The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Viva Voce Virus[edit]

The Viva Voce Virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I have not been able to find any secondary sources that can assert this film's notability, so I am putting it up for deletion per the notability guidelines. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources and not even IMDb has an entry, to me it seems like a fake, there is no evidence that this film actually exists.--The Dominator (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDb doesn't necessarily cover anything. I think it's more likely that this is a very small-scale, indie film that does not necessarily warrant inclusion on Wikipedia due to the lack of information available. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No IMDb doesn't cover anything, but chances are if it isn't notable for IMDb then it isn't notable for Wikipedia.--The Dominator (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, if it's not covered by IMDB, chances are it's a hyper-obscure film. As such, the chances of meeting WP:N are slim. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 01:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources to indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Delete per WP:SNOW

Paul Albu[edit]

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

Assertions of "strongest man in the world" within the text made this unsuitable for speedy deletion but there are zero Google hits to justify the assertion, doesn't meet WP:RS, WP:V; I bring it to the community for disposal Accounting4Taste:talk 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. An obviously ludicrous "assertion" is not enough to get around speedy-deletion criteria. I think WP:SNOW definitely applies here, too. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war in Iraq[edit]

Civil war in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was nominated for proposed deletion by Magickyleo101, further to comments made on the article's talk page. I oppose the deletion, as I feel that the article is detailed and informative, as well as being within the scope of several WikiProjects. However, lacking the detailed knowledge required to update the article, I felt that it would be uncouth to simply remove the prod tag based on my own personal opinion, hence this discussion. I would personally vote to keep the article, as it seems perfectly informative as it is, and perhaps requires someone with knowledge in this field to update the article with more recent developments – as such, I have already left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iraq to this effect. (This article was moved whilst this page was being written... apologies if I haven't updated any links.) haz (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and move to Sectarian violence in Iraq. This is where I wanted the page to be moved but that would require an administrator's help. The page needs to be updated and the "Civil war" label must not return.--STX 19:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A previous attempt to rename the article resulted in no consensus. An article rename may be possible, but it shouldn't happen as the result of an AfD discussion. After this process concludes, it would be better to follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Nosfartu (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. There should certainly be an article on sectarian violence, but the content of the current article is poorly suited for a simple rename. The Iraq Civil War article lists out commanders, belligerents, army strengths, etc., which forces the discussion of the violence into the mold of a traditional conflict. Moreover, whole sections of the article wouldn't make much sense after a rename (e.g. "Use of 'Civil War' Label"). Finally, nearly all of the content is from more than six months ago, and a lot has changed since then. Any update would essentially create a new article, and I don't see any reason not to start from the ground up. The article is just going to be misleading until it gets some pretty significant rewriting. Magickyleo101 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, barring deletion, a rename is by far the best option. I make this argument in the article's talk page, but if we keep the article and simply try to update it, we'll enmesh ourselves in original research. There just aren't enough credible and current outside sources which make claims about whether there's still a civil war (and if not, when it ended). So we either act as if there's still a civil war (which is promoting our personal views in one way) or we insist that the civil war is over and promote our personal views in another way. But it's a violation of wikipedia standards either way. Magickyleo101 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What is going on in Iraq is one of the big issues of the present time. Part of it is the sectarian violence. There should be an article to cover it. It is of course true that the situation keeps changing. A sensible approach to this is to record how it keeps changing, without destroying the write up that said how it was. Given that this issue gets media coverage, there seems no reason for an article on this topic to breach NOR policies. One thing that bothers me is that the user who has requested that this article be deleted User:Magickyleo101 has only ever contributed to this article.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be laboring under some confusion. I think everyone here agrees that there should be an article on sectarian violence in Iraq - the point under dispute here is whether (what was) the "Iraq Civil War" article should become that article on sectarian violence. If you think it should, and if you think that NOR policies won't be a problem, then I'd ask that you give us at least a few recent articles which either talk about an ongoing "civil war" in Iraq or which tell us when the civil war ended. After all, it hardly seems too much to ask that you back up your assertions about the sources we'll be able to find with some actual, you know, sources... Magickyleo101 (talk)
  • And I don't see why my status as a new community member should be grounds dismissing what I'm saying. I've been open about my actions, and I went through the proper channels. The article I'm trying to change hasn't been updated in almost half a year, and everyone seems to agree that it has some pretty significant problems. So it's not like my proposal is totally random, or that no one else can see why I think there's a problem. Trashing my status really comes off as grasping at straws... Magickyleo101 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article was at AfD in Sept. 2007 as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil war in Iraq (second nomination). That time, it was over a content dispute. I find the argument for this go-round less than compelling. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six months ago there were up to date sources on the civil war in Iraq. Since then we haven't gotten any new sources yet the situation in Iraq has changed. So we need new sources to make a NOR consistent update on what's going on. But no one seems to be willing to track any down. Magickyleo101 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD is not cleanup. The "out-of-date" nature of the article has been disputed for months. Sources have been coming in all directions so WP:OR is not an issue here. Whether or not this sub-conflict is over, its WP:Notability does not expire. Supposed WP:NOEFFORT is not a good reason for deletion. And this article has seen no shortage of effort from all sides. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If recent sources mentioning a civil war are so easy to find, then why don't you give us some? It's been a while since I've seen a news article use the term, and that's what's causing the problem here. And this isn't an argument from WP:NOEFFORT. As things stand now, the article is misleading. We need sources to fix that. We have none. Magickyleo101 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you asked: Reuters, AP, USA Today, Reuters, AFP. Again, there is no lack of new information. It's the meaning that has been fought over non-stop for months. Again, even if the conflict has passed, its notabily does not expire. Also, WP:Reliable sources not expire either. Look at the edit history since September. Look at the Talk page assertions that the "so-called civil war in Iraq" is over. This isn't about a lack of sources. This article has seen non-stop edit warring about what sources and facts to include. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Only two of those sources use the term "civil war" at all, and both of them suggest that there wasn't one (i.e. they only talk about going to the "brink of civil war"). The other articles you link to simply talk about violence in Iraq, which is important, but not necessarily related to the civil war. What we need are articles which actually talk about whether the war has finished or whether it's ongoing. Either that, or we need to change the article's references to a civil war to Iraq's almost-civil-war. Magickyleo101 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Request - The argument I'm making here really only has two parts: (1) We can't update an article on the civil war in Iraq without new information on the civil war in Iraq. (e.g. We need to be able to say whether there's still a civil war; to say which aspects of the fighting now going on in Iraq are elements of a civil war and which elements are simply sectarian violence.) (2) We can't get new, NOR consistent information on the civil war in Iraq, because there don't seem to be enough recent news articles which mention, you know, a civil war. So (3) we can't simply update the article on the civil war in Iraq.

Now, these things make it pretty easy for people to reply to my argument. Either a) tell us how we can update the article on the civil war without information on the civil war, or b) give us some outside sources which mention a civil war in Iraq. But short of that, I don't really see how any update can go forward. And responses which don't do either of the above just seem non-responsive. Magickyleo101 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a) you should cite reliable and verifiable sources, while for b) you should consult the article's talk page where a long list of sources establishing the civil war title seems to be provided. --Nosfartu (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and Restore to Iraq Civil War. The article was previously nominated for deletion twice [25] [26] with two resulting decisions of Keep. A previous attempt to rename the article also resulted in no consensus.
  • The correct way to make the proposed changes to the article is through the edit page link and the talk page, not to propose it for deletion. An article rename should not take place without following the process outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves. All editors would be encouraged to use this process instead. --Nosfartu (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see no reason why consensus has shifted on this issue, despite the article's apparent age. A new editor might want to make some changes in the article, but provides no compelling reason for deletion. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above, "Civil war in Iraq" is a notable topic. Renaming/redirect/merge/update etc. do not require Afd. Rich Farmbrough, 14:15 9 February 2008 (GMT).
• Keep though renaming may be an option since officially it hasn't been declared as a civil war. Mpondopondo (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove The article has some good information regarding sectarian violence. But ethnic composition and naming of groups that commit acts of violence is not in line with the title. I would rather simply have the title changed, but apparently that has already been attempted. Misleading the readers with a title that has little to do with the article is dishonest. Angncon (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep* - After some clean up I believe this article should be kept. It is clear, helpful and very modern in its convictions. chris4682 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. -- Longhair\^talk 06:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Students of the University of Alaska Anchorage[edit]

Union of Students of the University of Alaska Anchorage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable student government and should either be deleted or redirected to the main university article. There have been zero mentions of this student government in the Anchorage Daily News, the city's only major newspaper. I brought this here in part because I would like to open discussion about the notability of student governments so I can redirect other non-notable university student governments to the main university articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pending sourcing/rewrite - University student governments are inherently notable and there are dozens of extant articles on student unions around the world; see Associated Students of the University of California, Cambridge University Students' Union, Hull University Union, Uppsala Student Union, Georgetown University Student Association, University of Alberta Students' Union, etc. See Category:Students' unions and Category:Students' unions by country.

