article it is going to give the reader and researcher a totally different and false view on the facts. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia needs to present this information in the best possible and factual way. This is why I think the merger is probably the wrong way to go here. Kind RegardsSusanbryce (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• It should also now be noted that a number of quality experienced Editors have engaged themsleves on the article and did some quality work on improving the article, so I think some of the original concerns are now been resolved. Ive always stated from day one I have no education, english is my second language and as such ive struggled in my articles on wikipedia. But that should not be a reason to delete an article, and with the invovlement of quality editors now in the article, as Ive said, I think the original concerns are being addressed. Kind RegardsSusanbryce (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • but the improvements aren't doing it. there are still bunches of paragraphs that have nothing to do with angeles city, and i'd remove them if i thought it would be fair during the deletion discussion. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I put a bunch of work into it awhile back.... The article was and still is a mess. OR, POV issues... basically this is not an article. It is a collection of "facts" many of which are not supported by the sources. There could be an article on this subject. This is not that article. Devalover (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and continue cleanup, which has been very active during the past week (see article history page). Comment on suggestions to merge: Human trafficking in the Philippines and Angeles City are both far too large for merging to be considered an improvement. — Athaenara ✉ 01:00, 13 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo GameCube Preview Disc

Nintendo GameCube Preview Disc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No content has been added whatsoever, no less than any single person that voted to keep the article. Does the article contain any sources that assert notability at all? And just to make note, IGN acknowledges plenty of lesser content than a demo disc. If the people who want to keep the article don't care about the article, why should it be kept? A Link to the Past (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's a little devoid of good sources but seems to have encyclopedic worth and as previous afds have suggested it is more significant than other demos. --neonwhite user page talk 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • All content must be sourced. I'm against people saying "well, I'm deleting until there's sources!", but that's to an extent. I've given them many, many, many months to add sources. I think it's gotten enough slack - why should we assume that it's notable, when there is literally no evidence collected by anyone to assert its notability? I'm sorry, but the fact that no one has added any sources at all asserting notability screams to me "they don't exist", not "they're probably out there". All that can be said is that it was bundled with the GameCube. That's its notability. Basically, everyone who voted keep cared enough to want it to exist, but didn't care enough for it to be good. Now, why shouldn't the lack of sources and lack of any editing in many months be enough to get it deleted or merged? What makes it deserving - the fact that people say it is? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nominator. FightingStreet (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It is relevant and has some degree of importance. Kirix (talk) 12 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.217.91 (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Really? Why is it that no one has ever established this? If the article is kept, it'll be kept because of majority rule, not because the article actually DOES deserve to be kept. I have a really strong feeling that no one who voted keep in this AfD or any previous AfDs will care about this article past keeping it. So basically, no matter how much it sucks, it should be an article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Look, I admit when I first made this article I did a very lazy job of it and I haven't looked at it since I first made it. I saw Nintendo Gamecube Preview Disc as a red link from another article and I wanted to fill the void. Now that I have taken notice of how far its come I want to make an effort to make it a reputable article. I like how you only reply to Keep votes but you don't bother to correct Faithlessthewonderboy obviously flawed argument because he's voting on your behalf. If you really want to see this article deleted then I am sure you will find a way to do it but I still want to make it right. Kirix (talk) Friday, 2008-03-14 06:46 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.217.91 (talk)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 09:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note to the AfD closer - you must take into account a single fact that any evidence provided for this article's notability is imaginary. The only source for its notability is "it was on IGN", which is true for many things that don't deserve articles. I'm tired of this article surviving despite the lack of quality in the keepers' arguments, while the people voting delete are basically given the brunt of the debate, having to put in extra effort. I've given every single person who's voted keep in this article's history a chance to improve the article. If no one's added a single source or added any single inkling of notability in nearly five months, why should they be allowed to have the article kept? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, it's been reviewed by IGN. Looks notable. --Pixelface (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Being covered by IGN is certainly not an assertion of notability. If being covered by IGN = notability (in fact, enough notability to be the one and only thing showing its notability), then you agree that every single Official PlayStation Magazine demo disc is notable too, since IGN covers each one of them individually. Do you? Either being covered by IGN asserts notability for all demo discs they cover, or it asserts notability for none of them. Pick.
  • By the way, it was not reviewed by IGN, ever. It was covered in a news article. Hardly an accomplishment, since Nintendo advertised the disc and bundled it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Seriously? A demo disc!? And the next time I buy a magazine with a CD included in the mylar bag shall I write an article about it? Completely non-notable, first AfD showed a consensus to delete IMO. faithless (^speak) 07:01, 14 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shahana

