< September 1 September 3 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was No consensus. Maxim(talk) 23:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Chabot[edit]

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

Prodded a while back, prod removed, re-prodded recently. There seems to be a disagreement on notability, so I'm putting it here. Some sources are there too. Procedural nom. UsaSatsui 00:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not all local politicians are going to have significant press coverage, because not all localities have significant press coverage of their municipal governance systems (to take an example that is, for me, close to home, try to find significant press coverage - even significant local press coverage - of any municipal councillor in Sturgeon County, Alberta. Andre Chabot has received significant press coverage (yes, most of it local) and, according to WP:BIO, local politicians to have received significant press coverage are notable. The "rule" about said coverage needing to be non-local because this is an international encyclopedia is completely figmentary.
Why are Members of Parliament automatically notable? Well, because WP:BIO says so, but why does WP:BIO say so? Very few of them have received international coverage (and this is, after all, an international encyclopedia), and a good number have received only significant local coverage. But all of them have received significant coverage, and all of them are therefore entitled to be considered notable. The same is true of Andre Chabot. Sarcasticidealist 05:06, 4 September 2007 (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. --Coredesat 03:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specimen-X[edit]

Specimen-X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

does not satisfy notability MarkinBoston 22:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:00, 3 September 2007 (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. Daniel 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Mortem (Boston Band)[edit]

Post Mortem (Boston Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sign of notability. A check online finds no support. MarkinBoston 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This band has sold 10s of thounsands of CDs and albums and their stuff can still be purchased at places like amazon.com. Please do not delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjohnal (talk • contribs) 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:01, 3 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerspace[edit]

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

This article is about a fanmade term that has had no serious or critical coverage by any sort of media. No one has written about the cultural implications of "hammerspace" nor has anyone written about it in any sort of serious concept. The only two references that are in the article are to a Geocities page and to "animeinfo.org". As such, all of the information in the article is made up of unverified claims and trivial inferences.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classes in World of Warcraft[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Classes in World of Warcraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Glorified game guide page, sourced from a game guide, manuals, and a fan wiki. There is no real world relevance here. At best, merge the little table at the bottom into the main WoW article. Wikipedia is not a game guide or indiscriminate collection of information. Wafulz 23:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't believe this article can be salvaged. At best, the list's real world content would be limited to "These are the classes, and these are the races that can use them". This is summed up in the table.-Wafulz 01:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • this includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. How is this anything but a game guide? It's a list of classes, with no possible real-world value, and it serves only to detail the classes and their abilities. Similar articles have been deleted before.-Wafulz 13:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't a game guide because a game guide contains instructions, advice, suggestions or "how-to"s, as stated in the quote I gave. WP:NOT clearly says that it is these things which are forbidden, not information about games. As the articles are deleted I can't see how similar they actually are, but it could be that the wrong choice was made at the time anyway. Raoul 14:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game guide, video game manual, tomato, tomahto- the video game wikiproject guideline says to avoid these articles since their utility to non-gamers is extremely limited. The articles that were deleted were basically the exact same as this (you can check the various mirrors/Google caches). There's also the issue of sourcing: if your sources consist of video game guides, the creator, and fan sites/strategy links, then you're essentially creating a derivative game guide/manual. Any way you go about it, this article is just a game guide or an extended manual, and outside of WoW, it has no real-world relevance.-Wafulz 14:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely no article has any relevance outside of its subject? I actually first read this article (or the separate articles that existed back then anyway) about a week before I bought the game and it played a role in deciding whether to get it or not. I could, of course, have looked somewhere else, but the idea that the article is only of interest to people who own the game (which, incidentally, the rule of thumb given in the link you provided) isn't actually true. The link given says "While saying that a character can jump, punch, and pound the ground is OK, explaining how to execute them using the controller is not". This article is the equivalent of saying that you can jump, punch, etc., not the equivalent of saying which buttons to press. The link also says "Basic strategy concepts are often essential to the understanding of a game, but avoid in-depth explanations". This article doesn't even go as far as that; it sticks clear of all mention of any strategy concepts (unless it was recently edited and the edit is not yet reverted). I admit the guidelines are a bit fuzzy on what can be included or not, so an argument could be made that this is not notable, but I don't think this article violates any specific policies, so as there are plenty of people who want it kept I don't see why it should be deleted. If it obviously violated a policy then that would be different, but I don't think it does. If you can point out any sections which violate specific policies then I will be glad to edit them to resolve the issue. And again I don't think articles previously having been deleted is a valid argument. Many things have been done before, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be done again. Raoul 15:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your overall opinion and that WoWWiki is an unreliable source which should not be used as a source. However I don't see the problem in referencing the game guide section of the World of Warcraft website. The official website is deemed a reliable source for the main WoW article and this specific section of the website should be just as reliable as the other sections referenced. Referencing a game guide doesn't make this article one. Raoul 15:57, 4 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hendrickson[edit]

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

Article for a non-notable person (at least not notable for the philosophical theory/religion(?) presented on this page - highly likely to be a vanity page Anarchia 22:34, 2 September 2007 (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. DS 23:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge over your house argument[edit]

Could not find any information on the "Bridge over your house argument". No references listed, possible hoax. Also not exactly encyclopedic. 24fan24 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2007 (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 Merged to List of main characters from Saiyuki. (The minor character articles I have merely redirected to the main article). ELIMINATORJR 10:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Son Goku (Saiyuki)[edit]

Son Goku (Saiyuki) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced and notability is questionable. Might be better merged into article for the anime itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, readable English now present. --tjstrf talk 10:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's much better. --tjstrf talk 10:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is shown by the award winning nature of the series, and out of universe information is present in the article's discussion of character design inspiration and mythological roots. At most, I could understand a vote here for merger to a Characters in Saiyuki article. --tjstrf talk 02:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The series' winning awards does not make its characters notable. Notability is established by significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. That hasn't been demonstrated in this case. Jay32183 03:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the series has won awards, that would make the series notable and deserving of an article - but that does not necessarily make a character in the series notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a magazine with two article about the anime, one of which interviews the director about the character designs: Newtype USA, vol.2, num.5, pp.109-115. I'll add some citations after work--hope that helps. CharlotteMR 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does WP:NOT#INFO apply? A list of characters is not an indiscriminate collection of items. Also note that those refer to two different types of articles. List of Saiyuki characters refers to a list containing the characters of the source material, thus making it along the lines of List of Metal Gear Solid characters. Characters in Saiyuki, on the other hand, would be an article talking about the characters as a whole rather than simply a list. See Characters of Final Fantasy VIII for how it differs from the aforementioned list of characters. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:ANIME derived style guideline on anime and manga suggests the use of List of characters in (series) (though List of (series) characters is far more common) instead of Characters in (series). Also, WP:NOT#IINFO does not apply to the article's name, instead it applies to the content of the article. An article that violates WP:NOT#IINFO will still violates WP:NOT#IINFO whether its named is Characters in Saiyuki, List of characters in Saiyuki, or List of Saiyuki characters. --Farix (Talk) 03:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The manga MoS should probably be updated to explain the difference between "List of characters in X" vs. "Characters of X" then. Though I think Sessh's point was more that by calling it "list of" we suggest it's a comprehensive list, which, depending on the series format, might be a bad thing (i.e. if every non-main character is a villain of the week type, then we don't want a list of all of them). --tjstrf talk 07:11, 9 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dvar[edit]

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

An unknown Russian band, even saying itself to be "anonymous w/ no details known about them". Jmlk17 22:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you misinterpreted results of a machine translation. Their official page uses the word таинственный, which, in this context, is better translated as occult or mystic rather than anonymous. Declaring themselves occult might be a normal part of a gothic rock band's image. Digwuren 23:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They are known in the Russian underground goth-scene and there they really have a cult status (and i'm not a fan myself, i dont get their music). The anonymity is used to help their image, as they state in all interviews, as if Davr is somthing "supernatural" and chose them as the "messenger" to deliver "the word". Nevertheless, we really dont have English reviews on their albums. Only a few Russian positive reviews are from real journals and magazines, the rest Russian positive reviews are from fans on blogs and stuff. M.V.E.i. 22:31, 2 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High school musicals[edit]

High school musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think this is actually a "thing". I've been involved in musical theatre for 20 years, and I've never heard anyone refer to this as being a subgenre. The article is uncited, and seems to me to be unsubstantiated rubbish. —  MusicMaker5376 21:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are currently no other categories for musicals by subject matter, and, frankly, I don't think it's something we should consider doing. —  MusicMaker5376 03:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Okay, then we have ONE errant category by subject matter. Format is one thing, subject is another. —  MusicMaker5376 17:03, 3 September 2007 (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. Keep rationales have been considered and rejected as unsound and not based in policy.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red State Update[edit]

Red State Update (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was speedily deleted, taken to DRV and the opinions were one undelete, one keep deleted and one list at AfD.

The subject is a YouTube channel. A question was used in a YouTube presidential debate (so were lots of others). It has some minor attention. It has, however, no real sources outside the closed world of YouTube. Salon signed a deal to put it on one of its channels, but that is not the same thing as substantial independent sources. Where is the critical review in reliable sources? I fail to see how this is an encyclopaedia article rather than an entry in the YouTube channel directory-o-pedia. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only review that I've found so far is <http://www.betterproductsandservices.com/red-state-update-is-a-hoot-2007-05-11>. Red State Update seems to have captured the attention of CNN, which has now referenced it three times. I'm willing to try to fix any problems with this article. Are there any specific suggestions? If there are too many pointless references, I can get rid of them. Billebrooks 23:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some more changes that will hopefully make the article look more like an encyclopedia article. I hope that helps. Billebrooks 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or WP:ILIKEIT? Lychosis T/C 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Lychosis T/C 00:18, 7 September 2007 (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. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola C261[edit]

Motorola C261 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product. Few references beyond trivial reviews and manufacturer literature. Article consists of a list of features and a how to, just like a product marketing brochure. Nominating after contested prod. Mikeblas 21:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'll concede this may fail the notability guidelines as per WP:N, but I still think notability for this type of product is more subjective than many - for example, the phrase "'Motorola C261' review" gets over 100,000 hits, some of which could almost certainly be used to argue notability and 'significant coverage'. But if the consensus here is to delete, it does set a clear precedent for a cleanup of the dozens of similiar articles about non-notable mobile phones. Tx17777 10:12, 3 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Recycle Family[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable short story, and I suspect it doesn't exist at all. No sources at all, and author refuses to provide any, even accusing me of engaging in "original research" by noting there are no Google or Yahoo hits, one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard at Wikipedia. Even if the book/story does exist, it isn't even close to being notable. But it sure looks like a hoax, especially with the author being as defensive and ranting as he is (see my talk page). Realkyhick 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are aware of how wikipedia works, right? For all your insistence that the article should be kept, I've still yet to see you provide any scrap of evidence at all to prove this article's notability. I could ask a similar question of you as you ask Realkyhick - why are you so determined to see this article kept, but yet unwilling to give us any reasons to assert its significance? Do you perhaps work for the publishing company yourself? Oh, and why oh why does you being a female have any relevence at all to this debate? Its perfectly simple - if you can show me some real evidence of this books notability, I will happily change my opinion to 'keep'. But until you do, its a clear delete for failing WP:N. Tx17777 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC) PS If you'll provide us with the name of the publishing company, I'll be perfectly happy to ring them up myself and see if they ever published this book.[reply]
  • I'm going to attempt this one more time, but I fear this 'debate' is turning into that interview where I just keep asking the same question over and over again. Where is your EVIDENCE that this book is notable, or even exists?. No verification, no keep. Simple as. Tx17777 22:45, 4 September 2007 (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. Daniel 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BGTGuide[edit]

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

Fansite, non-notable Seaserpent85Talk 19:45, 2 September 2007 (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 and redirect to grammatical conjunction. Transwiki unnecessary: Wikt:but.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But[edit]

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

This is just a dictionary definition. Since this is a conjuction, it can't reasonably be expanded. See WP:NOT#DICT or WP:DICT Obina 19:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentNo need to trans wiki but is there.Obina 20:47, 3 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid space theory[edit]

Liquid space theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sources do not even mention the subject of the article. Likely either a hoax or a neologism - Google only finds Wikipedia mirrors for "Liquid space theory", which seems implausible for a true scientific theory. Jakew 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Actually, I see now all he did was replace "mass" in F=ma with the relativistic expression for kinetic energy, and let that follow through for the derivation of other physical quantities. It's quite nonsensical. Someguy1221 04:21, 4 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kim Possible characters[edit]

List of Kim Possible characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

All of these characters are already listed in separate articles. TrackFan 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Reagrdless, a "delete and merge" was never going to happen, because of our GFDL obligations. Please use editorial consensus from the talk page for future merge attempts. However, there is no consensus to delete the article, nor to merge it, from this discussion. Daniel 04:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Armstrong[edit]

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

Delete and merge. Not sufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Google searches only return hits regarding his beheading videos, but no articles other than blogs that make him a primary subject of any entry. Strothra 19:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as CNN would have at the time, briefly. However, that does not sufficiently establish this individual's notability. Note that the article is about the person, not the event. --Strothra 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Again, the article is not about the individual so much as it is about the incident. --Strothra 20:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't been much coverage of Jack the Ripper's victim's recently either, but they still have articles. (I know, I know, irrelevent point and WP:OTHERSTUFF). He might not have been a very notable person, but the manner of his death and its relevence to the insurgency and tactics being used in Iraq at the time are, so keep or, if you must, merge with Foreign hostages in Iraq. Tx17777 22:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was not notable. The execution was. Chris Cunningham 07:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And the fact that his execution was notable makes him notable as a victim of that execution. --Djsasso 15:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The literal embodiment of WP:COATRACK, which I wish were official policy. Chris Cunningham 15:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is coatrack at all. He was notable for being killed. Coatrack would be if we were trying to say the only reason he was notable was because he was killed by a famous gun or killed in a famous place. --Djsasso 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, he wasn't notable for being killed. His death was notable. This is not a difficult distinction to make. It's why wikipedia doesn't have ten thousand articles on individual lottery winners, even though winning the lottery is highly notable. Chris Cunningham 17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added 2 verifable sources. Only 25 Google hits now remain. Hopoefully, more will be added. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:23, 5 September 2007 (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. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Hawaii Bowl[edit]