• Inherently notable? That seems over-the-top, considering that many student governments don't do much of anything. How should notability of a student government be measured? If it is not covered by anyone outside the school, I don't know Wikipedia should take notice of it. This student government has never been mentioned by any news source outside the school, which one might imagine would happen if it were doing anything important. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, to say that it's never been mentioned outside the school is certainly false. There is at least one (minor) reference in mainstream media, as the USUAA co-sponsored a political debate between Tony Knowles and Lisa Murkowski in 2004. While that reference (now in the article) is certainly not the world's largest report, but it does belie the assertion that the USUAA has never done anything of interest. It took a 10-second Google search to find it. What may be uncovered in a scholarly search at the UAF library is yet to be seen. FCYTravis (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Furthermore, you assert that things that happen at universities, if not noticed by the broader world, are never encyclopedic. I would vehemently disagree, because even if not noticed by "outside" sources, universities themselves are important communities of interest. What is of interest to the university or college, is of interest to hundreds of thousands or even millions of people - students, alumni, local residents, faculty, staff, administrators, etc. This is the very point of university newspapers: they cover their communities in greater depth and detail than the mainstream media do. I know of no general consensus on Wikipedia which defines what happens inside a university as unencyclopedic. I would argue that what goes on inside a university is more encyclopedic than many things we cover in even greater detail. Universities are the engines of learning, research and self-discovery for our world, and Wikipedia should have more information about them, not less. What is important to Wikipedia is the existence of verifiable, reliable sources. If we have those, we can write an article about it. Universities generally produce plenty of reliable sources. FCYTravis (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Student governments are permanent, have major, sometimes multi-million-dollar budgets funded by mandatory student fees, partake in activist activities, manage student life and are generally a major part of the university community. The current state of the article is unreferenced; I will work on that this weekend. I have stated on the talk page my intentions to adopt this article and improve it. Deletion is not the answer here. FCYTravis (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously keep if more verifiable content is added per Mr. Travis above, otherwise a merge to the UAA article would be reasonable, though not necessary. In no case should this be deleted outright, so I consider this AFD nomination frivolous. — CharlotteWebb 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add that a merge would be perfectly logical if we can't find anything else - but I'm pretty sure we can go beyond what's there. There is definitely non-trivial coverage in the college newspaper, which conveniently happens to be online. I'm studying at Alaska's flagship university up in Squarebanks, so I'll go to the Rasmuson Library this weekend and do a search on the UAF/UAA library collections to see if I can dig up any offline, dead-tree sources. FCYTravis (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pending rewrite by FCYTravis. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the main student organisation of a large university of a well known college is notable, if there is enough material--as there is in this case.DGG (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Archeology[edit]

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

Quantum archeology is the "study of the scientific resurrection of the ancient dead, including their memories" whose origins lie in "reversing the idea of psychohistory from Asimov's Foundation trilogy". This appears to be a fringe theory, albeit one with little coverage under likely spellings of the term, if Google is anything to go by, and therefore may lack sufficient notability to justify an article. Sturm 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Amazingly, there seems to be one legitimate mention, though I strongly doubt it has anything to do with the drivel in this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply The strapline for Vlatko Vedral's talk was "Raiders of the lost entanglement", so I suspect it reflected his interests in quantum mechanics and information theory ("possible effects of entanglement in macroscopic systems, topological phases and one-way quantum computation"). --Sturm 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • reply'

er no, quite the oppposite. Professor Vedral is talking specifically about quantum archeaology, in fact gave a series of lectures on that subject at some of the most prestigeous institutes in the world. In fact haveing had chance some of his work, I'd conclude he is one of the world's great thinkers and was critically aware of his terminolgy. I'm greatful for the refernece and hope other begin to contribte to the article when the deletion tag is lifted as I'm heavily committed on internationally important work

ELDRAS (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Reply Thanks Clarityfiend, I've tidied it up a bit so I hope you dont still think it's drivel. Vlatko's papers at Los Alamos deal 'exactly' with this stuff ie the thermodynamic difficulties of quantum information recovery (cited below), and quantum archeology is an attempt at a method of compensation for this by directly tackling the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as offering techniques founded in psychistory to describe historical states in the universe. I hadn't heard of him before your reference. I would have thought this debate is pretty pertinent for him but I can email him under wiki rules apparently. BTW I dont see a new filed as something that suddenly has masses on new work like a calculus, but as often the gathering and collaging of existing areas of work into one subject. So quantum archeology is really just an incremental step from assembled areas of probability, quantum theory, psycohistory (which itself emerged from Asimov's fiction...as indeed Wikipedia did (the galactic encylopdea in foundation trilogy) apparantlyELDRAS (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete This is original "research" (if not pure fantasy), if anything is. Either that or is it misrepresented as science when it should be about a series of fictional books. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • reply Well it's futurism and there are articles, courses and books coming out on it, which I've now tried to list on the article page.ELDRAS (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge This idea is a significant element in Tipler's

Omega Point theory which is certainly notable. This article is not well-written but it is only two days old - see WP:BITE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Question Is the idea known by this title? Because this is practically the entire documentation of "quantum archeology", which isn't exactly a promising demonstration of an academic subject's notability. --Sturm 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply good point it's a pretty new idea, some call it Quantum Resurrection, some Simulation. I'm unclear how to chage a page title, but we've been hammering it since about 2002 as quantum archeology on Mindx.ELDRAS (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Absolutely no evidence (in the form of reliable sources) that this is anything other than one guy's loony notion. Deor (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply There are a few looney notion guys then including the ones cited on the article, which I apologise for not having put up earlier. Also it's an idea not a scince at presnt, though it overlaps with psychistory which it is the mirro image of to achieve resrrection. You cant realy have relaible sources for an idea like a technology, it's iethre out there being debated or it isn't, and quite a few forums debate it, though I'm unsure of citing forums as references being new. I'm also concerned that as the speed of discovery and research is speeding traditional methods of peer review are not going to stay still. Forums are respectable areas to have honest work discussed and this trend will increase over peer reviewed magazines and books. In fact that's the whole idea behind Wiki!ELDRAS (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • reply So Deor- what magical mystical force do you claim makes the brain not subject to rational physical laws and makes it's processes uncomputable and uncopyable? "Quantum Archeology"- or Ancestor Simulation is an UNAVOIDABLE result of a mechanical universe- only a dualistic world-view where the mind is seen as supernatural would see QA as "loony" --Setai (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/do I get a vote?This is my first article & I've edited it since the challenge. Quantum computing is new but a reality and QA was a new idea that we mainly kicked about on emails and the forum. I think the idea is important but maybe the title could be changed. Quantum Archeology will enable reconstruction of many things from the past and the argument that human beings are no different gets howled at but is science. It's premise is that you should be able to backplot events because there are fewer histories than in present worlds. I'm interested in the successful formatting of a wiki article. ELDRAS (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELDRAS (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (Well, actually, three questions.) Has this concept been published in any peer-reviewed journals? Has it been discussed in venues other than email and an online forum? And is this an idea of Tipler's, or does it merely draw inspiration from his work? Sturm 11:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply1. Nope not peer reviewed by this name though as the Nick Bostrom Simulation argument and Omega Point by Frank Tipler it has had wide idscussion in transhumanist circles and publications.

2. Yes in books like the one cited in Notes on Quantum Ressurrection and also the Physics of Immortality; in serveral online forums! It's the hottest idea in transhumanism at present, the other two being cryonics and A.I. 3. Yes it's Tipler's varying only by angle of a description of a method rather than actual resurrection as opposed to a simulated resurrection.

