< April 1 April 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 keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Stevenson[edit]

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

Does not assert notability as per WP:BIO. αѕєηιηє t/c 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Dreadstar † 04:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beekman Fire District[edit]

Beekman Fire District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no evidence of notability here. The award that the district has won is given to over one thousand districts a year in the US and Iceland. The award is given to any district (who decides to apply) who had no deaths in residential fires for a given year. According to this, for one of the years, there were only three total residential fires in the district, so I wouldn't say that's very notable. The other claim is that the district was the first in the area so it's notable. I can't find a source supporting it, and I don't really know if being the first is that notable. I don't really see this meeting our WP:CORP guidelines which would be the most relevant for this type of organization. Metros (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Dreadstar † 03:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Labatos[edit]

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

Non notable boxer, fails WP:ATHLETE, no other assertion of notability, no reliable sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


.

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

The result was Keep. Dreadstar † 04:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon 2[edit]

Typhoon 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Dreadstar † 04:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado (robot)[edit]

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

Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete.

This one was a good Robot Wars latecomer, but as with the others, reliable third party sources about the robot? I don't think they exist. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Dreadstar † 04:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roadblock (robot)[edit]

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

Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete.

It was so great watching Road Block win the first series of Robot Wars, but completely not worth an individual encyclopedia article. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Dreadstar † 04:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Razer (Robot)[edit]

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

Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete.

And this is Razer, possibly the most notorious robot of them all. Reliable, non-trivial third party sources are yet to be provided... h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. Agree with User:Nabla that the focus should be switched to subject's being a former "Scottish national triple jump champion". Dreadstar † 04:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil McMenemy[edit]

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

Not-notable "Capacity Management Consultant", amateur sports coach and former amateur athlete.

WP:Conflict of Interest Article created and solely worked on (apart from administrative edits) by Special:Contributions/Capman67 and Special:Contributions/195.11.196.131, clearly the subject of the article, who has made no other contribution to Wikipedia.
Claims "published" author - a couple of articles in various obscure trade papers.
Article beefed up by references such as "team-mates included (various notables)".
This is basically just a resume. If this guy deserved an article, he wouldn't have to write it himself, and it would imply that everybody in the world who has a profession, has "presented at various seminars" and performed at various amateur sports meets, deserves an article.Camillus (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • *National champion*, four times, in a individual sport in Scotlad, not a large athletics power but certainly not a small nation, is stretching notoriety? The management stuff?... Deserves at most one sentence but the sport career, competing at the highest level for Scotland sure is worthy of inclusion (still needs copyediting too but thats another issue) - Nabla (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC) PS: Hmmm... actually I agree with you. It is borderline notable (I suffered a short burst of "otherstuffexists syndrome"...) - Nabla (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Dreadstar † 05:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panic Attack (robot)[edit]

Panic Attack (robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, default to Keep. Dreadstar † 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos 2[edit]

Chaos 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. AfD is not cleanup, and so any COI/POV issues can be (and apparently have been) handled through the standard editing process. --jonny-mt 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adelbrecht[edit]

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

No sign of any notability of this "robot" project, which article even admits, failed. WP:Conflict of Interest - robot creator Marpsan, is the sole contributor and he has made no other contributions to WP. Most of article is a personal essay by Marspan. Camillus (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Master Trainer[edit]

Pokémon Master Trainer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is littered with problems, after I cleaned up the vandalism, it still reads like an ad, has no independent sources, and talks about Nintendo and Wizards of the Coast tours which I have a feeling are completely unrelated to this board game. I don't know enough about the Pokemon franchise, so I'm not entirely sure about notability, but unless someone wants to undertake a rescue mission and finds material to expand this with, I'm sure any pertinent information could probably be merged with the main Pokemon article. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odsal Sedbergh[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) with strong consensus to merge to be acted upon on the article/talkpage. Skomorokh 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Third Division: Série A[edit]

Portuguese Third Division: Série A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Reason for contention of prod can be found at Talk:Portuguese Third Division: Série A. My reason for deletion is that this article adds nothing to its main article, Portuguese Third Division. In order to survive this AfD, I believe it needs to focus more on the competition itself, instead of the competing clubs. – PeeJay 22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boungcloud Attack[edit]

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

No sources. No notability. Article itself implies it's about a 'chess.com member' which is not notable. ChessCreator (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://blog.chess.com/Graw81/my-boungcloud-attack-games ChessA4 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Solomon[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Only 1 reliable source in the article has significant coverage and the article overstates his notability with vague and non-neutral wording ("interviewed by various", "countless media outlets", "a dedicated following"). Mr.Z-man 22:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited in the original deletion debate contained University newsletters and appearances on local television some years ago. In reviewing the article, I can't see any basis for establishing that this individual has enough encyclopedic merit to retain this article. Cary Bass demandez 22:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good point, my mistake. ChessCreator (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, does not meet Wikipedia:BIO#Athletes, insufficient secondary sources to establish notability.

Jason Perry (baseball)[edit]

Jason Perry (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:ATHLETE While Perry may pass criteria by competing in a professional league, I'm not sure that a career minor-leaguer, without attaining some kind of record or noteworthy achievement while in the minors, is necessarily notable. From WP:Notability (people), "meeting one or more [of the criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Wolfer68 (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) per lack of delete preferences. Issue of merging/redirecting left to editors of the article/talkpage. Skomorokh 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Republic[edit]

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

Rejected speedy, procedural nom, I'm neutal. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Dreadstar † 05:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Szilvia Molnar[edit]

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

No claim to fame: a girl who wrote a few poems and short stories(?). Google search fails to support notability. One of her 2 cited awards is a split 3rd place in a Hungarian competition. Gregorik (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Precisely: modest achievements, and commensurately modest claims. And winning competitions in both Sweden and Hungary, and being published in multiple literary magazines in England, is no mean feat for someone her age." - Abondolo
Added secondary source. Interwiki is in two languages. ChessCreator (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic stats also look good suggesting that the article is of use to many viewers. ChessCreator (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's unusual to see someone give a delete on there own nomination, which is interesting. Are you close to this person? If the concern is about notability, rather then raising an Afd, using ((notability|biographies)) as given by the guidelines would of been sensible. PS I'm no way related to this page/person until I saw the nomination on the Articles for deletion log. The lack of Google coverage doesn't surprise me when you consider this is about someone writing in a foreign language and that coverage and awards are in physical publications and not the web. ChessCreator (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, I don't know the subject (stumbled into her Hungarian wiki about 2 days ago) and we're obviously not related. Yet it's also blatantly obvious that in cases like this we need to tag for AfD on sight as the subject is clearly NN and ((notability|biographies)) does not suffice. See WP:NOT and WP:BIO. End of argument. Gregorik (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find this 'debate' amusing and disturbing at the same time: a probable sockpuppet (created, it seems, about 10 hours ago) and someone who's probably the subject's friend arguing for an amateur writer with no book(s) on her own -- all this on an online encyclopedia supposedly about famous folks. Check it. Well, more power to you. Excuse me, Szilvia, Jackleyden, ChessCreator and Abondolo. Gregorik (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unsubstantiated claim of a socket puppet is not making your Afd case look sensible. ChessCreator (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saratoga County Airport[edit]

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

A small county airport. Article is very difficult to read, and seems to be a list of 'features', most of which are not explained, and would not make sense to somebody who was not familiar on the subject. FusionMix 21:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

♠Return to Original Page.I believe the reason the page was created was to create a reference for pilots. If worse came to worse, they would have somewhere to go. Just because the type is not understandable to everyone, doesn't make it worthless. I liked it as it was, as it was true, and had some important information on it.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Martijn Hoekstra. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State Patty's Day[edit]

AfDs for this article:
State Patty's Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, WP:MADEUP, almost WP:CB ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lambert (athletics)[edit]

Steve Lambert (athletics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Googling "Steve Lambert" superbike returned 25 results, the Wikipedia entry and several copies of the entry on other sites, some for a UK police sergeant with the same name, the most relevant result is wera.com the Western Eastern Roadracing Association an association for amateur roadracing but the profile does not much the article's claims. Its also easy to see he didnt win all the races there [3][4] . This article is either fake or about a non-notable local racer Chris Ssk talk 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted by User:Gonzo fan2007 --JForget 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Robert Morris[edit]

Colonel Robert Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual of marginal encyclopaedic importance, subject expresses a very clear preference not to have an article (see WP:BLP). He has had an interesting career, but there are no compelling sources cited. VRTS ticket # 2008032210012452 confirms subject preference. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah -- copyvio is a different issue entirely. In that case, delete without prejudice for recreation with original text or stubbify and wait. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect non-admin closure by --Lenticel (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wingardium leviosa[edit]

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

The books are certainly notable, the spells and other story-related elements, not so much. Fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- doh! Why didn't I think of that -- too quick on the AfD button... – ukexpat (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirected per WP:COMMONSENSE and the nom's comment above. Not going to non-admin close someone else's AfD TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative social innovation[edit]

Collaborative social innovation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article began life as guerrilla spam for a Danish company. With the company name removed it becomes a non-notable neologism. -- RHaworth (Talk) (contribs) 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Dreadstar † 05:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of New York[edit]

Vehicle registration plates of New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think that this is a bit too specific for Wikipedia. Any relevant information can be found at Vehicle registration plates of the United States. Captain panda 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this works but this article should be deleted since it has stolen material (text and photos) from several websites, including the ALPCA archives. [5] [6] [7] The New Jersey article does the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battersea Bosco (talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would seem that the copyvio information should be deleted, rather than the entire page. Does a posting to a message board enjoy copyright protection? It also seems to only be the images that were stolen from 15q.net, in which case they should be tagged for speedy deletion. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They blagged some stuff from the ALPCA archives, which is password protected. This and the New Jersey article need to be deleted since it is proprietary information. We always loved American number plates and we think that it is not right to steal things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battersea Bosco (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the goal of Wikipedia is to stop this idea of proprietary information, to provide access to information not hidden behind passwords.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to ask if an article is basically made up of copyright violations does that mean we have to delete them and maybe start over? --Plate King (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio by User:TexasAndroid, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodchurch High School[edit]

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

Apparently about a school, but it does not specify where. Provides no context, seems to ramble on, almost as if it were a press release or from the website of the school. Very POV, potentially beyond salvage. Removed prod. Random89 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milks F'avorite Cookie 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Final Fantasy III[edit]

Characters of Final Fantasy III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article a) has no real-world context and b) does not give any hint to reliable independent sources. The topic seems to fail WP:N. The only source given is another Wiki. There are two sections which were supposed to contain sourcable real-world information, but they remained empty; there have been no recent additions except vandalism. B. Wolterding (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Staudenmaier[edit]

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

Notability not established Hgilbert (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Directive Communication[edit]

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

Spam article, disguised as psychology, created by notorious wikispammer Arthur Carmazzi, whose WP:AUTO is up for deletion below. Qworty (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my name is Marcie Coldwell, PR executive for Mr. Carmazzi, founder of the Directive Communication methodology. i would like to clarify that Direcitive Communication is a "Methodology", it is used by many consultants and speakers throughout Asia, NOT only Mr. Carmazzi, it is implemented mostly in multi-nationals across Asia, although there are a few in Europe and North America. also, it is in my opinion slanderous to refer to Mr. Carmazzi as a "notorious wikispammer", we are doing a job to inform the public of "Proven" methods in organisational change and training, this makes us no money or helps us to sell books or porduct, true, it is PR, and then so is everything that mentions any new idea that is not from someone who is dead. as stated below, we made every attempt to make these and all other entries as objective as possible to maintain the Wikipedia standards and respect its intention. and, as for refferences, we added the references in accordance with the request that was posted a few days ago. Carmaz (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article? it was information about a methodology, no promotion, only information and method and how the method is used. Please see my comments below pertaining to "PR", Marcie. Carmaz (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Dreadstar † 06:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Carmazzi[edit]

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

Extremely aggressive wikispammer who has inserted himself and his spamlinks into several articles and has been reprimanded by other editors: [9]. Spam report is here: [10] He's a non-notable "motivational speaker" who has a grand total of two hits on Google News, one of which is his father's obituary from 1969: [11]. Also created the spam article Directive Communication, which is the name of his business, and which I'm going to AfD next. Qworty (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my name is Marcie Coldwell, PR executive for Mr. Carmazzi, while i do understand that in the US, you may have specific criteria as notible, we can provide substantial "international" (within Asia and the Middle East) print (and some TV) coverage of Mr. Carmazzi and his Directive Communication methodology. also, we can provide Notable Organisations such as Emirates (also not a US organisation but still quite large)that will attest to the results this methodolgy provides. Mr. Carmazzi was also chosen as one of the top 30 leadership gurus in the world for his contibutions. all this is verifiable and we would gladly prvide scans of news article, TV coverage, radio interview recordings. of course they are all in Asia and the Middle East. also, while we did start the two articles, contrubutions to them were later made by others. for verification of the media and awards mentioned, please contact me at: marcie@directivecommunication.com - also, we made every attempt to make these as objective as possible to maintain the Wikipedia standards and respect its intention Carmaz (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC) additionally, i honestly do not see how you only get a few hits on google, perhaps you could type in "Arthur Carmazzi", "Arthur F Carmazzi" Carmaz (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you read the articles, you will find we NEVER promoted his programs, ever! we gave general unbiased information! According to (Robert L. Heath, Encyclopedia of Public Relations). PR is is a management function that focuses on two-way communication and fostering of mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics. it is NOT designed to "Promote" only to inform. when a company comes out with a new product there is a very big difference between the promotion, and the information that they are launching a product. information is published because it is newsworthy, promotion identifies the reasons, emotional and practical, to buy the product or service; then there is the call to action. we did none of that, only presented the facts - and, if by any means any wiki-master believes differently, we would gladly revise the objectivity to be within the appropriate standards. do not judge the quality of the information based on my job title... Please.

Marcie Carmaz (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i find it interesting the editors of wikipeda will keep a quote by Mr Carmazzi in the leadership section, yet, delete his name from and credit from it. why? is that ethical by Wikipedia standards? "Leadership is not about changing the mindset of the group but in the cultivation of an environment that brings out the best (inspires) in the individuals in that group. Each individual has various environments that bring out different facets from their own identity, and each facet is driven by emotionally charged perceptions within each environment. To lead, one must create a platform through education and awareness where individuals fill each others needs. This is accomplished by knowing why people may react favorably to a situation in environment A, but get frustrated or disillusioned in environment B."

and, if wikipedia is in the information industry, it is inevitability reconcilable for PR, look up Robin Sharma, Ken Blanchard, Tom Peters well known in America, these pages contain information about these people and, while it is obecjtive (at least some of it), it is in essence PR. the question you should ask, is do people really want to know, if, no one cares, then, fine, delete delete delete, but what of the 36% HR professionals in Singapore who know who Arthur Carmazzi is (according to an independent research we engaged National University of Singapore to do). what of the over 260,000 people in Asia who have heard Mr Carmazzi speak, what of the millions who have seen him on TV or Print and want to find out more. the information on Wikipedia was specifically unbiased and written in a non-promotion standard (unlike other articles that are still up). if ANY of you are living in Asia, then i would have more confidence in your appreciation, or not, since at least you would have the exposure and be able to make intelligent decisions. and if you are not, then at least the desire to get the facts which we will gladly provide by email. we have offices in Bali, Singapore and Malaysia and anyone of you can call. i will provide the numbers.

please get the facts! first search google with "Arthur Carmazzi" and "Arthur F Carmazzi" there are over 9000 directly related pages in 6 different languages that i found. then, contact me for copies of print articles and TV (including the CNN of China called "Dialogue") that Mr. Carmazzi and the Directive Communication methodology have appeared in. let me send you the facts. Mr Carmazzi has made an impact here in Asia and the Middle East, we have the references, we have the proof. my email: marcie@directivecommuniation.com

W. C. Fields one said "don't confuse me with the facts, i have already made up my mind" we don't believe this to be wikipedia's philosophy. Carmaz (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

marcie. Carmaz (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur F Carmazzi (born August 21, 1962) is an Italian American writer / speaker living in Asia and expert on Psychological applications to Leadership and Organisational Culture Enhancement and Development. He is mostly known for his contribution as the founder of the Directive Communication Methodology.

Biography

Carmazzi was born in Carson City, Nevada. He went to Carson High School and attended University of Nevada - Reno, Pacific University, and Montana State University majoring in various disciplines from business to psychology and international marketing to chemical and electrical engineering. While he attended these various universities over a 5 year period, he received no degree. He was hired as a Copywriter in his first job in Deco & Co. in 1986, in spite of his challenge of dyslexia and A.D.S., he was soon promoted to the youngest account executive in the history of the company. He left Deco on 1988 to build a small company he purchased – Frontier Corporate Kit Company – that dealt in corporate business structure to a legal clientele. He built the company to the 3rd largest of its kind in the United States.

In 1990, he was stabbed in an attempted robbery where he almost lost his life. This event gave him new a new perspective in life so he sold his company and most of his positions then traveled the globe for 2 years to find his greater self. In 1992, he moved to South Korea as Managing Director to the Asian venture of the Grail Corporation, an American consulting company dealing in the creation of new retail distribution chains for B2B organisations.

In 1997, Carmazzi’s success prompted him to start his own retail chain in Singapore. Within a year and a half, Carmazzi had not only lost everything, he found himself a half-million Singapore Dollars in Debt. He acclaims this experience as his first real lesson in how ego affects organisational effectiveness. Carmazzi was forced to go back into the corporate world in 1999 to repay his debt and fundamentally survive. Entering as a department head in a dysfunctional Multi-National, Carmazzi, considering himself a positive and hardworking individual, found himself being assimilated into the dysfunctional culture and taking on the negative characteristics of the culture such as blaming and being uncooperative. This conflict of identity eventually led Carmazzi to the research that founded the Directive Communication Methodology.

After a few successes in applying the new Directive Communication method, including saving the organisation he worked for an additional $17,000 a week in wastage, Carmazzi formed his own firm to facilitate Directive Communication based Training and organisational development applications. In 2005, he began licensing Directive Communication to other trainers and consultants around the globe. . Bestselling author The 6 Dimensions of Top Achievers, a joint project with his friend David Rogers, was published in 2000, and became a bestseller in Singapore and then Malaysia. The book researched 50 different self-made millionaires from around the world and presented their strategies from a replicatable psychological perspective. In his more recent books, Carmazzi took lessons from his own life and failures and his take on the decision making process in relation to environment.

In the December 2002 “Identity Intelligence” was published and ranked 32 in sales on the first day of release, only to be taken off the shelves by the threat of a law suit for improper structure in referencing of his research. When the matter was solved in Carmazzi’s favor 4 years later, the publishers no longer accepted the title for distribution. The book only sold about 12,200 copies at Carmazzi’s talks and website by 2006.

Carmazzi now focuses on Leadership and Organisational Development and developing other Directive Communication certified trainers and consultants. He continues to write and speak about his applications of the Directive Communication methodology. His Asia headquarters is base in Bali Indonesia. In 2007, Carmazzi was awarded as the number 10 most influential leadership professional by Leadership Gurus International.

Works

2000 – The 6 Dimensions of Top Acheivers (co-written with David Rogers) 2002 – Identity Intelligence 2005 – Leadership Intelligence – the force for making the right decisions for personal and professional success 2007 – Lessons from the Monkey King, leading change to create Gorilla Sized Results 2007 – The Culture Evolution handbook 2004 - 2007 The Directive Communication Facilitation Series (12 volumes)

References Arthur F Carmazzi - official site Arthur F Carmazzi: Personal – Personal site Summary Biography from Leadership Gurus


Marcie. Carmaz (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is more than one person here, and while it is likely that the "inappropriate" link to Mr. Carmazzi's video to youtube came from this office, namely my assistant so I am responsible, we are NOT spammers and are trying to resolve this in an intelligent communicative manner, i personally do not appreciate being called names when we are trying to follow guidelines and regulation. To date, NO ONE has requested for the proof of notability we are more than happy to give. Have we made mistakes in guideline, yes, I, we, are not perfect but we do learn from our mistakes and we are commited to working within Wikipedia’s practices. Marcie. Carmaz (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


in reference to posting, we can admit, (and once again as a learning curve trying to work within the WP guidlines), to informational posts in Organizational culture, Organization development, Leadership, Leadership development, Transformational leadership, Industrial and organizational psychology, as these would be within Mr. Carmazzi's scope of expertise. We would not and have not to my knowlege put posts on Customer service, and Motivational speaker as this is NOT an area where we could contribute anything valuable.

again, please stop calling me names and assist us to work properly within the community, Mr. carmazzi is a great source of new information that has helped thousands of people and organisations. sharing wisdom is of benefit to everyone. as for proof, we would love to give you whatever proof you would like, i have left my email address and NO ONE has asked, is there another way to get you the proof? Carmaz (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just read WP:RS and all of the associated policies that link off that page and follow the directions. The burden of proof is on you. I doubt it will do you any good, however, since Carmazzi isn't notable. Qworty (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) per lack of delete preferences. Skomorokh 00:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kings (TV series)[edit]

Kings (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

TV show of doubtable notability. Sources given are merely a directory listing and an IMDB entry (which doesn't confer notability). PROD was contested. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is the consensus, yes. It probably ought to be written down someplace, or if it is, in a more readily findable place. Like right next to that named geographic features are inherently notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by User:Lectonar --JForget 00:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCE car club[edit]

UCE car club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I wanted to place this as a speedy deletion but that was reverted recommending I should nominate this as AFD instead. My reason is all it is, is just a one line sentence with nothing to back this claim up for that reason is the source is nonexistent. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. Dreadstar † 06:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toby E. Rodes[edit]

Toby E. Rodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:COI and WP:AUTO and fails to establish WP:N. Mundane padded resume of a run-of-the-mill businessman. Qworty (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected. Editors are free to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel Fairytales[edit]

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

Independent sources are missing for this manga; only a link to a directory listing is provided. PROD was contested, with comment "ann coverage suggests futher sources can befound, and yuki seems to be a reasonably notable mangaka". I don't see evidence for that. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One shot usually means short story - short stories are usually not notable except as part of the author's page. If this is a short story collection, then perhaps; but I'm still inclined to Merge to Kaori Yuki. Doceirias (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually, yeah, but I've seen people use it to mean (as here) a single-volume series -- this is a four-chapters long story. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. faithless (speak) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyablo[edit]

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

Non-notable artist with a bunch of self-released albums, little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy close Article was redirected to Gentlemen's agreement, no point in keeping discussion open as this appears to be a fairly non-controversial redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman's Agreement.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gentleman's Agreement. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not-notable, verging on the WP:MADEUP, no references. Should be deleted (or possibly redirected to Gentlemen's agreement) ukexpat (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by Orangemike as a copyvio. Davewild (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retail growth[edit]

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

Hard to follow but appears to be WP:OR and unreferenced. ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. As demonstrated below, subject meets the threshhold for notability set by WP:MUSIC; and conflicts of interest - while a reason to watch the page for POV and bias - are not a reason for deletion. Pastordavid (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holger Lagerfeldt[edit]