Average bowl game, nothing special about it, wikipedia is not a news service, no sources that indicate why this game is notable. Delete Jaranda wat's sup 18:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason under policy to justify deleting this article. And there are many reasons to keep it; these include:
  1. These article do NOT simply duplicate what is available elsewhere. We can bring together facts from multiple sources. For instance, the hometown newspapers for both teams as well as the national press.
  2. We can provide more historical context than most news reports will bother with.
  3. We can aid the reader with informative links to related topics, such as terms used in college football. No news source does that, not even online news sources.
  4. Unlike some on-line newspapers, access to our stories will always be free of charge, so long as we don't delete them.
  5. Many of our articles also come with photos that can be reused under GFDL or CC license.
Thank you, Johntex\talk 03:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not true. We have a notability policy that says notability is proven by multiple independent sources. These games have that. Your desire to delete them is out of what with all the editors who write/edit/read these articles. Your desire is out of what with the GA selection process that has chosen these games to be GA. It is out of what with the future. As Wikipedia grows, our coverage on topics such as this can and should become more comprehensive and detailed. Johntex\talk 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regular season games arent notable but bowl games are. Spanneraol 03:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even with bowl games, there is consensus that major bowl games are notable, but this one is minor though, I don't agree that because a record is broken, that indicates that instant notabilty, records get broken every year. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where, pray tell, comes the evidence that individual bowl games are notable? Other than "Because I said so"? --Calton | Talk 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Corpx. There aren't individual articles for playoff games, unless something particularly notable happened in the game. In this game, the most notable thing was that a season record was surpassed. To me, that means that the information belongs in the Colt Brennan article, and this article isn't necessary (my delete vote is below). Cogswobbletalk 20:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want a sign that "anyone except the respective teams' alumni fans will give a hoot about this" as you say then here you go: Johntex - alumus of The University of Texas at Austin, NMajdan - alumnus of the University of Oklahoa, Mecu - alumnus of the University of Colorado. All three have spoken up to keep the article and none of their schools were involved in the game. Johntex\talk 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote you provide, "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars" still gives no reason for deletion. The article complies with the five pillars, with the guidelines from the relevant wikiproject on what should be included in the article, etc.
Your nomination provides no reason at all for this to be deleting. You call it an "average bowl game" - that is purely a matter of opinion. Some people might say that Grover Cleveland was an average US President or that Boone, North Carolina is an average town. He don't just cover the very best and most exceptional. Johntex\talk 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did give a reason, it's that there is not indication why this bowl game is more notable then another bowl game, WP:N is a reason. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you mention WP:N. Let's look at that guideline. It says, "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." - That means since this topic received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it is presumed to be notable. Johntex\talk 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this bowl game need to more "more" notable than other bowl games? Doesn't it just have to be notable in it's own right. If all bowl games are notable, then it doesn't matter which are "more" notable. Spanneraol 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also wondering how you detemine how one bowl game is "more notable" than another. --UsaSatsui 16:08, 5 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Other Paper[edit]

That Other Paper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Strothra 18:55, 2 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Field hack[edit]

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

Delete. No evidence of notability. Seems to be a WP:HOAX and WP:MADEUP. In fact, the article itself states, "The game rules, for field hack, were written by J. Micah Ferguson, a student of Texas State University–San Marcos, in the Fall of 2006." By looking at the article history, one learns that this individual is also the person who created the article. Strothra 18:42, 2 September 2007 (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. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmic religion[edit]

The result was Closing due to WP:FORUMSHOP. The person who nominated this article has simultaneously opened up and an Request for Comment and a CFD. I found this via the RFC. Most of the comments below appear to be from involved parties.Balloonman 03:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Reopening debate per discussion at Wikipedia talk: Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board#Dharmic_Religions where it appears that the AFD was in favor before an individual opened all 3---and based upon that discussion (which is being rehashed here), I would agree it is a nelogism.Balloonman 07:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

obscure neologism, though the subject of Buddhism and Hinduism is well researched, hardly results for google books. The main source for this article seems to be WP:Fringe books by David Frawley, so any redeemable contents could be merged there. See

Andries 17:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: closely related category for deletion is here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_2#Category:Dharmic_religions. Andries 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frawley's Ph.D. is in Chinese medicine or somesuch at a no-name institution. rudra 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frawley is clearly a fringe author who is completely unreliable on matters of fact. Buddhipriya 08:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis, precisely? Hornplease 00:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a bad idea to remove a neologism from an article that uses it. It may have 'made sense' to you as a student of religions, but we cannot guarantee it would make sense to everyone, and further, we need a reliable source to tell us that it makes sense before it can be used everywhere. Hornplease 00:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kulki and Rothermund, A History of India
  • Keay, India
  • Thapar, Early India
  • Basham, The Wonder That Was India
  • Zimmer, Philosophies of India
  • Chatterjee and Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy
  • Radhakrishnan and Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy
  • Flood, The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism
  • Conze, Buddhist Thought In India."

My own response on that occasion was: "6 links for "Dharmic tradition" on Scholar (1 on JSTOR), 18 on books, most of which talk about Gandhi, and only 4 of which use the phrase in the sense in which Encarta does." "No results on Lexis, less than 10 results for DR on Google News Archive from reliable sources. One throwaway Encarta reference is insufficient for an entire article title. Meanwhile, the article itself is merely a collection of stubs about Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism, with little or no real analysis, obviously, since there are no reliable sources on which to base this analysis. The Buddhism and Hinduism article is better, but here, again, there isn't any organic analysis. This is a neologism. I am now convinced." This was in mid-June. I have waited this long for any major further information; none has come to light. Let it be clear: there is absolutely no justification for perpetrating the hoax that there is reliable research linking these religions in this particular fashion. Obviously comparative studies have been done, but implying that Dharma means the same thing across these religions, that this is their main point of correspondence, etc. etc.... all original research. Hornplease 00:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, removal of the term from many articles should go on even if this article is kept. I have sought dispute resolution in the case of human (the term is now removed) and I will seek dispute resolution for some other cases if I am reverted. Using this obscure neologism in the article human is absurd. Andries 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is kept, I am rewriting it in line with the only reliable source reference for it, which is about the political use of the term. It might become six lines, and open to PROD-ding by the next person who happens by, but at least it won't be original research. Hornplease 00:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google.com has more than enough of results for "dharmic religion" [4]. With such many results, I am more than surprised that Hornplease calls it a "neologism" (which of course it is, like also "Abrahamic or Semitic religions", or "wikipedia", but a widely used one). It may seem a clever idea to use Google Books as a argument in the AFD, but Google Books is not strong at all in Indology books. (No Internet source is really strong in Indology books, but at least one or two are better than Google (I'd have to look that one up.)) Secondly, the term is probably more often used as "dharmic tradition", dharmic beliefs" and such. See [5], [6], [7], Prabhu, Joseph, Some challenges facing multiculturalism in a globalized world, ReVision, June 22, 2001·

Lexis is a database for legal documents and legal research. I don't know, you can search there maybe for a million years for religious terms without success. Why not try the Fauna and Flora of India database?

The motivation (at least for Hornplease) behind this AFD was apparently this:

"It states that the phrase [Dharmic religion] is used as a political ploy to indicate solidarity -and indeed, identity- between non-Semitic religions on the subcontinent by the VHP. I then looked at the talkpage of the article, which gave rise to further concern when viewed in that light. I need some more input on this soon, please." Hornplease 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC) [8]

First, the book that User:Hornplease describes seems to use the term "dharmic religions" itself for the dharmic religions. Secondly, Hornplease's statements reads like that of a nationalist who is upset when he hears that Christianity is a "Jewish creation", or has a "divide and conquer" mentality. This is probably not true, but he should be careful how he says things, otherwise someone who doesn't look up his edits might mistaken him for such. Thirdly, the term exists and has a history, and all that can be said about the quote is that politicians are not always anti-intellectual.

The Encarta encyclopedia uses the term. [9] It says: :Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism share with Hinduism the concept of dharma along with other key concepts, and the four religions may be said to belong to the dharmic tradition. ...between Hinduism and other dharmic traditions..... In many ways, labeling the other dharmic traditions as non-Hindu has a basis that derives more from politics than from philosophy. Indeed, greater differences of belief and practices lie within the broad family labeled as Hinduism than distinguish Hinduism from other dharmic systems.

There are three possibilities for this AFD: First one, we delete this article together with the Abrahamic religions article. The second possiblity is to keep it, and the Abrahamic religions article. The third possibility is to move it to another title. The major reason for the apparent confusion among some editors is that there are many different terms for the same thing. Prior to 1950, Dharmic religions were usually called Aryan or Indo-Aryan religions in the West. After 1950, obviously the term has become a bit less used (Semitic religions has also become less used). After 1950, in the West, alternative terms like Dharmic tradition or "dharmic beliefs" or more scientifically "Indic religion" are used. Dharmic religions is probably not the most scientific term, more scientific is Indic religions. We could move the article to "Indic religion", and explain all the other terms in the same article. For Indic religion, see [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and many others. This website [19] says:

The term ‘Indic’ is how the field is recognized by American scholars, hence our choice.

(I think I cannot vote, thats why I'm only commenting on this, although I am not completely new (I once had an account, I lost it and had left Wikipedia)) --Harryhouse 01:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this remark. AfD is not a vote, so your comments are certainly not unwelcome. I have no opinion on Indic religions, and will look into that possibility. I myself proposed 'Religions of Indian origin', which seems to be fairly common and is a neutral phrase.
My objection to 'dharmic religions' was primarily that it is a neologism overused on WP, and only tangentially that it may be a neologism created to push a particular POV, so we must be particularly careful. As I said above, I was aware of the Encarta reference; it was considered perhaps not enough on which to hang this article given the paucity of any other sources.
Google results per se are not enough, which is why I linked Google scholar results; Google per se includes a large number of sources that do not meet our criteria for reliability. Lexis, similarly, was checked because it indexes news and reviews from sources that do meet those criteria. The term is practically unknown in reliable sources. Google books contains the entire contents of (at least) the Harvard University library system, which contains a very large Indology section and is the largest academic library in the world.
I have no opinion on 'Abrahamic', which seems marginal; I definitely think 'Taoic' needs investigation. (Oh, and, no fervour of any sort, nationalistic or otherwise, motivates me on WP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google books may possibly contain the entire list titles of books in the Harvard Library system; it does not contain their contents by any stretch of the imagination - if only!. Johnbod 01:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand over 80% of overall collection and all the out-of-print books have been digitized now. Hornplease 02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are most certainly not available online. Surely you have noticed that only out-of-copyright books are all available - a very different matter. Actually hardly any of the books one actually needs on a particular subject aere available. Johnbod 11:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exaclty. Making Google books a fantastic online resource, but most definitively not comprehensive enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're surely not basing your claim on that 20%? simply put, the onus is then on you to demonstrate that the term is used in several mainstream studies of comparative religion. Hornplease 02:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the term dharmic religion or dharmic tradition does not appear in the index of the book A Comparative Sociology of World Religions: virtuosos, priests, and popular religion. Pp 71-72, 75-76. New York: NYU Press, 2001. ISBN 0814798055, so these phraces are most probably not used in the book and not extensively treated. Does anyone have access to the book? Andries 02:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not every term used in a book is also listed in the index, and the book could also use a synonym. Does it use Semitic/Abrahamic religion in the index? --Harryhouse 02:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But none of the various discussions on the subject appear to have contributions from people who know the current academic literature on comparative religion (the most relevant subject). Everyone appears to be relying on the web. The phrase is clearly relatively recent; it does not bother me that it is not (as mentioned above) indexed in Basham, The Wonder That Was India (1954) or Radhakrishnan and Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy (1957) etc. That it is not books over 50 years old does not make it a neologism. Johnbod 12:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not relying on the web. Please review the results of book index checking which I gave above, plus my personal experience with reading books. The term is a neologism not used widely, if at all, in the published academic literature. Buddhipriya 08:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have searched the following academic article indexes (which AFAIK are the largest and most comprehensive for humanities, social sciences and religion studies) for the phrase "dharmic religion":
  • JSTOR
  • Thomsons-ISI's Arts & humanities citation index
  • American Theological Library Association religion database
  • Bibliography of Asian studies
and found exactly zero hits. If you can suggest alternate academic databases that are worth looking into, I can give them a try too. Incidentally, and not surprisingly, all these indexes give thousands of hits for the search-word "dharma" itself. Abecedare 12:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Search for "Dharmic tradition" or "Dharmic faith" (search both "faith" and "faiths")≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I repeated the search for "dharmic religion", "dharmic tradition", "dharmic faith" and their plurals in all four academic indexes, and the result was same as above; except for one anomaly: JSTOR gave this article as a hit for "dharmic tradition" but the article PDF itself does not contain the word "dharmic", let alone "dharmic tradition" and anyways the article does not talk about anything relevant to the topic of the Dharmic Religion article (in summary the article compares the attitudes towards world religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Catholicism to conceptualization of "primitive" religions like Nuer and Lugbara; Jainism and Sikhism are not even mentioned). Abecedare 14:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC) PS As pointed by Fullstop the article does contain the phrase "dharmic tradition" but it is used specifically to refer to brahmanical religion, and not as an umbrella term. Abecedare 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Note that JSTOR contains but a very small subset of articles on religion. I am not familiar with the American Theological Library Association. I will ask an expert on the subject and report back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare: page 210, 11th line from the bottom; page 211, 10th line from the bottom.
@Jossi: religion is reasonably well covered on JSTOR. Just to give you an idea: "Vedic religion" returns 285, "Dharma" 5024, "Karma" 4014, "Dharmic" 187, "Karmic" 894.
-- Fullstop 00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fullstop for resolving the anomaly! I have edited my post above for clarification. Abecedare 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some coverage information for : ATLA, JSTOR, ISI and BAS. Let me know if you learn of any more comprehensive databases and I can check if I have access to them. Cheers. Abecedare 14:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe idea of this article is interesting, and worth to be worked on. (Its name may be worth changing). Dharma is an all round term, almost impossible to translate. It has the same diffuse status as Logos has in the West. The religions that have sprung forth on the Indian peninsula do have certain features in common, that you cannot find in the "Religions of the book" in this article called Abrahamic religions. All of them believe in a cyclic time of long subcycles ending in the destructing of the cosmos followed by its reapperances (Sanskrit: Shristi and pralaya.) The goal of life is not salvation, but enlightenment/nirvana. In order to attain nirvana/enlightenment you have to purify yourself of the personal side of your being. The personal side is that that clings to the familiar, different desires and cravings, self-importance etc. Patanjali Yoga Sutras classifies the obstructions/klesas: Avidya, asmita, raga, dvesa and abhinivesa (Sanskrit) that is: Ignorance, me and mine, all that we consider our own and are attached to, desire for the pleasant, the enjoyable, disgust of anything, and as the last: fear of death. Reincarnation is also common in all of them, as is the belief of a common substratum of all human beings and the whole world, a metaphysical monism.
I don't know mutch about Sikhism. It is a combination of Islam and Hinduism, and more practically oriented than Hinduism. Of course its Muslim roots ought to be included in the article. Lots of other small faults, like considering "Bhagavad Gita" a summary of the "Vedas". References should be more substantial etc.--Tellervo 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the idea is not interesting, except to support political ideology. From an academic point of view, the sum total content is the commonplace that the religions emerged in a common religio-philosophical milieu, and as a result, have substantial overlap in concerns and terminology. But there it ends. The terms may be the same -- dharma, karma, saṃsāra, mokṣa, etc -- but the definitions differ considerably. That's why rather than trying to "unify" all of them under some common (generally useless) rubric, the bulk of academic effort has been to clarify differences in the individual terms. "Dharmic religions" has about as much validity as "karmic religions", "samsaric religions" or "moksic religions" -- all of them nothing but politically motivated tendentious neologisms. rudra 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly coming at this from a particular sub-continental perspective. In the West the use of the term has no politicl connotations. Actually the web evidence for political use is as thin as it is for scholarly use - what is it? - about 1 1/2 web uses that treally fit your description? Johnbod 11:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how any of this, mutatis mutandis, cannot be said of Abrahamic religions. The question is not "is the term useful", but "is it notable". dab (𒁳) 09:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
any enlightenment to be had here? Doldrums 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the most recent work suggested as additional reading is Fred Louis Parrish, The Classification of Religions: Its Relation to the History of Religions (1941)! Doldrums 10:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Middle Eastern religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and a variety of ancient cults; (2) Far Eastern religions, comprising the religious communities of China, Japan, and Korea, and consisting of Confucianism, Taoism, Mahayana (“Greater Vehicle”) Buddhism, and Shinto; (3) Indian religions, including early Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism, and sometimes also Theravada Buddhism and the Hindu- and Buddhist-inspired religions of South and Southeast Asia; (4) African religions, or the cults of the tribal peoples of black Africa, but excluding ancient Egyptian religion, which is considered to belong to the ancient Middle East; (5) American religions, consisting of the beliefs and practices of the Indian peoples indigenous to the two American continents; (6) Oceanic religions—i.e., the religious systems of the peoples of the Pacific islands, Australia, and New Zealand; (7) classical religions of ancient Greece and Rome and their Hellenistic descendants.
the disambiguation should perhaps be between Dharma, Religion in India and Hinduism and Buddhism / Hinduism and Jainism (the latter two could be merged). this is obviously about categorizing religions by cultural area. The "Dharmic religions" have a certain common cultural background, while theologically, they are as diverse as can be. dab (𒁳) 10:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is no point of a disambig. Irrespective of how one slices it, there is only one meaning of "Dharmic religion": religions that have "Dharma" as a principle. -- Fullstop 15:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the collective name for Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikkhism?
    This is irrelevant to this AFD because the premise - is it possible/necessary to have a collective name for those four? - has to be addressed first. It is in any case perhaps more worthy of discussion over at Indic religions.
  • Does the material in the "Dharmic religions" article justify a separate article?
    No, the material in the article is to a great extent covered at Dharma.
  • Is the title of the "Dharmic religions" article appropriate for the content?
    There are two issues here:
  1. it implies that Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikkhism are so similar that they are treatable as a cohesive unit.
  2. any proposal to retain the article title overlooks that the term "Dharmic religions" was coined as a propaganda term, and no matter how "handy" the term may be on an intellectual plane (see #1), any use of it to do what it was coined to do gives the neologism currency.
    That does not preclude that "Dharmic religions" cannot redirect to "Dharmic religions (propaganda term)" and which is fleshed out along those lines.
-- Fullstop 15:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not bring the other neologism up for AfD too.nids(♂) 15:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... because JSTOR finds 10 hits for "Abrahamic religion" and 48 for "Abrahamic religions" (not overwhelming, but infinitely more than zero for "Dharmic religion(s)"). It is a false parallelism to compare the two terms. Abecedare 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the concept is useful, but the term is not in use. No problem. Per my EB quote above, "Indian religions" includes "early Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism, and sometimes also Theravada Buddhism and the Hindu- and Buddhist-inspired religions of South and Southeast Asia". This is clearly what we are looking for. "Dharmic religions should hence be a disambiguation between (a) Dharma (explains the "Dharmic") and (b) Indian religions (is rarely used as a synonym for that group). Problem solved. dab (𒁳) 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of what to call the concept is reflected in varying usages in academic texts that try to lump these issues together. Finding the perfect term to express the idea of "religions that originated in India and which may still have some things in common, but which may have diverged quite a bit, and spread to other countries" need not be solved here in order to prove that "Dharmic Religions" is a neologism. Thus the finding of a replacement term is not essential to this AfD. Buddhism as practiced in Japan is quite different from the Indian roots. Buddhipriya 08:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it: there used to be two overlapping articles with merge tags, Major religions in India and Religion in India. I merged the demographic stuff into Religion in India (formerly "Major religions in India"), and made Indian religions (formerly "Religion in India") about the religions of Indian origin per EB. So, the stuff at Dharmic religions should at this point be merged into Indian religions, and the title should either be a redirect there, or a disambiguation between Indian religions and Dharma. dab (𒁳) 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had forgotten about the article Indian religions which is a much more common term and makes the article dharmic religion redundant. Andries 19:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment, what, then, are we going to do with Taoic religions?
it doesn't exactly have more currency than "Dharmic". It is still very useful for topics of comparative religion to be able to say, in first approximation, "Abrahamic: 54%, Dharmic: 20%, irreligious: 14%, Taoic: 7%". --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please show where the term is widely used? Claiming it is well used isn't enough. GizzaDiscuss © 10:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think that contributors who say that the article must be kept should mention reliable sources with which the article can move beyond the list or stub, copied contents that it is now. Otherwise proponents of the article demand the impossible from other contributors. Andries 10:49, 8 September 2007 (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 and salt. –Animum 17:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zanpo[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:WEB. A google search only comes up with less than 30,000 hits, most have nothing to do with the subject. ~ Wikihermit 16:58, 2 September 2007 (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. Daniel 04:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs in the British Isles[edit]