4 Sturm my idea was to set this page as a Stub and let people formulatead/detract from it, which noone's going to do if it has marked for deletion on it. There's enough people who debate transhumanist resurrection. Frank thinks it'll happen at the end of time n a simulation, and quantum archeology assumes it'll happen for real when processing power increases. Either way I cant afford any more time on it. CheersELDRAS (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Absolutely keep- the idea is new but is very important- consider that the only way to refute Quantum Archeology is to claim that there is some mystical aspect of the body and brain that are not subject to the laws of physics and so cannot be duplicated or copied- therefore QA is an axiomatic result of the physical case of the Church–Turing thesis - this sort of idea is not at all controversial in theoretical computer science and Digital Physics circles- Setai (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are you the Setai who responded to a new MindX forum post called Wiki's going to delete Quantum Archeology!!!, in which a forum member called "eldras" urged people to "contrubute to the wiki article or it'll be deleted"? Sturm 13:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ReplyGet real Sturm-, not everyone's goluming about in the darkness. setai posted there that he HAD posted here, -& quoted it. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by ELDRAS (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 February 2008
      • Reply This was a rhetorical question to inform this discussion of the thread's existence. If we're going to get new editors coming to this discussion off the back of that forum post, people have a right to know. --Sturm 22:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply I'd already stated the MINDX reference the day before if you'd care to check this thread, and whilst it's true I didn't know the protocols it is absurd to delete this article which DOES have coverage in the science community.

It's an absurd weakness in wiki that a new page is deleted or kept by a vote which can be by people ignorant of the subject or it's importance in a community, because I would wager an administrator would just count yeas and nay without reading the page in question or area more than cursorialy; though it is possibly an inevitable protocol. I've also probably wrongly assumed you are an administrator who decides whether to delete it or not. But I'm glad to have fneced with you and sorry you find the idea of Quantum Archeology a challenge to your own beliefs.ELDRAS (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new & therefore weak at wiki protocols and apologize if this may be better as a stub...if you think that move it there? You may be reacting to the enormity of the idea which most people seem to at first.ELDRAS (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tipler's argument is much more theoretical, and extending his theory to this is a very considerable extrapolation. Thee is not really any support for this from reliable sources at present, at least none that has been cited here. Possibly an article can be written on it, based on what real sources there may be, but the first step would be to delete this one. DGG (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply I dont accept that the internet hasn't changed the way ideas are discussed and emerge. If an idea has support it should be listed in some form or wiki doesn't represent the real world. Online forums are used by the scientific community much more than peer reviewed papers now:-you cant just ignore then and not accept them as popular culture. Also this is an idea not a science thesis and wiki does list ideas. I dont think deleting it would help the idea be referenced: acceptance is a subjective thing I'm on no campaign. The idea stands or fails on it's own merit.

But clearly more than one looney thinks it notable! I cant accept there's a protocol for deseminating an idea which is different from a scientific theory and including it IS consistant with wiki policy.ELDRAS (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having listened to arguments presented by various people, I have become increasingly convinced that Quantum Archeology as described here represents a substantial fork from the more notable idea by Frank Tipler, albeit one apparently not covered in reliable sources. While Wikipedia is not limited by conventional constraints on the number of topics it can feasibly cover, it is also not a publisher of original thought; an idea that's locally popular among a few members of an online forum can not assert notability by that property alone, even if it does draw inspiration from areas which are suitable for encyclopaedic treatment. --Sturm 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply Sturm you are NOT neutral on this now editing out stuff on the page you want to delete. I mean you are not judging this on the idea current and not the substance of the idea which I understand you may not like & of course I respect that eg you've voted against it but just deleted some now...including the Notes ref to the originator of Omegta Point Theory who is crucial to the debate: you're edit says it's not relevant. You clearly haven't read it.

It's pivotal & it's where Tipler extracted it from. FYR: de Chardin though progress would evolve to a focal point in the future by evolution, where everything possible would happen. That is Tipler's argument for Simulation, and Nick Bostrom's argument for multi imulation...both of whom are indisputably famous & world class scientists, one of whom supports this.ELDRAS (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Reply I removed two references which appeared to have been tossed in at random. Tipler's and Chardin's respective usages of the term "omega point" were not precisely the same thing. And Vlatko's talk on "Quantum Archeology" was likely not discussing resurrection. --Sturm 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Reply' you miss my point. Why are you editing the artcle at all if you propsoed and still seem to believe it should be deleted?

I didn't say Vlatko was talking about resurrection but about Quantum Archeology.

Here are some refs of his work:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/

I draw your attention to one at random that is specifically relevant:

arXiv:quant-ph/0407151 Title: Thermodynamical Cost of Accessing Quantum Information Authors: K. Maruyama, C. Brukner, V. Vedral Comments: 3 figures Journal-ref: J. Phys. A 38, 7175 (2005) Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

Your post at the other site looks like you may be changing your mind on dleting this article, possibly because I'm tidying it up and editing it. I dont really wish to go to a tribunal/appeal thing as I'm seriously involved in stuff.

ELDRAS (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How is that article relevant? It doesn't talk about resurrection or quantum archaeology. It talks about quantum information retrieval which looks like a perfectly valid topic within quantum information theory but something completely different from resurrecting or simulating people. On the positive side, Pickover's book surely seems to be about the topic; on the basis of that I lean towards keeping the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply I'll tell you specifically how it's relevant: the methodology of quantum archeology. You are describing a human being as a description of information. Memories involve electro-cehmeicla impulses that Penrose thought preceded quantum calculation in the brain in 'tubules'. I dont agree with hium and briefly discussed his idea with prof Susan Greenfield in a lecture, though she awaits evidence of his idea. That's irrlevant really, because it;s still about reconfiguring the past using quantum information retrieval. This paper is specifically about that. There are loads of papers on this area.

The whole point that is NOT roicket science is that resurrecting people is NOT different from resurrecting information. Tipler has shown that you can describe a person as computation.

He should have got a nobel prize for his work in my view. I reemeber I had a physical reaction when I yook up his book by chance in the bookshop, bought it and stamped back the next day yelling THIS DOES NOT TELL ME HOW TO RASWE THE DEAD I WAMT MY MONEY BACK. They coughe up, but some of his work haunted me and I rebought it. It does say that and quantum archeology is an easy not a revolutionary deduction from it.

You are information...that is, the universe is the set of veents i the world and the laws that govern them. That includes a Man and Tipler's profound work shows man is not only just like an animal, as Darwn had, but now is just like a bunch of atoms...which is information ( I prefer to call it 'data theory' to get rid of the subjective description), but it's just terminology. Thanks for your lean Jitsea Niesen.ELDRAS (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article needs a lot of work, but it does contain a lot of material that can be salvaged.--Michael C. Price ^talk 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Incoherent conflation of random half-understood ideas and references, almost certainly an OR synthesis. For example: "There are always more variables in the cosmos than there were is history allowing enough information to be gathered to reconstruct any historical event down to the quantum particle" - say what ??? And why call it Quantum Archeology when it assumes a deterministic universe i.e. the complete opposite of quantum physics ? I guess someone just thinks Quantum makes the article sound sexy. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply By variables I mean as seen by genetic algorithm tanks where an event is an algorithms. THe number of events in the presnet universe is unidsputably greaterr than at anytime in history even discounting the multiverse.

The arly universe was relatively simple. to back tace is MUCH esier than forward predict. Surely that makes siense to you? It's called quantum archeology because that's the name that emerged, thogh loads were tried. and it sort of invokes quantum computing which will be the prefered method of using it as the computaion capacity at 20 qubits is more than we dare imagine!ELDRAS (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • reply ...'there are always more variables in the cosmos etc' what;s the problem there? 'Say what?' isn't an argument/objection.

