< April 27	April 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stunt When I See U[edit]

The song has only made a mixtape appearance; Even though it has one reference, it's not enough to confirm the notability of this song; MISC note: no info confirmed of a new Bow Wow album Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No standalone notability per WP:MUSIC criteria for songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 10 lb Hammer. Edison (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Note that the album which it comes from doesn't have an article - the reference is to another album by an unrelated artist. Stifle (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:37, 30 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 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa May[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) for both entertainers and for porn actors. - JulesN Talk 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not originally an autobio, but has had some obvious COI editing recently (User:Miss-teresa-may). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep At least one source suggests that she was a well known glamour model in Great Britain. [1]. And there appear to be multiple articles about how she and Theresa May get confused. See for example this one. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That article from The Times does call here a top glamour model, but then says that they got that fact from Wikipedia, I don't really think that we can grant notability based on a RS, when that RS bases it's claim on the Wikipedia article in the first place - vicious circle etc. And notability based on the fact that Theresa May sometimes gets confused with her? I think that, if it's mentioned on Wikipedia, should be in the Theresa May article. - JulesN Talk 06:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not sure how someone could mix up the glamour model with the conservative MP other than through a spelling error. Ignoring the COI issues for the moment the article needs better verification of notability but, I'm thinking alot of people in Great Britain when they hear the name spoken think of this one as much as the politician. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable UK glamor model. Incidentally, I could swear this article survived a previous AFD, although the article/talk page contains no reference to this. 23skidoo (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been asked by Teresa to try and keep this page updated for her as she does not have the time. Teresa is and was a well known glamour model and still has a huge following. Teresa actually appeared on GMTV with the MP Theresa May as a number of newspapers had run stories about the fact they had the same name. I will try and find out exactly when this was from Teresa but I doubt even she can remember the exact details as it was a number of years ago! Miss-teresa-may (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but please be careful of WP:OWN and WP:COI. 24.106.202.234 (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 24.106.202.234. Stifle (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above appears to be a notable glamour model, nothing wrong with that. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.Londo 06 11:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOR. Sandstein (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justifiable Insurrection[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Entire essay is an original research and WP:SYN violation. None of the sources actually reference the word justifiable insurrection. Just as in last time, google searches tailored to the words do not turn up any references that support any of the content of the article. None of the issues from the last AFD have been resolved. After all of the original research is removed, there is no actual article remaining. From the original AFD nomination, which still is relevant: neologism. Google search in quotes "justifiable insurrection" shows 67 ghits, none of which are related to the topic at hand. Author has been using the term on the Supreme Court of the United States article to push a POV criticizing the court, replete with weasel words. Refs cited in the article do nothing to support the term "justifiable insurrection", without significant original research and synthesis. WP:NOT for Essays.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's a mess right now, but based off of hits on g-books, it could be made into a decent article. It's has some cited direct quotes, so there's at least a place to start. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Just War Doctrine, of which this is a minor variant. But do so carefully, as this is overinterpretative of sources IMO. --Dhartung | Talk 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR/synth. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Definitely WP:NOR and WP:SYN violations; also a non-notable, unsourced neologism per WP:NEO. The creator argued in the first AfD that the Google results were pertinent, but it seems as if his argument was swallowed without factchecking; I find 22 unique hits [2] for "justifiable insurrection" (instead of "justifiable" + "insurrection", which creator seemed to advocate), dominated by Wiki mirrors and the inevitable "... justifiable, insurrection ..." Far from being a Roman Catholic doctrine, as the article claims, "justifiable insurrection" + "Roman Catholic" returns only this article as a Google hit. RGTraynor 13:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 24.106.202.234 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A plausible interpretation/construction of the term, but absent any reliable secondary sources demonstrating both that the term is sufficiently widely used and that its meaning is generally accepted to be that set forth in the article, this must be dismissed as original research. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraynor's excellent analysis, which mirrors my own findings on Google. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. Yahoo shows only 51 hits, some related to this process, and most others don't relate. BusterD (talk) 22:31, 3 May 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Configura Sverige[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Configura Sverige