List of monarchs in the British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is now redundant on Wikipedia. The monarchs it covers, specifically English and Scottish ones are both in their own, better articles. It is also entirely unreferenced and confusing, and frankly a complete mess. Majorly (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My misake (meant to put Keep). GoodDay 23:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those who oppose 'deleting' this article should vote Keep; those who support deletion vote Delete GoodDay 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yep, Irish monarchs belong, so do the Welsh rulers (the indepenant Princes of Wales). GoodDay 17:34, 3 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of covers of the smashing pumpkins songs[edit]

List of covers of the smashing pumpkins songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - per strong precedent, lists of a band's songs that have been covered by other artists are not notable. If any particular cover is notable then it should be noted in the article for the song and/or the cover artist's discography. Otto4711 16:46, 2 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cover versions of muse songs[edit]

List of cover versions of muse songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - per strong precedent, lists of a band's songs that have been covered by other artists are not notable. If any particular cover is notable then it should be noted in the article for the song and/or the cover artist's discography. Otto4711 16:42, 2 September 2007 (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. Maxim(talk) 12:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Live Lounge covers[edit]

List of Live Lounge covers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - per extensive precedent, the coverage by one artist of another artist's song is not notable. If the particular cover version is notable then it should be covered in an article for the song and/or the discography for the performer. Otto4711 16:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Oppose - with all of the others like List of covers of the smashing pumpkins songs and List of cover versions of muse songs I would agree, however the Live Lounge is completely different. The live lounge is popular amongst British music fans whom listen to Radio 1 and this list provides a extensive list of every artist whom has appeared on the show covering another artists' song. The show has also produced an album containing some of these songs after constant pressure from the public due to their popularity (Radio 1's Live Lounge). If the article must be deleted then this list should be moved to the main Live Lounge page. Chappy God's Own Country TC 18:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the album is notable then there should be an article for the album. The notability of the individual artists, the songs or the radio show do not mean that every song that's covered on the show inherits that notability. Notability is not popularity so the popularity of the show is irrelevant. Otto4711 19:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an article for the album itself, click the Radio 1's Live Lounge link. I was trying to point out that as the show is MORE than notable and the covers recorded on it are MORE than notable enough to warrant a double album, containing just some of the covers (others have been put up on iTunes aswell) that this list is an important reference for people wishing to find a list of all the covers recorded for the show. Besides it is the covers notability that prompted the creation of the album. It is not just the usual cover list. If all of these were just put on the individual bands pages it would take a user days to find all of them. Chappy God's Own Country TC 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say this was as notable as List of songs in The O.C. and this article was kept after an AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in The O.C.. Chappy God's Own Country TC 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of the show segment is not inherited by every single cover song that's played on it. The album of covers may be notable but that again does not automatically impart notability to every other cover. It was not the notability of the covers that prompted the album, it was the popularity. Popularity is not notability. And I would say that this is as notable as the lists of songs from The Office (UK), The Office (US), Scrubs, Skins, Freaks and Geeks and the other dozen or so that were deleted at AFD. Otto4711 16:32, 4 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabana[edit]

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

Reason: article has been marked for cleanup since May with no changes. Even the initial article had severe POV problems and the current version is in my opinion much worse. will381796 15:30, 2 September 2007 (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 under WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aidinism[edit]

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

Was previously deleted by WP:PROD. Has been recreated, so brought to AfD. No mention of this philosophical movement on Google news archive or Google books. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:24, 2 September 2007 (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 and salt. I haven't redirected it, as there was no real consensus to (some people specifically argued not to redirect, whilst others did, and some said nothing). If you really, desperately want to redirect it, I suggest initiating a discussion on the target's talk page, and take it from there. If consensus does emerge, ask at WP:RFPP for an edit to a protected page. Cheers, Daniel 05:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic link exchange[edit]

Automatic link exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Created for spam purposes, this article has been subject to multiple attempts at redirect and merge to Link exchange, resisted steadfastly by the spammer. AfD'ing as a last resort. Eleland 15:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're letting the creator keep his keyboard? That's generous. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:27, 4 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Gore[edit]

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

Player fails requirements for notability by articles own admission, having made no professional appearances for any club Chappy God's Own Country TC 15:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a big Leeds fan. If he had made even a substitute appearance for Leeds in any competition then he would be on this page. It is the most comprehensive source of players whom have played for Leeds United. As you can see he doesn't appear meaning he didn't make any professional appearances for the club. Other players on wikipedia whose League stats are 0 (0) for Leeds United still appear on this site with appearances in the cup competitions. Chappy God's Own Country TC 17:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunstable play in Division 2 of the Spartan South Mids League, which is seven levels below League Two..... ChrisTheDude 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that both teams are well bellow the threshold for notability. I maintain it should be deleted. Woodym555 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear notable and offers no references to counter that impression. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. Non-admin closure Tomj 18:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ja Rule[edit]

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

There are no references or sources to back up any of the information in the article. Shadyaftrmathgunit 14:39, 2 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born to Lose, Built to Win (The Reagan Era)[edit]

Born to Lose, Built to Win (The Reagan Era) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL) with no references (fails WP:V). Article has been deleted via prod twice already (link); this time the prod was removed without comment. Request either a protected redirect to Juelz Santana, or salting. Precious Roy 20:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnaminson Mall[edit]

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

Tagged for cleanup and context for months with no improvement. Non-notable mall that was torn down a few years ago, fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 16:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2007 (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. Daniel 05:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DCAU Extended Timeline Guide[edit]

DCAU Extended Timeline Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list Rhindle The Red 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just a collection of episode lists. A gx7 06:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That said, it would be a lot more fitting in wikipedia if it were in a format closer to that of Timeline of the Marvel Universe or Timeline of the DC Universe. keep and rewrite. Artw 02:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timeline of the DC Animated Universe might be better if it were in point form. A gx7 05:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - much better title. Artw 05:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite, definitely. A very useful resource with precedent on the site. --Mister Six 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2007 (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. Daniel 05:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Strage[edit]

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

Fails the criteria for creative professionals as defined by WP:BIO New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 15:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2007 (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. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgement window size[edit]

Acknowledgement window size (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD) Totally unreferenced and orphaned .The article is not clear and not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards 14:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Comment appears to be aprt of a series of imported definitions for the 802.11 standard. --Dhartung | Talk 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete. Maxim(talk) 12:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Skee[edit]

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

Not notable enough to have his own article, should be deleted and redirected to The Black Wall Street article just like what happened to the Nu Jerzey Devil article. Shadyaftrmathgunit 11:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His own website would of course be self-promotional and not considered a reliable 3rd party source, other than for personal facts. As above, I would like to see more sources added to the article because I'm sure they're out there. I'll go ahead and add the one I found. While I don't believe mixtapes constitute notability within the WP:Music criteria, (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe Keep is in order here because he is a well-known DJ. ♫ Cricket02 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes Against Humanity Records[edit]

Crimes Against Humanity Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable recording company. Only two artists with articles - both currently at AfD. Giggy\Talk 07:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jaclyn Victor. JoshuaZ 14:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wajah[edit]

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

No references given. Its been tagged as potentially non-notable for 3 months. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 06:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Gottfried Swenson[edit]

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

No references found to show this person is more notable than any other immigrant who came to the US via Ellis Island New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 06:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backbone cabal[edit]

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

I'm surprised this article has even existed for five years, given the poverty of sourcing. Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 14:45, 2 September 2007 (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 and Redirect to List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK). --Haemo 03:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Kazim Uchea[edit]