Ho! Quantum doesn't mean something is non-determinist Gandolf! Everett sorted all that out...quantum colloq. means very small -or in physics (wiki) the plural of quanta 'an indivisible entity'. The point about QA is that it's been well thrashed out on different disciples and the fact it's grouped post Tipler now is hardly that big of a surprize. Quantum in Quantum Archeology has been in use from about 2003 (5 years s a long time in physics) because it involves quantum computation which is also an emerging field. I dont blame you attacking it, because it is radical when you first come across it, but it HAS been out there for a while. As for OR I wish I was that bright. You might tyr reading it up on a wiki search under it's various names.CheersELDRAS (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • reply it is called Quantum Archeology or Quantum Reconstruction/Resurrection because the method of reconstruction is the simulation of Hilbert Space- specific or general states corresponding to the brain/body/environmental states of intelligent observers would be extracted from the bulk computation of Hilbert Space [it is axiomatic in QM that all possible observer states lie in Hilbert Space]- determinism is NOT opposed to Quantum Mechanics- every quantum state is absolutely deterministic- while all quantum histories are non-deterministic and established by the Born Rule- so specific states of observers in an Ancestor Simulation are deterministic and computable- the Born Probabilities of the past histories of such complex states are also determined due to the nature of causality/entropy- again Quantum Archeology can only be dismissed if some supernatural aspect of mind makes it different from all other quantum systems- there is no legitimate basis for deletion- the article needs only to be refined- not removed! --Setai (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE: The tell-tale sign is that most of the references are admitted in the article to not be about this subject as such. Wikipedia has far too much text on fringy stuff as it is, but at least we have some proof that there is some persistent belief in it. A discussion on a forum is insufficient proof, and other than the discussion in the article, that's all there is. This is a textbook-ready example of the sort of thing WP:NOR was intended to forbid.

While I'm at it, I'll note that User:Setai has only participated in this AFD. Mangoe (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • reply this is incorrect- I have edited several science and electronic music entries at wiki over the years- including a section in the old Quantum Immortality discussion page [see which survivor-states are more probable?] about how Ancestor Simulation has implications for QI in that it is far more probable that an observer at death will awaken as an archeological reconstruction than in a quantum history where they miraculously survive [which is the standard QI conjecture]- I just happened to register before posting in this AFD discussion- before I simply edited and signed my name without a log-in- and I am very glad ELDRAS gave me a heads-up- this subject is tremendously underreported- since the dawn of rational thought and the discovery that Man is matter subject to physical laws and not magic- we should have realized that death was technologically reversible in principle and that our primitive notions of observer oblivion don't work in a materialistic universe with consistent rules- --Setai (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to say "reply" -- we can tell that. And while I see a couple of edits from you as a bare IP address, the evidence still says that you are someone who is in Wikipedia as an advocate for these ideas, and not as an editor per se. Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply

I'm only interested in the policy of deletion here & not at all in any politics you may perceive:

Wiki's policy for deletion involves 4 heads:

1. Violation of copyright.

2. Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia.

3. Content not verifiable in a reliable source.

4. Unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons

1 & 4 are definiately not in breech.

2. is not deletable, as there is MUCH public interest in the area, and I reiterate, lectres, publications, debates. There are already well established entries in wiki dealing with it under different names...have you READ the page? It is a KNOWN an area of study with references in the Notes.

3. The sources cited are verifiable but few by the specific name which has only formulated from forum groups since 2002/3. see eg ancestor simulation

To successfully delete this you would have to argue the second point sucessfully.

Although it's subjective, the fact there are published, verifiable sources means that it is a notable.

BTW one of the commonest responses to newbies to Quantum Archeology is emotional rejection!

This page was only meant as a stub and I have already and again apologise for not knowing how to have set that up. Happy to have this renamed 'quantum resurrection' or reduced to a stub, but to delete it would need to fail on better grounds than you suggest.

The first book I can find dealing with Quantum Resurrection was only published in 2006 and cited in New Scientist in 2007 (see Notes on wiki page).

You may find that an encyclopedea is a list of 'fingey stuff' that becomes 'common stuff' as people read it! Maybe you would be kind enough to post of list of 'fingey stuff' you think people shouldn't read, and also a list of probable secret conspiracies that should be investigated. And finally why the amount of volume of wikipedia is an issue for anything being deleted, and what you thinki the memory capacity of the internet is nd at what parts it is bursting with web pages floating out of the telephone exchange into your interesting world?ELDRAS (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC) ELDRAS (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • comment

I'm new to wiki and I guess people have assumed I'm putting some peice of science wroting up here. I'm not. I also I guess thought wiki was a repository of ideas current. It isn't it's an encyclopedia.

Ok but just like the printing press changed the world, the www has changed the world.

There is a real problem about articles being deleted on wiki I have heard and I canm see some eg a baseball team entry that is deleted for being unnoteworthy???

If wiki is to sutrvive and it may or may not...may because people get a kick out of entering our posts, may not because machines will carry that task soon and the personal kick wont be there, also the semantic web is coming fast, and like the WWW no-one knows how to understand what it does.

May not unless it adapts...the world is different today from what it was 3 years ago.

In two years time it will be different.

1000 people on average are reponsible for editing wiki by category.

More and more work is done on forums, chatgroups, IRC's that are not really documented and email.

THe mobile indstry is going to boom like nothignwe've seen and there have been drawing board systems for thought control of keyboard action and wearable computers eg hardbands.

The issue is data communication but at some stage it will no longer be cool or necessary to input data at all, intelligent software will manipulate any sequence you need, and ....er I'm just wondering who I'm talking to here??? Apart from pleading ignorance I mean.

It;s a great kick to get a web page you made on wiki but I wonde if the kick's wearing off.

Oh yep, wiki HAS to move with the pace or it's be o=vertaken.

That sounds not possible?

Consider the semantic web.... You type in a search tems like you do to google and wiki combo, and the semantic web brings RELEVANT summarized calibre information for you.

Sounds impossible but it's about to explode on the www and Tim's been on it for years.

The other info sourcing is by topic like CYC.

wiki WANTS to be an encyclopedia that's alive.

But everything is on the semantic web and the relevancy focus is better than wiki potentially.

Wiki is a community as i see it, and sometimne I get an article that is so bad I wonder how the hell this got there...same with any book.

But the futrure of the web is NOT the book form...and to insist on peer reveived articole sfor an idea that's new and buzzing in forums or discussions off and on the web is quite limiting.

THat forces people off wiki and into chatgroups, because the knowledge on wiki isn't current enough.

I dont wnat to wait until a paper is peer reveiewed eg in my own filed A.I.l...I want to get it as soon as the boffin knows he's cracked a problem.

And I'll take it in a raw state if that's where he's at.

Usenet was the foreruner of wiki & wiki solved the problem of flames and tons of junk articles by a sort of moderator sensor.

That was a big improvement.

But what if like me you are soecificially interested in the edge? the very front of subjects?

Does that need a 'wikinew' category that is not yet TRADITION.

No No there is knowledge but ideas are alspo important.

Google and not wiki sorts out popularity by use because almost noone (at a guess) searches just wiki for a subject as it often doesn't list it, but the semantic web is going to dwarf that and anyone not evolving....and I'm arguing wiki has to allow debates in groups as notable...wil be history.

freinds reunited had a god run. As soon as facebook came it doesn't exist. That wasn't in 5 years, it was in 5 months.

This is virtual machine evolution and there can be a cambrian explosion OR a wipe out.

I urge you to relax wiki's draconian constraigns to allow emerging technologies be sourced in forums and groups.

THe only thing we all agree on is that there are a lot of fools aboutELDRAS (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I agree is that a long disquisition such as this is evidence against your position. Wikipedia is not for emerging ideas; it is for emerged ideas. My personal opinion here is that this is a lot of philo-babble, and if I had my way this sort of thing would have a big sticker at the top were it included. The important problem is that I cannot see that it is well-documented babble. From what we can tell, it's just something a few of you guys got together in a blog and made up one day. It needs to have a bigger impact on the world before we say, "yes, we need to document this." Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Wade[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Not really any notable ghits and no gnews. No sources. Seems like an auto-bio from tone. MBisanz ^talk 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect/merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online Sexual Activity[edit]

Online Sexual Activity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible violation of WP:NEO - though I'm not sure. No claim of verifiability, no sources quoted. CultureDrone (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC) The article was PROD'ed, but this was removed by the author with no explanation. CultureDrone (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to cybersex. It's a catchall term used in psychology, but doesn't need a separate article, although it's possible down the road there could be one that looks at that angle. --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cybersex. OSA is just another term for cybersex.Nlm1515 (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Undeath (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kamen Rider Kiva characters[edit]