Holger Lagerfeldt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment You can not use a Wikipedia article to prove his credit. Also, the Billboard page you are pointing at does not mention him. I would agree to stop seeking deletion of this article, the problem is that I've been trying to find a verifiable source citing his top charting credit but all I get is articles where he himself is the author. There are also not citations about the 50 platinum and gold records from any source, I have a problem with that. I also believe that we can't have links to his websites as primary references for the article and these links should be deleted whether it can be proven that he had a #1 hit or not.Jrod2 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Discogs lists him as the co-writer "This Is How We Party",[17] as does the ASCAP database.[18] Is there really a doubt that this is the same person credited as Holger rather than the full name Holger Lagerfeldt? dissolvetalk 19:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you justify making a biographical article page based on this evidence? If one had a top 20 charting record in BillBoard, one can then make an article page about oneself?. Finally, do you approve having all the external links that promote his audio engineering services?Jrod2 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:MUSIC doesn't currently apply to engineers, producers or session musicians, only to performers, composers/lyricists, songs and albums. I'm not sure I agree with this, as there are numerous circumstances where the contributions of engineers and producers had as much, if not more, to do with the commercial success of a recording when compared to the performer's contribution. Incidentally, this is why Grammy Awards are awarded to everyone involved in the making of a recording and not just the songwriter(s) and artist. To date these concerns haven't been brought up at WP:MUSIC, so WP:BIO is the current standard applied to engineers and producers. My case for this article under WP:MUSIC is strictly notability as a songwriter. dissolvetalk 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a confusion among users as to what it is admissible and what is not. Dissolve argues that as a songwriter, Holger is eligible, but not as an engineer? DGG argues that producers should not be included based on a hit record, but Holger as a songwriter of 2 charting records is good enough. Dhartung argues against having any inherent notability with engineers or producers. That is not WP policy. Take a look at Bernie Grundman, Bob Ludwig, Norman Smith_(record producer), Ken Townsend, Geoff Emerick and many others that have engineered or produced records. They all have a bio page, the difference is that they are notable. So, what is the minimum criteria for inclusion of an engineer, producer or mastering engineer, to create his bio article page here at Wikipedia??? If one had a charting record, say a "Top 40", not here but in Denmark, not as a songwriter but as the mastering engineer, is he not notable enough to have his own bio page at WP??? In the case of Holger, what all of you need to evaluate first is the reason why somebody that came from Denmark in 2006, apparently felt Holger L. is so important that he should have an extensive article of his own at Wikipedia complete with links to his business and other web sites. Not even Ken Townsend who engineered Beatles records had so much information written about him on his biographical page by one user .Jrod2 (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be sure, my comment above was Socratic argument. As Dissolve points out, though, WP:MUSIC currently does not provide for inherent notability for engineers and producers, even if it might be sensible to do so using the industry's own awards criteria. Nevertheless, citing other notable producers does not argue for this person's notability; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Also, the motivation of someone writing an article is not itself a demonstration of notability; see WP:EFFORT. What do the sources say? --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dhartung, we due respect, you confuse me more than you direct me to the answer. In your question (What do the sources say?) are you talking about the article link references? If so, all the original references (minus the ones Dissolve added yesterday) point at this individual's websites. What I understand from inherent notability is that when an artist has a top charting record and/or wins an award and becomes famous by virtue of the record's success, his engineer and/or producers benefit and may get an award as well. It is the criteria the Recording Academy applies to nominate and to award Grammys. So, I haven't had time to study WP:MUSIC I don't need to. The prove is on the examples I gave above with those engineers and producers. Bottom line, Holger's page exploits the fact that he had a couple of bona fide charting records and the rest is to sell his CDs and to direct people to his websites. Needless, to say the impact that this WP page has had for his benefit on the search engine rankings. It is in my view, as member of WP:CVU, that everybody's attitude here is an invitation to have thousands of half ass songwriters-engineer-producers from all over the world to create new vanity pages and to spam Wikipedia on the technicality that if they had a #25 charting Billboard record in Tibet, they are entitled to it.Jrod2 (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If he does meet WP:MUSIC as a songwriter, that is, satisfies our existing guidelines for inclusion, I have no problem with the entry also discussing his engineering and producing credits. If he does NOT merit WP:MUSIC as a songwriter, I see no argument for retention on the basis of engineering and production credits being analogous (or "just as important") to the so-called creative people that are generally notable. The technical people, when wildly successful and sought out, DO become notable -- particularly in certain genres -- but I don't think that extending INHERENT notability on the basis of a chart position is the way to go, because they just don't get a fraction of the coverage, i.e. the notability, that the singers or songwriters do. In other words, I'm not willing to go beyond WP:MUSIC just now on that basis. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dhartung, thanks for your comments. If that's your position ("I don't think that extending INHERENT notability on the basis of a chart position is the way to go..") then Holger according to you doesn't meet the requirement. However, he does have 2 credits as a songwriter and co-author of charting songs. He didn't sing on them, or was a band member. Those 2 credits meet the requirements only under WP:MUSIC not WP:BIO. My argument and problem with him is that he created the article page himself and therefore, violated WP guidelines (See:WP:COI#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F and WP:MUSIC#cite_note-selfpromo-0). I also wouldn't have had no problem with the entry discussing his engineering and producing credits. But, the fact that wrote the article himself and posted the links to his websites, are sufficient enough to eliminate him altogether. Jrod2 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]


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

The result was delete for failing WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Abilene[edit]

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

Minor action, possible POV with only the U.S. mil. source TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding all of these (are there more than the 3 nominated here) military operations articles. Not that I think that each one is particularly notable, but I'm not sure if AfD us the best place to decide that. Does one of the appropriate wikiprojects have guidelines on this sort of thing? Random89 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 02:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation United Front[edit]

Operation United Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor action, possible POV with only the U.S. mil. source TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to verify this rather quickly, so I'm not sure what search term you used. See [20][]http://www.drum.army.mil/sites/postnews/blizzard/blizzard_archives/index.asp?issuedate=5/11/2006]. MrPrada (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is not an anchor in WP:NOT. WP:NOTE is a guideline and cleary states that lack of notability is grounds for deletion. Taemyr (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is from a series of operations in 2006 by the same author, compiled using PAO sources. It is not OR. MrPrada (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While I agree with Pixelface that the rationale presented in the nomination was a bit...lackadaisical, further discussion resulted in a clear consensus that the operation is non-notable, a fundamental issue that is not addressed by the comments in favor of keeping the article. --jonny-mt 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bold Action[edit]

Operation Bold Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor action, possible POV with only the U.S. mil. source TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, not sure if you're using Google News, but [21], first result: Iraqi, MND-B Soldiers conduct ‘Operation Bold Action’. Blackanthem.com. MrPrada (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. faithless (speak) 09:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elite World Search[edit]

Elite World Search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:RS, WP:CORP - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete,Agreed, fully. Mww113 (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it meet any speedy criteria? It appears to fail WP:N but it doesn't appear to be a CSD G11. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Small consensus, yes, but convincing, per WP:MUSIC and lack of sources (and apparent lack of availability of sources, meaning, they don't exist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian Album[edit]

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

Totally unsourced. An early revision refers to it as a "fan album". Later revisions call it an "unreleased album". In either case, it sounds to be a fan bootleg of some sort. The likelihood of such an item being notable is IMHO low. And with no references, even that small chance is not shown. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was unanimous keep (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Trunk[edit]

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

unsourced, non-notable article about a local DJ Rtphokie (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 03:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eosimiids[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one-liner that could be notable, might be useful, or could be just pure misinformation - the earliest known something, known by whom? - without sourcing, and context, WP would be better without than with this one... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per added sources, needs to be expanded beyond one line. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mosley Guitars[edit]

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

Company which appears to fail WP:COMPANY. A Google search for "Mosley Guitars", returns only 78 hits, mostly advertising/press release-type stuff by the company itself and links to their eBay auctions. Nothing on Google News. Unable to find any coverage whatsoever in reliable secondary sources. This was brought to attention on the talk page of the article, however - which is concerning, if true. This is a cached portion of the deleted thread from that forum, where several users voice their concerns about some of the claims made by the company. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association[edit]

Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable non-governmental organization in UK for a fringe psychotherapy. The article has no secondary, independent sources per WP:RS, and is written as an advert. Delete and start from scratch if necessary. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DGG and confirm my previous "delete." Core issues are unchanged. Info from The Supporter is not about the NLPCA. There is no notability established by significant third party coverage of the organization and thus it fails WP:ORG--Cailil talk 13:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NLPtCA is the UK national governing body for the use of a notable technique (NLP) in therapy. I don't see your argument being applied to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. Part of NLPtCA's function is equivalent to an examining board, and I don't see your argument being applied to AQA, OCR (examination board), the Welsh Joint Education Committee, or the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations & Assessment either. I've attempted to meet your underlying issue by adding references to training institutes providing courses governed by the NLPtCA, but your interpretation of WP:ORG seems a bit narrow. AJRG (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 17:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Anderson (radio)[edit]

Terry Anderson (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish notability, no sources. WP:CSD#A7 Rtphokie (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 17:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Apple[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability, no reliable sources. WP:CSD#A7 Rtphokie (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 17:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Avi[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability, no sources. WP:CSD#A7 Rtphokie (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO - no 3rd party sources, has not received any notable awards, etc. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 17:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing apparently available [23] and subject appears non-notable. Use of common first name and no last name make searching difficult. Article's claim of coverage in Penthouse could prove some notability if subject is the focus of those articles, not merely included as a glancing mention or a quote.- Dravecky (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per article improvements/sourcing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Avey[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability, no sources. WP:CSD#A7 Rtphokie (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 17:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete. However, there are rumbles of a possible future merge/redirect. That would be for the talk pages of the relevant articles though, not for AfD. "No consensus", of course, defaults to keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Online timeline[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, unnotable crufty plot summaries.

This article has very poor sources, with one being a broken link and the other coming from an inappropriate third party, suggesting that notability has not been established for the subject of this article to non-Ultima Online players and the real world.

The article contains a mixture of cruft-like plot summaries and release dates in the form of a directory/list, both of which are what Wikipedia is not and is likely to attract unwelcome original research.

This article has these issues to deal with that other editors apparently are not interested in fixing, giving little chance for this article's survival. IAmSasori (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Bruce Haack. --jonny-mt 02:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Way Out Record for Children[edit]

The Way Out Record for Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability for music. Poorly written. Ward3001 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep However, some improvements and some cleanup is needed for this article. --JForget 00:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Swaminarayan Temple's[edit]

Shri Swaminarayan Temple's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has phone number,email and address of various temples.Earlier proded and prod removed by the author.Further it is mere list of temples for which there no articles and the moment a mere list.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We don't delete a verifiable articles on a notable topic just because it is stubby. Abecedare (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same question, and same conclusion. This should have been closed and kept per consensus. ~ priyanath talk 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arawak Jah[edit]

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

Non-notable group. Albums all self-released on their own Rasta Rumba label. Google News archive turns up 3 trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC (and WP:V). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Angelo (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4gxg[edit]

4gxg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no third party sources on this topic, unless you count one obscure blog. It easily fails notability requirements. Psychless 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (and remove/rewrite history section for any copyvio). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WXIN (radio)[edit]

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

Radio stations under Part 15 (i.e. low-power stations) are generally not considered notable. Since the article on this student station is quite elaborate, I prefer a wider discussion. It's already briefly mentioned in Rhode Island College, so there's probably nothing to merge. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spend The Night/Ten Years Time[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Spend The Night/Ten Years Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Many Times (Can We Say Goodbye?)[edit]

How Many Times (Can We Say Goodbye?) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distance (Robert O'Connor album)[edit]

Distance (Robert O'Connor album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Black Kite 00:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphanage (band)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTE Al.locke (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. --Angelo (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spooky Kids Live Shows[edit]

The Spooky Kids Live Shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

According to the article, "Marilyn Manson & The Spooky Kids did not have an official tour, but these are the dates in which they performed, mainly in Florida. The different presentations initiated in 1989 and finished in 1993." This article is therefore synthesis on a non-notable topic, with no sources to attest to its notability (how could they, as this is only found on Wikipedia?). Blast Ulna (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Kartel[edit]

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

Originally PRODded on March 23. Original author wrote in email to OTRS saying that the notability should be OK now, but appeared not to realize the procedure here, so I'm transferring this to AFD. Here are the contents of the email sent to OTRS (with personal information removed): 

This pertains to the article on artist " Don Kartel ". In addition to submitting a
picture we wanted to further state that in light of the request for deletion, new
material has been added in the artist's favour, that should serve as sufficient
notability. The delete date would have been tomorrow, but upon realising today, the
information was added. We would like to also add this picture to the article. Provide
any problems may arise, feel free to contact us, and we shall be more than willing to
rectify the matter

As much as possible what we aim to do is highlight the artist in a greater light, in
that his bio can reflect his work ethic and accomplishments. The birthdate of the
artist is Nov 30 1982, Born in Scarborough, Ontario, Canada...currently affiliated
with Pro Records...formely a member "on point"..formely a member of "waiting room
records"  just in the event that you can give him a bio on par to other established
artists such as lil wayne, chamillionaire etc.

Provided any problems may arise, feel free to contact us, and we shall be more than
willing to rectify the matter

There are 3 external links, all of which we have added as updates

1 Hip Hop Canada Link
2 Ringtones Site @ Flextones
3 Myspace Links

I have no opinion the article, and am making the AFD nomination simply to bring this to the larger community. There was a photo attached to the OTRS email and if the article is kept, I will add it. howcheng {chat} 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore [www.flextones.com] clearly shows the artist featured. And finally [25] shows the artist most recently released single as number five on their countdown. If these multiple sources aren't sufficient, then let us know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.71.143 (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's the way people feel, and the sources aren't adequate, then please delete it. I was the author. I felt that it was sufficient, maybe i was wrong.These complications really aren't worth my time. Aparently the artist was a pigment of my imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartelevision (talk • contribs) 07:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes pr[edit]

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

Seems to have limited notability, no third-party sources. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the award was a Bronze for "Best Public Relations Campaign" back in 2004, and that was more or less a local newspaper-like award. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 06:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response, that's why I said weak. I've asked a friend in the Adelaide area if she knows of any coverage through her access to some of the papers' archives that google hasn't yet indexed. Failing that I'd change to delete. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 11:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 02:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tahiri Veila[edit]

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

This article lacks any major, independent third party references, and thus does not comply with WP:N. TheNobleSith (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of third-party sources. Put another way, no sources other than SW ones make any mention of this subject. Thus, it does not comply with WP:N. TheNobleSith (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belgutei[edit]

Notability is not inherited. Being brother to a famous historical figure does not make one notable. That said, given who the historical figure is, I figured I would AFD this instead of A7 speedy, to give it a chance in case I am missing something. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stay in Bed" technique[edit]

AfDs for this article:
"Stay in Bed" technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's no reliable sources included to verify that this is a notable parenting technique. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide seems to apply as well. Prod removed without comment or change by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Pedro. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travel 3.0[edit]

Travel 3.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a speedy candidate and quite possibly a good faith creation The only sources available are either blogs or travel sites of uncertain reliability and independence. Basically an essay and the parts that are of encyclopedic value could easily be merged into Travel 2.0 until this subject matures enough to warrant an independent article. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per Delicious carbuncle's valid argument, I changed my vote to a more appropriate one. SWik78 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Evaluating this discussion was somewhat difficult. However, after discounting the large number of SPAs and apparent sockpuppets, there was a clear consensus to delete. Blueboy96 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASIOC[edit]

A large portion of these !votes for keeping this article have generated from a post on the NASIOC forums, thread located here, in which Wikipedian editors, among other things, are called douchebags for nominating this article. Just an FYI Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have attempted to previously place this as a PROD, but the article creator user:RCIM wanted to dispute this, stating that a internet forum dressed as a car club is notable because 1) it has been in existence since 1999, 2) 140,000 members, these of which wouldn't have to pay a penny to join, 3) it boasts of being the largest, for a national club, it will be. All in all I can't see why is this organization being anywhere notable. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "historically significant" What makes this Porsche Club historically significant? From the beginning this AfD has had a very biased and very immature tone to it. Moosato Cowbata I do not understand half of what you are typing. Your grammar is worse than my 10 year old sons. It seems to me that NASIOC has sourced itself very well. And now there's a conflict of interest tag on it? The irony is the real conflict of interest is presented by Moosato. I found out about NASIOC looking for information on Subarus, the first thing that I found was the Car and driver article, hardly insignificant. Consider that because of the inclusive and open nature of NASIOC, anyone the club has had any significance for, has also joined in to participate and share their Subaru experiences and technical knowledge with the community and the world, and Fuji Heavy Industries, the parent Company of Subaru, so therefore, many of those who would be here to defend the Wiki entry are going to be members of the club. AS for your comment about emailing the Subaru PR dept. for recognition, whether or not that is the case, you do realize that is how the Associated Press finds out about important events? Just FYI..Qcanfixit (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)— Qcanfixit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: "So you can shove that "upscale" type clientele thing up your ass" What a fine example of an unbiased moderator. The problem with Wikis is, someone has to be given power to moderate it. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. This person obviously has a personal problem with NASIOC and is using Wikipedia as a forum to express his or her dislike. Did he or she get beat by a Subaru in a legal or illegal automobile competition? Did he or she go to NASIOC and get berated for posting a street racing story? Who knows?

The point is, when deciding to delete or keep an article, the burden of proof should be on those who wish to delete, not keep, and this should be a HEAVY burden. Drive space is cheap. Making Wikipedia more inclusive is better - if some "unnecessary" articles are there, so what? It's not like a paper encyclopedia that will get physically larger with more entries. The search feature will allow someone to find what they are looking for - no one has to "turn pages" past the NASIOC entry to get to what they want.

The level of emotion and the perseverance that a handful of people have toward pushing through this deletion speaks volumes. Why are they so concerned? No one doing a routine "clean up" would be so determined to delete an entry. There's more to this story. We'll probably never know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.2.34 (talk)

  • Going to Qcanfixit's comment, what I mean are that these clubs that I referred to have been going for a long time and this one has just being in existence since 1999, plus nobody wanted to own an Impressor at that time because any 240SX could thrash them at the traffic lights easily, well back then there was hardly any parts for these 2.5 RS. Also like many of these clubs who have articles here, does it organize its own racing series, I don't mean some drag racing series, I mean any 20 car at a time on the circuit series, I'm sure your organization don't have its own racing series. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This entry proves that Moosato Cowabata is merely a Nissan fanboi who wants to delete this entry for personal reasons only. He started this because he doesn't like "impressors" (whatever those are) and doesn't like the Subaru IMPREZA owner's club. Speculation exists that this person had a confrontation with NASIOC members. While this may never be known, it is VERY CLEAR that this whole deletion was started as a personal vendetta, which is against the spirit and letter of Wikipedia rules. Does Wikipedia enforce their most important rules, or is everyone only concerned about pedantic discussions about "relevance" or "reference quality"? There should be action taken against this person for using Wikipdeia for his or her own personal agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.2.34 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL Don't make me laugh, I have never been a member of your stupid club, I have never had a confrontation with anybody in that club, the only club members I have met are are those here who nominated keep on this vote because somebody informed it on your forum therefore you all just turn up and vote keep. Well you all do what car fanbois do, like what one editor said, I could even compare you all to the soccer hooligans, well its my soccer team lost, lets not grieve, lets stage a riot. Plus I never disliked IMPREZA at all, plus what is wrong with stating my preference to Lancer Evos, you just do what all fanbois do and accuse me of having a grudge against this club which is a biggest piece of nonsence I know of.
  • LOL Then why did you pull this one car club article out of the blue and nominate it for deletion? The PCA has NO references at all, yet you didn't nominate it. You make several statements demonstrating a personal dislike of NASIOC and Impreza owners, now you claim you have no such anti Impreza bias? Do you expect us to believe that? I have never vanalized any page on Wikipedia, and I don't advocate or condone doing so. I am merly pointing out that anyone looking to simply clean up Wilipedia wouldn't be so driven to delete the NASIOC page. What's wrong with you demonstrating your preferences against Impreza's? This is a discussion about the NASIOC page, not which cars you like or dislike. Bringing up your preferences gives the impression that your deletion request is personal in nature. As someone said below, none of us have said that the page needs to stay because the Impreza is a great car - yet you strongly implied that it should be deleted because you like other cars better. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, but your nomination for deletion is NOT written from a neutral, objective point of view, especially when you have made so many negative comments about us and the car itself and few about the article. Don't accuse us of being rabid fanbois while you yourself make comments which indicate that you are a rabid anti-fanboi. As I said before, what's the harm in leaving it? I honestly believe that there are some rabid wikipedia folks that simply don't like any article that they or the group of "core members" didn't write. The point was made that The PCA article and others have no references. Someone suggested "delete them all," I suggest "keep them all" and stop this debate. The cost of keeping the article is low. Err on the side of INCLUSION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.239.24 (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC) — 76.97.239.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I was tempted to nominate it but maybe you should have a go doing so, not to mention that this is not the only club I and all others have nomninated, well you can check it up anywhere. I have neve stated here that I got anything against the club or the car itself, you all just come here and do your fanboi thing and accuse me of it. Do you really needed to be reminded that this is an encyclopedia, not a promotion site, well always.
  • Comment: Yet the Porsche Club offers no sources to prove this information you are presenting. Furthermore, you are correct, when the site started Subaru had a very small footprint in the motor enthusiast community, and I credit NASIOC for building up the name of Subaru by establishing a community for people who drive or rally or race these cars to share mechanical information and sources for parts. Today is very different for Subaru in America thanks largely to NASIOC. And that Mr Cowabata is very significant and note worthy. Thank you for proving my point.Qcanfixit (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)— Qcanfixit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