Charley Kazim Uchea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redirect. Uchea is not notable. Apppearing on Big Brother, doing interviews in papers and magazines, and an appearance on The Weakest Link do not make someone notable. If it did nearly all housemates would get their own pages. The person who created this page User:Zingostar is unwilling to accept a redirect, insisting she is notable (although he's not keen to discuss the issue with me), so a deletion discussion should settle the matter once and for all. If she goes onto becoming a TV presenter (like Nikki or Jade), then fair enough. But at the moment the page is either a repeat of what is on List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK) or rumour getting her own show or appearing on Strictly Come Dancing.--UpDown 14:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "And will probably be a contestant on Strictly Come Dancing" - according to a rumour on Digital Spy. Again, this is rumour. Having articles on other Wikipedias does not mean notable, they may well be deleted or redirected later. And to say its in "bad faith" is very bizarre. I do hope you are not taking this personally. --UpDown 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When someone redirects a page without any discussion and does it on loose grounds what do you expect, that i should be happy against you? and yes redirecting a page without discussion is vandalism but i dont want to discuss it lets see what the people think.and you should always write "Comment" before answering on a afd.byebye--Zingostar 14:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yes over 98,000 articles says something about her notability my friend their are articles here on wikipeida about persons with less.--Zingostar 14:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do wish you would stop lecturing me on how to use Wikipedia. If responding to comment you do what I did. This makes it clear what I'm responding to. And it is not bad faith. She clearly fails WP:BIO and I did discuss with you anyway. Not everything has to be discussed first anyway. If an editor believes are an article is unneeded then they should redirect it. The fact she has "98,000" google hits (I doubt all these are about her) is frankly immaterial. I'm sure other former housemates have similar numbers (Chanelle perhaps?). Doesn't mean they are notable for Wikipedia. --UpDown 14:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you changed my edits again. my god.please dont change correct edits like Comment just to mess things around.--Zingostar 15:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read up on how deletion discussion works before you incorrectly change the format of my edit. "Comment" is not necessary where you put it. --UpDown 15:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Childish,but just proving my point that you are a vandaliser.will not be answering any more of your immature messages and childish fightd about insignificent things here. will be back when the afd voting is over.--Zingostar 15:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An edit war on my own - that would be challening!! Again, I apologise if you have taken this personally. You should not take things personally on Wikipedia, otherwise this happens. Lecturing other users on how to use Wikipedia is not a good way to endear yourself to people either. Anyway, lets hope more people get involved in this. --UpDown 15:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep She seems notable to me--217.209.116.113 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Sock !vote. See below.--Chaser - T 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above IP address has made edits that a very, very similar to User:Zingostar. I would suspect they are the same person, as this user has had sockpuppets before. --UpDown 17:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats irrelevent. You can't prove that its the same person so their opinion has to be taken into account.--Hiltonhampton 17:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think there are ways to prove it. Regardless, its useful for editors to know so they think about it themselves and make their own judegment.--UpDown 17:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think this voting is about my character but about rather Charley is notable or not.and most people here seems to think so. so cool down a bit.--Zingostar 18:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Zingostar 24 hours for sockpuppetry based upon this diff. A friendly reminder that AFD is not just a headcount, and single-purpose accounts are routinely disregarded in assessing consensus at AFDs. IPs are a similar case.--Chaser - T 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Several appearances on the Friday Night project" - that is not notablity, either is appearing on a Big Brother edition of 8 Out of 10 Cats. Most housemates appear on TV a lot and in papers/magazines while the show is running and briefly after, but in a couple of months fade out of the limelight. --UpDown 17:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to wait for judging whether she'll have a career out of it. Big Brother finished a few days ago. I say redirect, and if she is still on your screens etc in a couple of months fine. But at the moment, this is not sufficient notablity outside Big Brother. --UpDown 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The more information the better is not true, not if the information is trivial. And a lot of the information is rumour & what if's and should be deleted. --UpDown 17:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see what i man UpDown the most people think its a notable article. Just as i told you.--Zingostar 18:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion Charley is more notable at the moment then Nikki Grahame for example.--Zingostar 18:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The IP 88.151.83.34 has never been used outside this discussion, and is most likely a sock puppet. - LeonWhite 19:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Its always a sockpuppet when it is a vote against what the person self believes is right. come up with something better will you.--Zingostar 19:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can vouch that LeonWhite is not a sockpuppet, but a valuable contributor, who I have seen make may good edits. John Hayestalk 22:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misundestood that, you never accused Leon of being a sockpuppet (though I still think he is a valuable contributor) John Hayestalk 07:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cant agree with hisspace the article provides additional information far more then the small thing on the big brother site. and for that mather charley is notable on her own as most of the votes shows.--Zingostar 20:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are their if you bathered to look and not judge just because it is a reality show star.with over 98000 pages on google i would like to add.i also condemn this users language. and that the person seem to look at reality show stars like less then other personalities jus proves my point.--Zingostar 20:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And we have pages on Nikki Grahame ,Jade Goody and many other big brother stars so why not this one?--Zingostar 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me what is unsourced & I will try my best to fix that problem. Also if we have a page for Alison Hammond & Michelle Bass, I think its fair to say that Charley is almost as sucessful as them already!--Hiltonhampton 21:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well don't tell me to go look up these pages, you go do that yourself, I'm too busy as I am working on a new article plus working on other articles . Going back to this article, for citing articles, refer to Wikipedia:Footnotes as you can see that tag underneath that edit summary box. Also what language. Also, don't attempt to use Hammond, Bass, Goody, Grahame name to highlight Charlie whatsaname's notability as isn't that mere speculation or crystalballing, also that lot have either long term showbiz career or their own TV show. Also don't ever think of using their names as an excuse for claiming Charley's so-called notability. Willirennen 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia section gone! Again could someone please tell me whats unsourced!--Hiltonhampton 21:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's all unsourced. Having a list of references at the bottom is not proper referencing, in-line citation is needed. Alison Hammond is a TV presenter, while Michelle Bass is a model, coloumnist and has appeared in a film. All of these are recent things, which means her fame has lasted longer than the 15 second Big Brother provides. Jade Goody has a page for obvious reasons, she a household name for starters (which Charley is not). Nikki Grahame got her own TV show. It is interesting that Zingostar and Hiltonhampton both accuse other users of POV, when they are the ones with POV. Zingostar has created articles before with dubious notablity, and one many AfD this evening has voted to keep every article. For a relevant policu on why she's not notable see WP:NOT#INFO. Wikipedia is not a biography site. S/he has also tried to have the page protected (a request declinced), tried to have the afd closed (rejected) and tried to get me banned (also rejected). This user has taken the proposed deletion of a page he created far too personally. Anyway, back to the topic: Reality show contestants are not notable unless their fame remains, and it is to early to tell this for Charley. The page should be redirected. If she's still around this time next year, then re-create. At present this page is awful, full of rumour and reads like a fansite. At the end of day, Charley is not notable long term. This is an enyclopedia not a tabloid newspaper site. --UpDown 21:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound stupid but what does in-line citation mean? I f I knew then perhaps fix the problem! Please don't talk to me about Jade or Nikki, as I didn't mention them because I know that they have both sucessful careers.Lets not start an edit war!--Hiltonhampto:n 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WP:CITE John Hayestalk 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a hard time seeing how she can fail to be notable. and certainly since the article now is with new information and without the BB article info. but people here on wikipedia has a tendency to look down on reality show stars as less of persons then let say a politician. this is obvious here that people are voting on her personality more then on actuall facts and thats ashame for wikipedia.especially since a vandal account put on the Afd tag.--217.209.116.113 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "Vandal account" - Interesting. Because I don't think someone is notable that makes me a vandal. Again, I suspect the above IP address is a sockpuppet of User:Zingostar, a user who I am tempted to report, because frankly I'm fed up with being called a vandal and being told I'm acting in bad faith. It's very, very bad practise to insult people like that. And there is no looking down on people here, we are simply not assuming someone who has minor celebrity for a few months is notable. Over 100 people have appeared on the UK Big Brother, are they all notable? No of course not, and to suggest otherwise is to live in dreamworld. If you want articles on people like Charley while not create your own website? --UpDown 17:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as bad as you redirecting pages without any dialogue,talk about bad practise.--Zingostar 17:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting a page, when it is not controversial is not bad practice Zingostar. The consensus is clearly heading for delete, which backs the original redirect. John Hayestalk 22:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly? hahaha and yes redirecting a page without any dialogue with the writer is bad practise... but i dont care. he has had his fun, i have saved this article and can put it up when ever i want.. for example when she is on stricly come dancing. cheers.--Zingostar 19:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The writer? You might want to read WP:OWN. and from WP:MERGE, if the merge is not controversial: Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument. If you would like to dicuss this further I suggest we do so on our talk pages, so as not to clog this page. John Hayestalk 07:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another wannabe from Big Brother who will be forgotten about in six months. Non-notable. - fchd 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if anon users are seen as vandals, then I would like to suggest make all votes from them invalid at all nominations and ban them all from voting. I want to point out if they are not allowed to create page, then why should they be allowed to AfD vote. Also to point out, an anon can be a user in disgiuse, they can just go to a library and any educational facility, friend/families' house and carry out votes without being detected, if this comes out as keep we all should try that for every AfD votes. The bottom line like it has been brought up, I am suspecting that these anon users are sockpuppets. Willirennen 23:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported the suspected sockpuppets, we will see what happens with that. Apologies to Zingostar if it is not the case. John Hayestalk 07:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • To be honest it even more reinforces why the page should be deleted. It's a very short article which only talks about her on Big Brother. There are no claims to notablity other than Big Brother. --UpDown 07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"ostentatious" needs altering on that simple English wiki site as that is not what I call simple English. Willirennen 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you like to explain how she is notable? I note you redirect Chanelle's page to List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK), so why do then believe Charley is notable but Chanelle is not. To be honest Chanelle has appeared in more magazines than Charley, so I can't understand your logic, Neither are notable enough for own page. --UpDown 17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the boring cow-she wasnt anywhere near the final. People just want to forget about the bint. 82.27.238.166 18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? John Hayestalk 19:13, 5 September 2007 (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 Canney, keep Pate and Halloran. The relevant part of WP:BIO accords notability to "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.". There is no evidence that Canney has met this requirement, the article contains no independent notability, and there was a clear consensus that his page should be deleted. Pate (Secretary of State) and Halloran (member of state legislature) both meet the standard, there was a majority for keeping them, and there was a failure of the deleters to effectively address the question as to why WP:BIO should be overridden. TerriersFan 23:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Canney[edit]

Notability says, "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." The article provides no sources and no claims that he was anything but a local elected official. Nyttend 21:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeGirl is also nominating the following related pages because of lack of notability. These are all articles created for the other mayors and former mayors of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It looks like the people working on the Cedar Rapids article are looking for ways to satisfy a "What links here" search on their town's article. Their town's article is notable and well organized enough without the need for the mayor articles. Keep the town article but lose the mayors' articles.OfficeGirl 16:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Pate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Kay Halloran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2007 (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. Yannismarou 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Serbousek[edit]

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

Notability says, "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." The article provides no sources and no claims that he was anything but a local elected official. Nyttend 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The relevant part of WP:BIO accords notability to "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.". There is no evidence that Clancey has met this requirement, the article contains no independent notability (being the first female mayor is insufficient), and there was a clear consensus that her page should be deleted. TerriersFan 00:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Clancey[edit]

Notability says, "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." The article provides no sources and no claims that she was anything but a local elected official. Nyttend 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2007 (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. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cop on the Edge IX: Prelude to Justice[edit]

Cop on the Edge IX: Prelude to Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Despite the imdb entry, this films sounds awfully like a non-notable student joke that transformed into a low-budget movie. Article is completely unreferenced. -- lucasbfr talk 14:13, 2 September 2007 (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. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needler Hall[edit]

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

No assertion of notability beyond "moderately well-known people lived here briefly". Totally unsourced including for weird claims ("rumoured to have served as a mental asylum in the 19th century, although this has never been proved"). Borderline speedy. Eleland 13:40, 2 September 2007 (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. Bduke 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial information economy[edit]

Industrial information economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Definition of neologism from non-notable book, does not assert notability beyond being coined by notable author, no outside sources/independent usage apparent. Wnjr 13:22, 2 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of country nicknames[edit]

List of country nicknames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a complete mess on many levels. For a start the inclusion criteria are impossibly vague - "the aliases and slogans that countries are sometimes known by, officially and unofficially, to locals, outsiders or their tourism boards", or in other words, anything any country has ever been called, by anyone. It includes many things which are clearly not nicknames - such as translations of the country's name, and names by which the countries have historically been known. Much POV pushing and what look suspiciously like WP:MADEUP names. Unreferenced since creation two years ago, and tagged as such since February - the one external link is to someone's homepage, which lists translations of countries' names, not nicknames. Fails WP:NOT#INFO, WP:N, WP:V and probably WP:NOR. Notable nicknames for countries should be included in individual articles on those countries, not compiled into this sort of indiscriminate list. Iain99 13:00, 2 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trondheim Hammer Dance[edit]

Trondheim Hammer Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - prod removed with the absloutely stellar reason of "I like it." However much some random editor may like the sketch, it fails WP:PLOT and WP:N. The notability of Monty Python doesn't mean that every fragment of every TV show or record they've ever touched is independently notable. The claim that the phrase has taken on a life outside of Python would make it notable, except there do not appear to be reliable sources that support it. Otto4711 12:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tragically, your personal likes and dislikes carry very little weight in a discussion involving policy and guidelines. Otto4711 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. It was the best I could come up with. Now run along, or I'll fetch my knurtel. I swear, the kids these days have no appreciation for tradition or fine dance . . . -- But|seriously|folks  14:26, 4 September 2007 (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. Maxim(talk) 12:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyman Theatre Cardiff[edit]

Everyman Theatre Cardiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This organization is local in scope, and it is unclear how it meets the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator with the comment, "This page should stay as it is an important part of Cardiff as is any theatre company" FisherQueen (Talk) 12:23, 2 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelune[edit]

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

Subject does not seem to meet the notability guideline for web content; with a seeming lack of established, reputable sources available. In particular, recent upheaval in the article content has made it clear that the subject is not something that can be reasonably covered while still adhering to content policies. Dancter 03:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to my conflict of interest, I encourage someone to research the script themselves, and you can verify all of the claims. Raithesoft 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:40, 2 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Some good arguments raised on both sides, and if this was 'balance of arguments' I'd struggle to say which side 'won'. However, this is a pretty clear no consensus result, and no consensus defaults to keep. Daniel 02:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Eggan[edit]

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

WP:PRODded, PROD removed. Non-notable researcher (WP:N). Despite the evidence of the article creator, Kevin Eggan is still, when checked out, a run of the mill non-notable researcher.

He is an assistant (not full) professor of biology [22]. His 2005 Nature bio speaks of his hopes and activities but does not when examined give strong grounds for notability either. [23]. A 2006 profile and bio article in Harvard magazine starts "Last year Kevin Eggan was a Junior Fellow at Harvard," again not exactly indicating he had a very notable reputation as a scientist then (for Wikipedia purposes), and this profile also speaks only of his hopes in his line of research, but adds no further evidence of notability at all. [24]

The article's writer puts as a headline quote a comment by a non-science journal that Eggan makes a "significant contribution" that "could one day" lead to disease cures. That statement is true for so many potential researchers and avenues of research, as to be meaningless for notability. Again this is still all hopes and wishes. He may make some astounding discovery (WP:CRYSTAL). On the other hand, right now all he is is a bright but still fairly run of the mill active researcher in his field, with no major recognition to his name either in his university, or in science in general.

His awards equally do not establish notability, when examined closely. They include a student prize, two awards by bodies that have little or no scientific standing or judgement ("popular science" and "technology review"), and a research grant (that many people with promising ideas may be awarded).

I don't feel that the slight evidence presented of possible academic notability reaches the level needed to call an assistant professor such as Eggan, "notable". The criteria of WP:PROF includes being a "significant expert" (#1) - maybe one day he will be, but for now he is one of many "aspiring significants". If he died tomorrow he would not have left any notable research, his works to date do not appear significantly more able to advance notability than the works of many biology researchers, there is no evidence that other academics regard him as an especially "significant expert" (a strong term) or an "important figure" in biological research (#2), or that he has published a "significant and well-known academic work" (#3) or that any of the other criteria are well met.

There are thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of scientists studying stem cells and other forms of biological process and research worldwise. Many have their own theories and hopes, and some mention in the press or science journals.