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

Total horror show of an article, subject gets a few googlehits, but none nontable enough to justify an article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - No claim of notability and I think technically eligable for speedy delete. Better, however, I think to go through this process. House of Scandal (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of reliable sources, for example: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Phil Bridger (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per sources. matt91486 (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep considering sources have been found. By the way, doesn't "horrorshow" mean "good?" :) faithless (^speak) 07:06, 14 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 Withdrawn. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Search Engine Strategies

Search Engine Strategies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is but one of many SEO conferences (albeit probably the largest). Only citations for notability are press releases or blog posts by Danny Sullivan, the creator of the conference itself. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Notable; you can find at least a dozen fine sources in this news search. Lawrence § t/e 16:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Most of what I see there are news wires of press releases, not independent articles where SES is the subject. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• You should look closer, then. Lawrence § t/e 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ten seconds of looking past the releases got me: [18][19][20][21][22] all these, and there are many, many more pages. Lawrence § t/e 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Great - add them to the article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• The point of the AFD proven wrong, will you withdraw? Lawrence § t/e 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Those actually seem mostly trivial mentions of SES, or simply a blog's posting of what was discussed there, but not "significant coverage". I'd rather wait for more opinions on the matter. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Conversation with Eric Schmidt hosted by Danny Sullivan on Google.com domain WP:V Eric Schmidt is the CEO of Google. Igor Berger (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Are you saying its notable since Eric Schmidt attended? (I'm just trying to understand your position). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per passing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep even per nom; it's the largest in a major field. DGG (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment per WP:N "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." Igor Berger (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• What's your point, exactly? We're working on seeing if consensus exists right now... --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• What you doing is canvasing for your POV. Look at the votes, they are all keep, that is the consesus. Igor Berger (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Um, what "canvassing" and what "POV"? Please assume good faith and don't accuse me of such behavior. Yes, there are 4 keep votes, but there is a deletion process to follow. (And while its certainly possible some other editor might come along and decide to close this per WP:SNOW, that hasn't happened). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, and it seems that you have been canvassing a POV: here and here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Touche..:) But seriously, what makes you think this article is not notable? Igor Berger (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• First, I still wonder what POV you think I have been canvassing. I see no evidence for such an accusation. And my reason for nominating is clear above. There haven't been any reliable sources where this conference is a subject of significant coverage. I don't doubt its importance in the SEO community, but many conferences are important to many communities - that doesn't make them encyclopedic. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Your reasoning is sound, but if Google CEO Eric Schmidt attends the conference and Google publishes the trascript on its domain would that not make the conference notable per Wikipedia guidelines?

• Keep It has good sources and is a reasonable page Brokenspirits (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep One of the oldest, and some people would argue the most important, industry event today, which got more competition lately, but that competition cannot take away what SES already accomplished in conjunction with other things, the establishment of an industry that didn't even exist 20 years ago to a multi-billion dollar industry that is established and respected. Industry events like SES allowed the formation of organizations for the industry etc. Real life get-togethers of people from the same industry are the foundations for the creation of any entity or body to self govern that industry. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Then why can't we find citations that aren't just press releases or from Sullivan's own blogs? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• comment Google and other search engine execs doing keynotes at SES was already mentioned, but not the facts that Google throws every year a party (for SES attendees and invited Googlers only) right at the Googleplex during Search Engine Strategies San Jose. It was mentioned in USA Today once for example [23] if you don't believe me. Product launches or new features of search engines and search marketing related vendors are also often introduced (with a bang I suppose) at SES events. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• The USA Today ref at least provides an independent mention of the conference, although we could use stronger ones that make more than just a passing mention of the event. However, given this new reference, I'm comfortable withdrawing the nomination. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:25, 8 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Kulikovsky

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

If one takes out the description of his relations, there is no article. Entirely lacks notability. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per Gareth. If I am personally related to George Washington, I still have to do something myself to be notable. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as said above. He didn't really do anything himself to be notable. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete He did nothing to be notable, So he doesn't deserve an article. Apex Glide (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm finding many more of these articles now that I'm looking...Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication of even limited aristocratic notability (title, etc.). Wikipedia is not Majesty magazine or whoever it is that considers these people important. --Dhartung | Talk 19:33, 7 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 as hoax. Nandesuka (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heinrich Heinz

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

This article seems to be a hoax. All other edits by the article's creator (Phyl-opus-jackson (talk · contribs)) have been vandalism. The two external links provided as references are about other individuals, "Heinrich Bär" and "Heinrich Trettner". Olessi (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax or no, the first five pages of a Google search for the exact phrase "Heinrich Heinz" yielded no results about anyone who is remotely similar to this person. If he really did live at some point, I doubt he is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for creating fictional Nazis. There were enough of the real ones out there. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:34, 9 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. Nandesuka (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classical Chinese Wikipedia

Classical Chinese Wikipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Classical Chinese Wikipedia article makes no assertion of notability. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Classical Chinese Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB.