List of Kamen Rider Kiva characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable list. Pure listcruft. I know it's a new aticle, but it is non notable, and will probably never be notable. Undeath (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The show itself has a Wikipedia page, and it's a remake of a popular TV series. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Appears to be a valid summary style subpage of its main article Kamen Rider Kiva. It would help if the lead were edited to reflect this, and per WP:SS the list of characters in the main article were trimmed, and this article correctly cited as the main one -- but no doubt the editor got distracted by having the AfD slapped on his work-in-progress 3 minutes after the article was created. In the future, I might suggest to the nominator that it would be more fruitful if you have notability concerns to bring this up in the article, either with tags or on the talk page, and see if they can be addressed before bring it directly to AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason I nominated this so quick was it did not fit a speedy. Second, I do not believe it to be a notable list. For one, no sources. Also, most of the characters listed are non notable stock characters. It is almost like creating a list of all the pokemon/digimon/yu gi oh characters, or creating a list about all the characters in a cartoon. Undeath (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The program that this page is related to has only aired two epsidoes. All of the characters here are not stock characters, but are regular characters (everyone on this list has appeared in the show so far, and have appeared in promotional materials for the show). It is currently only a copy of the "characters" section from the primary article, but that will change once more material shows up to be sources and the show progresses.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw the nomination then. But, if this article goes nowhere, as some lists do, I will re-nominate it in the distant future. As of now, it's just a copy of the main article. Undeath (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more. I've removed the content at the main article and placed it in the secondary article. In the near future, I will be adding an abridged section to the main article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian st. cyr[edit]

Sebastian st. cyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fictional character of book series. However, neither the author nor the book series have articles so it does seem pointless to have an article about the character. Note also the lack of content beyond plot summaries. Pichpich (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fictional character with zero notability outside of their own fictional world. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Lake County[edit]

Miss Lake County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:V. Non-notable and unverifiable beauty competition. I found two different beauty competitions in this name [27] [28]. But they are do not have any relation with this contest. Moreover, it seems that (as per this article) it is arranged only for the teenagers and there is no further significance such as moving towards a next national or regional round or such. Because of all those issues, nominating this article for deletion. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ...but - it's a core event in the Trout-o-rama! :) Weak delete. The article doesn't cite reliable sources to establish notability; for the same reason it fails WP:V. Majoreditor (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Anerousis[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:BIO. Though it seems that he is a famous researcher in IBM, but that doesn't pass him at WP:BIO. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't seem to be particularly notable within IBM, either. Pburka (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided Not notable as an researcher with just 12 publications. as for patents, hehas10, which isnt that much either as applied research, unless any of them are particualrly important. Only "adjuct assistant professor at the department of Electrical Engineering at Columbia University" so he'snot really an academic/. Is he important within the company? He is "managing the service engineering research department." I havent the vaguest idea where that fits within their system.DGG (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Google scholar finds more pubs than DGG notes, with an h-index of 9. The citation record looks decent but not quite enough to base a keep vote on, and I don't really see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ѕandahl 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kros[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:OR. I was initially thinking to tag it for Speedy but couldn't mange an appropriate section. Thus, nominating as for AfD as per WP:OR. But, that is for sure, this article in noway deserve to be here on WP. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found an appropriate one. It was deleted twice in past. So, tagged it as per G6. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy tag. As near as I can tell, no article with this title has been deleted through AfD before, and the last one to be speedied, at least, was wholly unrelated to this article. (It's definitely not a G6 per your tag, since that tag's for articles with an AfD close of "delete" that somehow have not been deleted.) Nevertheless, delete as nonnotable school project. Deor (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not as original research. The article is about an organisation that isn't notable, and provides no reliable sources, nor are there any in evidence when searching. Did the nominator mean to indicate WP:ORG, the guidelines for notability of reorganizations? -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant WP:OR as this article doesn't talk directly on this organization instead it describes its project and activity from a personal view. Even if we consider it as an article on that particular organization, it fails at WP:ORG as you mentioned. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question. My understanding is that articles are intended to describe or explain an organization or project, and since this is a student-driven project, is somewhat a work in progress. We are a team of teachers that have been working on this for nearly two years, and accompanied by the joilearning.org/sea90e website, have brought students into understanding how to start and develop projects. We have our Gifted and Talented students working on articles that are likely of interest for learning about science and technology. thank you for you comments and we will do our best to proceed in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorywilsonis (talk • contribs) 02:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Students are currently editing updates to this article and it will be updated and linked to related sites, including references within the next 2-3 weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.179.6 (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I admire the fact that is a student driven project and you all have been working on it for two years, the article current fails WP:ORG. There needs to be some verifiable, external news article with information on the group for the article to be notable. Ank329 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CSD#G7, author blanked the page. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Anderson NDP (candidate)[edit]

Stephen Anderson NDP (candidate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:N and WP:BIO. He was nominated to represent the Alberta NDP but failed to win. He is not notable enough to have an article as an opposition leader. Note that, opposition leader or candidate who failed to get elected can be notable but this person doesn't match in anyway. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — appears to have WP:COI issues as well (author is subject). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator without dissent. Non-admin closure per speedy keep guidelines. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olgivanna Lloyd Wright[edit]

Olgivanna Lloyd Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:N. Having a relation with a notable person doesn't assert someone's notability. Though this article claims she had a crucial role in the life and achievements of Frank Lloyd Wright but failed to clarify how. Moreover, its verifiability is also very narrow. Taking all those issues in account, nominating this article for deletion. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: As other fellow Wikipedians are thinking she is notable and some third-party references have also been presented to support her notability, I think it is clear that right now notability is not a problem with this article. Though when I tagged this article, it was completely unreferenced (also hard to find online references by Google search as well) and the only claim that tries to make her notable was - she had a crucial role in the life and achievements of Frank Lloyd Wright. But, gradually it is revealed that she is notable on her own right. Second issue was copyvio which is also fixed. Thus, I am withdrawing my nomination and thanking everyone who have participated in this discussion, specially its enthusiastic author who is new but promisingly active. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIAL NOTE:Article edition/addition is still in progress. She introduced Wright to Gurdgieff, another figure with whom she had substantial and well-documented involvement. The first third or so of the recent critical biography The Fellowship is almost entirely devoted to her and her involvement with both Wright and Gurdgieff. To have been involved with two such daring figures, and have introduced them to each other, in a notable accomplishment indeed--not to mention that her grandfather is also especially famous (in Eastern europe); and she is certainly worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The very fact that she was a woman in those days meant that her contribution and role was not necessarily documented as well as her male counterparts. Additionally, she is extensively referenced in the Frank Lloyd Wright article and other Wikipedia articles. This would provide a link for those references to go to. etc. etc. Mr manilow (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as it appears to be a copyvio - I have nominated for speedy deletion via ((db-copyvio)). Jeodesic (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As copyvio is sorted, I see no clear reason for deletion. Jeodesic (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see my note on the article's talk page. Anyone linking titans like Gurdjieff and Wright, some of the biggest names in their respective fields, certainly should NOT be deleted! As for the copyvio, I'm still trying to edit this article, and it should be easy enough to reword the 3 lines or so that are claimed copyvios so as not to be that, even though their content is straightforward enough. Please re-consider deletion, she was one of the main female students of Gurdjieff and clearly one of the main influencers of Wright, considering most of his work was completed after her introduction to the picture etc. etc. Mr manilow (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This should be deleted as a blatant copyright violation. But Olgivanna is sufficiently separately notable for her role in running the Taliesin Foundation, which did not just oversee her husband's works and legacy but included the Taliesin Fellowship, a working architectural firm. There were elements of controversy during her quarter-century tenure. While notability is not transitive -- not even from two different directions -- she was an active participant both during and after her husband's lifetime. --Dhartung | Talk 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is no longer a copyvio so I have removed the speedy tag - by the time I reviewed it there was only one sentence that appeared to be copied from the cited page so I rewrote it. nancy ^(talk) 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mild plagiarism (apparently a small portion of one sentence) has been removed, though the remainder could use some expansion and cleaning up. — CharlotteWebb 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Do I get a vote too? (as article creator) Otherwise you can just delete this line, of course. Mr manilow (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there seem to be sources for notability with relation to his work. The assumption that she was ncessarily insignificant is perhaps a little old-fashioned. DGG (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a notable person with interesting connections. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ѕandahl 02:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics[edit]

European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Consists largely of WP:OR and speculation/'what if', based on a comment from one man. Also falls foul of WP:NPOV as presenting such statistics is clearly pro-EU; furthermore it's clear that despite Prodi's wishes the EU will not be competing in Beijing 2008. See also WP:Articles for deletion/2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization. Paulbrock (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