There is a specific level of notability agreed as the norm for academics to become notable, beyond mere coverage in reliable sources, and this one doesn't seem to have an especial claim of notability. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - reason took a few minutes to type :) FT2 (Talk | email) 10:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re grant -- Does the MacArthur Foundation grant endow automatic notability on all recipients then? I haven't seen that argument made for it, nor evidence that this is the case. This is a research grant given to a fair number of people a year, for people who show exceptional promise where the MacArthur foundation board decides to "invest in their future". It seems there are many many such grant schemes (or similar/comparable) in many many countries, and many academic researchers of all kinds of notability (and non-notability) are awarded such grants. So having 'exceptional promise' by the opinion of one grant scheme, is not, by itself, an obviously automatic claim to notability.
Could we substantiate this a bit more, before relying on a simple claim of unsubstantiated inherited notability? This is AFD, and claims of notability whether intrinsic or inherited should expect to be evidenced, not merely stated. That is a policy basis. Is there actual evidence that this grant scheme has such standing compared to other grant schemes that anyone awarded a grant by it is automatically notable regardless? FT2 (Talk | email) 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an extremely well-known 3.5 million dollar grant given to between 20-40 people per year. Yes, it does give inherited notability in the same way a Pulitzer Prize gives inherent notability. Smashville 19:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there are many such, and inherited notability is not lightly given in general on Wikipedia. (Support for view: see well respected AFD precedent WP:NOTINHERITED - notability is not in general considered to inherit from a parent entity to a subordinate entity, such as in this case, from grant foundation to its grant recipients.)
The grant being well known means the grant is notable, not necessarily that its recipients are (or automatically should inherit that).
Hence the above comment/request. Thanks :) FT2 (Talk | email) 19:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're engaging in contorted arguments to minimize the importance of the MacArthur fellowship (aka grant/prize/award). You're arguing that he fails various criteria of WP:PROF, but #6 is has received a notable award or honor. We have established that the MacArthur prizes are indeed notable. The notability is specifically inherited not by virtue of the simple notability of the prize, but because that is the notability guideline -- that receiving a significant prize makes one notable. (Yes, that applies to other "grant schemes" as well, but let's not play subjective games of "standing" That's precisely what the guideline was created to avoid.) Thus, yes, the guideline guides us to consider the notability of significant awards to be inherited. Of course, in the event that the MacArthur was the only claim to notability that someone ever had, we might have a more borderline case. But this is someone who has been the topic of media profiles and accolades (again, without regard to subjective determinations of "standing" -- admit it, you were sneering as you typed "popular science"). Notability is not subjective. Notability comes from being "noted". Yes, people you may not respect may be more notable than people you do respect, and I'm sure you and I could agree that there are many important scientific advances made that don't make the papers. That's not Wikipedia's fault, nor a fault with the world that Wikipedia has a remit to correct. So, perhaps he does fail criteria 1 through 5, but if he passes 6, he passes the guideline. --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't jump to unwarranted conclusions. There is a case that the subject is likely non-notable, or evidence of notability is insufficient. It's nothing to do with like or dislike, respect or disrespect. You'll not find a single "ILIKEIT" or "IDONTLIKEIT" listed in the nomination. It's utterly based upon policy based criteria. The article doesn't seem to evidence clearly if he is indeed notable. There is a lot of "puff" (appearance is impressive, actually says little) as noted also by Blaxthos. The response to a request to demonstrate notability to Wikipedia standards has been simply "he has X award", with no further relevant discussion (see above). Notability of award does not always imply notability of all recipients, as notability does not usually inherit. That is AFD criteria and precedent.
Problematically, in this case, there is actually little to no other evidence of any kind of real notability. The question of whether this is a borderline case where he just fails the criteria is a valid one. A technology review magazine or the like is probably not nearly as significant for demonstrating notability as (say) recognition by his peers in biology research or a scientific journal would be; he has few signs of any special recognition or "claim to fame". Essentially the one sole grant is the only solid measure. Of the 23 people to be awarded the same grant, 14 (60%) have Wikipedia articles, 9 (40%) do not. But of the 14 who do, most (11, or around 80%) already had met notability criteria through other means and would have merited articles regardless of the award anyhow - multiple significant recognitions, lifetime achievement awards, wide range of professional accolades for achievements and work to date, etc. So it is far from clear that this grant makes any recipient notable unless they have at least some other claim to notability or renown. To date, and despite searching and despite 3 different bio's, Kevin Eggan still seems to have almost none. That is all. So it seems a well founded question. Is he really notable by encyclopedic standards? It seems perhaps not. Hence raised at AFD. It's that simple. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some propositions:
  1. The standards we use at Wikipedia to determine notability are encyclopedic standards.
  2. Receiving a notable award or honor, and being noted in the popular press, are both sufficient to cause someone to be notable by the standards in place at Wikipedia.
  3. Eggan has received a notable award or honor and has been noted in the popular press.
Therefore, he is notable by encyclopedic standards.
If you feel those are the wrong standards to be using, feel free to argue about it at WP:PROF. If you feel you have a stronger argument than IDONTLIKEIT for setting aside our usual standards in this case, feel free to argue that, too, here. I haven't yet seen a case for either position here, though. —David Eppstein 03:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the above claims are accurate as stated, then these are clear evidence of notability and the article should probably be kept. However, as noted in the nom, in each case they make clear he has expectations, or hopes, or is working on such goals. But so are many people, and many have written papers, had profiles in journals, and so on. They read like publicity, or hopes, the kind of thing any up-and-coming future notable researcher working on their line of research might expect to have said of them, and reminiscent of WP:CRYSTAL.
Part of the problem has been that the profiles (and the article) focused on hopes for the future rather than actual notability today. At this point it seems there are specific bases today for notability, but that the article didn't present clearly the notable aspects as it might have. I have had a go at refactoring the Kevin Eggan article; hopefully this now brings his career and biography into slightly sharper focus. There are notable matters, documented in reliable sources, about Eggan as he is, not as he (WP:CRYSTAL) may one day become. But none of these were well represented in the article, which focussed more upon his role as starting the political debate. Hopefully this will help focus the article somewhat too. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this was not evident in the article, which presented him as a person who had much "puff" but little actual notability. There's still fairly slight evidence of notability, but a little more than there was. The article, I'm pleased to day, is a bit better now. I've reworked it a lot. A few points above carry almost no weight: 1/ Soundbites are often not from the most senior guy; they are busy and often delegate that job, sometimes even to an administrative person. The assumption that he gave the soundbite -> he is equivalent to the head of the place or very important there is not justified logic, it's WP:OR. 2/ Many researchers seem "all over the place", that'd need quantifying to show notability; "all over the place" is pretty much a viewer perception, again WP:OR). As is 3/ "It appears that" and "talk of the town". All basically WP:OR. Lots of OR there. the only solid fact mentioned is still just that one thing, he has won a grant or award. Is that grant of a standard to inherit notability to its recipients, and does he have other non-OR notability? Those are what will count.
HOWEVER, on one issue, to be safe... The initial and main author is writing this article for profit, creating a conflict of interest (user:ThuranX). Would the main author of the article like to state for the record, is this article (or any part of it, editing of it, link mentioned in it) paid for, or "talked up" for any kind of professional or personal benefit, or inserted to benefit in any way any specific person or party, as suggested above? Just for the record, you understand, so we have a clear statement for future if it's ever called into issue. Thanks :) FT2 (Talk | email) 06:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the article has been indef blocked (on rather spurious grounds), so is in no place to oblige you. Your request seems strange, though. If there is anything currently in the article which is not written in a NPOV way, or is non-factual, you may simply remove it. If everything is written in an encyclopedic NPOV way, what difference does it make how it got there, and what would the "statement for the record" achieve? (Sidebar: Since you seem to be so keen on this, are you going to place such a statement for the record on each article you author in the future?) Isarig 14:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary, but if a question of motive leading to COI is actually raised by an editor as a direct allegation, it's often best to ask than rely upon hearsay or let "smoke" build up. Anyone can write a neutral article, and anyone even with bias can contribute well, if they can set their bias aside, but it's a well established arbcom principle that activist agendas (which can lead to similar issues as this) are not always compatible with neutral encyclopedia editorship. In any event, it shortcuts a lot of needless chat to ask directly "is this the case" and then point them to WP:COI if so, so they understand how to edit without falling foul of communal views on COI. Paradoxically it helps assume good faith if someone says "yes, I do this for pay, and I am open about it". We have a few editors like that; it works very well. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I know that the question of motive leading to COI was raised by an editor, but that is a red herring. the article needs to be judged on its merits, not the alleged motivations of its author. if it is NPOV, it does not matter if the author was paid for it. If it falls short of some WP standard, we should fix it. In either case, the possible motivations of the author don't enter into it. Isarig 23:32, 8 September 2007 (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 notability not sufficiently demonstrated. Bduke 03:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bad Old Days[edit]

The Bad Old Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, the term "Bad Old Days" looks to return all of one results, from an extremely shaky source (about.com). The phrase urban legend commonly circulated by email alone is really all that needs to be said about this lucid 09:18, 2 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lab 5[edit]

Lab 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very small article (basically a paragraph) about a non-notable and incredibly generic fictional location. Shouldn't need more than a simple mention in the main Fullmetal Alchemist article. Kariteh 09:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus to delete nor change anything, really.. Maxim(talk) 12:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Common songs[edit]

List of Common songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of Talib Kweli songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jay-Z songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Rakim songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is an unnecessary content fork to have articles listing every song of a musician. Such information is already mentioned in the categories such as Category:Common songs and in the album articles. Spellcast 08:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things like b-sides make up a small part of the list. They can easily be merged in the discography pages. Take a look at featured lists such as Gwen Stefani discography and Hilary Duff discography. Spellcast 19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B-sides aren't notable enough to warrant mention outside the article. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A discography that is a featured list will already mention the b-sides, bootlegs etc. See the above discographies mentioned. Thing like b-sides make up a small amount of these pages. Spellcast 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, okay I change my vote to deleteCosprings 15:27, 7 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bring Your Pumps[edit]

Bring Your Pumps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources at all. I also couldn't find any on my own. Therefore, article failes WP:N and WP:MUSIC. One more thing - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I am sick of doing this to every new article related to Girls Aloud — *Hippi ippi 08:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of GURPS books. Bduke 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Uplift[edit]

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

This out of print book from 1992 of gaming instructions fails the notablity guidelines WP:NOTABILITY, whilst the article itself does not provide any discussion or context about its subect matter. This article should be on a fansite, not Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins 22:56, 1 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reynier Tyson[edit]

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

Non-notable Neutralitytalk 06:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surprisingly long for someone who fails WP:NOT, isn't it? Cannot ascertain notability, even through it's substantial length.Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 14:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Lloyd Banks. A mention there may be in order. JoshuaZ 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Withdraw[edit]

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

An unofficial, leaked compilation of Lloyd Banks songs. No coverage from reliable, third party sources, only forums and file sharing sites. These songs may be by him, but they were never officially released. Spellcast 11:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This album was supposed to be Lloyd Banks' second album. However it was stolen from him and then leaked. This is perfectly official. It was going to be his second studio album. There are many places which confirm this such as:

So it is quite notable, just as notable as any other album. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is just him admitting he had a CD stolen. And the other two sources (which seem to be blogs) are just non-trivial mentions because all it mentions is the title of this bootleg. Unlike notable album articles, this can never have charts, sales, production, themes, or critical reviews. There's no multiple, reliable sources on the album (it's not even listed in All Music Guide). WP:N says articles need "significant coverage" from sources that "address the subject directly in detail". Lloyd Banks admitting he had a CD stolen and a brief mention of the name of this bootleg are trivial mentions and is nowhere near "significant coverage". I'm prepared to withdraw the nomination if there's multiple, reputable sources that addresses the album in detail. But there isn't any. Spellcast 16:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 06:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N requires in-depth coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail. This is not documented by reputable, third party sources. Lloyd Banks himself does not count as a secondary source and the other sources are just non-trivial mentions (a track list). Spellcast 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has the potential to have all other information added, at the momment it is a stub. There is nothing wrong with stubs. Unlike mixtapes, this was supposed to be a full studio album and we just need to find reviews etc., --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are no reviews, sales, certifications, production, themes or anything like that. Again, WP:N requires secondary sources that addresses the subject directly in detail. Lloyd Banks himself and those 2 blogs is not adequate enough. It also fails WP:V because there can never be reliable, third-party sources. There are only track listings in forums, file sharing sites, and blogs, so it's a trivial mention. This is by far from "significant coverage" that addresses the tape in detail. Spellcast 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:-But this was a very notable event. His whole album was stolen and leaked. Agree the page could be expanded, but there is nothing wrong with stubs. -¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this can't expand into a good or featured article. In the unlikely event that more in-depth sources are found, this can be recreated. But at the moment, this can easily be mentioned in Lloyd Banks. There are even mixtapes more notable than this such as Dedication 2. Spellcast 19:46, 5 September 2007 (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, but suggest that merge discussions take place on talk page. Bduke 02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Supper[edit]

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

No references, no assertion of notability. TotesBoats 11:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 06:16, 2 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra America[edit]

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

Charitable organization that puts on music festivals. While commendable in their actions, lack of significant coverage in third party sources (and an unreferenced article) fails WP:CORP for non-profits. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 09:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 06:07, 2 September 2007 (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 -- Samir 22:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mireia Castane[edit]

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

Photographer from Spain. While having a solid list of credits, lack of third party coverage (per English language Google searches and lack of cited references) makes it appear that she doesn't quite pass WP:BIO requirements yet for creative professionals. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 05:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 09:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 06:07, 2 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melchior Borg[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Expired prod but year-old prior AfD resulted in keep. Pascal.Tesson 05:48, 2 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Martin[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Expired prod with rationale:

Non-compliant with WP:BIO. Appears that she was briefly, wrongly thought to notable, but isn't. No sign of the media coverage mentioned below.