I recommend a delete' for the above reasons. I recommend extra care be given to consideration of the issue, since Wikipedia damages its credibility to the extent that it suspends its own policy to favour listing its own websites.

A number of recent AFD debates related to wikipedia version articles are shown in the table below for reference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I think careful consideration leads to the conclusion that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to the List of Wikipedias until such time as there is secondary coverage. These itsy-bitsy courtesy Wikipedias are cool in a way, but they have no inherent notability and should not. --Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; redirecting seems more appropriate in cases of short articles with only statistics, but this has some nontrivial content. It actually has more content than many of the articles included in last year's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Also, the article on the French Wikipedia is translated from this article, so the authorship information shouldn't be deleted per license requirements as I understand them (although that obviously raises dilemmas...has this been discussed?). Rigadoun (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - because the table posted is unduely prejudicial in attempting to have this article deleted based on other AfD's, which is not how AfD works. It seems to walk awfully close to WP:GAMEing the system in my mind. If Tagishsimon feels that all small Wiki's should go, then begin a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion instead of picking off easy ones, one at a time. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nominator fails to understand the "encyclo-" part of "encyclopedia" - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a description of a foreign language WP. It lacks external sources, but so do many other WP articles. It is a genuine subject for WP in a well-used language (or rather script), and should certainly be retained. I suspect that it will be difficult to find English language external sources on this, and ma not sure of the merits of using Chinese ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's odd to call a classical language a well-used language, though of course it was once, and the existence of the Wikipedia implies there are many interested in keeping it alive). I did look for sources in (modern) Chinese, and found numerous blogs and forums, but couldn't find any (which doesn't mean they don't exist). Rigadoun (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep clearly notable. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:03, 12 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amharic Wikipedia

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

The Amharic Wikipedia article makes no assertion of notability. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Amharic Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB.

I recommend a delete' for the above reasons. I recommend extra care be given to consideration of the issue, since Wikipedia damages its credibility to the extent that it suspends its own policy to favour listing its own websites.

A number of recent AFD debates related to wikipedia version articles are shown in the table below for reference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• delete per past AfD's — Johnl1479^(talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Past AfD's on other articles have nothing to do with this article. Even past AfD's on this article would have no bearing on this AfD, because consensus can change. 152.3.246.241 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. If we've thought differently in the past, here's the chance to get it right. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ironic. You claim to perceive a prejudice against these kinds of articles, even as your subjective argument for keeping them betrays a prejudice in favor of them. 152.3.246.241 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think DGG is right in that there are editors prejudiced against coverage, often citing WP:ASR, even as Wikipedia has become a top-ten website and the subject of news headlines. It took several days for a mention of the Marsden controversy to be mentioned in the Jimmy Wales article, and there were numerous attempts to delete the Essjay controversy, even though it was arguably the most widespread coverage of any Wikipedia-related topic. But objective evaluation of this topic by the primary notability criterion does lead one to a conclusion. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Agree. 152.3.116.193 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to the List of Wikipedias until such time as there is secondary coverage. These itsy-bitsy courtesy Wikipedias are cool in a way, but they have no inherent notability and should not.--Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - because the table posted is unduely prejudicial in attempting to have this article deleted based on other AfD's, which is not how AfD works. It seems to walk awfully close to WP:GAMEing the system in my mind. If Tagishsimon feels that all small Wiki's should go, then begin a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion instead of picking off easy ones, one at a time. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The nominator is not seeking deletion of this article "based on other AfD's." He said he provided the table for reference purposes (standard practice at AfD). I think you might find the nominator's actual reason for deletion to be located right above the part where he wrote I recommend a delete for the above reasons. Just a hunch. 152.3.116.193 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "standard practice" ??? no it is not, not that I have ever seen. I see it as an attempt to create undue influence. I still believe that all 5 of the current "cookie cutter" nominations shoud be sent to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • They shouldn't. It might turn out that some of these Wikipedias being nominated for deletion pass WP:WEB, while others do not. Does this one? (This AfD should focus on that question, but so far only the nominator and Dhartung have addressed it.) 152.3.48.13 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • In a Cookie Cutter nomination (yes, word for word in all 5 nominations), How is this nom addressing this Article, doing what you are asking us to do. The nomination is fundamentally flawed and has been closed as such in several of the other nominations. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - fundamentally misguided nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:WEB is fundamentally misguided? 152.3.48.13 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it is only a stub at present, but covers a genuine subject. Let us hope this WP prospers. I see no reaon not to have English language articles describing foreign language WPs. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 10 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pennsylvania German Wikipedia