  • Thank you for proving my point, well thank your friend for proving his point, don't thank me for something I didn't say. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: any clubs will have their own periodicals, does that make them special . Moosato Cowabata (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It just isn't worth it to argue with you. You are slowly contradicting yourself, but you'll argue your point until everyone gets tired of listening to the village idiot and lets you win. Go ahead, have the entry deleted. Someone will start a new one the next day. Not only is NASIOC far different from your belief, but we're persistent bastards as well! Scooby921 (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it because it is free, it is because it was the first club to deal with Impressors, I would join if I had a Impressor, but I think Lancer Evos are way better. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment* More proof that this Moosato Cowabata started this deletion because he or she doesn't like "Impressors," (whatever those are) and wants the entry for the North American Suabaru IMPREZA Owners CLub deleted. The "top" Wikipedia rules all state that Wikipedia is not to be abused in this manner. Why is this person allowed to do this? If I deleted the "Ford" article because my engine blew up, I'd be warned and possibly banned. No one will answer the question: Does Wikipedia enforce their most important rules, or is everyone only concerned about pedantic discussions about "relevance" or "reference quality"? I think Wikipdeia needs to move away from this cliquey, picky, "lets find a reason to delete THAT" mentality and be more inclusive. Again, what is the harm in allowing this article and others like to to remain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.2.34 (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's you who are accusing me of disliking Subarus and all this BS what all car fanbois do (they all go and accuse people of disliking a particular car for any reason). That nickname "Impressor" came from a friend who used to one. It came from that he never bother to pronounce it properly, he always call his car "Impressor" and insists we all call it that. Personally, there is nothing wrong with it staying but I don't think that this is any special from any others for it to be here with additionally that you all just do this fanboy thing, rally around and make stupid claims that this club is somewhat notable, using some lameass reason if you can like all fanboi editors do. Not to mention that you have done the most honorable thing and vandalized the PCA article, well if you have the guts, why don't you nominate that for AfD if you don't think that club is any special from all others. Also me mentioning Lancer Evos just got you throwing your toys out of your prams didn't it. I said there is nothing wrong with Imprezas, its just that I prefer Lancer Evos, not to mention that I wouldn't swop it for my Silvia. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:As a group we understand that the page does not exactly follow the guidelines but now we have been given two guidelines first the WP:ORG guidelines and second web notability guidelines. How are we expected to update the entry to follow the guidelines if the community does not give us clear information on what guidelines to follow. As you can see we have already been working on editing the page in order to conform to the guidelines but it makes it difficult when we do not have clear guidelines to follow. Again to reiterate what has been said before, NASIOC serves more than just its members. It serves the entire Subaru community as a whole, it participates in philanthropic charities to the degree of thousands of dollars and has been published in many articles.Cavafox (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)— Cavafox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Running through them in order (see NASIOC#References):
  1. "Florida Department of State" verifies that the organization was incorporated. This does not establish notability.
  2. "Big-boards.com" supports claim of notability by showing the site to be the fourth largest English language cars forum/message board. Nevertheless it doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria of WP:WEB or WP:ORG, and none of the three sites which are larger than NASIOC have a WP entry.
  3. "Car and Driver" is an Impreza review. Can't see any mention of NASIOC.
  4. "Road and Track" As "Car & Driver" above.
  5. "CarDomain" a single paragraph blurb about the club on a quasi-social networking site (think Facebook/MySpace, but with cars) which doesn't even have a WP entry of its own. Not nearly sufficient by itself to establish notability.
  6. "Drive Magazine, Version 3.2" supports claim of notability but is associated with the subject. In a magazine published by Subaru, an article about a club based around ownership of Subaru products. Therefore falls short as a reliable source.
  7. "48 Hours of Tri-State" Primary source. merely verifies that the 48H exists, does not demonstrate notability.
  8. "Colin McRae Official Website" The official site of a person mentioned in the article. Does nothing for notability. Not even sure what it's there for, to be honest; the wikilink to Colin McRae is all that's needed.
  9. "MarkAndRoger.com" As "Colin McRae" above.
  10. "Lovell/Freeman Memorial Decals". A forum post from the NASIOC website? The worst of the lot as far as violating citation guidelines go. Don't use primary sources, don't use message boards, etc etc.
  11. "CanadianDriver.com" Another Impreza review. Mentions three websites in passing at the end of the article as online resources, one of which is NASIOC. Article is not about NASIOC, which is what the notability criteria demands.
  12. "Drive Magazine, Spring 2002" Same as before, a magazine published by Subaru doing articles about Subaru owners' clubs is not independent.
  13. "CarDomain, NASIOC Interview" As before, CarDomain is as reliable as source as FaceBook or MySpace.
If you really stretched the bounds of notability as far as you possibly could, I'd say #2 & #11 would be OK to emphasize notability, but only if you had established it in the first place with a proper source. Meeting WP:V better, but not WP:NOTE, so not changing my "delete" despite the article expansion. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the claim that the second CarDomain source isn't reliable. It's not some random member that made a post on the site. The owners of the site made that particular page to feature NASIOC. That establishes NASIOC as being notable in the car enthusiast community in regards to Subarus. FreakBurrito (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say some of the above arguments are a bit extreme. First of all, discarding a publication because that publication covers a topic related to the article seems odd. Do we discount a movie review site when dealing with movies? That Subaru (a significant company) feels that NASIOC is worth a mention (and an article) says something. Those articles, IMO, establish notability. The fact that CanadianDriver wrote a paragraph about the car group also adds to notability. That other groups listed on Big-boards.com don't have an article is irrelevant and goes back to OTHERTHINGSDONTEXIST. The point is this group is quite large. That NASIOC had a successful fundraiser for a non-profit also provides a hint of notability (and that the fundraiser was covered in a local publication). Hobit (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)— Hobit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: Anyone can just as easily own a Porsche and pay that group some fee, and they can just as easily join that club. How hard or how easy it is to join should not be the issue. how easy is it to make changes to a Wiki entry? And if you want to talk about notability, NASIOC has been around longer than Wikipedia. Why the discrimination? Because we are not snobs? I find that insulting, distasteful and completely out of line with the Wiki Policies. As I mentioned above, it is the inclusive nature of NASIOC that defines it. It made Subaru accessible. Before NASIOC Subaru was just another import with very few fans who didn't even know of each others existence. Now it's a car with a cult following. Subaru has been in America 30 years, offering AWD and now only now, is AWD being looked at as a preformance component in American rallying, and performance circles because of the information NASIOC makes available. Furthermore, I who previously had no mechanical inclinations, was able to make several small upgrades and repairs to my own Subaru, with information that was only available on NASIOC and was invited into the community with open arms and given sound advice and step by step instructions which completely removed the fear of tinkering around with my car. Qcanfixit (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)— Qcanfixit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic (going back to 2005 Hobit (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC))— Hobit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I think the biggest misconception here is the fact that it it *NOT* merely an advertisement for a car club. The article is just some facts about an internet automotive community large enough to be of some note. It's obviously of some importance if the manufacturer chooses to have direct contact with the members. Speaking of members, the membership base grows at a fairly good clip which I think proves its notability since NASIOC does not blatantly look for PR or advertisement opportunities. I also have to question the motives of the member who brought it to scrutiny, since he seems to have a conflict of interest, and a some of the people calling for deletion also seem to have more than a passing interest in Mitsubishis.Upnygimp (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)— Upnygimp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(talk) 11:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should look at DeLarge's reply, not valid. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of SPA votes is not going to meke me reverse my nomination, nor claiming your club to have a podcast on Itunes will as there are millions of tem out there who have one, why, for the fact that they are cheap to put together and probably cheap to distribute on iTunes, thats mmy guess, therefore I will reject any claims of notability there, well in another word, like one editor has done, don't bother coming to me and make any claims of notability because having this to be kept is just a invitation for other clubs to star their own articles.
Also, the aim of this afd is to tell any clubs that unless they are notabile enough to have an article here, well don't bother as i don't want to invite all other clubs who thing they can go and write articels about their tinny winny clubs. If they do, I will make it clear that there is one link colour for them and that is red. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garth_Bader may also be a puppet of the same person. I will submit an WP:SSP report on these users for further evaluation. It would seem many of the people arguing for deletion are all one user. Beethoven05 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: The CarDomain article is published by the editors of the site which is independant of NASIOC. Also, there is an independent interview of the creator of NASIOC at big boards.Cavafox (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, CarDomain.com is a social networking website and not a reliable source. Big-Boards.com is also a pretty questionable source. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facebook any Myspace are social networking sites and yet if the creators of the site had an interview with NASIOC I would guess you would deem it notable. The social networking aspect of Cardomain is not responsible for the interview. The interview was done by the editors of the site. BigBoards is also independent and third party, what makes it questionable? The fact that you have not heard of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavafox (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel (Murali K. Thalluri's film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jewel (Murali K. Thalluri's film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not even in production, therefore falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewel (2009)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel (2009)[edit]

Jewel (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not even in production, therefore falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jewel (Murali K. Thalluri's film)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and update article. I think all computer companies should make pillows, BTW. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longmeng[edit]

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

No sources after 2006 and the so-called manufacturer's website now links to a pillow sheet manufacturer. Shii (tock) 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.lemote.com/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.21.53 (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete (as noted, the article fails WP:N due to lack of significant reliable sources independent of the subject) --Angelo (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantica Party[edit]

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

Unregistered fledgling Canadian political party. No sources other than own website. Their FAQ states that they are unregistered (i.e., not a real party in the eyes of the Canadian goverment). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a real party working on registration at the provincial level. For sources on the party please see the references posted on article. 24.137.85.230 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Dail[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable outside the Project 86 article. αѕєηιηє t/c 15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment: WP:OSE is an invalid reason to have an article. Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team Hybrid[edit]

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

I originally nominated this as a CSD as it deserved for the reason that it is a non-notable as there are a number of organizations that enter car shows.

but another editor removed this nomination stating that "mentions in DVDs/magazines/etc. constitute a weak claim to notability"

If this is notable, thatn what about a large umber of owners club, does this make them notable and in my case, this oe is absolutely not.

Also, this article is created by an editor who the Co-Leader in Training (NorCal Human Resource Director)[29], therefore he has COI issues within the article

IMO, editors are not allowed to create articles about themselves and their organizations, this is the reason why this will have to go. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those references you cited are for a Malaysian online gaming group, not a North American auto tuning company. Care to reconsider? --DeLarge (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you are correct, and I have changed my vote. I reserve the right to change it back if someone finds a source. —BradV 16:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment But I can't see what is really notable about this organization, there are lots of organisation of such as they will always enter competition and appear in magazines purely for publicity purposes. Plus most of your link are not at all related to the organization themself. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Papagni[edit]

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

I'm tempted to speedy this as an "unsourced or badly sourced negative bio" per WP:BLP, but let's see what others think.

We have a lot of these articles, so it would be good to form a view. Docg 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 1. If Papagni has been convicted of a crime and is serving prison time for it, then to say he is a criminal is not merely an "allegation". 2. Ganglandnews.com is run by mob expert Jerry Capeci and has been described by the New York Times as an "authoritative Mafia Web site". (source: Michael Brick, "'80s Plot to Hit Giuliani? Mob Experts Doubt It", New York Times, 26 October 2007) Mike R (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Delete arguments (a plot summary in the form of a timeline, mostly based on original research) are stronger than the keep arguments. Fram (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Stargate[edit]

Timeline of Stargate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article consists entirely of plot (WP:NOT#PLOT), and the given dates (especially the months) are totally original research (as a diehard SG-1 fan, I can tell). If we assume that the years are about right, this timeline would still be redundant to the season articles of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis (Stargate Infinity is not considered canon). The backstory of the Ancients and the Goa'uld is given in the respective race articles (and those have severe WP:WAF problems as well) and is thus redundant in this article, too. I have added a per-year timeline to List of Stargate works sometime ago, so a basic and non-OR overview is still there. I have tagged the timeline article as ((unencyclopedic)) a month ago and informed the Stargate WikiProject (which I am part of), and (1) no-one except one person replied and (2) the one person who replied pointed to a gateworld page (as a fansite not a reliable source), but its subpages seem to be dead (and, from memory, they didn't give months either). Additionally, I have contacted the Stargate wikia a few weeks ago for transwikiing, but they are not interested since they already got their own timeline structure. In short: delete. – sgeureka t•c 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

----informed the appropriate wiki project of this AfD. Hobit (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, a relative timeline does in fact exist. The characters say "last year" etc. quite a lot, and the story "builds" all the time, with a lot of references to previous fictional events. It is "January 1999" (or "1999" for that matter) that I object to, and this raises the question whether a timeline without giving the actual time makes sense (especially considering WP:NOT#PLOT). – sgeureka t•c 06:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, the timeline (as in, the timestamps) is in most parts not verifiable, not even with the show as primary source. Issues with notability (both of the article or Stargate) were not part of the deletion rationale. – sgeureka t•c 07:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles is being disingenuous, providing links to sources that are about the larger topics rather than the article in question. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read through every single source I linked to to see if they contain relevant information? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on you. You say there are sources, we say there aren't - you're the one making the positive statement, so you're the one that has to prove it. --Tango (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on all of us to work together to find sources. Considering Starlog and all the other magazines, I doubt we can honestly say we have exhausted all source searches in just a week. Wikipedia does not have a deadline, and we should be given a lot of leeway for finding sources. Fangoria had a timeline for the Jason film, why not take some time helping us out looking through sci fi magazines for this? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tons of Stargate fan material at home (e.g. quite a few in-depth magazines and DVDs with audio commentaries for over a 100 episodes), and I have been following all producer interviews and blogs closely since approximately 2002. I am completely unaware of more than a handful of vague confirmation of the years, all of them from the show itself ("Out of Mind" (season 2): DANIEL : "What year is it?" - CARTER: "1999, more than likely."; and the episode names of "1969" (season 2), "2010" (season 4) and "2001" (season 5); what happened thousands and millions of years ago can be sourced with quotes from the show as well, but that already appears in the race articles). I believe I have fulfilled my burden of negative proof. – sgeureka t•c 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue goose gym[edit]

Blue goose gym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school basketball gym. FusionMix 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to Evolution of sex. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary theory of sex[edit]

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

This article appears to be a crank theory, as well as incoherent. All the links are either by this theory's creator or unrelated. I recommend that this title be redirected to sex.

- The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm unclear on what you mean. The literature surrounding this topic is very sparse, mostly the work of one man, and mostly published in Russian physics journals, are you thinking of the literature on the evolution of sex or sexual dimorphism, which are highly notable but separate topics? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was talking more generally,not about this particular guy's special theory. Postpone till another time. DGG (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a crank theory and incoherent gibberish as suggested above. The Y chromosome, for example, has very few genes on it and is not a platform for experimentation as suggested. This is well known empirical fact. Also, in some animals the chromosome that functioned in a role similar to that the Y fulfils in humans has long since disappeared, as there is no real need to have a special chromosome to have the separate sex. The Y in humans is, itself, predicted to disappear with the few functions it is currently responsible for relocating elsewhere. When the Y disappears there will still be males and females. Males will be X and females XX. The evolutionary advantage of sexual reproduction versus asexual reproduction is the same as for less complex organisms. Sexual reproduction provides greater genetic variation among the individuals which makes the species more robust to attacks from things like viruses and so on, and other rapid changes in an environment. The advantage of asexual reproduction is the rapid elimination of less optimal variations, as they are replaced (outcompeted) by the most optimal variation. However, asexual reproduction risks the line being extinguished if some threat that is tuned into the narrow range of ‘optimal’ variations comes along. This is not so much of a problem for less complex organisms, as new lines are being created at a reasonable rate. However, as more complex organisms take longer to develop from the less complex organisms, they need to be using sexual reproduction to get to the more complex stage (without being extinguished at some earlier stage). --203.214.3.114 (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there are organism where its XO vs XX. They're the exception, though. DGG (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are there only two sexes for more complex organisms rather than three? Three sexes really add nothing as far as increasing variation among offspring and if all three sexes need to be involved in reproduction a species having three sexes would be at a disadvantage in species against species competition, because two sexes getting together for reproduction is easier than needing three. --203.214.3.114 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thee are many other possibilities, and some fungi exhibit them. eg a, b, c, where ab ac and bc are all possible matings. DGG (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Afd reason given here by nominator is lightweight. ChessCreator (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, redirect it to evolution of sex rather than to sex; it's a possible search term for that anyway. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused by your comment. Nobody has edited the article since it was nominated for deletion, so how can you say keep per the The Heymann Standard? Could you expand on your reasoning a little? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Lone delete vote provided no rationale. --JForget 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Contract with the Earth[edit]

A Contract with the Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to keep as additional sources have been provided and improvements made to the article. —BradV 16:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to strong keep, after working on the article and reading up on it I'm now very sure it meets the criteria. Ha! (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amplified. I've added references, links, a synopsis, cover art and infobox stuff. Ha! (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was } Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boulogne Herald[edit]

Boulogne Herald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to meet WP:N. Dreadstar † 01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK Physical Singles Chart[edit]

UK Physical Singles Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article, can't find any evidence that the Official UK Charts Company publishes any such chart. As far as i know there is a singles chart (which combines downloads and sales) and a download only chart but no sales only chart. this document is the infopack form the charts company, page 14 details the charts they produce as you can see such a chart is non-existant. neonwhite user page talk 14:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then that suggests that it isn't notable (as it isn't an officially published chart) and can not be sourced. --neonwhite user page talk 01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It was official published last time I checked. It's just not freely published, it can(or could) be bought in the trade magazine Music Week online subs here but yes there is no reference to meet WP:N so I will amend to delete. ChessCreator (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does give it more notability, if this is correct and can provide citations for it existing (wikipedia article on Music Week doesnt mention it) then the article might be worth keeping after removing all the unsourced OR. --neonwhite user page talk 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete (both) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kutt Calhoun[edit]

Kutt Calhoun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
B.L.E.V.E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable artist. Has released one album and one mixtape, neither of which charted nationally. Fails WP:MUSIC. Including non-notable album which fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one article on google news, and that's a mention of him at the South By South West festival. No major hits, no major releases. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not exactly an authority on Wiki's Notability guidelines, but I can certainly see where this is coming from. Perhaps if/when his second album releases later this year, if it makes some noise (charts, has some singles, etc) then his page could be recreated. However, in regards to B.L.E.V.E. not charting nationally, is Billboard's "Album: Top Heatseekers (West North Central)" considered as national as it charted 8th on that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizery Made (talk • contribs) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's actually a regional chart ("West North Central"—the national one is just "Top Heatseekers" period). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 09:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I actually figured that out a little on my own after I posted it. Seeing as the East region is excluded, hardly national. Again, not familiar with the guidelines and even though I've read over them several times and such, still can't say I got a good grasp of them. However, would merging be a route possible of taking? What I mean is, possibly merging his article into the Strange Music label page and then when/if he releases his album later this year, it could be discussed about breaking it out into it's own article. If not, then delete remains the best option.—Mizery Made (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neven Đorđić[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Football player without appearance in a professional competition or even in the highest national competition. Plays in third division of Bosnian football league. His name gets very, very few Google hits[37], [38] [39], and no Google News hits[40] [41] [42]. Current professional soccer players in Europe always get more hits (certainly when they sign for e.g. FK Partizan, who competed in the Champions league a few years ago. Not to be confused with Nenad Đorđević, an at first glance similar name, and an actual player of Partizan. Fram (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Pretty speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin phrases (full)[edit]

List of Latin phrases (full) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of Latin phrases (A-E) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Latin phrases (F-O) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Latin phrases (P-Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete - Not just a dictionary definition, but a whole <bleep>-load of dictionary definitions. Already transwikied to Wiktionary. PROD was contested, saying it needed an AFD debate, so here it is. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do we really have to have the same debate again and again? This is the third nomination. The second nomination resulted in a clear Keep consensus. The list has not degraded significantly since then. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of any previous debate when I set up this AFD (It appears to have been under an older, pre-split, article name). And seeing the debate, I now suspect this one may go down to similar defeat. But still, that last debate was over a year ago, and I still beleive that this stuff belongs on Wiktionary, not here, so my reasons for the AFD are not really changed by seeing this old debate, sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Previous AfDs aside, many of these articles are concepts (a posteriori, in absentia, et cetera, id est, etc...) have their own articles. Also, the 14th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica contained a list of latin terms used in legal discourse. The material herein is of interest historical, etymological and linguistical. This isn't "list of things people said one day." Celarnor Talk to me 13:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the previous discussion. I was just about to click off the article, the thought "what a useful page" just passing through my head, when I saw this AfD. For reference, I used it to compare three Latin phrases which would not have been as easy with another source. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teneatur per rebus iterum iterumque actis. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what I said last time --Dweller (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually thought it was kinda handy! --Alchemy12 (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A handy resource and I endorse the keep arguments above.--203.214.3.114 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per the previous AfD. At this point, it's probably also WP:SNOW. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per comments above --Armanalp (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Celarnor – ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep I assert the credit for deprodding it, though I'm sure others would have noticed it also. DGG (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep-I can't tell you how nice it is to have all of these together when I have to look something up. Other languages should have such nice, organized pages. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • emphatic keep This is probably in the top 10 most useful wiki pages ever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.89.164 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I can see the not-a-glossary angle, but as noted many of these are by themselves encyclopedic topics, and many others are part of acceptable English, at least in a given domain. --Dhartung | Talk 23:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I use this page all the time. Clearly this is a case where if the rules are at odds with such a great entry like this, then rules are shown to wrong rather than the entry. - Atfyfe (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. Wikipedia is THE Encyclopedia. An Encyclopedia without list of Latin phrases is not a true encyclopedia. I don't see problems in article. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I just used it, and then saw the "deletion" message at the top. This is a very handy tool, and I just don't use Wikidictionary. Well, I didn't even know it existed. Acter (talk)

keep i found the page extremely useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.50.32 (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Not an encyclopaedic list. Better off as part of the Wiktionary project. - fchd (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now This is very useful, I have come across this page at least three times in the last month randomly looking up words in day-to-day...but I suppose this Wiktionary project would just need to be more popular?Nickhats (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. No prejudice regarding furthering the merge discussions on the relevant talkpage(s). No consensus to merge here, but a consensus may develop outside of Afd. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dignity[edit]

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

Transwikied dictionary definition. WP is not a dictionary. TexasAndroid (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Take a look at the French version - we could just translate and cite that, couldn't we? Also, it's interesting to note that the bottom of this page was vandalised out of the article until I re-added it - it's not acceptable for vandalism to go unnoticed like that.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HisSpaceResearch. I dropped the French version into Babelfish; something could definitely be made out of it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we should merge the human dignity article into this, and possibly incorporate some translated material. I don't think deletion is the answer though. I mean, is 'dignity' as a concept ever really applied to non-humans?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep (nonadministrative closure). Subject likely notable. There does not appear to be a grounds for deletion. Disruptive nomination by likely sockpuppet account. Wikidemo (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle beacon lights in India[edit]

Vehicle beacon lights in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be nothing more then WP:TRIVIA, it doesn't seem to be notable. This article already exists at head light.NewAtThis (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not so sure about it being trivia. I'd say it needs rewriting into the appropriate form and inserting into the appropriate place in Emergency_vehicle_lighting#Usage_by_country. Ha! (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Ha!'s eminently sensible suggestion. You've got to smile when an archaic word like claxon shows up in a Mumbai headline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep (nonadministrative closure). Subject likely notable. There does not appear to be a grounds for deletion. Disruptive nomination by likely sockpuppet account. Wikidemo (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gods[edit]

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

Mini one sentence and one box article without any links or references on non notable song, not even a stub tag on it. Merge to appropriate album article maybe. NewAtThis (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (non admin closure). No consensus to delete, issues with sourcing to be addressed on the article's talkpage. Skomorokh 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Love[edit]