• Strong delete — I fully agree with Paulbrock's comments on OR and NPOV problems. Additionally, I am convinced that this article was initially created, and survived AfD previously, solely because of WP:ILIKEIT reasons fueled by nationalistic pride at the time of the 2004 Games. Around the time of the first AfD discussion, Romano Prodi's quotes were added to the article, nominally to justify the article's existence, I suppose. However, now we have undue weight given to those comments. I think the existing referenced sentence in the 2004 Summer Olympics medal count article is wholly sufficient to include Prodi's comments in this encyclopedia. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, someone's speculation. Punkmorten (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Proposal motivated by anti-EU attitude, while there is nothing original or POV in that article that is a compilation. This has been quite clear in the previous debates that concluded with a keep. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)--Pgreenfinch (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If the sections tagged as OR actually have sources, can you provide them please? Furthermore the old discussion had votes that were literally WP:ILIKEIT or WP:NOHARM, which were not written at the time of the previous AFD (closed as no consensus, not keep). Looks like Wikipedia has moved on in the last 2 1/2 years and a re-nomination is appropriate. I also refute the suggestion that I have an agenda in nominating this article, and I alerted both the article creator and WP:EU to this AFD.Paulbrock (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - look everyone, I'm voting delete at a sports-related article. Who would have thought we'd see the day. Anyway, the article is just generally patently misleading and relies on hypotheticals. The European Union itself did not field a team, and the results of the European Union member states are very well covered already. If substance comes about besides Prodi, I could be convinced otherwise, but at the moment, I can't see much purpose for this. matt91486 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and particularly per the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization (second nomination). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - complete WP:OR. There was no EU team, and it's not really relevant to add results of different teams together. - fchd (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as recreation of previously deleted material WP:CSD#G4; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meenakshi Sundaram. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sundar[edit]

Dr. Sundar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a real person who does not seem to be notable. This might be an autobiography, but it is hard to be sure. Either way, it seems to fail WP:N. It says he founded a company, but gives little explanation on how that's notable. Soxred93 | talk count bot 15:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Have you looked, even in Google? If you told us what you found (or didnt find), it would help us decide.DGG (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn and redirected to LOE Will ^(talk) 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Torchwood episodes[edit]

(View AfD) WP:CRYSTAL - no sources exist for any of the titles, writers, directors, or cast, and are thus entire speculation. Will ^(talk) 16:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated articles:

A Day in the Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Something Borrowed (Torchwood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From out of the Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Adrift (Torchwood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fragments (Torchwood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Exit Wounds (Torchwood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• I say kill with fire until the titles can be confirmed by a credible source. I did strike the first one as I withdrew nomination for that article less then 24 hours ago. They probably turn out to be the correct title, but as you said, there is no reliable source of any kind, and we need to weed out unsourced material at the root. — Edokter • Talk • 17:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Torchwood episodes until broadcast- not enough to say till then. We don't have articles on DW series 4s, nor did we have Torchwood season 1 until broadcast. OZOO 17:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of Torchwood episodes per above. Simply south (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all - It may be easy to change these to the correct titles, and they may be the correct titles, but without a source for the title they simply do not belong on wikipedia. StuartDD _{contributions} 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Torchwood episodes. Titles now sourced from Brief History, but they should be redirected till we know more about the episode. StuartDD _{contributions} 18:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not entirely sure how Brief History sources their information, but if they can be trusted, I recommend withdrawing the nomination. — Edokter • Talk • 18:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Serenade Surrender[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC; unsigned band, only reference material I was able to find (besides MySpace pages) were brief mentions in local newspaper articles (e.g. [29]). Already speedied once under title The serenade surrender.

Also nominating:

• Back To The Basement

an article about the band's only and self-produced EP for basically the same reasons; unable to satisfy notability and verifiability guidelines. ~Matticus ^U_C 14:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN, recreation of deleted material Doc Strange (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GET OFF THE BANDS BACK!!!! THEY ARE JUST A BUNCH OF BROKE KIDS TRYING TO PLAY MUSIC!!!!
What's the point of being able to update Wikipedia ourselves if you guys just want to constantly delete our pages because you can't verify the bands info??????— Preceding unsigned comment added by Modup118 (talk • contribs)

You've answered your own question there - because the information is unverifiable. Please read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. ~Matticus ^U_C 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...so my crappy little band bothers you. Thats my whole plan...Im gonna bring down Wikipedia by posting innacurate information about my local band. Come on guys...I told our story like it is. I didnt embelish and say we were signed to some major label or touring in huge million dollar buses. Why would I make up the story that we are a crappy band that's broke and just trying to get by? What kind of lie is that? Why would I want to make up that story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modup118 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only the non-verifiability of the information, it's the non-notability of it. Make it big, win some Grammys, become a major influence in the music world, and the band becomes worthy of a Wikipedia entry. But right now, they are not. Sorry 'bout that... Marjaliisa (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wikipedia get off TSS's balls for the love of all things !!! I played bass for the band for a short stint and these kids are busting their asses to get their name out there and for you to take this bulls@#t action against them is lamer then the crap in high schools.

For real give some kids a damn break and look beyond the fact they are a newer unsigned group and maybe help them get out there not take your power of the "interweb" and piss on their fire.

Get off their backs and just leave them alone and if they make it big you can say you were there for them but if not you can say you gave them a chance.

Respects,

George "Dark Soul" Wiggins Team Apocolypse Fight Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.9.225 (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you guys rent a cops for Wiki here? This site is a reference site not a site for you guys to deem what is and what is not worth searching for. TSS would love to win Grammy's but w/ out Wikipedia's help I don't know if we can do that...Im kidding of course.

Note this....if you guys shut this posting down when the day comes that you want to make a page for TSS we will block it and tell all our fans to edit with words like poopie and crap. Is that you guys want? The biggest band in the world to have the words poopie and crap all over their listing? Yea...I dont think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modup118 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Guy, please read WP:MUSIC and see if you qualify. I'd say you don't. I wish you the best of luck in a very tough business, but right now, the band isn't notable... Marjaliisa (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - obviously. Rarely is there a more clear-cut case of a band coming to promote itself without realizing that that's not what Wikipedia is for. I wish you guys luck, but the bottom line (not just for bands, but for any subject) is that you have to prove the subject's importance before it qualifies for a Wikipedia article. --Hyperbole (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- There hasn't been any notability established, therefore it should be deleted. Remember, Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information about a small high school band that no one has ever heard of. Like other users have posted, get around, win some important awards, have a big hit, do something notable, because there's thousands of other high school bands out there just like you guys, and their simply not notable. I'm also saddened to see the blatantly hostile attitude towards Wikipedia's procedures and that you would vandalize articles for no apparent reason, other than the fact that your band isn't recognizable, nor does it have an verifiable facts. So, once again, my advice is to go out there, sing, have fun, enjoy life, and hey, if one day you make it big, or even just partway there, and I'm confidant that Wikipedia will be waiting there with open arms. Heck, I'll even write the article myself, but for the time being, my opinion is that the article should be deleted. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as non-notable per WP:BAND. tomasz. 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I gotta say wikipedia is filled with deusche bags. You guys are like the internet gestapo, but worse. I'd really like to know how much space this little page is wasting on your server right now. And you know, this "talk" page is probably wasting more space than our band and album page combined. What's the harm in letting us have a 2 measly little pages. I think you guys need to go to our myspace and listen to our cd, because obviously you haven't. If you have and you still don't like us, then you guys must be freaking deaf. I hope you guys enjoy making 8 bucks an hour, sitting in a hot, stuffy room deleting peoples pages for kicks and giggles, you interet fags.