Pennsylvania German Wikipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Pennsylvania German Wikipedia article makes no assertion of notability. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Pennsylvania German Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB.

I recommend a delete' for the above reasons. I recommend extra care be given to consideration of the issue, since Wikipedia damages its credibility to the extent that it suspends its own policy to favour listing its own websites.

A number of recent AFD debates related to wikipedia version articles are shown in the table below for reference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per very detailed nom. Merge into List of Wikipedias or another central location. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Inactive wikipedia that isn't particularly notable.--TBC ♣§♠ !?! 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I think that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. If we've thought differently in the past, here's the chance to get it right. 'Small does not mean non-notable. Even if it were to be discontinued, it would still be an appropriate subject. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

*Redirect to List of Wikipedias, Not very notable and Notability isn't inherited, even if it's a Wikimedia project. Inclusion in List of Wikipedias will be just fine. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 18:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing my vote to Keep because of things pointed out by users below, it really looks like the nom is on a mission to delete all small-sized wikis. The table did strike me as odd when I saw it, but that had nothing to do with my original vote. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to the List of Wikipedias until such time as there is secondary coverage. These itsy-bitsy courtesy Wikipedias are cool in a way, but they have no inherent notability and should not.--Dhartung | Talk 20:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - because the table posted is unduely prejudicial in attempting to have this article deleted based on other AfD's, which is not how AfD works. It seems to walk awfully close to WP:GAMEing the system in my mind. If Tagishsimon feels that all small Wiki's should go, then begin a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion instead of picking off easy ones, one at a time. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nominator is wasting AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect there has always been consensus that small wikis that doesn't meet the sourcing guidelines should be redirected or deleted, I don't see why this one is more different than the others, and commnents such as nominator is wasting AFD time isn't a valid reasoning. Secret 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As an Englishman, I had no idea that this language even existed, but the article on it clearly inducates that it does. The existence of the WP in the language is noteworthy, even if the article is only a stub. The considerationas are the same as for the Amharic WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:03, 10 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.

[edit] Yoruba Wikipedia

Closed as Keep as per WP:SNOW - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The Yoruba Wikipedia article makes no assertion of notability. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Yoruba Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB.

I recommend a delete' for the above reasons. I recommend extra care be given to consideration of the issue, since Wikipedia damages its credibility to the extent that it suspends its own policy to favour listing its own websites.

A number of recent AFD debates related to wikipedia version articles are shown in the table below for reference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I think that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. If we've thought differently in the past, here's the chance to get it right. 'Small does not mean non-notable. Even if it were to be discontinued, it would still be an appropriate subject. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to the List of Wikipedias until such time as there is secondary coverage. These itsy-bitsy courtesy Wikipedias are cool in a way, but they have no inherent notability and should not.--Dhartung | Talk 20:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - because the table posted is unduely prejudicial in attempting to have this article deleted based on other AfD's, which is not how AfD works. It seems to walk awfully close to WP:GAMEing the system in my mind. If Tagishsimon feels that all small Wiki's should go, then begin a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion instead of picking off easy ones, one at a time. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nominator is working robotically - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 9 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 Faith No More. Maybe there is a volunteer, otherwise I'll do a rough merge later. Tikiwont (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Faith No Man