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

Unreleased album with little or no media coverage; the only reference is the artist's MySpace page. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. There used to be so many sources for the album, but many of them have disappeared. I am currently looking for more sources that make it notable. Today I've added at least six sources. If these sources also disappear and there's no longer any coverage of the album left, I agree that it should be deleted, but as for now, I still believe it's notable. LoveLaced (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Many of the sources you added were either unreliable (blogs and a fansite) or did not show notability (eBay/Amazon). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 18:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • They were there for a good reason. The blog was a fan perspective, probably worded wrong in the article. The fan site I posted cites every single one of it's sources, so it is a very reliable source. And if you had bothered to read the article instead of just taking out what aren't generally considered reliable sources, you would've seen the ebay citation was to show that the singles are being sold over it. If you read the policy on reliable sources, it says that the sources are rarely reliable, not completely unreliable. And where is the wikipedia policy saying that amazon isn't reliable(considering how often amazon is cited for album covers under fair use)? A track listing and picture of the cover were sent to the website from the label so they could begin taking pre-orders. What's more reliable that that? It looks more like you're just out to delete this page because you want it gone, not because it's not notable. LoveLaced (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment This discussion belongs more on the talk page of the article than here, so I'm going to move it there. In short, however, I am not "out to delete" the article. See you on the talk page.—Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help We gotta keep this page. It's not like the album wasn't real. Blogs are important! We got album covers, the albums songs, album information. Paranoia x (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)— Paranoia x (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep It seems the misleading idea here is that it's not been officially released, yet apparently it's been released to the public and is therefore available in some places. You can watch some of the singles on youtube etc, so it's not like it's a hoax album it's quite real. So if the articles is changes to say that it's release but not officially released then it meets WP:MUSIC because the artists meets notability. Found a source which I think would be called reliable(not sure how reliable imdb is) although a little short on details it does connect the artist to the album. ChessCreator (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're misunderstanding the nomination. The album is not a hoax, however the album was not released to the public. It fails WP:MUSIC#Albums because, as an unreleased album, it did not receive much, if any, media coverage. Also, IMDb is not a reliable source—anyone can edit it (to be clear—I am not disputing most of what is said there, only that it cannot be used as a source and that it does not indicate notability). The singles were actually released, the album itself may or may not have been leaked—advance promo copies would be my guess—if you can find a reliable source showing that it was officially released, by all means add the information to the article; otherwise, it fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a great album that was never released due to a unfortunate cause. I honestly thought this was fefe's greatest album yet because we got to see more of fefe. It was dedicated to her mother which i find extremely inspirational. This page deserves to be left up because we as fefe's fans need to keep it to remember this great album. This would have been a great album if a certain label knew how to promote it. As of now fefe has probably grown more as a person but i know her heart would love to have this page up to show fans what great talent she has. People deserve to know the truth and not forget about this album; because even if this great album wasnt released it doesnt mean its not there. Gil (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.52.91 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Amazon does have a page dedicated to it, www.amazon.com/Sunday-Love-Fefe-Dobson/dp/B000AOF9RK. It has it listed as "will let us know if it is released", only we all know it won't be. Is this sufficient or did you need more sources to keep this posted? I'm going to try and work with you here, as now some people are resorting to sympathy, which not a bad thing but obviously not going to cut it in this case.--Jaga185 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. To be honest, though, the content already exists in Marstons Mills, Massachusetts#Schools, so I'll simply perform a history merge and leave it at that. --jonny-mt 03:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstable Horace Mann Charter School[edit]

Barnstable Horace Mann Charter School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Not the slightest indication of notability given. TexasAndroid (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Well, that's settled then. Go for it. Merge/redirect amongst yourselves. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bakers' queues[edit]

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

This phrase appears only in the work of one author, and only in respect of one event. There must be a more generic article to which we can redirect or merge this, since queues for essential goods were a perennial part of Soviet life, but I can't find it. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We do have queue area (which for some ill-advised reason is the main article for queues). I suspect this might be best redirected to Causes of the French Revolution#Famine. It's in use as an idiom, but not for queues generally, and almost always as shorthand for the French Revolution or the bread shortage that preceded it. --Dhartung | Talk 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense to me. Should have thought of that as a target, really. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as spam. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African safari costa rica[edit]

African safari costa rica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

wildlife reserve previously tagged for speedy deletion. I'm neutral on the issue Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Act 1, Scene 5 of "Romeo & Juliet"[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Act 1, Scene 5 of "Romeo & Juliet" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is original research and seems to speculate on a hypothetical production of Romeo and Juliet. It would not be useful to merge it into Romeo and Juliet as WP:BARD is restricted to a 700-900 word limit on plot summaries, and it would cause undue weight to be placed on this one scene. (that is, even if it could be reliably sourced - I don't know if it could be - usually the balcony scene is the one that's focussed on in academic essays...) Turning it into a redirect would not be useful as it is at a strange name (including " marks). Please note that this is a contested proposed deletion. Malkinann (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Malkinann (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've reviewed this to see if there's anything I'd like to merge to Romeo and Juliet, but on the whole there isn't. It's a shame to lose this, which is definitely a good-faith attempt and is well written. However, it's really a school essay, not an encyclopedic article, it isn't sourced and it is WP:OR. I'd encourage the author to join in the work being done by Wikiproject Shakespeare, which has Romeo and Juliet as its current featured-article drive. AndyJones (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR Essay - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant OR. --Alchemy12 (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an essay filed with original research Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Yes its a school essay, but there are certainly sources discussing that particular scene. If I have a chance, I'll find them, and then it will meet the requirements. Of course, so would every scene in Shakespeares works, but I don't see this as an objection if they are all individually notable. DGG (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To the extent that any of this essay is salvageable (I don't think it is), the content belongs in Romeo and Juliet or a broader subarticle. I don't think we want articles on each scene in a play (and if any scene in R&J is notable, it's the balcony scene). --Dhartung | Talk 23:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No original research, POV, reliable sources, etc.... Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 03:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Learn Japanese[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Let's Learn Japanese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All sources given for this language course are primary, and while Google returns a number of download sites, I didn't find independent coverage. The topic would therefore fail WP:N. On the other hand, some users objected to deletion on the talk page, so the question might be controversial. B. Wolterding (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete for failing to establish notability. Seraphim♥ Whipp 10:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akash The Band[edit]

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

Non notable with no third party sources in the article Bidgee (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-delete CSD-A7: article about a band that does not assert any notability. DMacks (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was unanimous keep (non-admin closure). Prospect of merging left up to editors of the article. Skomorokh 01:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Stories from Shakespeare[edit]

Beautiful Stories from Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Propose article be moved to either wikiquote or wikibook IMO has little or no encyclopedic value and reads a little promotional. BigDunc (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a children's book from the first decade of the twentieth century, by Edith Nesbit, an author of apparently no small importance, given that she was also one of the founders of the Fabian Society. I agree that the text of the story probably ought to move to Wikisource, and that it should be accompanied by the rest of the texts, which are already available from Project Gutenberg. Given that fact, no commercial intent here seems likely.

    Damn it! She skipped Titus Andronicus. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep... or merge with Edith Nesbit. Either's good. --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to this, Nesbit's adaptations "were reissued both individually and as collections many times by several publishers up until 1926". Seems like it was a fairly significant children's book, back in the day. I love how there was a "National Junior Shakespeare Club". :) Zagalejo^^^ 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not saying it is not a significant book or author just if you remove the story example you are left with basically a list of Shakespeare plays and a very brief introduction about the book which could be covered in the main article about her. BigDunc (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this book also warranted a mention in Jack Lynch's book Becoming Shakespeare. I don't have it handy, so I'd have to check. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep There will be multiple reviews of anything Nesbit wrote. Of course, they wont be on Google, but the criterion is sourceable. DGG (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with author page; perhaps also wikisource the information. —ScouterSig 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. John254 03:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. Redirects should be nominated at WP:RFD. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Vickers[edit]

Charles_Vickers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])
  • delete*: There are no references to this redirect page from from other Wikipedia articles. Google can't find any references to it either. Charles Geoffrey Vickers was never known by this name, actually he was invariably known as Geoffrey Vickers but that is another story (I am his grandson btw). For the avoidance of doubt I am only proposing this redirect page for deletion. The article about Charles Geoffrey Vickers himself is a "must keep". PeterIto (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The advertising is already mentioned in the parent article, can be expanded if sourced. Black Kite 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken FM[edit]

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

Non notable advert. RepriseRubric (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pointless waste of WP server space! --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge -- Can be merged to swiftcover if deemed necessary. Have heard of the page in question but it fails WP:N...--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Swiftcover if a couple of refs can be found, and possibly the style altered. As is, it's non-notable with WP:V problems. Delete if refs can't be found to back up the info. --JamieS93 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPod software[edit]

IPod_software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

Someone previously proposed PROD because "this is more of a description of a category than an article, not notable and zero references. Speedy delete?". The page is in pretty lousy shape, but this looks like an area that could actually use an article - iPod software (Apple and 3rd-party) has a significant impact on a number of people's lives. The techniques behind it are well discussed though Apple doesn't participate in those discussions. I'd say keep in accordance with WP:HEYdelete, but I thought I'd put that up for discussion. Coanda-1910 (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like anybody is inclined (or able) to improve the article, and it isn't in good enough shape to keep as is.Coanda-1910 (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as there is no content except a spam-link. WillOakland (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per PROD rationale (I originally posted the PROD). ~ PaulT+/C 22:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. eDenE 20:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient to justify a separate article. --BrucePodger (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per DGG's rationale. Black Kite 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bounds[edit]

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

Michael Bounds' article states he is a college professor and was head of a department of an Australian university for a few years. That does not make someone notable. There are a lot of college professors out there. Furthermore there is only one link and no sourcing in the article to back up the claims. The article does not seem to establish notability. It is not verified. A good search didn't turn up a thing besides this article. He did seem to write a book on gentrification in Australia. However amazon.com seems to show it as his only published work. I should note most college professors do write and publish a book or two for the sole purposes of their own courses. That is what this book appears to be. I think the article should then be deleted. As for all the editors that have expressed concerns over my inexperience with AfDs, I hope I have herein satisfied your suggestions and concerns regarding proper listing. NewAtThis (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note: this nomination is by a confirmed abusive sockpuppet who has nominated at least 21 articles for deletion in two days. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove - Wikidemo (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything either. He's written a number of papers as well, but at first glance, there's nothing that makes him stand out among other academics and meet our notability guidelines on professors. Celarnor Talk to me 11:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this AfD was speedy closed and that closure was contested at DRV. I am restoring the AfD vecause it was not an appropriate non-admin closure. See WP:NAC. The non-admin closer's closing statement is pasted below, and refactored as a !vote. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on notability. However, this is a disruptive nomination by a confirmed prolific sockpuppet account whose MO is to propose articles for deletion as a way of disrupting Wikipedia. Closing bad faith nominations like this one is entirely appropriate to prevent further harm to the project. Taking up this nomination means the sockpuppet scores a point. The subject is likely notable, although I have not formed a firm opinion on that one. I have no objection to hearing this one if the sockpuppet does not participate.Now that the sockpuppet/nominator is blocked and the procedural hiccup over, I have nothing more to add. Please carry on the good work! - Wikidemo (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close. Bad faith nomination of an apparently notable article. The troll who nominated this and several dozen other articles for deletion is back today under a new sockpuppet name for more bad faith deletion nominations. Most are being speedily closed without regard to any delete votes. We cannot allow the AfD process to be gamed for the point of trolling. Bad faith nominations of arguably notable articles like this should be dismissed out of hand. Anything else encourages this kind of trolling. Wikidemo (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep isn't generally an option unless no one other than the nominator feels the page should be deleted, even in the case of banned users. The releant section of speedy keep guidelines is as follows (emphasis mine): The nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be tagged with ((db-ban)) and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). Celarnor Talk to me 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline doesn't apply here, and contradicts consensus, experience, and common sense as the way to deal with AfD trolls. As I said, the best thing to do and normal practice is a speedy close for these kinds of nominations. Wikidemo (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was referencing the article when I had an edit conflict with the restored AfD. In my opinion, Bounds appears to meet criteria 1 of WP:PROF, his book Urban Social Theory appears to be widely cited in academic journals (from my quick Google Scholar search), and the references I have added show he is repeatedly quoted in the media. --Canley (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you find this information? As far as I can see, his book is of no particular value to the academic community, and his most popular paper is cited by 19 others. That's hardly notable. Celarnor Talk to me 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete our sockpuppet did catch in his very wide net one or two articles that merited deletion. Bounds has published only one book, cited by very few people, and 3 articles, with citations in Web of Science of 1, 0 and 0. One book, cited by only 19 people, does not amount to anything much academically. DGG (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Canley above, seems to meet WP:PROF. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
What part of PROF does he meet? Celarnor Talk to me 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 1. You know, "per User:Canley above" =). One could also argue that he meets WP:N due to appearing in reputable media like the Sydney Morning Herald, Radio National, The Age, etc Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
He didn't cite any sources to indicate that he is regarded as an expert and leader in his field, he just asserted it. I can assert that he's a werewolf, but it doesn't mean anything without evidence. Also, the articles don't focus on anything he has done, they merely mention him giving opinions as part of a number of people within his field. That doesn't really assert notability. I've appeared in reputable media regarding IT issues; does that make me notable? Celarnor Talk to me 11:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canley is a werewolf? Eek!
Seriously, [46] would indicate that this person is rather broadly cited in academic papers by a large number of people. This would indicate to me that he's a leader in his field. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Even if it did get 77 formal citations, that's hardly notable. Doing random searches on my professors this quarter yields a low of 56 for someone who started teaching this quarter and a high of 829 for the chair of my department, who isn't a leader in the field. Regarding the '77', the field he is in is named the same as a book; this is much the same as saying "Isaac Newton" and "Calculus"; you're going to get A LOT MORE results than just citations. The book itself is only formally cited by 8 papers, not 77. Celarnor Talk to me 13:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted above, his most cited work has only 19 citations.[47] That is not notable enough for inclusion.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to meet notability guidelines: The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area (urban sociologist) by independent sources - ie cited by major Australian newspapers; has published a significant and well-known academic work; citing 77 times apparently per link provided by Lankiveil to Google scholar will do for "widely cited by other authors in the academic literature" - what number does it have to be otherwise?--Matilda talk 22:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    one book is normally considered enough to get a job in the first place in a good university, with a second required for tenure. People who do not meet that standard (or equivalent, in terms of papers) are not usually considered notable academics. Yes, one very important work would do it, but there would need to be specific reviews from major sources saying how particularly important it is. We've repeatedly held that being used as an interview source does not establish notability. I'm pretty flexible on the criteria for importance of academics, and he is at best extremely borderline. DGG (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, not all of those are citations for the book. I've gone through some of them, and more than a few of them simply mention him as being in the field, which is titled the same as the book. This is one of the reasons numbers are a good place to start, but further scrutiny should be put on them to make sure they actually mean what you think they do. And in terms of academic achievement, 77 is a bad number, especially for a professor. I know undergraduates who have written papers that have garnered more citations by their peers than this man has as a professor. Celarnor Talk to me 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to Google Scholar, the subject's highest cited article has 19 citations, and all his other publications have only a very few citations. The subject does not seem to meet WP:PROF at this time. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It does not appear to meet the WP:BIO basic requirements - I can't find any independent published sources in which Bounds is the subject. He may be quoted in several sources, but nothing is actually about him. BWH76 (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wallington canal[edit]

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

Possible hoax article. There is no Wallington canal. Google gives few hits, all from Wikipedia. The majority of the text seems to be a reworking of Croydon Canal, and the sources provided do not specifically mention a canal in Wallington, and mention Wallington itself only in passing. Think outside the box 10:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete almost certainly a hoax. Jack1956 (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very possibly a hoax; if not, it's certainly not notable anyway. Celarnor Talk to me 12:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probable hoax; not even a funny one. --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Badly-spelt hoax. References 2, 3 and 4 say nothing relevant; reference 5 is about Yorkshire, 200 miles away. JohnCD (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, looks highly like a hoax. If not, at the least it's non-notable, and the refs given don't even back up the info. --JamieS93 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Lack of WP:V and WP:RS remains an issue for the article. Pigman☿ 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burrunjor[edit]

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

Hoax (and/or) Theory of Rex Gilroy (and/or) non-noted creature. Seems all referring back to a line in a book (2006) Dinosaurs: Dead Or Alive?. No reliable sources offered and none can be found. Single mention in a book, no news articles, no scholarly articles and no web mentions I can see outside a small circle of crypto zoologists. Fails to be a subject that is any way verifyable Peripitus (Talk) 09:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Rex Gilroy. Certainly not a hoax, but not notable on its own. Celarnor Talk to me 09:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I considered simply merged to Rex Gilroy but the only reliable source I can see is a limited view book on google books - can't see if it mentions Mr Gilroy. There are 18 related google hits but I don't know enough about the subject to determine if any of them are reliable - Peripitus (Talk) 10:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's not on teh intarwebz doesn't mean material doesn't exist on it. My school's library has scanned copies of two of the three books; they don't give massive depth on the subject, but they do mention it as the subject of aboriginal legends. Celarnor Talk to me 10:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And just because somebody has mentioned it in a book doesn't mean that it's not a hoax. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. Books written by researches do that. If that weren't the case, then we might as well just nominate World War II as a hoax right now. Celarnor Talk to me 11:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If what you mean is that it's existence is controversial like the Yeti and that the thing itself may be a hoax, then yes; but we have research regarding such things, and that makes them encyclopedic. The legends surrounding it, judging by Aboriginal tribes, trackers and rural natives of Austalia are not hoaxes, if that's what you were getting at. Celarnor Talk to me 11:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is exactly what I said. As well as being discussed in a book, the book must pass WP:RS and I don't think books by Rex Gilroy do that. His books are long on theory and short on fact. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't judge content on Wikipedia, for obvious reasons; if we did, then the wars would never end. Instead, only notability and verifiability should be taken into account regarding sources. The fact that he is an author and an expert in his field is easily found by anyone with an internet connection. Celarnor Talk to me 11:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're giving Mr Gilroy, who I met while researching the Gosford hieroglyphs, far more credibility than he deserves. He is only an "expert" because his field is small and very few people wish to associate themselves with it. He has no qualifications. His findings are criticised by actual, qualified experts in various fields. In short, he doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and is a questionable source at best. As such, what he writes doesn't pass WP:RS. None of the links you provided comes close to proving that it does. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Even if the sources are questionable, we have guidelines for such things, which suggest it is fine to use them within the context of this article, or within a section on it in his own article, which is where this really belongs. What he has done in this field is verifiable by the numerous sources posted above; the size of his field is irrelevant, as is his placement in the pecking order of said field is; he is notable per secondary coverage that can be verified, and that's all that matters. Besides, the question here is what to do with this article, which is almost entirely based on his research. As such, since his research in this field hasn't been the subject of secondary coverage, I think it should be merged to his article. Celarnor Talk to me 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because this cryptid is little known and primarily researched by a man whom many think might be insane does not make it a hoax. It is not a hoax. Just google it if you must, its noy a hoax, and I believe at least marginally desrving of its own Wikipedia page. Spykeesam (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: article is not accurate; article gives no reliable sources (failing WP:SOURCE); and article makes unauthenticated (false) claims about the beliefs of other living people (failing WP:SELFPUB). Bruceanthro (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not verified by citations in reliable sources - ie in this case I would be looking for scholarly sources on Indigenous Australian beliefs. User Celarnor cites our guidelines on Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves as suggesting that the source is fine to use within the context of this article. I disagree that it meets this guideline as it breaches the first two qualifications for that guideline. I see that in this case the material used is relevant to their notability - ie without it there would be no article and secondly it is indeed contentious - as pointed out by User:Gnangarra on WP:AWNB The article says "some Tribes" yet Arnhem Land is home to only the Yolngu, the animal is said to live in the Australian Desert yet Arnhem Land is Tropical wetlands. The next guideline under self-publishing is WP:REDFLAG - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources which is covered more at Wikipedia:Fringe theories. That sub section states that Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. No mainstream sources in this case and definitely surprising claims within the article. Under Wikipedia:Fringe theories - In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. I see no evidence that this article meets that guideline - no major publication is cited.--Matilda talk 20:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unverified article that is most likely a hoax. This fringe theory is little-known, not notable and as User Matilda explains, this article fails to meet several wikipedia guidelines. Hardly worthy of an encyclopedic article. Mark t young (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. The cited sources may not reliably demonstrate that this creature did definitely exist. However, there are plenty of sources (some cited, others available via any search engine like google) that describe and confirm serious discussion about this creature, and that makes it notable. There is no proof that time travel exists, for example, yet we have a Wikipedia article about it. If there is a verifiable link between this creature and Rex Gilroy, I suggest that this creature be added to that article with a wikilink to this article. Truthanado (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Above I voted that this article be deleted. In making this recommendation:
  • I do NOT have any issue as to whether or not a Burrunjors exists and still lives in Australia!!
  • I do NOT dispute that there are some people around in this world who talk about a Burrunjor possibly living in Australia .. and that talk is recorded!!
  • I DO have an issue about Wikipedia keeping articles that makes unreliable, inaccurate and false claims about the beliefs of other living people .. and, even, takes it's name from such unreliable, inaccurate and false claims!
A search of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies online catalogue fails to reveal any use of the name Burrunjor, or any version of Burrunjor by any Aboriginal group or Aboriginal scholar anywhere in Australia.
Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's 'verifiability' standards are clearly intended to ensure articles posted are factual in nature, and, until someone can produce a truly reliable (see WP:SOURCE)third party source verifying Burrunjor is in fact an Aboriginal name used by an actual, named Aborignal group/s as stated .. the article must be judged unverifiable. False claims of fact offend Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards and articles founded on such claims (as is this Banjour article) must, therefore, be deleted . Bruceanthro (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the article itself says, "little known cryptid". There is a lack of reliable sources that discuss this particular animal/creature, and as Bruceanthro says, there is no proof that this is actually seriously used or believed by anybody. If reliable sources are provided I will retract this statement, but as is this smells awfully fishy to me. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability even by those wanting to keep make this a no-brainer. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the revealing comments by Aussie legend above SatuSuro 01:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. The cited sources may not reliably demonstrate that this creature did definitely exist. However, there are plenty of sources (some cited, others available via any search engine like google) that describe and confirm serious discussion about this creature, and that makes it notable. There is no proof that time travel exists, for example, yet we have a Wikipedia article about it. If there is a verifiable link between this creature and Rex Gilroy, I suggest that this creature be added to that article with a wikilink to this article. What he said. Spykeesam (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above. Sources far too weak, may be a hoax (and not notable as a hoax). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As above, including my own earlier comments when I didn't vote. Nothing said by supporters of the article before or since then has convinced me that this article is worth retaining. Quite to the contrary, failure to provide suitable references that comply with WP:V and WP:RS, as well as my own inability to find anything else of any substance on the subject article anywhere has convinced me thet the subject doesn't pass WP:N either and that I should upgrade my initial intention from just "delete" to "Strong Delete". --AussieLegend (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources.--Grahame (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of RS, V issues and possible (non-notable) hoax. Orderinchaos 15:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