I'd tend to agree with that but I don't think the deletion would be entirely uncontroversial so I'm bringing it here. Pascal.Tesson 05:41, 2 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph M. Torsella[edit]

Joseph M. Torsella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 05:29, 2 September 2007 (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 I'm incidentally moving this to John Childs (murderer) and making John Childs a dab page. JoshuaZ 00:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Childs[edit]

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

Both unnotable and the article is very poor, containing pretty much no information and the ref is very poor too SqueakBox 19:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 05:31, 2 September 2007 (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. I see no reason to redirect as R.O.C. already redirects to Republic of China. Bduke 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The R.O.C.[edit]

The R.O.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Peripheral character in the Insane Clown Posse universe. Most of the bands mentioned in the article have already had their own articles deleted. No references. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. (Not to be confused with another rapper with the same name who's appeared on records by Jagged Edge and Will Smith.) Precious Roy 20:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 05:25, 2 September 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davis' Law of Conflicts[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Davis' Law of Conflicts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ths page was created by the person who developed the 'Law', Gary Davis. So, there are original research issues. Gary Wayne Davis also seems to have created a vanity article for himself, which currently has a PROD attached. Anarchia 05:12, 2 September 2007 (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 -- Samir 22:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game[edit]

2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another football game that's hardly distinguishable from the other football games of this season. The fact that Texas won the national championship is of little consolation. See my comments on others below. The Evil Spartan 05:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason under policy to justify deleting this article. And there are many reasons to keep it; these include:
  1. These article do NOT simply duplicate what is available elsewhere. We can bring together facts from multiple sources. For instance, the hometown newspapers for both teams as well as the national press.
  2. We can provide more historical context than most news reports will bother with.
  3. We can aid the reader with informative links to related topics, such as terms used in college football. No news source does that, not even online news sources.
  4. Unlike some on-line newspapers, access to our stories will always be free of charge, so long as we don't delete them.
  5. Many of our articles also come with photos that can be reused under GFDL or CC license.
Thank you, Johntex\talk 00:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the other AFD, every D1 (and D1-AA) game will pass WP:N because it will be covered by multiple sources; however, that does not mean we should have a recap for every D1 football game. The reasons you described makes me think that this is even more appropriate for wikinews. As for the GA, all an article needs to attain GA status is approval from one editor. To me, being GA really doesn't say much about an article. Corpx 03:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By your own admission then, every D1 article deserves to be kept here because they all comply with policy. Here is a policy quote to prove it:
From WP:N - "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." - This article passes that test and should be kept.
As to GA, it is not the same as FA but if it means nothing then why don't you try to go get rid of it?
These articles are working there way to FA quality but they can't get there if we delete them.
As to wikinews - that is completely inappropriate. These articles take weeks of work or longer to do well. There is no point trying to pass them off as current news by that time. Besides, the wikinews license is incompatible with ours. More than that, they are appropriate here so talking about moving them is trying to fix a non-existent problem. Johntex\talk 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing WP:N is not an automatic ticket to notability. We exclude several things that pass WP:N (guideline), but are superseded by policies like WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:BLP. Every sporting event and every story on the front page of cnn.com is going to be covered by other reliable sources and thus, putting it over the bar set by WP:N, but that does not mean we should have articles for it. I'm strongly opposed to using an encyclopedia as the place for game recaps and I really fail to see any "historic notability" for this game. Since you're the sole contributor to the article, the article can be transferred (copy/paste) to wikinews with your approval of re-licensing. That's the response I got from asking about this issue at #wikinews. Corpx 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people at #wikinews have probably not read the talk page of the article. If you will read Talk:2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game you will see that I am not the sole writer of the article. The article was split off per WP:Summary style from the parent article. Therefore, all authors of the parent article prior to the date of the split must be give authorship credit under the GFDL license. Johntex\talk 15:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Transwiki/copy/paste is not possible then. WP:SUMMARY is not a free pass to split off content into a new article. We see this at AFDs constantly with trivia sections, plot summaries and many other things that were split off because the initial article got too big, but end up getting deleted at AFD. You cant over-ride WP:NOT#NEWS (policy) with WP:SUMMARY Corpx 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for any kind of free pass at all. This article does not violate WP:NOT#NEWS. There is nothing in WP:NOT#NEWS that mandates deleting any article. In fact, the most useful sentence there states, "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately" There is no violation here, hence, there is no reason to delete the article. Johntex\talk 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This game is not "historic" enough to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. BLP was just cited as an example, as it does not directly apply here. I was attended this game, and I love UT to death, but I really do not feel like this game is anywhere close to being historically notable. The 2006 Rose Bowl game on the other hand, I'd say has historic notability as it determined the national champion. The aggies went off to finish the year 5-6, and not being bowl eligible. They put up a good fight, but the #2 team in the nation playing a 5-5 team has no historic notability, and the rivalry is downplayed because of how bad the Aggies were that season. Corpx 02:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say the Aggies were bad that season yet they gave the eventual national-champions Longhorns almost all they can handle - certainly sounds like a notable game. Also, thank you for reminding me of yet another significant thing about this particular game; it was the game that kept the Aggies from being bowl eligible. Johntex\talk 06:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USC gave the eventual national champions almost all they can handle. Unlike the MNC game, Texas was in thorough control for most of the game. Coming within 11 points of the eventual national champion to me does not signify historical significance. Aggies have went to bowl games 29 times (including 2006) in their history, so more often than not, they are not a bowl contender. Corpx 07:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Corpx. I watched this game - it was certainly closer than most people expected, but the fact that it wasn't a blowout doesn't make it notable. Cogswobbletalk 21:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we're also not a news site or indiscriminate collection of information, meaning we don't need articles on every game out there. Why can't this just be part of the article on the 2005 season? The Evil Spartan 19:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please go look at the 2005 season article and I think you will quickly understand. In order to ensure complete coverage of the topic, the main article grew to the point where reviewers suggested splitting out content per WP:SUMMARY. That is what was done. 3 new articles on 3 of the most important games were the result. The three games were the ones against highly ranked Ohio State, school-rival Oklahoma, and school-rival A&M - which also happened to be a narrow victory that almost cost the Longhorns the championship. The first 2 have already been recognized as Wikipedia:Good articles. There is nothing indiscriminate about these articles. Johntex\talk 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SUMMARY is "manual of style" - that should be used to split off content that is otherwise in violation of other policies or guidelines. Corpx 02:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can just as easily be linked to if it were initially created on WikiNews. Corpx 18:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was not originally created on WikiNews so your point is irrelevant here. As you agree above, it cannot be transwikied. Johntex\talk 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brazilian-esque labyrinth? Is that some underhanded, backwards way at calling "delete" people censors? Not very sneaky imo. If it's not, apologies, perhaps use less vague language. I don't think anyone who's claimed goal is to eliminate terrorism would start by deleting a wikipedia article on a non-notable football game. IvoShandor 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering - why does there need to be such a huge amount of text about this particular game? I don't see how this particular game is so notable. Cogswobbletalk 15:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer: there doesn't need to be, this article is a game summary, much more suitable for a sports almanac or news site than an encyclopedia. IvoShandor 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the case at all. This is clearly written as an encyclopedia article. It is not just a collection of statistics as you would expect from a sports almanac; It is not a recent topic as you would expect from a news source. Johntex\talk 14:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article seems well written. I still don't see how this particular game is notable enough that it needs an article. Cogswobbletalk 19:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This game was not like any other game that season. This particular game was a meeting of two traditional rivals in the third most-played rivalry in college football. The Longhorns had the worst performance of their season and came close to loosing the game. The article explains that the game probably cost Vince Young the Heisman Troply, that is not true of any other game. However, the Longhorns did win and they went on to win the national championship in a game that has been called one of the greatest college football games of all time. The Longhorns could never have even played for the national championship if Texas A&M had beaten them here. Hence, the game was very important in the ultimate outcome of the season. Johntex\talk 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see how any of those things make the game that significant. It's a well known rivalry? The rivalry certainly deserves a page. It might have cost Young the Heisman? That deserves a mention over on Vince Young. The Longhorns wouldn't have played for the championship if they had lost? That's true for each game they played that year, and should be mentioned over on the 2005 team's article. I watched this game, along with several of Texas' other games that year. I don't think the fact that the 2005 Longhorns played in a game makes it significant enough to warrant an article, and I still don't see anything extra notable about this win against a team that was 5-5.Cogswobbletalk 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not every article can be about the sun, moon, stars or bread, water, and housing. This game has the requisite number of sources to pass WP:V. It is written in prose as an encyclopedia article should be. It is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics or facts. It does not violate WP:BLP. It is not a copyright violation.... In short, it violates no policy. It fills a useful role for some readers, as evidenced here. You may not care. That's fine. Johntex\talk 00:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every D1 football game will be verifiable and will be covered by independent sources, but that does not mean we should have 57+ new articles covering these games every week. Corpx 05:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have that many new articles a day on tiny elementary schools and unknown rock bands. Let's look at quality instead of quantity. If people write a quality article on a sporting event, so long as it complies with policies like WP:BLP, then Wikipedia is better for it. If they do that 57 times a week or 57 times a day, all the better. Johntex\talk 14:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. People should instead write those articles at Wikinews and use inter-wiki linking Corpx 16:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article only talks about what affected the subject of the article. The penalties affected the outcome of the game. Johntex\talk 14:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A significant game is one that is talked about years and years later, one that is remembered by many because it was so significant. Notability is not temporary. The sources in this article that talk about the game do so within the season it was played. These are incidental sources and do nothing to establish notability. Will people remember this game, among the pantheon of games that occurred in the 2005 season, ten, 25 or 50 years from now, will it be considered important? Maybe by Longhorns fans or Aggies fans, but that doesn't make it notable or significant. IvoShandor 17:02, 8 September 2007 (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 and redirect to new article on the 2005 flag planting meme itself, instead. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The article centers around whether a football game where one side planted a flag after the game, leading to a rash of flag-planting incidents, a practice later banned by various governing bodies, is itself notable. It is important that in this case, the game per se is not necessarily what is being alleged to be notable. Rather, it is the actions after it, and the football-game meme they led to.

A number of arguments do not support established policies:

  1. "Wikipedia covers historical events" - but not all of them. Not an argument
  2. Benefits that Wikipedia listing can offer people researching this game (Johntex) - see WP:USEFUL, utility is not the agreed criterion for creating an article,
  3. "Well written, deserves to be here more than some other article" - Writing quality and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are also not good arguments, many articles of excellent quality have been removed because they are not suitable content and many will be in future
  4. "Notable in Notre Dame football history" - a reason to mention it in that article, not to have a separate article for it. Notability is also WP:NOTINHERITED, that the team are notable does not make games in their history independently notable.
  5. "Used as precendent in many other games by many teams as a lesson in what not to do" - so are a vast number of games, lessons, books, incidents, training days, etc. Not an argument unless actual, verifiable and pretty significant (most games are "used as a precedent" or lesson), unevidenced at AFD, see WP:OR.
  6. "Many have argued that this game, while a team victory, goes to the heart of....." Many would say that (at this point in time), this is more a personal view of an editor, rather than actual cited evidence that the game was significant according to a reliable source, again. (Present status: WP:OR.)
  7. "A well publicized game that week, as soon as I saw the image in the article, I remembered the game" - - this references publicity and editor's memory. Other games are publicized, many editor's are not in the USA or don't watch football. In either case this argument is basically personal affirmation of opinion (WP:OR), adds nothing to evidence already in the article or presented at AFD.
  8. "Individual college football games meet the notability requirements and should be kept if they are well-written. Please see (examples)." - Disagree with this as a generalization, though it may be true in specific cases. Not every game is likely to be notable; per WP:NOT, there is an element of discrimination involved in judging where to draw the line in any topic area, and there is certainly far from any consensus that every college game is inherently notable for article purposes. (Example: one of the two games quoted is notable not as a college game at random; it is notable for being "considered by college football coaches to be one of the three greatest rivalry games in college football" according to reliable sources.)
  9. "Just because it has sources doesn't indicate instant notabilty" and "WP:N is not the one source ticket to notability. Lots of things with notability are excluded from Wikipedia by policies ... Note that WP:N is a guideline, while the others are policy" (Jaranda, Corpx) - I concur. WP:NOT implies discrimination, the criteria of WP:N are a basis to establish notability,. but matters where newspapers do not discriminate (every football game almost, however small, is reported somewhere), should not be indiscriminately listed as a result.


There is one cogent "keep" view for the game itself, that "in order to cover the subject completely, we need to cover topics such as this: National championship affecting games, top-ranked teams games, seasons, coaches, etc. This is not indiscriminate, and we can afford to cover topics like this deeper because we are not paper."

Yes and no. Yes it's not paper, but no there is no inherent need to cover suich matters. Each article on a game, team, season and coach etc is evaluated on its own merits. That is the communal view at AFD. Problematically in this AFD, no evidence supporting any significant notability whatsoever of the game itself has been submitted, whether in the article, or at AFD, by any AFD contributor, except for one thing: the flag planting incident. For all that some have stated this game impacted on the sport or taught people lessons, there is actually no evidence of substantial facts which make this game much more notable than others, nor does the article itself evidence this. In fact it's the reverse, the article itself states that "However, it was the events that took place after the game that many remember". The only specifics referenced were a boast (which happens in many, many games).... and the flag planting incident after.

Also note that

  • "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article" (WP:NOT#NEWS)
  • "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone [?or something] has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." (WP:BLP, similar statement in the context of biographies)


On the basis of this AFD, it seems that based on policy related points, this game is not in fact notable (or no evidence is submitted). It is entirely the flag planting incident which is notable. This is also supported by consensus -- a rather large majority of strong delete views, most of which take the view that the game per se is not notable as well. These seem to be the views of both AFD contributors, and AFD policy related points. I concur.

THAT SAID..... In this case I think there can be no doubt that the flag planting aspect, as a football trend and meme, was notable. It spread through several major games, was reported in several news media, discussed popularly, and was ultimately banned by two bodies in the football world per the article.

There is a distinction already in place in biographical articles, where the article on a person who came to public attention for one incident is usually handled by redirection to an article on that event rather than outright deletion. Likewise this game seems notable for nothing especially, except that it was at this game (rather than some other) that this meme started.

So there is actually a third option to this AFD: "Should the article on the game be redirected to an article on the flag planting craze itself, from first occurrence to eventual banning?" And I believe this is the result that best respects the comments at this AFD, as well as the broader community views on notability. There was something notable (in Wikipedia terms) that day. It just wasn't the game itself.


Article has been copied to user space, at User:AStudent/2005 Michigan State vs. Notre Dame football game (its creator), to allow its use as source material for that article if editors wish.