Faith No Man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

As the article says, "For all intents and purposes, Faith No Man is actually an early incarnation of Faith No More". I tried to redirect it to Faith No More but was reverted twice. Now the community should decide if this (virtually empty) article on a band which clearly fails WP:MUSIC is necessary to the project. John (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It does meet WP:MUSIC #6. I see no discussion on the talk page regarding the redirect but a redirect seems very appropriate. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - to Faith No More as part of the band's early history. Should there be a separate article on "The Primettes" before they became a trio and changed their name to "The Supremes"? - eo (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per above, keep page title as a redirect to more notable Faith No More. Xymmax (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. There simply isn't enough material for an article, and this is best handled as part of the lineup history of Faith No More. --Dhartung | Talk 19:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• There's no real reason for this to have a separate article from the one on the much more notable band it evolved into. Merge and redirect to Faith No More. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge better suited as a single subject. Chubbles (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, usually these sorts of cases are not independently notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Faith No More, it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. I suggest expanding the section on Faith No Man in the Faith No More article by including the information here that's not there (which is basically what a Merge is anyway). Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 15:31, 9 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. Sorry, RHaworth. Nandesuka (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Royce Hall, Loughborough

Royce Hall, Loughborough (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Utterly non-notable student hall of residence in a UK university. andy (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC) andy (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per above. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It might, in fact, be just barely notable but there's no assertion of that in the article. --House of Scandal (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's either notable or it's not. andy (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. My son, George says "Keep - Royce Hall was good - I went there". So for myself, I will abstain! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• University residence halls are very rarely independently notable — and on the occasion that they are, it's not just because they're university residences. Delete. A redirect to Loughborough University would also be suitable...not that there's actually much content to merge, though. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete As non-notable with minimal content. May qualify for Speedy Delete as it does not appear to even assert notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable - no third party coverage in reliable sources. It is correct that student residences are rarely notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:31, 8 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.

[edit] Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia

Closed as Keep as per WP:SNOW - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia article makes no assertion of notability. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB.

I recommend a delete' for the above reasons. I recommend extra care be given to consideration of the issue, since Wikipedia damages its credibility to the extent that it suspends its own policy to favour listing its own websites.

A number of recent AFD debates related to wikipedia version articles are shown in the table below for reference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I think that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. If we've thought differently in the past, here's the chance to get it right. Small does not mean non-notable. Even if it were to be discontinued, it would still be an appropriate subject, given the discussion of the validity of having it. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to the List of Wikipedias until such time as there is secondary coverage. These itsy-bitsy courtesy Wikipedias are cool in a way, but they have no inherent notability and should not.--Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - because the table posted is unduely prejudicial in attempting to have this article deleted based on other AfD's, which is not how AfD works. It seems to walk awfully close to WP:GAMEing the system in my mind. If Tagishsimon feels that all small Wiki's should go, then begin a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion instead of picking off easy ones, one at a time. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this is far more important than yet another pokemon or starwars character —Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and delete nominator - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 9 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. faithless (^speak) 07:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steal Hear

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

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage; only reference is an Amazon link. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Although the album is unkown, the album is going to be created by an accomplished artist and should be keep for "comprehensiveness." If the album never released, then the article should be deleted and added as a note on the artist article. Rob (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per not a crystal ball, if there are no sources for this album then it fails notability. We don't usually keep article because they may become notability, they are just recreated if they do. --neonwhite user page talk 22:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per not a crystal ball. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Recreate it when it happens. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:37, 9 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statlanta

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

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media attention. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - There are 3 sources to cover it. --Flesh-n-Bone 12:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment 1st source—Eminem fansite; 2nd source—confirms there's a mixtape called Road to Statlanta, nothing more; 3rd source—just an audio track with user comments. None of that is independant coverage from a reliable source. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No actual reliable sources, no sign or hint of real-world impact, notability, or notice. --Calton | Talk 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• 'Delete - WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, doesn't matter how notable the artist is. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 11:33, 10 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. Dear Air Force: please don't bomb me. I come in peace. Nandesuka (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whiskey Straight Whiskey

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

Contested prod for newly invented drink. Subject appears to be unverifiable, as the only Google hits referring to the drink are other Wikipedia pages.[34] Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Allen3 ^talk 14:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete seems to be made-up Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 14:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete it seems made up, I agree with the comment above. Apex GlideApex Glide (talk)
• Delete This article does not make any sense. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A name for a drink consisting of two shots of whiskey, consumed one after the other. What will they think of next? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• speedy, snowball delete. Kids or students at play, bless them. :) The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep How was any drink or anything created for that matter if no one made it up? This is a local drink that has become popular with the military in Minot ND.Retrovertigo99

  The issue is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place to summarize existing published knowledge, not a forum for announcing new creations and discoveries. As a result, all articles must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. As you have provided no citations to independent published sources and the above Google search finds no mention of this drink in any online bartender guides there is no reason to believe that the sources required to meet Wikipedia's verification requirements exist. --Allen3 ^talk 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrovertigo, read The Scrabble Analogy. That should clear up what we mean by "made up one day" Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 15:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - even if it's not made up, there's no notability, verifiability and no GHits for anything other than the wikipedia article. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:41, 9 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. faithless (^speak) 07:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffery T.H. Lee

Jeffery T.H. Lee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete. Non-notable librarian, won a minor prize 15 years ago. WWGB (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overdue for deletion. He apparently received the third and lowest level of recognition for the Singapore Literature Prize, not a win. That's not poetry to my ears. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable.DGG (talk) 18:27, 7 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.