Burrunjor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks any kind of notability or coverage in reliable sources. The page's only reference is to a blog. Meatsgains(talk) 01:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 03:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharking[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, original research, unreferenced, and I cannot find any sources online after having tried searching that are reliable and mention this form of sexual assault. All of this suggests that this article should be deleted. Certainly not worth a standalone article. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nearly all Google results are from forums. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delete this article. It is very accurate. Many video sites have this kind of sexual assaults tagged as sharking. It is important to inform everyone what this kind of unacceptable behavior is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.68.96 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable neologism. I was unable to find any decent sources to validate or show the notability of this term. In fact, I saw the term used to mean different things, which is one of the classic reason why articles on neologisms are problematic.--Kubigula (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No definitive definition from a reliable source (not from a forum!), no article. B.Wind (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Severe BLP issues. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Lindström[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. If it made any difference, Lindström is variously described as a model and a socialite but the news articles I scanned fail to expand on that in any detail. This is a sad case of a pretty girl[48] having gotten caught up in a crime which may well be newsworthy, but is hardly encyclopaedic content. —Moondyne click! 08:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ——Moondyne click! 08:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ——Moondyne click! 08:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per nom. Newsworthy, yes. Encyclopedic? No. -- Longhair\talk 09:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as the person deleting this article the last time didnt do it because of notability. But because of a dispute with the creator of the page. I also think this article deserves to be kept, their has been so many incidents with articles up for deletion and then a few weeks later someone have has to re-create the article again. Just watch Shannon Matthews for example. I Vote Keep anyhow i am against deleting worthy articles.--NilleX (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a weak keep anyhow as Lindström is a celebrity and a model. She is a known name in australina press. And all majopr newspapers in australia and sweden has covered this case. If this gets deleted all criminal cases should be as Lindström is more famous and notable than all the others. as she has a modelling career, the other have "just been murdered",.--NilleX (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Hardly a particularly notable case - suggest a merge to an Australian or Swedish crime topic as it isn't likely to become longer than a stub in reality...? (Perhaps talk to someone like Australian Crime Project for a suitable article?)Akitora (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject is not notable and unencyclopedic. Jack1956 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I came across this article in the Newpages pile yesterday and placed a notability tag on it because I noticed it had been deleted before and wasn't sure she met the guidelines. I agree that this is unlikely to be expanded beyond its current length and that the notability of the subject is questionable. There is perhaps a case for merging this into an appropriate article (if there is one), otherwise it should be deleted. Paul20070 (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lindstrom was notable as a model and socialite before being charged with any crime. Without her earlier notability her crime would not have attracted international attention; enough to generate articles at fr:Charlotte Lindström and sv:Charlotte Lindström. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this it seems to me that the model/socialite angle was overplayed. Certainly not notable for her work as a promotions model. Neutral now. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but if notability with RS as a Model or Socialite prior to the events in the article then I'll change to keep Gnangarra 13:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start again - if someone wants to write an article based on reliable sources discussing her as a socialite or model - or not. As it stands, the article is straightforward BLP1E material: notable for one event, and not a happy one. I guess that means per Gnangarra, but at least you know I worked it out on my own :-) Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As i know she was a celebrity before this incident Lindström has been in numerous newspapers and on australian television before and after this crime. And i agree with Nille, what makes Schapelle Corby for example more notable? Atleast Lindström has a modelling career or for example Meredith Kercher? None of the two mentioned names are more notable than miss Lindström. --SamNelly (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corby has been the subject of international diplomacy and was also initially facing a death sentence. I cannot see case for Kercher, but just because other stuff exists is a poor argument. Could you provide some links to some of the "numerous newspapers" which reported on Lindström before she was charged? As Mattinbgn said above, it appears that her "socialite" status may be slightly exaggerated—she worked as a waitress for two years after arriving in Sydney. —Moondyne click! 07:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • She is both a model but known also as a socialite who has been in the press many times before, and also after her arrest as you can find out. She has also been seen and is a regular face in the upper class areas in Sydney. For example in Sweden the case of Schapelle Corby is totally unknown but the Lindström case generates many articles in different newspapers. She is still in my own opinion more notable than atleast Meredith Kercher and Kercher has a article. The case has also generated many articles in many different aussie newspapers and television as i said earlier. She also has been noticed on Youtube and have three videos of this case at the moment with overall 30.000 people watching those combined.--SamNelly (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Has added a link with some of the news coverage from australian media,and thats just one of many channels. The media both in australia and sweden has obviously given this case alot of coverage that wouldnt have happened if she wasnt a notable model and socialite. That gives her notability in itself.--SamNelly (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The youtube video page includes a comment "please vote Keep on her article on english wikipedia as it is up for deletion. its 50/50 at the moment...". For the poster's information, canvassing, particularly from external sites is a very bad idea and most likely to be counterproductive. Meanwhile, I've been googling and cannot find anything of substance regarding her being notable before she was charged. —Moondyne click! 08:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually the crime itself would get media coverage in Australia irregardless of the person and because she is Swedish would rate coverage in Sweden as would an Australian overseas get coverage locally, this only confirms WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. What is required is sourcing prior to the event to show she was notable for other reason. Gnangarra 08:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article has some interesting history.

There's at least three other intersecting accounts but unfortunately I don't have the time to write it all up. I do get the distinct aroma of smelly socks though. —Moondyne click! 09:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another comment This person is likely to be entering a witness protection program on her release. Perpetual articles on the wikipedia with links to youtube videos will not help that. I think this should be speedy deleted and salted per WP:BLP concerns. —Moondyne click! 09:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:BLP1E seems to apply here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps it is the crime itself rather than Lindstrom that should have an article, but only if there is something significant about the events. Hiring a hitman to dispose of witnesses is, I'm afraid to say, not uncommon. With reference to the Kercher case, I think the thing that made it notable was its unusual nature, but note here that the article concerns the case rather than the persons involved. Paul20070 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Their is obviously a No Concensus discussion here. The votes are all over the place.--213.65.40.11 (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, we don't vote, we discuss; Secondly if we did vote, this would be a delete based on the comments above if you counted them; thirdly, I refer to my comments above regarding sockpuppetry and canvassing; fourthly, as a single purpose account, your opinion carries less weight than an established user; and fifthly, why on earth do you care so much about this? I'm mystified. —Moondyne click! 09:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete disregarding all the suspected sockpuppet accounts above, the article is simply non notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). There were no delete preferences, and the possibility of merging is left up to article editors. Skomorokh 01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhagad fort[edit]

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

Non-notable and almost irretrevable as a WP page due to quality. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 08:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to change my nom to a Merge with Sudhagad per discussion below. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 06:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that website is only some kind of blog; there is a more reliable one here but with little information. I agree the article is salvageable, but it needs a complete rewrite from its present travel-guide style, cutting back more or less to a stub, unless more sources can be found. JohnCD (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rescue Refer it on to the WP:IND group. A quick check of the article for the state it's in reveals a section (12) on "Forts" without any information or examples. They could rewrite this and use it there perhaps. They would certainly have more idea than us no doubt on it's worth as a keep or delete. Being unlinked, they may well not know of it.Akitora (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Quite aside from the other considerations mentioned above, hitting an article with a speedy tag three freaking minutes after creation is obnoxious, and filing AfD two hours later not much less bitey. Someone ought to tell the cowboys who get bruised thumbs reloading the New Article page that Wikipedia doesn't give out awards for the most speedies filed a day.  RGTraynor  13:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while not all of the sources meet WP:RS, there's enough from which to draw an article. Badly written is not a reason to delete. Many forts in the US are on the National Register, it may be the case in India as well. I'm all for weeding out crud, but this just smacks of 'didn't look' TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Change to Merge per Whpq below, it's a moderately better article. Question is, which is the better name for the article? Which should be a re-direct and which should be the main article? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, absolutely; it's tough to imagine how, in the 180 seconds between the article's creation and it hitting CSD, the speedier could have possibly done even the most cursory check on the subject's notability. You also have to love the go-getter who slapped orphan and wikify tags onto it nine minutes after creation.  RGTraynor  15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment referred] to the Indian WikiProject for help. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sudhagad which appears to be another article about the fort without "fort" in the article title. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sourced information to Sudhagad per Whpq - well spotted. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously, deletion cannot occur based on notability per WP:NOT#policy. Therefor, there are no grounds to delete listed in the nom. MrPrada (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (3rd

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was no consensus to delete. Kingturtle (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters by IQ[edit]

List of fictional characters by IQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Listcruft Dotsod1 (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No substantive reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The list provides information about how IQ is discussed in popular culture. The list only includes IQs of fictional characters that were explicitly mentioned in the work of fiction, giving a specific and straight-foreward criteria for inclusion. Q0 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The current version of the list contains no such information on how IQ is discussed. 23skidoo (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How so? It lists references right at the bottom of the page; in addition to this, most of them have the information contained and cited in the article. In what way is it not discussed? Celarnor Talk to me 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was that the list provides information about what IQ numbers get assigned to what fictional characteristics and that this provides information about how IQ is portrayed in popular culture. Q0 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. The references are not the article. All this article is is a list. With a set criteria, yes, but NN subject matter based upon this article's content. 23skidoo (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while listcruft is never a reason for an article to be deleted, there are other policy based reasons which this article easily fall on, including no reliable sources that isn't the T.V show themselves and no original research, as writing down what a character IQ is said from a television show and making an article out of it clearly is. Also a characters IQ doesn't add any notabilty to the respectiable characters themselves, with the exception of maybe Forest Gump. Secret 16:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It does say on Wikipedia:Television episodes, "An actual episode may be used as a source for information about the episode and constitutes a primary source. Such use does not constitute original research if it is used to verify a fact. However, the episode cannot be used to justify an interpretation." The list does not make interpretations of a character's IQ. It only reports those for which an IQ is explicitly stated. Q0 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that only used for plot in television episodes articles, and wikiprojects aren't guidelines. There aren't any sources that indicate the notability of this characteristic with those fictional characters. Secret 17:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't being used to synthesize anything. It's just "They said this in this episode." Primary sources are fine for that kind of thing. Celarnor Talk to me 17:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Television episodes are reliable sources and are also acceptable sources per WP:PSTS. Citing a television episode is not original research, it's source-based research. And these characters are already considered notable. --Pixelface (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, IQ is no more of a relating factor to these random articles than favourite colour is. WP:NOT an indiscriminatory collection of information, even when placed in some contrived order. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per thumperward. Just having their IQ mentioned in the fictional work does not create a significant relation and is basically just minor trivia with the possible exception of a couple. Mr.Z-man 17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no policy against "trivia." --Pixelface (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A list of trivia is not remotely encyclopedic. The fact that the only sources for this information are the episodes themselves shows how unimportant it is - no one has bothered to publish this information in secondary sources. Mr.Z-man 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I gave it some thought and I agree this article fails to establish why this would be notable, and to be honest once you start listing things like 2500 IQs for, er, Q, it sort of takes the topic off course. Props for avoiding the OR traps, but it still doesn't work for me as a viable list. Based upon some comments above, however, there might be the seed of a viable article on the topic of how IQs are handled in fiction, perhaps as a spinoff of the main article on the subject. Dare I suggest "IQs in popular culture"? 23skidoo (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:N is not a policy and "IQs in popular culture" is a horrible idea. --Pixelface (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a well sourced and discriminate list, but it has absolutely no encyclopedic value, nothing demonstrating the notability of the article's subject. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious; in a list, what demonstrates notability? I've been going through the List of lists, and I can't find any lists that assert notability. I've always assumed they were like indexes. Celarnor Talk to me 20:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had to think about that one for a minute. Some lists are like glossaries or indexes, but others are lists where the relating feature is extremely tangential. Lists should still pass the general notability test, where WP:N says that "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'". This article's subject, which is kinda like "the idea of having a list of fictional characters organized by IQ", is of relatively minor interest and not notable. EDIT I guess what I'm trying to say is that since list articles are clearly defined by their titles, their names should be self-asserting for notability. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried to give this one a chance, but the information is not really comparable. For example, Lisa Simpson and Niles Crane both have believable high IQs (so, perhaps, does Homer Simpson, but I think it's a bit low), but the others are just chosen as impressive BIGNUM or vice-versa. There isn't really a listing of "smartest characters on TV" that would be anything but a popularity contest. --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate information. Resolute 02:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate, because each IQ number was made up by different writers with differing conceptions of what an IQ is. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as a discriminate, verifiable, encyclopedic, helpful, and interesting list and because WP:ITSCRUFT is an astonishingly invalid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, every single one of the entries has a reference and "cruft" is not a valid reason for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some have said that some of the IQs assigned to fictional characters are unrealistically high, but I disagree. Most of the IQs around 200 are for characters that have intelligence that makes them among the smartest person in the world. Other than Q, the highest IQ on the list is 240. This is only 10 points higher than the highest interpretation of Marilyn vos Savant's IQ of 230. So although these IQ scores compare to the highest scores humanly possible, they are still possible, even if extremely unusual. Andrew Owsley works for a top seceret government project that uses a time machine salvaged from the Roswell incident of 1947, which within the context of the fictional universe, was a UFO crash. Steve Urkel with an IQ of 196 has invented time machines, cloning machines, teleportation, DNA manipulation and several other things. I will say that it is not realistic for anyone of any IQ to invent those things in their basement with late 20th century technology, but a fictional character that supposedly does those things anyway would probably be best suited to be considered to have as high intelligence as humanly possible. Q has an IQ of 2005, well beyond what is humanly possible, but Q is not human. Q is a fictional character with abilities that far exceed what humans are capable of and can move any object of any mass, or travel through time, at the snap of a finger. Q also frequently makes comments about how "puny" human intelligence is. Given the nature of Q, it does make sense to assign an IQ that is far beyond what is humanly possible. Q0 (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will say that I'm not sure Martin Prince's 216 IQ is realistic. Although he is portrayed as a highly intelligent child, I don't see any indicator that he is supposed to have an IQ higher than all but a handful of children in the world. I do think that the rest of the 190+ IQs are for characters intended to be among the highest in the world. Q0 (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: I'm shocked this wasn't simply speedied. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all referenced, defined, and notable characters. IQ is notable and I would strongly think that some popular culture encyclopedia in a library will have some discussion on it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well referenced article about fictional characters for whom in was a notable characteristic. I suggest ignoring !votes like "listcruft" as meaningless equivalents of "I dont like the article but can't give a reason" . similarly for people who want to speedy it, but don;t say why. DGG (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - such a specific list is allowed by WP:LIST. Every entry has a citation, which is verifiable, although they could be better. Yes, the test for speedy deletion is fairly lax, but the main articles for deletion page explicitly lists the reasons for deletion. Each of the characters are major persona in fictional works. I can't see any reasons to delete, and to keep is the default setting. I have a lax reason to keep: a high school student may find the list useful for research. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This seems to meet all the criteria for an appropriate article, but I think it is doomed to be hopelessly incomplete and shading towards POV because of it. This would take a staggering amount of research to make it truly worthwhile. That being said, it still deserves a chance. Mstuczynski (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was srsly keptz. Send your rickrolls this way, I'm going non-admin on this one. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rickroll[edit]

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

Srsly guyz. Sceptre (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You really can't expect people to be serious on a nom like this... --₪Ryan Taylor₪talk 02:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can never give this article up, we can never let this article down. We cannot run around and desert it. We cannot make it cry, and we cannot say goodbye. STRONG KEEP ~ Riana ⁂ 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And most of all, we can never tell a lie and hurt it. szyslak (t) 05:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this guy is just sour that he's been rickrolled already and it's barely even April Fool's Day yet. - ђαίгснгм таιќ 03:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into "Never Gonna Give You Up" Wikipedian06 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You don't give a reason. Celarnor Talk to me 06:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've actually been a bit surprised that it's been a redirect to the song's article for as long as it has. Clearly notable with lots of coverage. Maxamegalon2000 03:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage in plenty of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a rare example of an internet meme that's actually achieved mainstream notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New York Times and Guardian references are good enough for me. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cool Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIt has actually reached mainstream, even youtube is rickrolling every one as a April fools joke --Phiren (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep What the fuck is this shit? Despite the fact that there have been numerous mainstream news articles about this, YouTube has just decided to use this as an April Fool's Joke, rickrolling everyone who clicks on a featured video. Xizer (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please try not to take April Fools' jokes too seriously. —BradV 05:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This Internet phenomenon has been verified by Le Monde, the Times of London, the New York Times, The Guardian, and even The Economist. szyslak (t) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable phenomenon, to the point that a major website (YouTube) made it the subject of its April Fool's prank (if it's not notable, who's supposed to get the joke?) Ubernostrum (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This nomination must be an April fool's joke considering how well documented this phenomenon is in secondary sources. Clearly passes notability and verifiability guidelines. —siroχo 05:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down. Nakon 05:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article irrefutably satisfies WP:N at this point in time. --MaTrIx (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down. --Have a nice day. Running 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, srsly. This has gone through AfD before. It was notable then, it's notable now. Notability is not temporary. Celarnor Talk to me 06:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge back into Never Gonna Give You Up. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep Ever Enough said.  Grue  06:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never gonna give it up. Luigi30 (Taλk) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. YouTube endorsed it. Also strong support in Urban dictionary. Dandv (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a friend just used the word, I had to look it up. Glad the article wasn't deleted. 48v (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are you kidding me? This nomination must be a joke. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The deletion suggestion was an April Fools joke (I hope). --Viper007Bond (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never gonna say goodbye and desert you Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never gonna make you cry Paradoxsociety (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found the phenomenon cited in 3 different places in the past few days, came here to look it up, found it. Keep it please :-) Sciamanna (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you. Z00r (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many articles about it, including in the New York Times, and featured in April Fool's pranks by both YouTube and LiveJournal. OldestManOnMySpace (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since this is a serious nomination after all, I'd go with keep. Having been very prominently referenced by YouTube, IsoHunt, LiveJournal, and being central to the Project Chanology movement, I don't see any lack of notability. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination was actually serious, but I, as the closing admin, didn't understand that. It has now been reopened for discussion. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This was a serious nomination? Wow ... Considering alone yesterday's YouTube April Fools when everyone who clicked on a featured video was Rickrolled, I think this pole-vaults over our notability requirements... Celarnor Talk to me 07:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also, I don't see "srsly guys" being a good rationale for deletion. Celarnor Talk to me 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are already enough reliable secondary sources (New York Times, The Guardian, BBC, Washington Post) in the article defining and analyzing the phenomenon. While the subsection on April Fool's Day, 2008 currently relies on primary sources, that will surely be remedied within a week (such as this Chicago Tribune column that even links to wikipedia's Rickroll article!). Abecedare (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm confused. I'm sure this has been listed for deletion each day this week. Is someone just moving the nom from day to day? Why is it posted under 2nd April 2008 when it was put up on April 1st. Doesn't that effect the "rules" about timelines and how long items are meant to be up for discussion? By the way my "vote" is Keep no matter how silly I may personally feel the thing is it does seem to have ended up as notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was an April Fool's joke, and closed it appropriately; however, the nominator is serious, so I reopened it and added it to a new day for more consensus. And remember, AFD isn't a vote. ;) Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 10:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it isn't a vote that was why I put it in quotation marks. I just can't think of a better word for it. Would you prefer I use the word opinion next time? Not trying to be snarky just want to make sure I get it right from now on. BTW I thought it was a joke article when I first saw it too. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ok, I was just kidding. People can use that word as long as they remember the fundamental concept of the XFD processes (and usually, we use !vote to show what we mean). Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 10:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable internet phenomenon. ~ Ameliorate U T @ 08:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, plenty of sources(both here and in the article). Also, i don't see any good points for deletion here, even the nominator can't seem to think of one.--Kip Kip 08:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely common internet phenomenon. Has been featured on the NYT and BBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.12.94 (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Brainer: Keep Why do people keep trying to delete this article? It's a source of curiosity for most people aware of its presence which comprises a likely vast majority of media savvy people.. 74.77.241.148 (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As weird as it sounds, not everyone on Wikipedia is media-savvy (no offense intended to the nominator) and understands just how widespread and covered this is. Celarnor Talk to me 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I do not see how this article would need to be deleted. The content is notable and verifiable. Also, you did not give out a reason for this nomination. Mythdon (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was rickrolled five times yesterday (dang, almost got to 50 Cent level...maybe next year). It's got the notability and everyone and their mother has cited it. Better this clean-cut thing than other memes involving a goat seeing, or women with a cup (links withheld to save everyone's sanity). Nate • (chatter) 09:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per extreme notability. I'm thinking we might have to Snowball this nomination.--Piemanmoo (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I'm detecting some snow in this sector. Celarnor Talk to me 10:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. The nominator and subsequent participators here have presented a very strong case for deletion based on our relevant notability guideline for websites. However, some credence needs to be given to the availability of sources for a genre of music that historically does not get any mainstream media coverage, such as metal/death music. The "alexa ranking", or hit count, as cited by Evenfiel below, in this case, does garner some significance as being a high-traffic website for its fanbase. Looking at the concerns of the notability camp, and the ramifications/fallout of deleting this article as far as the List of online music databases, they balance themselves out to a firm "no consensus" to delete. (I'm not a vote counter by any means, but as an FYI, it came out in support of non-consensus closure, at 9D/8K. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Metallum[edit]