• Delete This a highly un-notable band and higly un-notable album, both should be deleted as soon as possible.TheNextOne (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, if you are able to provide a reliable source for this article, then you are free to recreate the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary McFeeders[edit]

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

Seems like a vanity articles. It provides three references, but none suffices to confer notability: one is his own website, one is of a Christian stunt riding group of which he is a part, and one is a tae kwon do website. This last one may seem to demonstrate notability (it's used to prove that he was an Olympic medallist), but please note that there were no Olympic Games in either 1986 or 1993, so he can't be an Olympic medallist. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was attempting to coach this editor with this article, but the article never really improved. I declined the Speedy on it originally, because of the Olympic medal claim, but as pointed out in the nom, Tae Kwon Do was not in the Olympics until 2000. I was giving him a week to improve it, or I would nominate it for AFD myself, which was 5 days ago. Now, he has another 5 days to improve it before it gets deleted. I'm okay with that. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article states 1986 Olympics. That wasn't an Olympic year. But that although Tae Kwon Do was not an official medal sport until 2000, it was an Olympic demonstration sport for the 1988 and 1992 games. Being a demo sport was part of the path taken to becoming an official Olympic sport. -- Whpq (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article is spammy, and the claim for notability, an Olympic medal appears to fail verifiability. As I stated in my earlier comment, 1986 was not an Olympic year. Assuming that was a typo, then he might plausibly have won a medal when Tae Kwon Do was a demo sport. Checking Taekwondo at the 1988 Summer Olympics and Taekwondo at the 1992 Summer Olympics, I cannot find him in the draw much less in a medal position. I realize that wiki articles aren't reliable sources, but I suspect these are probably okay, and I'm open to be being shown reliable sources supporting the medal assertion if the wiki articles actually are wrong. -- Whpq (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendojo[edit]

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

contested prod; No reliable sources to verify notability. Author has repeatedly removed notability tags and prod-notability tag without providing refs. I haven't found any RS myself but if someone else can find good refs I'd withdraw the afd. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB. One of coutless video-game websites. Primary claim to notability is that some of the people who contributed it went on to contribute to other sites. For comparison's sake, present Alexa rank is 290,802... IGN and Gamespot are 148 and 109. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Starblind. Does not rise to WP:WEB at this time. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 1) is well-known and often cited in the gaming community -- by other sites, on message boards, etc... a simple Google search shows this. 2) Alexa is a dubious judge of site traffic, as it is based singularly on self-selected Alexa toolbar users; as Wikpedia community has noted, there is no fair study of bias factors (in contrast to Nielson, whose sample users are much more carefully regulated). 3) Nintendojo is a pioneering website; established as the oldest Nintendo-specific fansite still in existence and one of the first gaming sites in the "pre-commercial" era, before the advent of sites like GameSpot and IGN, 4) other fansites like NintendoWorldReport, Gamestyle, ToTheGame, and Gamezebo (many of which are less well known than Nintendojo) have Wikipedia pages. 5) Refs to site notability are included on Wiki page. 6) Is included in numerous notable meta-reference sites such as GameRankings and GameStats -- joshofstl —Preceding comment was added at 13:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. Additional external notability references added.--Joshofstl (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete: no reliable sources that give significant coverage and are independent of the subject. Sancho 01:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Education Mixtape[edit]

Physical Education Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article on a planned mixtape. Per WP:MUSIC mixtapes and future albums are not notable without substantial reference in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:MUSIC specifies that mixtapes are not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes. скоморохъ 13:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amman Valley Comprehensive School[edit]

Amman Valley Comprehensive School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Absolutely no context; no idea where it is, what levels it teaches, anything. Pairadox (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey, how about now? скоморохъ 13:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nom - Much better. Pairadox (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Tax Deduction[edit]

Ad Tax Deduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references and my googling didn't turn up any evidence that this practice actually exists. It doesn't make sense that you would pay $50 less in taxes after getting a gift card from Macy's, and it seems bizarre that Macy's would give away gift cards just for the sake of you going to shop there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as I'm thinking scam/hoax. Does it surprise you that I've seen this mentioned on MySpace pages? Duncan1800 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all, actually. :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entry is very misunderstood because it is poorly written.

The point is- you work somewhere and you pay income taxes. now what happens is, an advertising company is teamed up with your employer or is just in understanding of the following - instead of 'for example' $50 being taken out for your income tax you get it back as earned money in the form of a gift card. You just pay that $50 less in that time period and get a gift card of the $50. Now, the ad company pays the IRS that $50 for you. So it's like the ad company is being taxed a part of your income tax. I guess the gift card can come from your employer who is participant with this ad tax deduction. So, the ad company just paid your $50 of income tax for you so now you get that $50 back in the form of a gift card. The ad company does this to advertise to you for other brands. The gift card is from a certain store for example. As the recepient of this gift card you must use it in a certain amount of time or you lose it. What this does is provide a physical ad to you in your hands and makes you shop at a store, probably a store trying to promote itself. So you shop there and you may spend extra dollars over the $50 amount and you might be a future customer. These stores, brands pay the ad company to advertise their brand. Hope this is understandable.

However, this tax deduction seems sort of flawed. It seems like the ad company can just give you the gift card without dealing with taxes. But, I think there is a certain advantage to doing this with taxes like making sure only working people receive this, people that earn a certain amount, the idea that you're paying less taxes. Some other stuff I'm sure.

Also, this technique of advertising may or may not be at all effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennytim (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The (well, one) problem with this scheme, however, is you are being double-paid... Macy's is giving you $50 and the IRS $50, so they have given away $50 in cash and $50 in merchandise, just in the hopes that you will be a customer later? This makes no sense so unless a reliable source exists that documents it, I am skeptical. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, you are not getting paid twice. you personally pay $50 less but the money is still owed, which the ad company will pay. (you owe $3,000 in income tax. you have a choice to get $50 back in the form of a gift card. you get it somehow. the money is still owed which the company will pay. it's kind of just a cycle. i'm no really sure who does what and how and the numbers aren't set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.147.97 (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to a lack of notability and a complete lack of reliable sources (or any sources at all). The proposal would make sense only if giving out the gift cards inspires people to spend several hundred dollars at the retailer in question. In other words, it might make sense if the gift card were really a $50 off coupon on a purchase of $1,000 or more (depending on the retailer's markup). If customers use just the $50 or if they simply accept the $50 tax reduction, this proposal would result in a large loss for the retailer. As it stands, it is most likely either a poorly thought out proposal or a hoax.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, although more reliable sources could be helpful. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manimal (band)[edit]

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

Unsigned band, no sources to show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding out the record label, and will start posting sources soon. Thedragon5000 13:25, 8 February 2008 (GMT)

• Keep. Label - Toulousain Jerkov; Sources - http://www.french-metal.com/chroniques/manimal.html is the main source, although it's in French. There are few English language sources, although I could translate this page and host the translation on a seperate website. Thedragon5000 13:31, 8 Frebruary 2008 (GMT)
• Keep for now. Have a discography, if sources are provided it should be fine. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 22:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krahu i shqiponjës[edit]

Krahu i shqiponjës (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:N and WP:V. I tried with Google but could not manage to find any reference. Article itself also doesn't contain any citation. It looks like a non-notable article on a magazine that almost passes for Speedy. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Proclaims to have also been printed in English, but I can't find any source for it. In fact, i'm leaning toward it being possible hoax article but I am unsure right now. Anyhow, if it isn't it never asserts notability and has no sources Doc Strange (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to satisfy notability or verifiability. Edison (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep with an additional consensus of Clean up, as it will be tagged. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grinning Man[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE and to some extent WP:V. A vanity article on an imaginary character. A google hit returns almost nothing[30]. The only link talks about this character is a discussion forum (which is also used as the only reference of this article). -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteWeak Keep. No evidence of notability found from a google search. --Michig (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I helped this new user flesh out this article because it had been tagged for a speedy (and rightfully so) in its original form. My Google turned up the discussion on the forum which I listed as a reference. The phenomenon warranted an entire chapter in a book by a notable author. While I have no interest in the subject, I am of the firm belief that Wikipedia is not paper and that there is more than enough room for something this esoteric. There is something truly wrong here when single-sentence nanostubs are allowed to stay and a fleshed-out article like this is not. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keel did write about The Grinning Man, but I can't find any evidence of any other significant coverage. One unreliable author writing about a supposed character isn't enough.--Michig (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whoopie. Some kids saw a strange looking man over 6 feet tall wearing a green outfit. You'd have to lower the bar for notability to atomic dimensions for this to qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created this article because I have noticed a LARGE amount of cryptozoological articles and many people are interested in them. I have also noticed that there are MANY articles on wikipedia that are completely idiotic and they are not deleted, and some contain vulgar language which is why I do not understand why my article should be deleted. I included a lot of information, and I can also include much more which I will. I study a lot of cryptid phenomenon and I found this story very interesting, not to mention unique. Look at the wiki article for the Dover Demon for example. Why is that not deleted? It is just as "silly" as what I posted if not more.

Also, to the person calling "John A. Keel" an unreliable author, you need to do some studying yourself. Not only has Keel investigated personally almost ALL of his topics in his books, but he has traveled the whole world cataloguing and searching for cryptids, ET's, and other unexplainable phenomenon. Keel is a real life "Mulder" from the X-Files, and a real life Indiana Jones. Do not call an author unreliable if you do not know anything about them.