2005 Michigan State vs. Notre Dame football game[edit]

2005 Michigan State vs. Notre Dame football game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was a great game. I watched it. But it's not notable of its own article. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a newsservice, or an indescriminate collection of information (e.g., information on every big football game that ever happened). This game doesn't stand out any more than perhaps dozens of other games in the 2005 football season. The Evil Spartan 05:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How could it be moved to wikinews when, as you yourself point out, the licenses are not compatible? Why would we talk about moving an encyclopedia article on a two-year old event over to a news site? Surely it is not news at this point but a historical event, which is part of what an encyclopedia covers. Johntex\talk 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "delete" implies removing the content, not merging it. Also, a merge means that the information potentially has to be duplicated into each team article. That is not as efficient as keeping it in one place. Johntex\talk 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason under policy to justify deleting this article. And there are many reasons to keep it; these include:
  1. These article do NOT simply duplicate what is available elsewhere. We can bring together facts from multiple sources. For instance, the hometown newspapers for both teams as well as the national press.
  2. We can provide more historical context than most news reports will bother with.
  3. We can aid the reader with informative links to related topics, such as terms used in college football. No news source does that, not even online news sources.
  4. Unlike some on-line newspapers, access to our stories will always be free of charge, so long as we don't delete them.
  5. Many of our articles also come with photos that can be reused under GFDL or CC license.
Thank you, Johntex\talk 00:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain where individual football games meet the notabilty requirements, also you are giving reasons for supporting the article to go to wikinews (especially #3, #4, and #5) not here. Jaranda wat's sup 00:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:N - "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." - This article passes that test and should be kept. Johntex\talk 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are misreading WP:N. Just because it has sources doesn't indicate instant notabilty. A car accident that killed an average person has sources, that doesn't indicate it's notable, same with games. It needs to have sources indicating the notabilty of the game or the event, which this hasn't article hasn't, Delete Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 23:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references in the article provide plenty of notability for the article. The flag-planting incident, for instance, touches on topics of sportsmanship that go beyond this single game.
There is no valid comparison between this and something like a car wreck, which is forgotten almost immediately by all but the families involved.
You are also mistaken about the need for an article to loudly proclaim some special event in order to be included on Wikipedia. Go look at almost any article on a secondary school or primary school on Wikipedia. There is nothing in most of those articles to claim the school has set any record, or been at the top of any list. The same is true of most articles on small towns like Coleman, Texas or Capel St. Mary in the UK. The Beas River sets no worldwide records. It is not even one of the biggest rivers in India, yet we have an article on it. Wikipedia strives for completeness. In order to give a balanced view of the world, we have to include things that are not the biggest and best or most widely known of their category. Johntex\talk 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those articles existing does not mean this one should. An encyclopedia is not the place for sporting event recaps. I really do not see the flag planting incident as being sufficient to qualify as "historic notability" Corpx 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS provides no reason for deleting anything. It is a straw man argument. WP:N is what matters. It says, "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This topic has multiple independent sources and it is presumed to be notable. Johntex\talk 18:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is not the one source ticket to notability. Lots of things with notability are excluded from Wikipedia by policies like WP:NOT and WP:BLP. Note that WP:N is a guideline, while the others are policy. If you do not think those secondary schools should be on Wikipedia, nominate them for deletion, not use them as a reason to keep this one Corpx 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are straw man arguments. This article does not violate anything in WP:BLP or WP:NOT. If it did, someone would have quoted the exact policy this violates. Pretty blue links are not persuasive arguments for deletion. Johntex\talk 19:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every D1 football game complies with policy to be kept here. There is no reason to consider moving it to wikinews because they do not violate policy here. Talking about moving them to wikinews is wasting time trying to solve a problem that does not exist. These are encyclopedia articles, not news stories. They sometimes take weeks or longer to fully create. They have not news announcements in any fashion. Johntex\talk 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only a handful of 'real' information is included in this article. I think one possibility is to add some of the more important parts into one of the schools (or both) wiki pages. I just honestly don't see the need for this article. If this game is allowed it's own page, then every game, every week deserves to have a page too. LightningOffense 18:32, 5 September 2007 (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. G4, recreation of previously deleted material, by Tom harrison (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein 17:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ginni Barlow[edit]

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

The article is a recreation of a previous deleted article, which was deleted because the subject is non-notable. The debate archive can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginni Barlow. The subject is still non-notable, and is not the subject of any published secondary sources on the internet. Thaurisiltc 05:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. No realistic possibility this discussion will close as a deletion. Newyorkbrad 20:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game[edit]

2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Without a doubt, this was a big game with an unbelievable and notable result. And yet it doesn't deserve its own article. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a newsservice, and it doesn't hold an article on each individual important games (notable exceptions might be the Super Bowl or national championships). For example, we don't have an article for 2006 Orange Bowl. The Evil Spartan 04:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: we do have an article for 2006 Orange Bowl. --68.114.40.94 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really apply here. In fact, I'm saying monumentally important games, meaning championships, may be worth an article. Big upsets are not. The Evil Spartan 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I think you may have a point. Sorry if I'm getting a little touchy. The Evil Spartan 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It definitely is a huge upset. A FCS Division team had NEVER beaten a Top 25 FBS team, let alone a Top 5 team on the road in front of 100,000+ people that is the winningest program in college football history. X96lee15 19:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
concur with the last comment I'm wondering what would constitute an immediately historical moment. If aliens landed on the White House lawn, would we have to wait a few years to see if people are still talking about it before honoring the event a wikipedia article??? Zeng8r 19:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur This is without a doubt one of the most monumental upsets in college football history. To repeat, a I-AA/FCS team has NEVER beaten a ranked team, why do we have to wait a few years to see if people are talking about this? This game is certainly now a benchmark for upsets in college football. Cogswobbletalk 19:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From a long-term historical perspective, this game is arguably the biggest upset in college football history. It's also one of the biggest upsets in sports history. Next month, next year, ten years from now, people will still discuss this game any time the issue of great upsets is discussed. Cogswobbletalk 23:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but the fact that this is arguably the biggest upset in college football history means the article belongs. Cogswobbletalk 23:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from original creator: I now feel really bad about opening up such a can of worms on this issue. I've now put up on the WP College Football talk page an idea for a dedicated college football wiki. I don't have the time myself for something that ambitious, but I think this may be the only way to keep disputes like this from happening again, at least in the college football context. As for this article, I've been tempted to just up and blank it myself just to end all this argument, as the original creator, but I'll let the process continue. — Dale Arnett 04:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply—I wouldn't feel bad. It's a good article. Regardless of what is decided here, if the article you started wasn't the catalyst, then another article would have been. We might as well hash it out and establish a consensus. →Wordbuilder 15:14, 3 September 2007 (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. CitiCat ♫ 03:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barresi[edit]

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

A proposed deletion for this reason: "Article reads like an advertisement and subject is hard to verify so Notabilty is called into question". I don't believe it should go through prod, so I'm moving it here for more widespread debate. No opinion. Ral315 » 04:24, 2 September 2007 (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. CitiCat ♫ 03:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wajih sani[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic promotional spam for a non-notable broadcaster. No sources, and only a very few ghits found that clearly reference subject, none of which indicate notability. Prior speedy A7 tag was removed by an anon which seems to be an alternate IP for the article’s SPA creator; possible COI. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

techweb.rfa.org/pipermail/fbis/2006-December/136102.html --Zshah (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2007 (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'. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chlex[edit]

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

This is an article about a Smallville fan pairing. There are no sources, it's impossible to write an article about this topic without original research, and it's not notable. There aren't any speedy deletion criteria that really apply and a prod was predictably removed by the article creator P4k 04:06, 2 September 2007 (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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-painting[edit]

Term is not commonly used, and the material in the article is mostly original research ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Yochai Benkler -- Samir 22:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Networked information economy[edit]

Networked information economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Initially speedy-deleted as lacking assertion of notability and promotional requiring a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. Taken to deletion review (see discussion here), where I agreed to undelete and send it here for discussion.

My opinion: should be deleted as lacking independent notability. The author of the book is notable; the book is not independently notable; there is no evidence that this particular term from the non-notable book is notable. Article is a quotefarm, and no way to fix that problem without high quality independent, reliable secondary sources dealing with this particular concept. In their absence, delete the article and cover this term as needed in the article on the book author. MastCell Talk 02:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • But what does it say that is not inherently obvious from the title? Guy (Help!) 11:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. CitiCat ♫ 03:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivist theory of value[edit]

Objectivist theory of value (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline Banno 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search for '"Objectivist theory of value" + rand' instead[34]. That the phrase is sometimes used does not mean that folk are talking about Rand's notion. This is not a notable topic. Banno 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I didn't find anything convincing myself, however, I don't presume a google search is complete, and there may be other sources beyond my knowledge. Thus I bring out the issue for others to address. It is used, so it doesn't not exist, thus I'm waiting to see if somebody can make an argument as to it being notable or distinct on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 14:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to where? The phrase is not used in any of the usual philosophical references. See the talk page for an admision that the material is a synthesis. The basis for this AfD is not that the content is OR, but that it is not notable. That is, it's not that the article is an invention of the author, but that the specific topic is not sufficiently notable to have an article of it's own. The article is not redeemable. Banno 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anymore sources as to the term "theory of value" as found in works on Rand or Objectivists? It might be appropriate to rename this article to "Theory of Value (Objectivism)" instead. FrozenPurpleCube 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term is used frequently throughout Objectivist literature, both by Rand (Virtue of Selfishness) and by others (Reason and Value). In online sources, you can see its use less commonly, but it is used in (for example) this paper published by the Libertarian Alliance, this Atlas Society seminar.
The noteworthiness of the phrase "Objectivitst theory of values" is the issue here. Neither of the on-line articles you cite uses that exact phrase. I'm unable to verify the other sources. The phrase objectivist ethics is used; and there is a reference to "objectivist theory of value and life", once. But for proof of notability what is needed is a reference in a secondary source - see Wikipedia:Notability"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Banno 13:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The exact phrase is neither here nor there. The term 'Objectivist theory of value' is used to discriminate between the Objectivist 'theory of value' and other theories; obviously, within the framework of Objectivist studies, 'theory of value' or 'Randian theory of value' suffices to prove that such a concept exists. You might as well claim that Fortis Bank isn't notable because no economist has ever used the exact Wikipedia title, 'Fortis (finance)', before. The name that the article uses isn't the criterion for keeping the article; the content is.
Whilst I am using my own copies of Rand's works to flesh out what has been written, I don't own a copy of Reason and Value; I've read it, and can vouch for the use of the term, but I can't quote it to prove notability. However, since Rasmussen - who is independent of Rand - is now quoted to prove the existence of the subject itself, it is not dependent upon Rand herself as proof of the concept's existence. Since that is the case, AfDing without using ((Notability)) is highly unorthodox and most unhelpful. Bastin 13:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be titled as it currently is; it isn't a concept unique to Objectivism, but an Objectivist theory of the concept analagous to other theories (see Subjective theory of value, Intrinsic theory of value, etc). Bastin 10:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not seeing that as quite analogous as in each of those cases, the primary word itself isn't to whatever group is expressing it, but rather that the theory of value is being expressed as subjective or intrinsic. (And note, Objective theory of value redirects to intrinsic already. Now your sources may indicate that there is indeed a theory of value in Rand's philosophy, so there may be something worked out there. A few other sources may help though. FrozenPurpleCube 13:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently attempting to add sources. However, the abrupt manner in which Banno and Buridan have prosecuted the deletion of this article is hardly conducive to finding more sources. Bastin 13:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is a reason why AFD is a five day process, and as far as it goes, there's not looking like much consensus to delete here. So it'll probably be shelved for further consideration/improvement. FrozenPurpleCube 15:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does what was said here mesh with the new note just placed on the article: "This is not to be confused with theories of economic value, which seek to explain why things have different market prices". Is this an ethical theory, an economic theory, a part of Rand's ruminations, or an invention of the editor? Banno 13:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an ethical theory. The original author has simply ignored his or her own advice and thoroughly confused the two. The note itself was not just placed in the article at all; it was added on 12 September last year by User:Economizer. Bastin 13:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, the quality of the article is improving/will improve soon. I'm trying to substantiate the explanation with references from Rand's own work, with other references contextualising Rand's arguments. If I had a copy of the afore-mentioned Reason and Value, this article could Colbert. If only. Bastin 23:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
These comments appear to be irrelevant to the discussion here. This is not about Rand as a philosopher but the noteworthiness of this particular article. Let's stay on task. IF you think the article not worthy of inclusion, vote! Banno 21:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Stated that it was "Rand material claiming to be a theory of value". I guess that might be construed as POV, but it is worth pointing out in the context that the theory is from Rand. Banno 00:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but I would consider it important to make sure you are remaining neutral in what you're notifying folks about. The task list is at least reasonably neutral, but it's important to be very careful in what you say. Right now, I think it's neutral enough, but I can see where the original version was troubling. If there are people who say delete simply because they disapprove of Rand's theories, that's a problem in itself. Me, I think Rand is three-steps past raving loon, but that's not a deletion reason. Also, this is a discussion, not a vote. You may wish to modify your comment above as well. FrozenPurpleCube 02:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I change my comment above? I've been very clear with the reasons for deletion I have listed. The topic is not notable. I would ask the closing admin to ignore anyone who says that the page should be deleted because it is written by Rand, but I think that they are competent enough to do this themselves. As you say, this is not a vote. Banno 03:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because you were asking people to vote, but AFD is not a vote, but rather a discussion. Yet you said "IF you think the article not worthy of inclusion vote!" which pretty much strikes me as a request to vote. Especially since the request is hardly neutral on its own. Not a great problem, but a bad habit to get into. It's hard enough not thinking of this process as a voting one, let alone encouraging it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You confuse my post at ((PhilosophyTasks)) with my reply to Postmodern Beatnik. Banno 23:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. I know they're different. My responses to that notice are above in my initial reply. This is about the *other* section of my response, which was concerning your remark here. Were you confused? FrozenPurpleCube 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is I who is confused. Banno 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you thought I was mixing up the two statements, you were. The one was perhaps a bit less neutral than it should have been, the other was an encouragement to participate that I feel was poorly worded. Since you did reword your statement on the task list, I feel it might also have been advisable to modify the one here. If you think I'm confused about something, please tell me what. FrozenPurpleCube 23:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It remains the case, despite the recent edits, that the article Objectivist theory of value contains no references to secondary sources, and should be deleted as per the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The same is true of the other two articles. Their reference lists are pretty much restricted to Rand's own work, with a sprinkle from on or two of her supporters. Because Rand is outside the mainstream of philosophy, there is little by way of commentary on her work in academic circles. There is a short piece in IEP, bit it is certainly the exception - there is nothing like the coverage given in the Wiki. Perhaps the editors could allay these concerns by introducing some popular critiques of Rand's work? After all, if the stuff is as notable as is claimed, it should be possible to produce this material. Banno 00:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of critiques of Rand's value theory. You claim that there are sprinkles from her supporters, but that shows an ignorance of the sources that I've quoted; the essay in The Philosophical Thoughts of Ayn Rand is critical of the Objectivist theory of value (it's called 'Life and the Theory of Value: The Randian Argument Reconsidered', by J. Charles King; if I had a copy, I'd give it as much space in this article as I have Rand's own work). Others that have published critiques of the theory include David D. Friedman, who is most certainly not an Objectivist (and used to battle Jimmy Wales, who is an Objectivist, on Usenet groups, back in the day). Bastin 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course there are many critiques. But look at the articles. [Objectivist theory of value] contains 18 footnotes, of which all but 2 are directly from Rand. Objectivist ethics contains 8, three of which are not by Rand. Objectivist politics contains 14, all from Rand. But the requirement for notability is secondary sources - that is, sources apart from Rand. None of the articles contains references to suitable secondary sources. If you wish to avoid AfDs you need to provide suitable evidence of noteworthiness. That has not been done. If you have the critiques, use them in the articles! Banno 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if I don't have the critiques to hand right now - and I don't - the article should be deleted? That's an absurd position. What needs to be established is notability, and that is proven by the existence of sources, not by the use of sources; I have shown they exist, and therefore, shown the subject's notability. What you are saying is that every user has to have every book in the world, every journal ever published, and have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Internet's content on every subject. That's an unfair position to hold, and entirely against the principles of WP:NN, which state that the subject must have received coverage from those sources, and not necessarily have those sources cited.
Your nonsense about all the article not having any suitable sources is ridiculous. O'Neil and Rasmussen are most certainly independent and reliable. I have cited two suitable sources, and named a number of others, including critiques. It seems as though your inherent bias against Objectivism leads you to believe that anyone that gives Rand the time of day is he lackey. Bastin 09:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
That's the policy. take it up on the policy page. Banno 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. We don't always need to follow "policy" but can at times, bend and ignore it, where appropriate. That's the point where policy meets practice or practicality. In this case, it might be more practical to give the page time for clean-up and improvement and address it later. If there's some disagreement as to whether something merits an article, it doesn't cause a problem for the article to remain around while there's not a consensus to delete. Otherwise it wouldn't be the default action. FrozenPurpleCube 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(continued) Of course. A large part of the advantage that accrues to the encyclopaedia from the deletion process is the improvement of the articles that results from them being listed[35]. The improvements are pleasing, but not sufficient for me to withdraw the request for deletion, because the notability of the topic remains to be demonstrated within the article. But that is not a problem for the editors, since there is no consensus to delete. I suggest that this AfD now be closed with the conclusion: no consensus. Does anyone object? Banno 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't, I'm certainly not convinced to keep, but I'm not concerned about the subject of the article being any kind of problem, so it's one of the many things that can be tabled and considered again at a later date. FrozenPurpleCube 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 02:21, 2 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Upton[edit]