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

I'm aware that this nomination might make me very unpopular among my fellow metalheads on wikipedia but I do not believe the website qualifies as notable per wikipedia's guidelines on websites. The article currently asserts the website's high traffic as reported on alexa.com but the popularity of a website is not an acceptable criteria for notability. Many other websites attract higher traffic and hence are more popular but they do not merit an article page on wikipedia either: see, for instance mobile9.com which has a current traffic rank of 251 over the Encyclopaedia Metallum's 1099. The wikipedia guidelines on notability for websites provide three criterias: multiple non-trivial publication on independent works; receiving a well-known award; and being distributed via a medium independent of the site. Encyclopaedia Metallum does not fulfil any of these three criterias. Despite being around on wikipedia since early 2005, the article page does not and presumably has never asserted notability according to any of these criterias. I've spent a long time on google searching the internet for references to assert the website's notability but I was not able to find any. Hence, this nomination. --Bardin (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hmmm, taking a look around, the creators were interviewed by Miasma, and that is already linked from the article. Nothing on Google News, and going through several pages on Google Web (even cutting down the search significantly) finds nothing. I can't see any reason that this reasonably could be kept without resorting to non-arguments, unless they have been reviewed in printed press. J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of that interview but the only source for that interview is from the website itself. I did not felt it was enough because the criteria required is multiple coverage and not just one. Just thought I should mention this in case anyone is wondering. --Bardin (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stated above. = ∫tc 5th Eye 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Although I must agree with the majority of reasons put forth for its deletion, I think it (just about) qualifies notability due to it's popularity on the subject. Normally, whenever one searches an extreme metal band, they end up at the Metal Archives as the second search result (Wikipedia often being the first - although with less well known bands, Metallum may be first, when Wikipedia hasn't any article to cover such band). Many Wikipedia band articles link to Metallum, also - I think it should be kept, but only just. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated above, Encyclopaedia Metallum is a highly popular site among heavy metal fans. If you google for any metal band, not just extreme metal, a Encyclopaedia Metallum result will likely be in the first page. That should be enough to show Encyclopaedia Metallum's notability.Evenfiel (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You appear to have either not read or misunderstood the nomination. How does the site's popularity fulfill any of the inclusion criteria? Addressing this issue is what we need to do to decide whether it should be kept or not. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Does that mean that every other entries in this list need to be deleted, as well? It's not like most of them are more notable than EM, on the contrary.216.221.35.182 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this gets culled, those will get kicked as well (by me if nobody else is willing to do it). A lot of them, anyway. There's no way something like jesusfreakhideout.com is more notable than this, even if you could find more external sources for it, it gets less than ten percent of the visitors than EM. Axing EM from Uncle Wiki's little archive would not set a very good precedent. Ours18 (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I've thought. If EM goes, then pretty much every other database entry in Wikipedia has to go as well. Evenfiel (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they do not qualify as notable per wikipedia's guidelines, then they should go. I note however that some database websites like Allmusic.com, Last.fm or the Music Genome Project clearly qualifies as notable from being the subject of multiple non-trivial mention in independent publications as anyone can verify through a casual search on google news. In any case, this should not be a factor in deciding whether this article should be deleted. --Bardin (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Allmusic guide meets the criteria (unfortunately....what a terribly inaccurate website), but quite a few of the others would go. I'm surprised there isn't anything on the guidelines for extraordinarily popular websites getting a pass, so much of this website is arguably a popularity contest. Ah, well. Nothing can be done about that. Ours18 (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the reason why popularity is not a criteria for notability with regards to websites is that such a criteria would open the door for over a thousand other sites to be on wikipedia, all more popular than the Encyclopaedia Metallum, such as the mobile9.com example I provided above. --Bardin (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as The Haunted Angel said, not including this, even if it is less easy to justify than many other entries, would be very odd given how high its Google results are for many bands which are considered notable enough to be on this site, and its immense popularity as a resource. Lethesl 00:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What is odd is the lack of the 'multiple, non-trivial independent sources' required to justify its inclusion. However in their absence, it should be deleted. There are clearly many more popular websites that would not be included on Wikipedia, hence popularity itself does not provide notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Haunted Angel. It's a leading site in the metal community due to the fact that it has an archive of more metal bands than any other in existence. Notable enough. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry mate, not enough. The criteria are pretty straightforward. I'm frankly amazed they can't be fulfilled but I can't spot anything. A single magazine interview (linked exclusively from the MA site) does not constitute multiple independent sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Peter Fleet (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm sure if the website had received such coverage it would be easy to keep this article, but without that it shouldn't be here.--Michig (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The main problem with a notability criteria related to a self-published source site which does not take Alexa into account, is that people who use Encyclopaedia Metallum don't need to write that the site was used. If I'm a writer in some Heavy Metal magazine and wants to see who played in band X, or which albums they've released, they don't need to write "According to Encyclopaedia Metallum, this band...". If a site like Encyclopaedia Metallum is highly visited, it's obvious that a lot of people are using the information provided in order to write something else. Anyway, some research in metal-rules.com shows a fews results: "Going back to Metal-Archives (my source for everything it seems)", "(hell, they’re not even in the mighty Metal Archives!)", "Without using the Metal-Archives.com “List bands by country” feature, how many bands can you name that hail from Singapore?", "According to the ever-reliable" Encyclopedia Metallum, among others.Evenfiel (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are what we call trivial mention. The site is not the object of discussion in any of those reviews but merely mentioned in passing. If you take Alexa into account, what's there to stop a thousand other websites from having an article on wikipedia? I believe the guidelines are appropriate: if the site has not been the subject of non-trivial mention in independent publication, then how are we on wikipedia suppose to assert that it's notable without falling into original research? In any case, this is not the place to discuss the guidelines. You can do that at the talk page for the guidelines. --Bardin (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Size and relevance to the style is was determines this for me. Ours18 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless page for a useless website. Fair Deal (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No justification = worthless comment. Thanks for playing. Lethesl 22:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article seems dead now, but the two-page interview in the Finnish print magazine Miasma is enough. Prolog (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Miasma mag. is enough to establish notability, also, more sources could be found if given the time. (I don't have the sources on me, but if needed, I'll try and find them.) Undeath (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please do because I still do not see how one mention is equivalent to the multiple requirement indicated on the criteria for notability. --Bardin (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this (bottom of page), or this (bottom of page)? 74.13.246.234 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both are trivial mention. They are not the focus or subject of the sentence in which they are mentioned but merely mentioned in passing. For the first link you provide, the subject of the sentence is a band called Protean Collective. For the second link, the subject in the sentence is the number of heavy metal bands. The first link might not even qualify as a reliable source since it appears to be a blog. You need to find articles where Encyclopedia Metallum is not merely mentioned in passing but is the subject being discussed. Good luck. --Bardin (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whilst I find it moderately surprising that there is no non-trivial coverage of this site, if it does not exist then the article should go. The fact that other pages exists is irrelevant as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. The fact that many articles use it as a reliable source is a problem with those articles, as it fundamentally is not per WP:SPS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Haunted Angel and Prolog; extremely popular site, decent enough coverage to qualify. GlassCobra 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just got a second shift job, so I don't have much time. But, if you all want to look through this you might find some non trivial sources. It's and advanced google search minus terms like myspace and blogs. Undeath (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There appears to be a colossal misunderstanding issue with many of the commenters here... 'popularity' of the site is of no relevance whatsoever to Wikipedia guidelines. There have been links to Google searches (not relevant) and to non-notable fansites like metal-rules.com to justify its inclusion. People need to read the criteria for inclusion of internet self-published sources as stated in the nomination. Thus far I've yet to see anything other than the Miasma interview, which is itself linked only from the MA page. The usefulness of the site is not in question here. What is is its notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. All comments regarding popularity can thus be disregarded for the purposes of this nomination. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original Miasma interview was not published on the internet, but printed in Miasma Magazine #10, which can be bought here. Evenfiel (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Step in the right direction. We just need a few more to justify that 'multiple, non-trivial' bit now. Personally it'd be nice if they were in English, though obviously that's not really a major issue. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless additional sources are provided to satisfy WP:RS. At the moment, there's not enough to show it has been the subject of multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Terraxos (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to Wikipedia:Search_engine_test, popularity through search engines can, in some cases, be a valid way to establish notability. Anyway, in October 2006 the finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, Finland's most influential newspaper, used Encyclopaedia Metallum as a source for an article about lyrics, names and origins of metal bands. I don't have a scan of the article, and wasn't able to find any online version, but a translation was posted in Encyclopaedia Metallum's forum back then. Evenfiel (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article from Sanomat still fails the criteria... Independent, non-trivial sources exlcuding [...] 1.(3) a brief summary of the nature of the content. The article (even assuming the translation is correct) is not about MA, it is about band names and lyrics. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you got that idea but Wikipedia:Search engine test explains that an online search can be used to help with eight different research questions (popularity, usage, hoax, notability, reliable sources, information, terminology and copyright). It does not state that popularity equates to notability. For the issue of notability, an online search can help to "confirm whether it is covered by independent sources or just within its own circles." That does not change the criteria for notability. That article in the Finnish newspaper might actually be good enough but not through an unreliable translation delivered on the site's forum. Is there a online copy in its original Finnish language? --Bardin (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got the idea from here, "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability.", but I guess that you'll probably say that I misunderstood the article. Anyway, I don't think there is an online copy, but I'll check if someone can scan it. Evenfiel (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per an apparent WP:HEY. Barnstars are thataway. --jonny-mt 01:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muktadhara[edit]

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

Does not assert notability, and the author is asserting ownership of the article at the end. αѕєηιηє t/c 06:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Be generous, it's just a signature. GFDL does credit authors. There is also notability asserted, at least enough to get past speedy. At AFD we are more often about objective notability than assertions of it. The article is actually more about the founder Chittarojan Saha. It does seem to indicate some notability for the publisher Muktadhara, and some searching indicates it is a publishing house in Dacca. This could be cleaned up into an article on one or the other, although it would be nice to have sources other than The Daily Star (Bangladesh). --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Thank you for your comment. Thanks to my Harvard friend Russell—who just email me another sources (I shall have more sources by mornong) regarding the work of Muktadhara—The sources is The New York Times and Wikipedia. Here're they: [51] [ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7DB1739F935A35755C0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=muktadhara&st=nyt] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewelakhter (talk • contribs) March 24 2008— Jewelakhter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment So what's up with that? It's a bookstore in NYC with the same name, but is it part of the publisher (doubtful), or just owned by the guy's brother, or what? In any case it doesn't seem to speak toward the notability of either the man or the publishing company. Also, when linking to content on Wikipedia, you should use links in two brackets to just the article title: [[Ekushey Book Fair]] gives you Ekushey Book Fair. --Dhartung | Talk 10:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment needs some fixing work , me im neutral . seems to be notable . --Pearll's sun (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start over This is not an article. This is a personal essay written in first person. Signing the article page is bad form. It does give the impression that the author is claiming ownership. DarkAudit (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis article is noting comparing what Muktadhara is doing and what it has done over the years to promote Bengali Language, the 5th largestspoken language in the world. I am in support of keeping this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 (talk • contribs) March 26 2008

  • Comment. I've formatted the references a bit to help with evaluation, and removed the signature. Surely it would have been easier for the nominator to simply delete it rather than moan about it. I don't yet have any opinion on the merits of the article, but checking isn't made easier by the four different spellings used for the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis is great Phil. Thanks for taking time from your busy schadule to do it. Wikiphedia needs people like you. I also thank Mr. Rashidul Bari for his article. Like many people, i think Wikiphedia should have this article (on Muktadhara)about years ago. Thank you. Komer Nath, Brooklyn College — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.245.180.110 (talk • contribs) March 26 2008— 146.245.180.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment I'm afraid it's still more of a first-person essay than a proper article. DarkAudit (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Bari I followed Mr. Phil footstep--meaning I edited the text because it was more of a first person. now i fixed it. Nahid, York College —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPhil & Nahid thank you--& don't hesitate to edit it as long as it needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewelakhter (talk • contribs) March 28 2008

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --Bduke (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have relisted this because, while the discussion above looks lengthy, it really has few clear opinions. The article needs significant improvement, wikifying and so on. --Bduke (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article reads like a magazine interview. I am not convinced that the requirements of WP:BIO are satisfied, but it's clear that the current article should not stand.B.Wind (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My comments above could be construed as a weak-maybe-keep, but nothing has really changed. We need better sources for an article, if this is indeed notable, which I don't think has been conclusively proven. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with comment that it reads like a magazine article. Perhaps salvageable with a total rewrite, but even then not convinced subject is notable. --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it Muktadhara is a pioneer of many things: 1. International Mother Language Day(21st February) 2. Ekosee Boi Mela (largest Bengali book fair in World) 3. 10 Greatest living Bengalis & 4. International Bengali Book Festival(held every year in the United States) Thus, I think Wikipedia can consider keeping this article. However, it must be edited properly—which I hope someone (with that ability) will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 (talk • contribs) 3 April 2008

KeepI've formatted the it a bit to help meet with Wiki's policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It The Daily Independent, one of the prominent English newspapers in Bangladesh published Mr. Rashidul Bari’s article on Muktadhara. Please read it from the link :[52] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I thought I might be closing this; instead I'm contributing. This article needs considerable work, but I believe based on what I've had a chance to review that the subject is notable. I would ask that whoever is going to close it please allow me about an hour to see what I can do with it. I hope to bring it in line with policy in such a way that its notability is clear. If I should convince myself otherwise while working on it, I will be back to change my opinion. Either way, I will update here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Muktadhara, in my opinion, establishes sufficient notability alone in its part in forming the Ekushey Book Fair. It is also, according to the New York Times, the largest Bengali language bookstore in New York City, which seems notable to me. While there are other entities entitled Muktadhara, there is no doubt that these are the same, run by the same family. I believe that the article as written may have contained some puffery, but I have tried to revise it to guard against that. There is a concern of systemic bias over organizations that have primary existence in other nations in other languages. Unfortunately, I can't access Bengali sources (or read them if I could). I don't believe that it would do a service to the article or the encyclopedia to close this AfD as "delete" based on many of the earlier comments, as the article has been completely rewritten. If any of the earlier contributors are watching, I'd invite you to please look at it as it stands now and judge the notability as it currently asserts, keeping in mind the potential limitations of English language sources, particularly as regards the organization in Bangladesh. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This publishing house was a pioneer in Bangladeshi publishing industry since the independence of Bangladesh in 1971. In fact, Muktadhara and its owner Chittaranjan Saha started the Ekushey Book Fair, now a national observance in Bangladesh. --Ragib (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Moonriddengirl's fantastic work has demonstrated that this is pretty obviously a notable subject which belongs in Wikipedia. Somebody please give her the appropriate barnstar - I don't know how to do it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heroine Bob and the Isrealites[edit]

Heroine Bob and the Isrealites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure if this is a hoax or WP:CRYSTAL, but I can't find any references to this book anywhere. I would guess that it's a hoax given the editor's other edits. Rnb (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Possibly hoax and no sources, nothing on google either Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 06:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm fairly certain this is a hoax or at least crystal without any sources.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable book. Fails WP:NB. No sources. Think outside the box 10:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is this actually a book Think Outside The Box? (Your comment sounds like you know of it). My gut reaction is to say its a hoax since Heroin Bob is a main character in "Salt Lake City Punk" (a family fave in our house), an indy film (one of Matthew Lilliards first roles actually) about... well that's not important. At any rate, that would lead me to see an instant copyright infringement right there and no serious publisher would risk it I would think...Akitora (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Tears[edit]

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

Non-notable band per [53] and [54]. Mostly just blogs, myspace, various metal listings and other such trivial directories. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latte art[edit]

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

So? Who does "research" on latte art? I'll see if I can find any citations for this. Stormchaser (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Staffordshire University (and delete the completely NN The Fox and Tiger Show. Black Kite 23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GK Radio[edit]

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

Non-notable student radio station neonwhite user page talk 04:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages - non-notable show on the above station:

The Fox And Tiger Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Student radio programs are rarely noted beyond their local environment and are rarely mentioned in news media; the first is an Internet station that has very limited exposure/access. The GK Radio article borders on promotional in natural (any more so and it would be in speedy deletion territory).B.Wind (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to Staffordshire University as per several other university radio station articles, and include the information there as it might be of use to someone. I say this for GK Radio, but the Fox and Tiger show should probably be deleted. Paul20070 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. I am only deleting the main focus of the article. Please run a separate AfD for the other article, as there does not appear to be a consensus to delete it. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of samples used by DJ Sharpnel[edit]

List of samples used by DJ Sharpnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list appears to be original research and a violation of WP:DIRECTORY/WP:IINFO. Jfire (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The article DJ Sharpnel discography could be included in the AfD for the same reason. —BradV 04:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, clear WP:OR. MrPrada (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: indeed it is 99.9% original research. This page has gotten out of hand since I created the sample section for DJ Sharpnel. I've transwiki'd the contents of the page over to [55] for safekeeping. --Notmyhandle (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus as to whether or not the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant his own article, so defaulting to keep without prejudice to re-nomination after a reasonable amount of time. While there is significant adspeak in the article as it is, a quick cleanup can take care of that, and so I'm not inclined to speedy it as it stands. --jonny-mt 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Romano[edit]

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

Previously tagged as an advertisement and a COI violation, the article was apparently written by Frank Romano himself [56]. No verifiable, reliable, third-party sources whatsoever are provided to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after careful consideration, is notable and can be verified by second party sources. MrPrada (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy advertisement. Any assertion of notability in the context of the article is overwhelmed by the promotion. A new, objective, article is needed from scratch if Mr. Romano qualifies under WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. B.Wind (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AllMusic doesn't even have a single songwriting or instrumentation credit, meaning he's a no-name session musician. The ASCAP link EastMain found suggests he won an award, but it's apparently the only mention of the award anywhere. One minor songwriting award doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. --Dhartung | Talk 07:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might have been a bad joke or a misunderstanding. We shouldn't redirect, of course, because the character's name was not Frank Romano, but Frank Barone. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fluxus at Rutgers University[edit]

Fluxus at Rutgers University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I may be way off base, but this page seems like nonsense, If it's me, i'll be happy to withdraw, but think it needs a second or third set of eyes. Cube lurker (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources turn out to be real: [57] and [58] and [59]. This is well referenced to reliable sources, which are clearly real and extensive. The article needs serious cleanup, but the topic is real and notable. ergo keep... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw, I guess it's real whatever it is. Have to admit i've seen the books online from your links , read the article 3 times, and still don't get it. But if it's just me it's just me.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Near as I can tell, Fluxus is some sort of modernist art movement, and apparently its quite a big deal at Rutgers. Other than that, the rest of the article is mostly crap. But still a valid topic, even if the writing is crap itself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fluxus was an art movement, somewhat related to Dada. Yoko Ono was connected in her youth, and it had connections to happenings, La Monte Young, minimalist music and a bunch of other stuff. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article on Fluxus Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Threw a couple of tags on it, someone can close this if they want, haven't tried that yet or i'd do it myself.--Cube lurker (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burying your Brother In The Pavement[edit]

Burying your Brother In The Pavement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, newly minted play that only gets 42 unique Ghits, from minor writer (one lone Ghit for another of his claimed works), that apparently has to date only been performed by a school production company. Shawisland (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The intro was a copyvio from [60]. The bulk of the text was quoted from [61]. I've deleted both of these copyvios. What's left isn't much of an article. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising school plays, which is all this article does. Richard75 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --JForget 00:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People's jury[edit]

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

No references whatsoever (violates WP:CITE, et al.); tons of original research (violates WP:OR); poorly-written/-worded; biased (violates WP:NPOV); juries are covered in MANY other more-relevant articles (i.e. "Jury"). Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a type of non-judicial jury that is being closely studied in the UK. The article needs better citations but I don't find it egregiously POV. The "external links" section is obviously the article's sources, and yes, you're not supposed to do it that way but give the newbies a chance. (The term is also in use in China now, for what looks like a kind of advisory civil jury, but that belongs elsewhere.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is a subset of Jury, just as melons are a subset of fruit. There are citations there, they just aren't in the 'references section'; that's certainly not a deletion argument, however, as that can be solved by pretty much anybody. As to the POV issue, I guess I just don't see it. Celarnor Talk to me
  • Keep. A valid subject for an article, different from the jury article as explained by User:Dhartung. I think the POV issue is that both headings in the article are "Benefits of ..." - however, the problem is not necessarily the POV but the structure of the article and style of referencing used, which can be solved and is not a reason for deletion. --Snigbrook (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above points.Londo06 11:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have reverted the article back to close to how I originally wrote it. It looked as though a number of contributors had been confusing People's jury with a legal jury. Hacve also added references. Matt Stan (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge. After discounting the sockpuppets, it seems that the level of support for merging the content and support for keeping the article is roughly equal. However, the arguments for merging focus on a lack of secondary sources--a key requirement for establishing notability. As this issue is not addressed by the comments recommending that the article be left as is, I am inclined to give more weight to the merge comments when determining consensus. --jonny-mt 10:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hairbag[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book character, word is more often seen as NYC police slang. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge and redirect into Nasty Boys. BOZ (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a well-put together and verifiable article concerning a character in a notable comic book and television series. Consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Marvel comic characters for which there are multiple published books. If the word is also used as slang, then we can have a separate article and disambiguation page and rename this article Hairbag (character). "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment According to this article in the journal Nature, the more editors a Wikipedia article has, the more accurate it is. Hairbag has had about 28 edits by 17 non-bot editors, so it might not be accurate, and we have no way of knowing. The sole link in the article is to a fan site. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles provided us with two links, neither of which demonstrates that Hairbag is mentioned in them. One of the two is published by Marvel, and is not independent. Therefore the Hairbag article is not verifiable. As for notability, consider that this fictional character is the product of a giant corporation, Marvel Entertainment. Now, suppose I was a fan/collector of humidifiers. So I go ahead and create a Wikipedia article for this Elephant Adorable humidifier. Somebody nominates my article for deletion. Does the fact that Amazon sells this product made by the Crane company make it notable? No. Is the proffered link to the Elephant Adorable humidifier sufficient to make it notable? No. The fact is that there are some corporate products that are notable, and some that are not. Comics fans may honestly believe that all comic characters are notable, but I believe that some aren't. How do I know? Because Hairbag has no secondary sources at all. Contrast Hairbag with Mahkizmo or NKVDemon, for which I went to the trouble of finding secondary sources. Or consider Mister Mxyzptlk, whose article I improved with a secondary source and I improved by tying him to the mythological concept of a trickster god. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you read the comics and watch the television show in which the character appears then you can verify it. With all the comic related magazines like Wizard out there, I doubt we can say with certainty that secondary sources also do not exist for the character. Since notability is so incredibly relative, we're best off erring on the side of including something that has potential worth that we know at least is not a hoax than removing it and gaining nothing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you buy the humidifier and experience its Adorable Humidifying Power, you can verify it. With magazines like Consumer Reports out there, can we be sure there are no sources for my humidifier? Oh, but I'm not going to actually provide the source in my AfD arguments. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nasty Boys. First several pages of gsearch shows lots of mentions, but mostly in comic character databases, Marvel sponsored sites, and fan forums. Unless real world notability can be shown with references, best to merge it into the Nasty Boys article. No information would be lost (because there's not much in this article), and readers would still have this as a search term.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think User:Blast Ulna is right; some characters are not notable. If User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's vision of Wikipedia were embraced, we really would have millions of ludicrous articles. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because you think certain articles are "ludicrous" does not mean they are so. Any "vision" I have of Wikipedia is consistent with encyclopedic and wikipedic traditions: "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia A character who appears in both a comic and television show does have some degree of notability and I doubt any of us here have been able to or will be able to in a week long AfD exhaust every comic or television related magazine or book to say with conviction that the character, which we know not to be a hoax, has "never" been covered in secondary sources. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was referring to your offer to support an article on a novelty humidifier. You seem to have a grave misunderstanding of the nature of an encyclopedia, and of a problem of the post-modern age: too much information. Wikipedia is successful because it does not have all the information, but just "hits the high spots." People use Wikipedia to help them avoid fluff and people trying to sell them things. They want Wikipedia to filter through the oceans of data, to not be a mirror of the entire Internet. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tell me, how does one find non-notable articles if one is not looking for them? I am all ears. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've always wondered that.  :) People looking for problems are likely to find them... BOZ (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is successful because it has a large number of information that attracts an incredibly diverse community of contributors and donors who are interested in a vast array of knowledge. The more factual information we delete, the less useful of a reference guide we are and the more contributors and donors who will walk away from the project. There is no such thing as having "too much" information. All knowledge is power. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Le GRdC. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:FICT. No real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not one source has been provided here or in the article to establish a scintilla of notability. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources have indeed been provided throughout the discussion of this item that has significance to people in the real world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You provided links to the Amazon listings for the Marvel Encyclopedias put out by Marvel, and you don't even have any proof that this character is mentioned in them. The closing admin should take note of this. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • An encyclopedia is an encyclopedia and Marvel is a reliable source. What has your search results for sources turned up? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Marvel is most certainly NOT a reliable source for its own characters, and you are out of line for claiming it is. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Marvel is most certainly a reliable source for its own characters and claiming otherwise is not logical. Also, if we do decide to merge then we must redirect without deleting per the GFDL. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and give it a bit more time. Alternatively, merge and wait for sources to be found. Ursasapien (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge No direct sources for real-world information about this character could be presented so far, but Marvel is highly notable and may offer some information somewhere. Since a merge target exists also, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and go with a merge to allow recreation once possible notability has been established. – sgeureka t•c 09:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: Two of the above accounts (AnteasterZot and Lord Uniscorn) have been confirmed per checkuser as socks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch! I suggest that the responses of those two users be stricken from the debate, as using socks in a deletion debate is strictly forbidden. Same goes for meatpuppets, if they are that instead - anyone remember the Pilotbob fiasco? BOZ (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aw, sonavabitch, and I thought more people were agreeing with my nomination and my hilarious humidifier example. Well, at least one (used to be two) person did. Blast Ulna (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not your fault - and I'd buy one of your novelty humidifiers.  ;) BOZ (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Nasty Boys, not to be confused with the former wrestling tag team. There might be a little more to add to the parent article. B.Wind (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --jonny-mt 09:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Yıldırım Koç[edit]