As for the sarcastic comment "Whoopie, some kids saw a strange looking man," there are many other sightings that have happened all over the world regarding "Grinning man" like entities, just because something is out of the ordinary then should we automatically disregard it? Even if it is fake, and it is a figment of the occult imagination, it should then cause us to study why our minds would think of such things, there is much to be learned about the mind that we still do not understand.

The Grinning man is ALSO mentioned in MANY OTHER BOOKS, not just "Complete Guide to mysterious beings" written by the previously so called "unreliable author" John A Keel. The Grinning man and his kin is also mentioned in the book Mothman and other curious encounters written by well known Cryptoozological investigator and author named Loren Coleman. It is mentioned in chapter 7 on page 133 and 146. If you are familiar with the Mothman phenomenon from the 60s, then the name Indrid Cold definitely rings a bell. Cold was also mentioned in the hollywood movie The Mothman Prophecies. Indrid Cold is actually a "grinning man". Grinning men are a sort of entity that is described in a lot of occult literature, ranging from aliens invading bedrooms, and demons invading bedrooms. Some of these cases deal with a "grinning man" looking entity that stares at you while asleep, then disappears when you try to make contact.

For those of you who do not have any understanding of occult, paranormal, or unexplained phenomenon litarature, do not set up my page for deletion. For those of you who do not read paranormal literature, then you will not know what the grinning man is WHICH IS WHY I MADE THIS ARTICLE. And those of you too close minded to realize that sightings such as this happen more often then you think, then do not read my article. Once again, keep in mind that this was a well documented account that has happened numerous times throughout history as part of occult and paranormal literature, not to mention it is mentioned in about 3 well known books (Complete guide to m. beings, mothman and other curious enc., and mysterious america)...It seems that most of you who are setting up the page for deletion have never read these books so you do not know what the grinning man is, well what if i went to an article that you created and i didn't know what it was or it sounded silly to me so I put it up for deletion??? Thats what you have done to me, and i tell you that there are thousands of other people like me who like to bundle up with a nice book about the paranormal at night and are very interested in the grinning man and other similar entities that belong in the unexplained, cryptozoology, and UFO wiki pages. --MTSPEED

• Comment. If you have these books that discuss the Grinning Man, please add references to the article - the links to discussion forums are not good enough.--Michig (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to comment I'm sorry but I do not know how to add references to books, since I'm rather new at this. If you wouldn't mind posting them for me, here are the references.

• "The Complete Guide To Mysterious Beings" by John. A Keel. Mentioned in chapter 14 "The Grinning Man"
• "Mothman and Other Curious Encounters" by Loren Coleman. Mentioned Chapter 7 "Keels Children" on pages 133 & 146.
• "Mysterious America" by Loren Coleman mentioned in chapter 20 "Mad Gasser Of Mattoon and his Kin"
• "Mothman Prophecies" by John A Keel. mentioned throughout the book as an entity named "Indrid Cold"

--MTSPEED

• Has Jerome Clark ever written about the Grinning Man? He's probably the most reliable source for UFO-related topics. Zagalejo^^^ 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if there is a Clark cite it would be gold. - perfectblue (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even by UFO standards, there are no real sources here. "mentioned" is not substantial coverage. Integrate any worthwhile material into Mothman.DGG (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• REPLY TO COMMENT "..no real sources"??? So you consider legitimate, published books as unreal? There is a whole chapter related to this phenomenon in the book I mentioned earlier written by John A. Keel. And by "mentioned" I do not mean that the grinning man is in one or two sentences, I mean it is mentioned as a large majority of the chapter. Once again, you obviously do not read UFO or occult literature, so you have not heard of the grinning man.

What you people are doing is prompting a deletion on a subject simply because you have never heard of it. That I find very close minded, this is a case that has happened many times, which is why it is mentioned (remember what I mean by "mention") in 4 books, and most likely many more books. But then again, its easy for people to ridicule what sounds strange and discount things that they have never heard of. I'm really getting sick of the close minded individuals going around prompting deletions on topics they have never heard of. Once again, look through wikipedia and you will find numerous things that shouldn't even be on here for people to see, at least the topic for the page I have created is strange, interesting, different, and worthwhile to read.--MTSPEED

• Keep: This entry can be sourced to both Keel and Coleman. Both are notable sources with a slid history of reporting on this kind of topic. When you have notable individuals considering a topic notable in notable publications, there is no other answer than to say that the topic is notable. I'm getting two vibes from this AFD. Firstly people with no actual interest in the subject matter are calling for its deletion on the grounds that they've not personally heard of it, and secondly people think that it should be deleted because they believe that the story is a myth. To both of these kinds of people I'd like to say that the grounds for inclusion on Wikipedia are relative notability and contextual verifiability. This means that something must be notable within its field, and that it must be demonstratable that something wasn't invented by Wikipedia editors. This entry passes both criteria easily. Keel and Coleman both reference the topic within the context of the paranormal which confers notability on it, and the fact that they have referenced it at all confers verifiability on it. Hence this entry should stay. It doesn't matter whether actual subject matter is real or bunk. - perfectblue (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Bravo! Only one correction, however: I had no interest in the subject matter, but I was able to verify that it was doucmented by a well-known author, hence the fact that I tried to fix the article. I just don't understand this site anymore. A new admin just "declined speedy" on another article that's a single-sentence, clear-cut link spam because some "notability" was established. This is a real article with real notability and here we are discussing this real article's future. No wonder I've quit this site before. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. We have one author (Keel) who has written about this character, and another who has written , it seems, about Keel's writings on this character. The article states "Grinning Men are catalogued in many books and paranormal literature" - where's the evidence for this? Certainly not in the article, and nothing significant is found from a Google search. If the article included evidence of more coverage, it could pass on notability grounds. The article would need trimming down, to those statements that are backed up by sources, however.--Michig (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Ok, I've verified that the topic is covered in books by at least 2 authors, so I think we can keep the article, but if it stays, it will either need properly sourcing or cutting down considerably.--Michig (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A little less "interview" and a bit more "encyclopedia" is in order. I'd become concerned about the tone as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• REPLY COMMENT: Thank you to those who checked and saw that there ARE notable books by notable authors written on this subject, rather than just right off the bat call the article false or imaginary without any knowledge of the topic in the first place. I've see a few other wiki articles on similar creatures/cryptids/aliens that dont have even HALF as many references that I posted, and not even half as much information.

Anyways, thank you again for those who originally believed by article to be fake but then realized and understood, doing their own information checks on the subject matter to see that it is real/documented. If you would like to edit the article please do, and please help me make the article's text more "encyclopedia" style, rather then the interview style that I incorrectly wrote it as. (since i am rather new at this) Thanks again for those who helped (MTSPEED (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Weak Keep. If Keel and Coleman have sourced this then a press trail will exist. Its a bit too long and needs a big clean up. Google search and Wiki now have a partnership so for the public this Wiki entry will be an asset. Vufors (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as WP:OR has been addressed by the article creator. If there's anything else that needs to be brought up about the article, you are free to start another AfD, but it's definitely does not fit WP:OR anymore. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phototool[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:NOR. Clear case of original research though he meant really well. But unfortunately WP doesn't publish original researches. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OR Doc Strange (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion below indicates that the group is notable within American politics. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 07:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HillRaisers[edit]

HillRaisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article should be deleted or moved to the wiktionary. Its a non-notable neologism which will not be remembered after this election or possibly presidency. Possibly merge into Hillary Clinton campaign, or Norman Hsu, and if theres no room there and its not important enough. delete altogether. Definitely not its own article. This is just silly for an encyclopedia. delete it.Boomgaylove (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is not here to describe a neologism, but to describe a group of fundraisers for a political campaign. Thus it is directly parallel to the Bush Pioneer article, which is not a neologism at all. (If you wish to delete that one too, you should mark it as a joint AfD with this one.) Who finances American political campaigns is a very important topic. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Theres another article like this one is not a valid argument (according to the guidelines). Whether it is important or not is up to opinion. Wikipedia is not a database of who raises funds for political campaigns. This term is a neologism. The people who raise these funds are not notable. Enycyclopedias attempt to document history and important news events may be history but is not news. (WP:NOTNEWS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 02:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The point of both his and the Bush article is to document significant actors in presidential campaigns, which is part of history and is encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nah uh its gotta go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.64.177 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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