[edit] Erotas (season 1)

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (non admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Erotas (season 1) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's too much to have separate articles for each season of a soap with only local interest. Part of what is included here can be incorporated in the main article for Erotas and this could be deleted. User:Odikuas 13:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep consistent with treatment of other shows and with WP not being a paper encyclopedia. Would be prefereable to have these three AfDs joined. JJL (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Consider the fact that internationally famous soaps (The Bold and the Beautiful, The Young and the Restless) do not have separate entries for each season. Odikuas 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and just because a program isn't well known in the US doesn't disqualify it from being featured in such articles, and especially for a soap opera season articles are preferable to individual episode articles. In response to Odikuas, that rationale is not really valid because it's just a variant of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If there's no season articles for those shows, it just means no one's gotten around to writing them yet. 23skidoo (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a standard article fork. It could do with sourcing, but that's another issue (as it's plainly notable it's a cleanup issue, not an AfD issue). Other articles split their season summations in to pages like this, and have even gotten them to Featured List status in some cases; see The Simpsons (season 8) for such an example. Other shows that do this include Lost: Lost (season 1), 24: 24 (season 1), Smallville: Smallville (season 1). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - editorial matter, therefore a waste of AFD's precious time - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Not a very good article, but other season pages exist. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:45, 9 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.

[edit] Erotas (season 2)

Closed as Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Erotas (season 2) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's too much to have separate articles for each season of a soap with only local interest. Part of what is included here can be incorporated in the main article for Erotas and this could be deleted. User:Odikuas 13:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep consistent with treatment of other shows and with WP not being a paper encyclopedia. Would be prefereable to have these three AfDs joined. JJL (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and just because a program isn't well known in the US doesn't disqualify it from being featured in such articles, and especially for a soap opera season articles are preferable to individual episode articles. 23skidoo (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, for the same reason as outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotas (Season 1). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - editorial matter, thus a waste of AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep although it doe not seem all that necessary. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:46, 9 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.

[edit] Erotas (season 3)

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Erotas (season 3) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's too much to have separate articles for each season of a soap with only local interest. Part of what is included here can be incorporated in the main article for Erotas and this could be deleted. User:Odikuas 13:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep consistent with treatment of other shows and with WP not being a paper encyclopedia. Would be prefereable to have these three AfDs joined. JJL (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and just because a program isn't well known in the US doesn't disqualify it from being featured in such articles, and especially for a soap opera season articles are preferable to individual episode articles. 23skidoo (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, for the same reason as outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotas (Season 1). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - editorial matter, thus a waste of AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per my comments at related AfDs. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:46, 9 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 Fir Bolg. Maxim_(talk) 14:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Builg

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

Unreferenced stub, allegedly about a pre-Celtic Irish people who lived in County Cork, at least according to the theories of T. F. O'Rahilly, who sounds like his alone on the matter. I don't have any printed on that period, but a google search seems to mostly throw up typos of the word "build", and while I'm sure that they must have been lovely people if they came from Cork, it seems that the only evidence for their existence is an outdated theory of a lone historian. I'm not sure whether to recommend deletion, or merger/redirect to T. F. O'Rahilly. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• weak delete. I searched news and an academic website and the word did not come up. If secondary sources could be added then it would be an interesting article. Renee (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Fir Bolg. I've had a skim through O'Rahilly and he regards the Builg and Fir Bolg as identical (Builg seems to be a nominative plural reconstructed from the genitive plural Bolg), and the Fir Bolg certainly had a literary and possibly a historical existence. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Fir Bolg. I find the same - Builg and Fir Bolg are treated as the same; A New History of Ireland (Moody, Martin, etc,) says Fir Bolg got their name from their bags, which they made boats out of (builg). --Rbreen (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think that per Nicknack009 and Rbreen, a redirect to Fir Bolg sounds like the best solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 9 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)