Ali Yıldırım Koç (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability beyond being among sons of Rahmi Koç. Yes, this guy works work in Koç Group (what a suprise, guess who hired him? Yes his father!.. And currently his brother is in charge...), but . Since the relationships do not confer notability, this guy has no awards, no honors, no widely recognized contribution, no creative professional, no entertainer, no diplomat, no politician, nothing but his surname... (by the way, the article Koç family mentions about him, which is enough IMHO) F10F11 (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete None of the positions he holds are in and of themselves notable, nor is the combination of them together. DarkAudit (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that his positions are notable enough to merit inclusion, irrespective of his family relationships. The article should be altered to focus more on him than on his family, however. DJLayton4 (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - his notability is questionable to me. iMatthew 2008 11:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator says he's "not in any kind of leadership position". Acually he's one of 10 vice-presidents of Turkey's largest company, which is certainly a leadership position. And how he got to this position is irrelevant to Wikipedia - we don't delete articles on monarchs just because they inherited their positions rather than got there on merit. It may well be that the subject is non-notable, but he should be judged on the basis that he holds one of the hundred or so most influential business positions in a country with a population of 70 million, not on the untrue and irrelevant statements made by the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a monarch. This is a man who holds positions that are not necessarily notable. Just being on the board of a football team does not make one notable. He is upper management in one sector of a corporation. As you say, he's one of 10. There's not much here beyond him holding the position. DarkAudit (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, accomplished businessman but no indication of notability. Optional redirect to Koç family. --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rescue. At least Merge/redirct to Koç family article. While in the past it's not been a practice to see a businessman as notable in the way we would say a MP/congressman, that is changing in the new world of market states where business and media can be as powerful as government. Phil Bridger is correct when he puts it as "he holds one of the hundred or so most influential business positions in a country with a population of 70 million" - I guarantee that makes him notable enough for foreign intelligence agencies, media outlets and other multinational businesses to have files on him or an active interest in him, especially in a country like Turkey which has an interesting place in international politics at the moment (large muslim population, US allies to a degree, active military issues against the Kurds/PKK and incursions into Iraq, plus Cyprus issues, EU issues, transmigration issues - list goes on.) An article on this man, or a section on him in his family article is certainly warranted. To respond to DarkAudit - The average football team (ie: not certain Italian ones owned by politicians) don't have the power to shape State policy. I believe we should have more and more bios on top ranking/upper management corporate personnel as companies wield more and more power over national and international policies and politics.
I just did a really quick search on google using keywords "Koç" "Turkey" "Politics" and there is our man, 9th ranking on the results, doing no less than addressing the World Economic Forum's 2006 meeting in Turkey as the family representative and as a member of the panel that debated live on CNBC on the topic of Defining Turkey's Long Term Comparative Advantages. The WEF site also uses his photo and a quote from him to as a reference in their Turkey in Geopolitics section. If the WEF think you're worth talking to, then you are probably are important enough to warrant your own article on wikipedia... (sorry bout that. It's late, and I can get carried away...)Akitora (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be inclined to Keep, if this were an American then we wouldn't be arguing this, it goes some way to countering systemic bias. clearly notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There are no arguments to delete outside of the nomination. No prejudice against merging information from this article into another relevant article and leaving a ((R from merge)). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combo washer dryer[edit]

Combo washer dryer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely original research; highly inaccurate; zero references; does not deserve its own article (if something is to be said about combo washer/dryers, it should be in the main washer and/or dryer article(s)). Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's often quite a bit that can be said about seemingly mundane household appliances. See [64] or [65]. Zagalejo^^^ 06:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The combination or combo washer-dryer has been around for a century, believe it or not, and is definitely a notable appliance (especially if you are a renter) with unique technical considerations. Serviceable stub. What is inaccurate? --Dhartung | Talk 08:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - fairly notable, although it needs sources. Could easily be merged into the washing machine or clothes dryer articles. Think outside the box 10:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 16:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

't Muziek Frascati[edit]

't Muziek Frascati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable DimaG (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it just needs clean-up thats all. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 01:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Mrprada (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't read flemish and/or dutch... But a quick Google Search: [66] turns up almost NO reliable sources save other language Wikis and mirrors... There does not appear to be any independent reliable sources about this group... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per jayron32. iMatthew 2008 11:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The problem is that it doesn't seem to actually be a group. It's an outreach effort and program within an organization, I think. Therefore, whatever the parent organization is, that's where this information would belong. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem to be an actual group, just one that does said outreach programs. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sitting on fence at the moment. The editor appears to only edit infrequently and is contributing to an underrepresented area of Wikipedia (classical music), and doesn't appear to have edited since this AfD. It doesn't look spammy and may well have other offline references we can't access. I am also thoughtful it may help balance systemic bias. My inclination would be to close as no consensus and give it a couple of months for the editor to find some sources. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My Dutch (Vlaams, please) is not that great, but if you look at the press references they list on their website (in de pers), it seems pretty meagre. Beyond that, an occasional concert listing. I'd say Delete as not-notable. Sadly, WP:MUSIC doesn't fit the classical genre very well; but if it did, this would be below threshold (in my view at least). Eusebeus (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I am native in Dutch, I couldn't find much in the way of independent reliable sources on this amateur music ensamble. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though I am sensitive to the concerns of systemic bias, there has evidently been a good faith effort to find verification of notability here, and I am particularly persuaded by the arguments of Martijn Hoekstra, who would presumably be well able to evaluate what sources exist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam[edit]

International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no indication of WP:ORG notability for this organization. In fact, the cited sources within the article do nothing more than refer to it by name. Furthermore, the bulk of the article is devoted to a screed against a rival organization. The admitted "Press & Information Secretary" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam and "office bearer" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam have been the main authors of this article and taken over Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi as well. I originally placed a small section on the ASI at the bottom of the Shahi article, but the members of this organization found it unsatisfactory for their apparent promotional needs, dutifully ignoring my many explantations of WP:COI, WP:N, WP:NPOV, etc. This article should be deleted. A redirect to Shahi would seem appropriate, and perhaps even a small merge of material, but the current work is a sham of an encyclopedia article. — Scientizzle 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 22:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If kept, this would need considerable trimming for unsourced statements (which would leave this a stub), and rewriting for POV (which may be difficult since the group seems almost unheard-of by non-followers, and poorly documented). This seems to be a real organization, but even the second-party sources used in this article seem to have little to go by.

    As appears from its name, the Anjuman-e Sarfaroshan-e Islam presents itself as somewhat closer to mainline Islam...
    —Weekly DurDesh article linked from References

    Interestingly, no Google news hits. Nothing links to their home page. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather deleting I would appreciate, if you kindly help me to improve this article, as I have worked a lot on this article and nine references have also been furnished to meet the Wikipedia's guideline, still if you think that Its not upto the mark, I be would glad it you kindly point out the weak point instead of deleting this article. --iamsaa 08:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the merger or deletion would be an approriate decision, I would rather suggest to stub this.--Falconkhe (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Falconkhe (talk · contribs) is another apparent Shahi devotee, currently adding Category:Gohar Shahi to everything in sight... — Scientizzle 15:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, I am not a follower of Shahi, however, I have created Category:Gohar Shahi to place all related articles in a category, and this is not a new thing, you can see Category:Meher Baba, and so many other categories like this.--Falconkhe (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. Organisation does not appear to meet notability criteria itself as per lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources, hence a seperate article doesn't seem warranted. ITAQALLAH 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly oppose to redirect to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, I am unable to understand, when it has been given nine references, instead of that you are doubtful about its notability? Alternatively, you may either STUB or DELETE but please don’t MERGE this to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.--Asikhi (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nine references don't discuss the organization in any meaningful way--you cannot base an article on them. Why do you oppose a merge; I don't understand that. — Scientizzle 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 04:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Because this organization does exist and it proves by this article as well, apart from that the references provided to this article clearly indicate that it is notable organization. However, any statement or sentences in this article, which you think are not balanced, can be removed.--iamsaa 05:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsaa (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Not sure how relevant this is but User:Iamsaa on en.Wikibooks asked this question on 7 August 2007 indicating he was "press & information secretary of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam" (the book he was referring to was published on en.Wikisource by someone with a different user name someone called User:Asikhi on en.WikiSource, in February 2008 after being deleted from en.Wikibooks 4 times). The creator of this International_Spiritual_Movement_Anjuman_Serfaroshan-e-Islam article being discussed here and 26 times editor of that article is a user also called User:Iamsaa, this time on en.Wikipedia. If Iamsaa on en.Wikipedia is the same person as Iamsaa in en.Wikibooks, then the press secratary is editing his own organization's article and there must be a conflict of interest. Note that on Wikipedia Iamsaa has stated he is an "office bearer of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam" and "authorized representative of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi" [67]. Ha! (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Let me tell you a thing, there’s nothing like “Conflict of Interest”, we are discussing on the notability of the this article on the basis of facts & figures, I am well aware of the wikipedia’s guideline and want to strictly follow them. That’s why I have been working so hard to make my work according to the standard of wikipedia. That’s the only intention.--iamsaa 06:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsaa (talk • contribs)
  • Further comment. In addition, user User:Asikhi appears to be "Press & Information Secretary, Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam". He's created [68] [69] and edited a few Gohar Shahi/International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam related pages. In essence what I'm saying is that there seems to be at least two press/information secrataries/office bearers/authorized representative of Gohar Shahi/Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam creating and editing (?all?) Gohar Shahi/Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam related pages on Wikipedia. Isn't that conflict of interest (and potentially very point of view) editing? Ha! (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both Asikhi and Iamsaa appear to be involved in a conflict of interests, given their admitted association with the organisation itself. Furthermore, Iamsaa signs his posts with with "سگِ گوھرشاہی" which reads as "Sagi Gohar Shahi," suggesting that Iamsaa may be more related to the topic than was first thought. ITAQALLAH 12:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for two reasons, 1). I believe this is conflict of interest, point of view, as mentioned above. 2). I've read what I can find on this organization and I don't think they meet the requirements for notability. I don't think the references in the article are relevant either, for the following reasons.
Reference 1: "Gohar Shahi, chief of Anjuman-e-Sarferoshan-e-Islam, granted pre-arrest bail". a) The only reference to International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam is the first line "Gohar Shahi, chief of Anjuman-e-Sarferoshan-e-Islam, granted pre-arrest bail". The article is about Gohar Shahi, not about International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam. b) The site this comes from is not a reliable source. Karachipage.com is not a mainstream newspaper. It appears to be a copy of a story claimed to be in Dawn / News International. I can't find any mention of the story on either site although that might be because their archives don't go back to 1997.
Reference 2: "The Man in the Moon by Ardeshir Cowasjee". Not relevant. It mentions the ASI but it is referring to the American Sufi Institute, not International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam.
Reference 3: "Al-Ghunya li-talibi tariq al-haqq wa al-din by Abdul-Qadir Gilani". I can't check it. If anyone has a copy of it, it would be useful to know what is being referenced. This was written by Abdul-Qadir Gilani, who lived from 1077-1166. Logically, it can't establish notability for International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam.
Reference 4: "Bizarre Pakistani Cult Seeks Presence in India". The International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam is not the subject of this article. It is mentioned three times as an aside. The article is about the The Mehdi Foundation International and Gohar Shahi.
Reference 5: "The Beliefs and Politics of a Pseudo-Mahdist Cult". I'm not sure this meets WP:RS. I don't think this site is run by a peer reviewed journal. All I can find regarding their standards is this [70]. Also, as the article says in the intro, it's focus is the Mehdi Foundation.
Reference 6: "Younus does not belong to Anjuman-e-Sarferoshan-e-Islam"and Reference 7: "Younus does not belong to Anjuman-e-Sarferoshan-e-Islam". From goharshahi.net. Neither of these meet the standards required to be a reliable source
Reference 8: "London cab driver leads religious cult in attempted coup". I can't find the words "International", "Spiritual", "Movement", "Anjuman", "Serfaroshan-e- Islam" or "ASI" in this article. It is not about the International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam
Reference 9: "Demands by Shahbaz Khan". Same as reference 8, International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam isn't in the article.
Sorry for being so verbose and, in my earlier comments, duplicating what the nominator had already pointed out. If requested I can reduce the space I've taken. Ha! (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pakistan is a 3rd world country and unfortunately the trend of INTERNET started here after 2001, that’s the reason that most of newspapers do not have archives before 2001.

However, I have tried my level best to make this article as good as I can and provide as much reference as possible. The sumary of references is given as under:

Reference 1: “Gohar Shahi, chief of Anjuman-e-Sarferoshan-e-Islam, granted pre-arrest bail". a) it is a very popular website for news and events of Karachi. b) it clearly states that His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is the founder of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam. Moreover, I would like to mention that in Pakistan we are registered as Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam, in USA our organization is registered as American Sufi Institute and in Europe and far east it is working as R.A.G.S. International and All Faith Spiritual Organization because our message of Divine Love is for all mankind without any discrimination of caste, creed, nation or religion. All above mentioned organizations were formed by His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.
Reference 2: "The Man in the Moon by Ardeshir Cowasjee". it was used to refer Gohar Shahi’s residence and the area, which belongs to His Holiness Gohar Shahi and the international secretariate of ASI is also there. However, by mistake, I placed this reference to wrong place, which has now been corrected.
Reference 3: "Al-Ghunya li-talibi tariq al-haqq wa al-din by Abdul-Qadir Gilani". This reference was used to mention the quotation of Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani saying as: “My disciple is one who is Dhakir and I consider Dhakir only them, who are able to remember Allah with their heatbeats means who are Dhakir-e-Qulbi."
Reference 4: "Bizarre Pakistani Cult Seeks Presence in India". This reference was used to highlight the cult, which pretend to be the follower of His Holiness Gohar Shahi but actually they are not. They are working against His Holiness and his sacred mission.
Reference 5: "The Beliefs and Politics of a Pseudo-Mahdist Cult". This is a research paper on above mentioned cult and it has compared the MFI & ASI as well some intro of His Holiness Gohar Shahi. Thought, all information used in this paper are not correct but I think the author did his best.
Reference 6: "Younus does not belong to Anjuman-e-Sarferoshan-e-Islam"and
Reference 7: "Younus does not belong to Anjuman-e-Sarferoshan-e-Islam". From goharshahi.net. I think, this is an appropriate link from the official webstie of His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, because this is the official statement of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam and it was mentioned in Reference # 5 as well.
Reference 8: "London cab driver leads religious cult in attempted coup". Its about another attempt of above mentioned cult to defame ASI and His Holiness Gohar Shahi.
Reference 9: "Demands by Shahbaz Khan". This was used to highlight the demands to curve upon the follower of Gohar Shahi by above mentioned cult.

Moreover, I am not here to promote ASI but I want to submit the correct information, which is the moto of wikipedia. There’s no conflict of interest neither I want to violate the policies of wikipedia. Still if you think that this article should be deleted, you may do that.--Iamsaa (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iamsaa, your own explanation here indicates that the cited sources are either trivial in their coverage of this topic--the organization, do not address the topic, or not external sources. Please realize that WP:V/WP:NPOV/WP:NOR/WP:N dictate that a topic should be covered by multiple reliable external secondary sources. Clearly that is not met here. — Scientizzle 15:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The authors who have done major edits to this article have a clear conflict of interest and are using wikimedia projects as a WP:SOAPBOX to promote the subject of the articles. Also, per rationale from Scientizzle and Ha! --mikeu (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedily deleted by Golbez (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 06:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC) per WP:CSD#G3 (vandalism); deletion request on other article withdrawn. cab (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F&B Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
F&B Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Rinaldi Firmansyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- No longer part of this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a hoax. With all of these brands which this Telkom CEO licences out to other parties, he would be a multi-multi-trillionaire, and his name would be a household name. Would anyone like to contact Mr Branson and tell him about this guy's ownership of Heaven, and that the Virgin Group now seems to be owned by this guy. Россавиа Диалог 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD G11. Article looks promising, but probably signs of hoaxes. So, yeah, CSD G11 BoL (Talk) 03:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very good article, but needs redo. Dwilso 03:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Rinaldi Firmansyah is CEO of Telkom Indonesia, as listed on their about-us page. He has about 7,360 results when searching for his name on Google. His page on forbes is here. It's likely he'll meet the criteria for an article. Ha! (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax as per nom Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete F&B, it's a copy and paste of a few other articles and a hoax (or fantasy). Ha! (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). As with the previous two nominations, no delete preferences were expressed, and editors are reminded that WP:PROBLEMS are not grounds for deletion. Skomorokh 01:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clemente G. Gomez-Rodriguez[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Clemente G. Gomez-Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable as an author, as his self-published book fails WP:BK. Insufficient WP:RS presented to establish any other notability. Thousands of Cubans have been jailed by Castro and thousands have come to the United States. Obviously, we're not going to have articles about each of them. There's an assertion that he was a lawyer in Cuba, but no evidence is given that he was a notable one. Qworty (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • VERY STRONG KEEP. I am amazed that this article is even up for a vote.. In the second nominiation there was not one vote in favor a deletion. He was a very notable defence attorney in Cuba, additionally he has appeared on numerious national Spanish language shows discussing both his self-published book and the Ochoa Trial Case no 1-1989 in Cuba. Callelinea (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The amount and depth of coverage from reliable sources is unclear, which is a problem that hasn't changed since the last AfD. Inline citations would be helpful so we can see how much of the article's content comes from his book, how much is attributable to third-party sources, and how much is just from your own personal knowledge. Adding more words to the article without making it clear the source of the newly added information isn't especially useful in cases like this. cab (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Nuevo Herald article contains only a brief mention of him, and just about the only reference I can find to his book is [71]. Being on TV does not necessarily contribute to notability --- it strongly depends on the nature of the appearances, so we need more detail on these. If he's the subject of a documentary, then yes, that counts as non-trivial coverage as required by WP:N. Being quoted on the evening news or showing up as a panelist on a talk show, not really. cab (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that User:Callelinea has added four more works under the "references" section of the article, but three of them, Cuban Anarchism: The History of a Movement, Producing Legality: Law and Socialism in Cuba, and Cuba: From Columbus to Castro and Beyond do not have any hits on the given name "Clemente" and they do not list Mr. Gomez-Rodriguez in their indexes. Again, it would help if User:Callelinea could clarify the depth of coverage on TV and in Cuba: Anuario Histórico 1990, and add inline citations to make it clear what exactly these works are doing in the reference section given that they don't seem to mention the article's subject. cab (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope now the way I have written the references will assist you better. Sorry for the confussion.Callelinea (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries, thanks. cab (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite with reliable sources. Otherwise it will be struck down. BoL (Talk) 04:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two verified second-party sources is all you need for a keep here, and that is what we have. MrPrada (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite, the exact language in WP:N is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable", and "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." Out of four sources listed in the article now, one is self-published, one is trivial (a mention of him in the context of the team of defence lawyers of which he was a part), and the depth of coverage in the remaining two is not clear (I asked the author to clarify that above). cab (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The topic of the trial recieved extensive media coverage, in fact probably the only time a crimal court trial has gotten any allowed coverage by the Cuban government. Mr Gomez appeared on Cuban television many times during the trial. That trial was as watched in Cuba as the OJ Simpson trial was watched in the United States, not by as many persons but by probably the highest % of the Cuba population. Callelinea (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Though of course I'd prefer print sources, being on TV for an hour-long interview is definitely in-depth coverage. cab (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Nevelson[edit]

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

Ghits confirm she was Leon Trotsky's daughter and born in exile but notability is not inherited and sadly, dying of tuberculosis doesn't make her notable either. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Merits two brief mentions in one biography of Trotsky. Seems more of a figure in sister's life than either parent, so possibly merge there. Nina is not a character in the film about her sister, Zina[72]. --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its sourced.NewAtThis (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, but the sources don't establish notability. They prove she existed, that's it, which I said above. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:NewAtThis is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'Speedy delete per CSD G11 Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympiads school[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable school. There are less than 250 results on Google, none of them reliable. — Wenli (reply here) 03:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD G11. Definite COI created by User:Olympiads school. BoL (Talk) 04:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. —BradV 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Podracing[edit]

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

This article about a fictitious game fails verifiability and notability. Appears to be entirely original research. —BradV 03:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. I must say, I'm extremely surprised to see something of this caliber on AfD. I'm assuming this is a late April Fool's joke, but I'll go ahead anyway. :P In terms of books alone... The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, The Complete Visual Dictionary of Star Wars, and The Ultimate Visual Guide to Star Wars all give quite a bit about the topic. The non-canon mentions and meaningful inclusions of pod racing number in the hundreds, and there's no way I could list them all here. Going through some of the most notable of those,The Rise and Fall of Darth Vader delves into it quite a bit, as does the various incarnations of The Phantom Menace, Urchins and Podracing Tales. Star Wars and Philosophy also discusses the topic. Star Wars: Episode I Racer is an arcade game that is entirely devoted to the subject release for the N64, Dreamcast, PC, and GBC, which has reviews of its own. Lego Star Wars, in its various incarnations, includes pod races. The star wars site has an entire documentary on the subject. Many fan sites and mainstream news sites mention podracing. I could keep going on, but I don't really think it's necessary at this point. Celarnor Talk to me 07:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also, we have a List of Star Wars podracers that were moved off the main article some time ago. Celarnor Talk to me 07:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep extremely notable sport in an extremelt notable francise, it has been also feature in many games such as lego starwars. Compared to other article on wikipedia this is EXTREMELY notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanalp (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think the Phantom Menace article can cover this to the extent that it's encyclopedic. WillOakland (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you elaborate on your definition of "encyclopedic"? I've been looking into the term for some time. --Kizor 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Article needs work and better sourcing but subject is clearly notable and plenty of secondary sourcing exists. - Dravecky (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator. Some good arguments have been made, and therefore this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting deleted, nor should it. —BradV 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nina (poet)[edit]

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

It sounds like being the founder of the poet slam *might* make her notable but I can't find anything to connect her with the event, reliable source or not, and otherwise she seems to be just another poet. There's only 10 ghits in any language for her given name, all appear to be Wiki mirrors and other copies. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I really need to quit using that since you're the second person to ask me that today. It means Edited To Add TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't know that either. Most people just use Comment. :P Celarnor Talk to me 03:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She seems to be included in some 'list of poets in the US' websites, but most of the 133 ghits are Wikipedia mirrors. No news, books, or scholar hits, either. Celarnor Talk to me 03:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a very notable poet given lack of reeliable sources. Slight connection with one particular poetry slam event (not the inventor of the poetry slam itself) isn't a great claim to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article has been around for 2 years, maybe I have been to harsh on other articles. Can somebody look for articles? Living in the Bay Area I have heard about her.NewAtThis (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the nomination, a search has been done and there don't appear to be any articles. Why don't you look if you're familiar with her work? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above "keep" opinion is from one of the likely sockpuppets of the article creator. I googled this name several months ago and there were no google hits to speak of - most placements on list of poets probably come from there being a Wikipedia article, not vice-versa. Wikidemo (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was not made in violation of ban, since user was banned well after this article was created (article created in '06, user banned in '08). I've removed the tag. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can find no sources for subject or the supposed "International Women's Day Poetry Slam" which she is alleged to have co-founded. - Dravecky (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-legislative[edit]