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

This article raises issues concerning Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. A DRV consensus has concluded that the question of policy compliance is reasonably in dispute. Per the recommendation of the ArbCom, the article will be restored, protected blank with history available, and listed at AfD. Suggestions for potential improving revisions to the article may be made during the AfD at the article's talk page. Deletion is on the table, as are other suggestions which make use of the sourced content. Xoloz 02:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - How are we supposed to discuss a blanked article with only a poorly written stub deep in the article history? This needs to be unprotected for editing and improvements immediately. --Oakshade 02:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question answered at your talk. Unprotection prior to AfD conclusion would violate the directive of ArbCom. Xoloz 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add a disclaimer that I was the author of the original article at this page (perhaps any admins should also look at that version if possible) but that I "db-author"-ed it after an AFD resulted in the deletion of other Miss Teen USA 2007 contestant articles. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notable is not the same as famous, noteworthy is not the same as press worthy. She has achieved very little other than to make a fool of herself in front of millions. Famous for being famous is not notability. In a year's time no-one will even remember her.--WebHamster 12:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many people are also looking for more biographical information; background, previous work (she's a model appearing in national magazines [46]), future plans and detailed reaction of the attention, i.e. her Today Show appearance. This is far too much off-topic info for the Miss Teen USA 2007 article.--Oakshade 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP applies to "essentially low profile" people which this person isn't, either before or after the "infamous moment." --Oakshade 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BLP applies to all living persons. And a participant in a beauty contest who did not win is still "low profile." The fact is that this incident is the only thing that makes her high profile. Undue weight would be given to this incident, and there's not enough facts available to write a biographical article about her. The incident itself is already covered at Miss Teen USA 2007. -- Kesh 16:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who willingly participated in a nationally televised national beauty contest, not to mention winning a state championship and willingly going on the Today Show is not "low profile". Biographical information such as background, schooling, other work (she is national magazine model) is all outside the incident and off-topic in the Miss Teen USA 2007 article. The term "essentially low profile" is actually in WP:BLP. The standards of accuracy and verifiability is what applies to all living persons.--Oakshade 16:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, her background, schooling, etc. does not belong in the Miss Teen USA article. It does not follow, however, that this means she gets a full article of her own. One appearance on the Today Show and participating in a beauty pageant do not confer notability. I've said my piece, and feel no further need to defend my decision. Make your own argument, Oakshade, as I have no interest in continuing this debate with you. -- Kesh 18:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than just participating in a national beauty pageant that made her notable (the youtube view count is now over 12 million). The point about participating in it and appearing on the Today Show was demonstrating this is not a private "low profile" person. --Oakshade 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we're not here to better the sum of human knowledge, that would be WP:OR. we're here to document it. Pajluvah 20:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which would in turn better the sum of human knowledge would it not? Bit of a Catch 22 really :) --WebHamster 20:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote was missing the requisite procedural backing. As such, rather than argue from a false premise, I've excised it. I do hope that if this page will be kept, someone would keep an eye on it, as it's often these kinds of biographies that attract the attention of vandals. --Agamemnon2 12:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with your non-inclusion opinion, I agree wholeheartedly regarding having an AfD over a blanked and protected article. It's an inherent flaw in the AfD and will taint the final outcome, whatever that may be. --Oakshade 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom did not lay down this decision. They wrote a principle, and Xoloz used it to back his decision at the DRV. I myself said in the DRV we should focus the debate on inclusion, not process, but the debate ended up talking about process so much it couldn't be used to settle the issue, so Xoloz sent it back here, and I think it was a fine decision. Mangojuicetalk 19:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - are you asserting that there is a connection between Upton's long list of non sequiturs and tappen? --WebHamster 13:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E applies to privacy for "essentially low profile" people. This person is in no way "low profile", either before or after the response. --Oakshade 18:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was the same argument applied to Jessica Lee Rose by those who wanted her article to redirect to Lonelygirl15, but consensus correctly kept the article because they recognized she was a famous person regardless if it was one entity that made her famous. (One can argue in this case that Caitlin Upton is the real source of her fame and not the Miss Teen USA Pageant). The discussion about notability is if they are notable, not how. This person has arguably achieved more fame than the Miss Teen USA Pageant itself (many people never heard of the pageant before they watched her video) and certainly more fame than the winner Hilary Cruz, who is famous only because of Miss Teen USA pageant but nobody is interested in redirecting that article. --Oakshade 03:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, there's too much subject specific information about Catilin Upton like background, education, outside work (she's a model who has appeared multiple times in national magazines) and future plans which would all be off-topic in the Miss Teen USA article. --Oakshade 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

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

The result was redirect to Assyrians in the Netherlands. Maxim(talk) 12:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aramaeans in the Netherlands[edit]

Aramaeans in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

POV-pushing original research, unsourced, and a redundant copy of Assyrians in the Netherlands. There is no need, and it certainly is not notable enough, to have two different articles about the exact same people in the exact same part of the world. There is an Assyrian naming dispute, and a minority of Assyrians identify as "Aramaeans", a long since vanished people mentioned a few times in the bible. We can't create two or three different articles for all Assyrians who identify as something other than Assyrian in whatever country.

The majority of the Syriac Orthodox who call themselves Assyrian? Have you got any evidence for that nonsensical statement?
Let me refresh your memory, Suryoyo does not mean Assyrian (Othuroyo), it means Syrian/Syriac. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suryoyo/Suraya, means, Assuraya. Source: Simo Parpola, page 11 to 14.[47] Oh and lest we forget, Cinekoy inscription. Case closed. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:25 25 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Othuroyo, or Athuraye, means Assuraya. It's just an SH sound that has phonetically been changed to a TH sound. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:25 25 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Yeah and it is the "Aramaean" claim. --Vonones 06:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nationalistic POV comes from the "Aramaean" side. Not the other way around. And again, it's not notable to have two different articles about the same group of people. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:27 26 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with that first sentence, but I wholeheartedly agree that there should be one article: Syriacs in the Netherlands, or Suryoye in the Netherlands, if you like. This can deal with both Aramaean and Assyrian factions. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All articles, are Assyrians in _country_ so why should this one be different because it's in the Netherlands? Don't exaggerate the Aramaean faction in Europe. Wikipedia is not about appeasing Aramaeanist movements. They are extremists, historical revisionists, and should not wield influence on Wikipedia because they are not the least NPOV. http://www.aramnahrin.org/English/index_en.htm Just look at their site, Assyria was never called Aram-Nahrin. That site and the entire Aramaean movement is a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously on Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:14 26 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 02:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the historical problem of finding a good name for this group of people, see Assyrian naming dispute. 'Syriac' seems to be an excellent name, but for some reason 'Assyrian' seems to be used more in Wikipedia, as evidenced by the template ((Assyrian communities)). The name of the Syriac Orthodox Church preserves the name Syriac. In fact our article on that church uses the word 'Assyrian' very little, suggesting that Assyrian may not necessarily be the most obvious choice in English for this group of people. Note this comment from Names of Syriac Christians:

::During the 2000 United States census, Syriac Orthodox Archbishops Cyril Aprim Karim and Clemis Eugene Kaplan issued a declaration that their preferred English designation is "Syriacs" [note 1] The official census avoids the question by listing the group as "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac". [note 2]

EdJohnston 04:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston, it's very good that you provided a link to Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis. Another one of his articles, about this issue, proves that he's an anti-Assyrian historical revisionist, and anything he says about us being "Aramaeans", shouldn't be taken seriously: The Assyrian and Israelite Origin of the Northern Europeans and Americans He's just trying to get rid of the Assyrian identity, because he has a political agenda. As for the Syrian/Syriac Orthodox Church, Syrian is derived from Assyrian,[48] and this is not the same ethnic group as the Arab "Syrians" from Syria. The Syriac Orthodox Church used to be Assyrian Orthodox Church before the 1950's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mor_Marqos_Monastery_Assyrian.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mor_Marqos_Monastery_Syrian.jpg
You can read about the first Assyrian Orthodox Church in the US, in the 1890's here. And here's an academic source about Assyrians, written by Dr. Simo Parpola:
http://www.aina.org/articles/assyrianidentity.pdf
Read page 18. The "Aramaean" faction of Assyrians, identify as Suryoyo Oromoyo (Syriac Aramaean) whilst the larger Assyrian faction of the same group, identify as Suryoyo Othuroyo (Syriac Assyrian). The split is purely political, not ethnic. There are family members who identify as Oromoyo and in the same family, as Othuroyo. Either way, the Aramaean faction is a minority in its own group, and they have no academic scholars whatsoever, backing up their recently started historical revisionism. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:29 02 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rock-afire Explosion[edit]

The Rock-afire Explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about the animatronic band at Showbiz Pizza Place. Nonencyclopedic topic, unreferenced, original research. —tregoweth (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Grant Butler. "Getting into ShowBiz on the Billy Bob Diet." The Oregonian. 16 January 2003.
  • Brad Kuhn. "Inventor hopes to beat the odds again." The Orlando Sentinel. 24 June 1996. (about the creator)
  • Brad Kuhn. "Inventors strive for patent on success." The Orlando Sentinel. 8 March 1993 (also about the creator)
  • Mark Wrolstad. "ShowBiz lures young set with high energy level." Dallas Morning News. 28 July 1991. (describes the "Concept Unification")
I'm also surprised to learn that there is an entire fan site and message board dedicated to RAE. There are a handful of official documents posted on that site that might be used as additional sources. Plus, the fact that the site exists at all shows that there is enduring interest in this "band". Zagalejo 18:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted. IrishGuy talk 01:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Fooding[edit]

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

Non-notable game execept to a local community. Appears to violate Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Rackabello 01:15, 2 September 2007 (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 Result was Keep, nomination withdrawn and no longer any support for deletion, non admin closure. Davewild 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Taylor[edit]

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

Artist who has made lots of assertions of notability but not one single source to back it up, other than a link to her own website. An anonymous user (most likely the article's creator) removed the prod. Had plenty of time to add sources hasn't done so, does not meet criteria for WP:BIO. WebHamster 01:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I respectfully disagree - Maggie Taylor has pretty impressive credentials as a photographer / artist. She has a pretty well-known book out and was the (controversial) winner of the Santa Fe prize a few years back. If a rank amateur like me has heard of her, she has to be considered notable. I propose removing this tag. Cbaer 01:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added as many references as I could find easily. Cbaer 01:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the article to a stub to remove the copyvio. I think she is probably notable and the article can now be rewritten if the sources can be found. --Malcolmxl5 05:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on significant WP:HEY work by Malcolmxl5. --Dhartung | Talk 23:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure will. Thanks for putting the effort in. --WebHamster 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fat fetishism -- Samir 22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feeder (sexual orientation)[edit]

Feeder (sexual orientation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable sexual orientation. A merge is possible, but only if sourced. J Milburn 01:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per below. Artw 01:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep at least one documentary has been made about it. It's late now here in the u.k. but maybe I'll look for extra sources tomorrowMerkinsmum 02:32, 2 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian american rappers[edit]

Asian american rappers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable musical phenominon, rather difficult to cite, certainly a rather indiscriminate list of non-notable rappers. Deletion may not be the best course here, although I can't really see what could be done. I'm neutral. J Milburn 02:30, 2 September 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Shankar Purushottam Tirtha[edit]

Swami Shankar Purushottam Tirtha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable religious figure. Although there is no apparent assertion of notability, I think there is a good chance this person IS notable, and so would rather bring it here just to be on the safe side. J Milburn 02:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the originator of this content; new to Wiki, and apologize for my lack of knowledge of style - but I am reading your comments and help pages, and hopefully addressing your valid issues. I've studied with some Hindu ashrams since early 1970s, and discovered Siddhayogashram in 1988, where I first read Yoga Vani. While I became aware of the Muktananda and Vishnu Tirth groups, only later did I learn of their affiliation with this swami. Vishnu Tirth's group under Shivom Tirtha do recognize Purushottam Tirtha's place and influence in their branch. So I felt it important to properly recognize him his in siddhayoga history.

I wanted to be careful to avoid the negativity and legal arguments of Muktananda's group, so

Yet, between hearsay, xeroxed copies, and legal animosities from Muktananda's group, I chose to avoid such discussion. I share it here only to convey the evidence, some of it very strong, of Muktananda being influenced by the book Yoga Vani; and to note the importance of the author/guru in the siddhayoga sect. If Muktananda and his successor, Chidvilasananda, merit wiki pages, it seems needful to have a page for a person who influenced their sect.

Again, my skills are not yet up to par for Wiki styles, but I am open to your continued advice. Hoping this explanation will provide evidence for the notability of this figure. Thank you for your efforts reviewing this page. Babaji108 01:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a full section on this person's teachings to fill out the page and provide more insight into his ideas. I've got a call in to India to see if they have any books, awards, etc. to additional reliable recognition. Any other suggestions you folks have will be most appreciated. Im quite grateful for all the help you've all given me in the last few days to make this site be more worthwhile. --Babaji108 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep- evidently a notable person, the fact his ideas are 'wrong' doesn't mean we delete, not to mention the malformed AfD. J Milburn 22:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. Hoagland[edit]

The guy's ideas are totally stupid and very wrong. How can we have an article on this guy? Voortle 23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this article and the flat Earth article, is that several centuries ago, the flat Earth was the predominant belief about the Earth's shape even by scientists. This guy's ideas have never been widely believed. Voortle 19:43, 2 September 2007 (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. --Fang Aili talk 15:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alnoor Kassam[edit]

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

Local candidate for mayor who is not notable. If he wins the election he may become notable but as per WP:Notability (people) local politicians are not guaranteed notability and he hasn't even won yet so WP:Crystal is also involved. Djsasso 20:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidates for local office are not, contrary to popular belief, automatically non-notable, but I haven't seen anything about this fellow that clears WP:N. Sarcasticidealist 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice of recreation if he does win. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply fyi as that's to do with events, not people taking part in them (especially when the article is fine), but certainly nn for now. Only reliable source I could find was this, which isn't enough. Most other Google hits were seemingly affiliated with Mr Kassam. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This page is not well structured or encyclopedic and does not conform to WP:BLP or WP:Notability. As it stands currently, both online here and offline in Calgary, I don't think this article should even be kept if cleaned up unless coverage or circumstance suggests otherwise later this month. TheArcologist 19:08, 6 September 2007 (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.
More