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

Contested prod, removed by author. Article is entirely original research and an essay. Cites no secondary sources; fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see you've been trying to speedy and prod this article since 6 minutes after its creation. I can't find any evidence you've tried to work with the editor who has expanded the article considerably since that point (when it may have deserved it) in order to stress the importance of sources. Is this how we work with newbies now, the whip first? --Dhartung | Talk 08:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I speedied it, then removed it. Someone else prod'd the article on their own, and then the author removed that. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term is legitimate, and has quite a bit of coverage in peer-reviewed government and law journals. A (very) brief survey turned up a few articles specifically working with the quasi-legislative model, and I'm certain there are more. Coanda-1910 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Golbez (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as WP:CSD#G3 (vandalism) at 06:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC). cab (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda (film)[edit]

The Legend of Zelda (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article on an apparent April Fools joke; no evidence the film is actually in production. Powers T 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Itub (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio source[edit]

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

original research, not verified, no RS NewAtThis (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Did you even look? How about this one? —BradV 03:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to astronomical radio source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.9.57 (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepan d either redirect to the good existing article on the subject radio astronomy or improve to nan adequate introduction, like the equivalent in deWP. This was a careless nomination, made in apparent lack of knowledge of the general subject, a demonstrated lack of willingness to even look at google, and a odd lack of understanding that there might be relevant articles on Wikipedia. . I have removed some irrelevant vandalism from the article. But this is a very unsophisticated article that needs major expansion. DGG (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep—Important astronomy concept. The Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on them, and so should we. Spacepotato (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The article needs some development but to suggest that it fails on WP:RS is, well, surprising; Bradv has highlighted that aspect with some examples. On what basis was the claim of original research made? Surely not just on the absence of references: that would be irresponsible. I don't believe this article should have been brought to AfD. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See escalating ANI case. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not demonstrate notability, and an effort to find sources has evidently failed to produce usable reliable sourcing. There is no prejudice against coverage of this topic in a related article, like iTunes, and, of course, an article on this topic may be created at any time that it can be shown as more than a neologism, with demonstration that it meets WP:N. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Download Day[edit]

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

Unsourced "event" for purchasing digital music downloads. I don't see how this is possibly notable as it could apply to any artist or any download on any day of the year. - eo (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence whatsoever provided of notability. Qworty (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or.... At least if not here, on Wikidictionary. It's a real thing. Noteable enough for Wikipedia, maybe not. But it's a real thing that might be added to Wikidictionary. Tcatron565 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNewAtThis (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability, and not many hits on Google. It seems to be related to iTunes; merge if it is notable enough. — Wenli (reply here) 03:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after improving. The google search for ' itunes "download day" gies a useful indication of the material that is available. DGG (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This is an emerging neologism with no clear meaning. Music makers organize them to promote the music with giveaways and discounts and random free tracks etc. Music fans organize them to make an impression for their particular artist, perhaps a top download of the day ranking. I can't find much about this, though, and many of the search hits are fansites, forums, or stores, failing WP:RS in different ways. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. No assertion of notability, neologism, and no references listed. BWH76 (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Sources now provided. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herzogstand Aerial Tramway[edit]

Herzogstand Aerial Tramway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced since June 2006, this article gives no assertion of notability. A Google search turns up nothing, not even a confirmation of its existence. —BradV 02:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This unrefenced article was on here for nearly two years? Let's get rid of it now! Qworty (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment why not make a request for sources at the reference desk?NewAtThis (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what the reference desk is for. Currently there are 119,691 unreferenced articles on Wikipedia. I don't think the reference desk is equipped to start handling requests for references. —BradV 03:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. deWP gives the following sources [73] and [74] For those not understanding German, there are photos, and the statistics. I cannot account for why the person translating the deWP article did not include them. DGG (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Under its German name, Herzogstandbahn, there are many sources about this tramway [75] [76] [77][78].--Oakshade (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I've added the Weblinks from deWP. It's definitelly not a Hoax. --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - nominator is a confirmed sockpuppet who nominated many articles for deletion as a means of disruption. See user's talk page and follow from there. withdraw comment made in mistake - sorry; Wikidemo (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, nominator was BradV, not NewAtThis. Jfire (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Paul Iorio. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice against a merge and redirect to Xanth if size does not bar that option. Consensus on this may be determined in article talk space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Centaur family of Xanth[edit]

The Centaur family of Xanth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not only is this unreferenced, it has no real-world notability, as WP:FICT suggests it should. Biruitorul (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Where is the real-world notability that you mention? Merge any thing encyclopedic to Xanth, by the way. Black Kite 09:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but who in the real world considers it notable? What evidence do you have to back up this assertion. Biruitorul (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the original author of the list, it was created to bring order to the list of characters of the Xanth series by Piers Anthony. To reintegrate all of the characters into one list would create a list that is extremely long and would take a lot of time to load for dial-up users. It takes several seconds for it to load by itself. There is a warning when articles get too long, and if all of the characters were all placed on the same page again, I would have to leave and do other things while the page is loading. There is also the time I invested in figuring out the best way to divide the character list in the first place. (I know, I know, not a good enough reason, but still.) - LA @ 08:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but we still should satisfy WP:V, which is official policy and not optional. Biruitorul (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Keep'" for the same reasons described above. 68.63.95.67 (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep utilities of size suggest merging would make something unwieldy. I know the series is highly notable and assume good faith on the likely probability that 3rd person commentary can be found. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Indian presidential election, 2007. Dreadstar † 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Know Pratibha Patil[edit]

Know Pratibha Patil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Know Pratibha Patil" was essentially just an attack site used by the opposition against the ruling party's candidate in the Indian presidential election last year. No particular evidence of notability has been shown (the site itself is already dead), and while a sentence stating that the site existed wouldn't hurt in the article devoted to the election, this page is overkill. Biruitorul (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep es. It helps to read the article. This page is not an attack page, but a page about an external political site used for controversial purposes. Weak keep only because I am not convinced fully that it has separate notability. Whether or not the site is currently dead would not be relevant if it did have political importance while it was up.DGG (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, perhaps my phrasing was unclear - I meant the site itself, not our page about the site, was an attack site. As for its being down not being relevant: well, I admit we don't know why it was taken down; it may be its creators didn't think it important enough to keep up, though this is veering into speculation. Biruitorul (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Dreadstar † 17:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Baptist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities[edit]

Southern Baptist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this page. It just seems straight up unencyclopedic. SmashvilleBONK! 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although I resisted my initial urge to nominate it for deletion, I agree that it seems unencyclopedic. It's not even a list, which would make sense to me, but rather a bad, uninformative version of [[Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention]]. There may even be a list of these schools that I haven't yet discovered. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to meet standard naming conventions, as schools, colleges, and universities should not be capitalised. --Aepoutre (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it is trying to follow in the footsteps of other churches higher education organizational pages.

Like International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities and the Association of Presbyterian Colleges and Universities. I can see what this person was trying to replicate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.85.92 (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ones you refer to are actual organizations. This one is not. --SmashvilleBONK! 03:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smashville is right. You don't seem to understand the difference here. --Aepoutre (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the last commentor doesn't seem to understand, this isn't an association... --Aepoutre (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Heading of a very large template, inherent notability, also, no actual reason to delete is is listed in the nom. If its unencylopedic, fix it. MrPrada (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smashville is right again. It includes the template but is not a template. Check your facts, guys. --Aepoutre (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, the template heading itself links to the article (hence, heading of a template), semantics. The arguments for notability remain. MrPrada (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the article and the template were created by the same person. Look at the template, then look at the template in the article...note that they are not the same. I removed Belmont from the template, but it didn't disappear from the article. Wikilinked to the template heading or not, it is still and article and it is still unencyclopedic. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Users who wish to vote on this AfD really should not be an anonymous IP account. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with List of airports in the Caribbean, the failure of this article is in the template presentation. I've gone ahead with a be bold that can be undone by anyone who prefers the template form, but if you're going to make a list, the small-print, stream of information, template form is unreadable in the extreme. Mandsford (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum I've tried to add more information to make this more than the (IMO, useless) template. There's room for a lot more improvement, since Wake Forest University is not in the same category as Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

There were two prep-schools on the list, Fork Union Academy and San Marcos Academy, which I've taken off. The redlink for Yellowstone Baptist might become an article, although I have second thoughts about whether it would survive the deletion process. Mandsford (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've removed Belmont, as well, since Belmont is not a Baptist school. This article is essentially a compilation of information gained from unreliable sources. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure what your reasoning is on Belmont, since other sources confirm that it's described as a member of IABCU on the website and on other SBC sources. Where's your source concerning Belmont? Mandsford (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now that it has text, it looks okay as a navigational/organizational list per WP:LIST and WP:SAL. It still needs cleanup including a proper reference section. Earthdirt (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, couldn't this be just a category? AnteaterZot (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename to comply with naming conventions per Aepoutre. I suggest making it a list, since that's what it is.—Noetic Sage 13:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Nominator has stated withdrawal as shown below; furthermore, no actual reason for deletion was given, just reasons for improvement -- the article's been tagged for references, which is pretty much all it needs. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studio album[edit]

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

Article has no sources. It is an unreferenced stub for a significant amount of time, yet this article has a key importance for Wikipedia Music. It is dormant. Alex Perrier (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Nominator's rationale smacks of WP:NOEFFORT, which is not a reaason for deletion. There are many articles which haven't been touched in a long time -- that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be deleted. The concept of a studio album is very much notable and encyclopedic; I suggest tagging with ((expert-subject)) if necessary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but there are no references for this article. It is original research. I agree with your NOEFFORT statement, as well as the fact that the arcicle is encyclopedic and shouldn't be deleted, but it needs sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Perrier (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's tagged for references and some can easily be added. None of your reasons fit into the deletion policy, and you said that you agree that it shouldn't be deleted. Therefore, I feel that this discussion should probably be closed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as nominator has effectively withdrawn request. Subject notability is common knowledge. The real problem is that the article must be improved. Nick Graves (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Dreadstar † 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Hensel[edit]

Robert M. Hensel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lots of problems with this one. First off, it's a copyvio from here: [85]. It fails to meet WP:N and doesn't provide WP:RS. It also looks as if it might be WP:COI, since the article was created by an account called Wheelierecord, and a "wheelie record" is claimed for the subject. Finally, Wheelierecord is a WP:single-purpose account, created to promote and spam Hensel onto multiple WP pages:[86]. I realize that the guy was born with a serious birth defect, but that assertion is not going to be enough to satisfy WP:N. Qworty (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment. Just came across an earlier AfD on this, under a slightly different name: [87]. If an admin reads this, please consider speedy and possibly salt. Thank you.Qworty (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is "salt"?NewAtThis (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I would like to see more references or links, but I feel the subject of the article is notable. I checked google news and 3 articles came up on him.Callelinea (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. COI is not grounds for deletion. Quick google [88] turns up 3-different secondary sources from major newspapers, meets WP:N and WP:V. MrPrada (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given that this article was re-created after having already been deleted once, it's difficult for me to assume good faith. The three ghits are to two local newspapers (the daily Syracuse Post-Standard and the semi-weekly Fulton Valley News), neither of which is a major media outlet. Additionally, his writing honors seem to be of the poetry.com sort (where all it takes to be included is for your check to clear) and all links to his page were created by this same editor. When he says that his goal is to "promote my accomplishments in hopes of inspiring others to go beyond their limitations such as I have" then I think that the article falls under WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. If there are other people outside himself/his wife who thinks that he's sufficiently notable to have an entry, then let's see some editing by others and ask Wheelierecord to no longer update it. Dori (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I can't really abide this argument, when it wikilinks to the Post Standard, which states "The Post-Standard is the major daily newspaper servicing the greater Syracuse, New York metro area." The Syracuse metropolitan area had a population of 732,117, clearly major, and notable. On that note, being a local paper does not rescind the Fulton Valley News status as WP:RS, unless the Fortune 100 food company Wegmans Food article is wrong. MrPrada (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that neither the Syracuse Post-Standard nor the the Fulton Valley News is included on the List of major newspapers serving cities over 100,000 in the United States. My question is: has Mr. Hensel received any coverage from any major media outlet?
And not to be pedantic, but the Syracuse metropolitan area page you linked to says the current population is 645,293, not 732,117. Dori (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An incomplete, unreferenced list does not mean the Post-Standard is not a major newspaper. It is, there's no arguing that. And per Syracuse, New York, according to the 2000 census, the city population was 147,306, and its metropolitan area had a population of 732,117, not 645,293.
wheelierecord/Robert M. Hensel Reply. I have a question that I would like to ask if I may? If what I have accomplished in my life is not worthy enough to be included in wikipedia then why would a great deal of my accomplishments be forever placed in The Museum of disABILITY history along with Helen Keller and many others? Far as the poetry.com link goes I wasn't the one who added that link to the page another editor did. Poetry.com was a place I was published through back when I first started out as a poet is one that I never use as a listed publishing credit. I know all about Poetry.com and they are of no use to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheelierecord (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not a matter of your accomplishments, so please don't feel like this is a personal attack! It's a matter of the lack of major media attention to your accomplishments + a lack of editors unrelated to you interested in editing this article. Personally, I'd like to see you move this article to user space so it would be available if/when third-parties decide to create a page for you. I'd also recommend that you take a look at why the original AFD got the result it did—what's changed since then? Dori (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being this man has been published in the Guinness Book of World Records which is one of the biggest publications in the world and having had a Ripley's comic published in newspapers around the world I feel that gentlemen be listed within Wikipedia amybethh1979 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amybethh1979 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Amybethh1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
And given that Hansel's wife's name is Amy Beth, I have to say that this looks like another case of WP:COI. Mrs. Hansel, if this is you, it's inappropriate for you to vote in this AFD (and you might also want to look at WP:MEAT). Dori (talk)
Extensive talk page details have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Robert M. Hensel.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lineage Chart for Ji Bong[edit]

Lineage Chart for Ji Bong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Confusing. Is it just list of names or what? Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 01:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While I respect this teacher and his lineage very much, I believe lineage charts should be reserved only for those masters who have been widely covered in verifiable sources. Ji Bong himself just barely meets our notability requirement, in my opinion, and as such a stand-alone lineage chart is not justified. We do have Seung Sahn Soen Sa Nim's lineage chart, but that is referenced and also documents the lineage of an extremely influential master. Perhaps the Ji Bong article could just link to that, which documents everyone but Ji Bong. (Mind meal (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Begone! It hurts my eyes. It doesn't read like an encyclopedia article and it fails to demonstrate notability. Qworty (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This is just basically a chinese family tree on a unnotable person, hoax Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is definitely not a hoax, though Ji Bong is certainly not one of Seung Sahn's more notable Dharma heirs. (Mind meal (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. The term might actually point to several different contexts, but this article isn't considered helpful. Tikiwont (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The theory of inevitability[edit]

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

Pretty obviously made up (WP:MADEUP) and verging on WP:CB. Non-notable, unencyclopedic. ukexpat (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete definite hoax. Who can travel back in time?! BoL (Talk) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. WillOakland (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR/nonsense. --Snigbrook (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxy Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some of this article my be a faint reflection of serious speculation, but the material here is not worth building on.DGG (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is a real theory called the theory of inevitability but it was a philosophical theory published in the late 1990s. I've asked the user to provide proof this isn't made up, which they have not done. Delete as probable hoax. Redfarmer (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOTION TO SPEEDY DELETE obviously original researchNewAtThis (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Original research is not a valid reason for speedy deletion -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - don't rise to NewAtThis's bait. That user has been on a spree of malicious and retaliatory AfD nominations and comments over the past day or so. Already been reported.  – ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to -phob-. Dreadstar † 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sesquipedaliophobia[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - this article is nothing more than a definition and even uses Wiktionary as a reference!! ukexpat (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to -phob- BoL (Talk) 00:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minimal ghits--just a dicdef. JJL (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand as the original author, I would like to ask for some help finding psychological sources discussing this issue, instead of a speedy deletion. At the moment it is just a definition, yes, but looking at expanding the article instead of just dismissing it could be seen as a little bit more productive. One of the concerns that lead me to starting this artilcle is Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia, a faecetious [sic] expansion of the original, and actual, word. TheDefiniteArticle (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep so cool!NewAtThis (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly not a reason for a speedy keep. —BradV 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thats what the wikitionary is for Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand though the correct spelling appears to be "Sesquipedalophobia"--and least that's the one used for the 5 items on it in Google scholar. DGG (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete dicdef, already transwikied. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Transwikied, yes. Elaborated. No. That is the point of starting this article. And, I just read the definition of, and bollocky etymology about, hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia in -phob-, which in and of itself tells us more or less that hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia is a satiric convolution, meaning it inherently need be suitably combatted. DGG is right - it should be spelt "Sesquipedalophobia", but that can happen after we get some encyclopaedic content. Hell, even if we just establish if it is even a real sickness - I can find nothing that goes past the four word defintion. Help. TheDefiniteArticle (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: After there is context and cultural significance and role in history and the like, then it is possible to consider whether or not it is encyclopedic enough for inclusion. Before such, it's not even a debate: delete as dictdef. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Valid point. Could it not be argued, though, that historical significance lies in the fact that it could be fabricated? TheDefiniteArticle (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to -phob- - same as sesquippedaliophobia. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Dreadstar † 05:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball Association games televised by ABC[edit]

List of National Basketball Association games televised by ABC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All these lists are perfect violation of WP:NOT#INFO, no sources or notabilty on why all these basketball games are special from any other NBA game, the only sources are neilson ratings, also including all it's subpages National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2002-03 season, National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2003-04 season, National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2004-05 season, and so on Delete Secret account 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's a list of trivial information, and so fails WP:NOT#IINFO. Biruitorul (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't think of a single reason anybody would consult a cyclopedia to find out what game was being broadcast at, say, 12:30 on the afternoon of April 21, 2002. Perhaps criminal defendants who need an alibi? WP:NOT#INFO, as per User:Secret Noroton (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete G7 by User:Jmlk17. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropophagus trihomorphus[edit]

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

Almost certainly a hoax, no Ghits. WP:CB ukexpat (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was self-admitted vandalism, not worth an AFD, next time tag it as a speedy delete. Secret account 00:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetener Create Cancer[edit]

Sweetener Create Cancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Self-confessed April Fools joke. Roleplayer (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No references, blatant opinion piece. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy keep. Obviously notable, non-admin closure. MrPrada (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atle Antonsen[edit]

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

completely unsourced original research, not verified, does not establish notability, no citations nor external links NewAtThis (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We have an ((unreferenced)) tag for these situations. Subject has an article in the Norwegian Wikipedia and IMDB, needs some references, but obviously not "completely unsourced original research". --Canley (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
without any sources this could be a hoax, its nothing but original research at this point IMHONewAtThis (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, yet another disruptive nom. There is RS Coverage, in addition to what Canley mentioned above TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Clearly notable and I have added sources. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Notable and real sources. Aokaado (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. See [89]. MrPrada (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hannu Karpo[edit]

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

non notable, non sourced original research, not verified, doesn't assert notability. NewAtThis (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Tag for references, but I would say that the host of a notable television program is notable, and is clearly asserted as such. This individual has an article in the Finnish Wikipedia, and the Internet Movie Database. Looks easily sourceable, and I implore the nominator to do a brief Google search before setting up an AfD for every unreferenced article they come across.--Canley (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment lots of people are in the IMdB, even two bot one time extras sometimes...i challenge you to explain what makes this individual notable, and also prove it with multiple secondary sources, we can't have unbiased articles without them. Thats finnish wiki, and has no standing here. finnish is also a stub of dubious notability IYAM (if you ask me)NewAtThis (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RS coverage from his earlier career, and the Finnish article is sourced. Because you can't read it doesn't mean it's not notable TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor am I, but that's what ((expert)) is for or request help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Finland, not AfD TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball keep plus withdrawal of nom Grutness...wha? 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tompall Glaser[edit]

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

non notable sing, original research, no sources reliable nor otherwise since mid to late 2007, no substantive edits, one external link NewAtThis (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW, per 10 pound hammer's edits.NewAtThis (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable musician. JJL (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Dreadstar † 05:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Thomas' College, Matale[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St Thomas' College, Matale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no information provided in this article. Nitraven (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: why not add them?. There appears to be information available. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Noroton (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: CSD A1: Empty. It's empty, completely empty. As for "why not add content," how about "why preserve a place holder?" When someone has something to say and can make legitimate claims for encyclopedic content, we can argue. As it is, this is not AfD, but CSD. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information in the article and available online identifies what the subject is and where it is, a public secondary school located in Matale, Central Province, Sri Lanka. There's enough to avoid a speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can suggest a good redirect target; it hasn't enough info to be useful. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Matale awaiting expansion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect either to Matale or else if there is a page on their hockey team then redirect this to that page for now. Low Sea (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Still looking for WP:RS info about the school itself, however its hockey program gets lots of RS coverage. Multiple athletic titles to add if only we can source the basics. Unfortunately, this school does not appear to have a website. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, that was what got me too, their hockey team is apparently more notable than the school itself as nothing comes up under St. Thomas, Saint Thomas, St Thomas in various combos of quotes and not with Matale. And re: "empty" I'd have loved to speedy it but I knew it would get turned down. What we need on this is probably local help for non-web sources. College is so vague across nations, I've seen it used from primary school to the US construct. If we can add something I'd like to. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: no content, no claim to notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per editing policy, which the nominator and others appear to be disregarding. With all these house inspectors around it's a wonder anything ever gets built. I've added another notable alumnus, and if there's anyone more notable in South Asia than an international hockey player it's a test cricketer! Phil Bridger (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As usual for secondary schools, once someone looks for material, it can be found. That's why we have the reasonable practice of not deleting such articles. For such schools, we usually put the sports information on the main page, not a separate article for a notable team. DGG (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Redirect to Matale, which can contain all this information. The article can be recreated when there are are sources for an actual article. This shows no immediate promise of becoming an article. Noroton (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Immediate is not the usual standard. The likelihood of eventual expansion beyond a stub or directory entry is usually good enough. Sources found so far indicate this school has at least 100 years of history. Since this school is offline, expansion will just take more time. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG, clearly information about this school is available. The cricket squad is even briefly mentioned in a recent news story. It strikes me as somewhat parochial to assume this secondary school is not notable enough just because it's a bit more difficult to find sources. I imagine the notability of this school is about on a level with Bethany College (Lindsborg, Kansas) or Hutchinson Community College (which between them have exactly zero third party reliable sources) yet no one is calling for those to be deleted (probably no one will, and I think a comparison here is quite relevant despite WP:OTHERSTUFF). We allow articles on basically every high school in the United States - surely a college in Sri Lanka whose athletics are covered in the press is worthy of an article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per persuasive arguments, above. Clearly notable as a high school and we need to avoid bias against schools outside the anglosphere. TerriersFan (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notable alumni and secondary source coverage already found. The material to expand the stub is out there, but not necessary online for our convenience. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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