Blatant advertising. Only contributors are the article creator and anons. Been tagged for notability and references since January. Raven in Orbit (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a newspaper article from the Grand Rapids Press as a reference. I think notability is more or less established now. The article still isn't very exciting. The corresponding Swedish article sv:Configura Sverige was deleted on March 12, 2008 by sv:Användare:Wanpe with the reason: "Efter behandling på WP:Sidor föreslagna för radering" --Eastmain (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In our voting it was a clear vote for deltete for two reasons. The company was just on the border of being as big and significant as we want to see but most important the article was part of a promotion attempt where this article was part of several. And the content is too promotional, not neutral enough. Wanpe (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Notability is obscured by blatant advertising. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ecoleetage. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems this article exists to improve its subject, instead of improving the pedia. BusterD (talk) 22:36, 3 May 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 the reasons given in the nomination. Sandstein (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Virtual Aviation Community[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Global Virtual Aviation Community

I nominate this article for deletion as follows:

Notability: Article fails to establish notability in that notability requires objective evidence. I have extensively researched the article and been unable to find any objective evidence establishing notability.
Verifiable sources: reliable sources in objective, independent media, there is a grave difficulty estabishing not only notability, but also an objective, netural, point of view.
Spam: The article is written in such a way that it sounds like Wikipedia:spam or advertising, and without objective, verifiable sources, the article could not be re-written to be included on wikipedia. Please see what wikipedia is not for more information.
The page was successfully nominated for deletion through the Proposed Deletion process, and was undeleted by the deleting administrator at a member request.
That member noted [3] that VATSIM and IVAO have pages, that member is reminded that just because something else similar exists on wikipedia, that does not automatically make it either suitable or not suitable for wikipedia. Therefore, as the essay notes, a deletion debate should avoid discussing arguements assoicated with this. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wonderful as an advertisement, but not appropriate as an encyclopedia article.Ecoleetage (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As best as I can tell, this virtual airline has < 200 members and no news coverage, which would tend to put it below the notability bar. I disagree with the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but GVAC isn't in the same ballpark as VATSIM (150k members, according to its article) and IVAO (80k members). — PyTom (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exactly how does an article written by the founder of the network containing nothing but history and factual data about the network qualify as an advertisement or not notable? How can one provide 3rd party cites for something that they have first hand knowledge of? If you wish verification of the information, all one has to do is look at the network homepage listed in the article. As to the size of the network, we have members joining on an almost daily basis. I would say an that a community that serves 200+ people and growing is substantial. We fulfill every service that is offered by other virtual aviation networks, the only reason we do not have the amount of members is that we have not been in service as long. I would also suggest that all these people that have found a reason to have a problem with this article are more than likely members of other networks that seem to feel threatened by anyone who is not themselves, and therefor find reasons to attack them as has been the trend in the past. Exactly what is this article hurting by being here? Nothing....so I would think that anyone who wishes to create a reason has ulterior motives. —Preceding Ryan Waldron (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)— Ryan Waldron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Look, we aren't disputing the truth value of your claims. We are saying that wikipedia strives to include only those subjects that have been mentioned in secondary and tertiary sources of some note. If other words, VATSIM is mentioned because ot its sustained coverage in the scholarly fields relating to aviation and gaming. IVAO is covered, although much more marginally, for the same reasons--it is also covered partially due to the large subscription base, but that isn't a primary reason. If your community grows to such a size that GVAC is covered in significant depth by independent sources, then the article will be welcome. Also, Assume good faith. Most of the editors here are NOT members of a competing virtual airline (for example, I am not). We are just trying to shape wikipedia in a way that conforms with the five pillars. Please also be aware that most of your arguments are not terribly persuasive. It does less to your cause to say that you are personally related to the organization the article describes (it doesn't mean you can't edit it, but you probably shouldn't be). Also, "it isn't hurting anything" is a poor argument. Each page that does not meet the criteria for article creation hurts wikipedia because it lowers the image that people have of it. If we include articles that are basically advertisements, then people will respond by going elsewhere for encyclopedic information. Short takeaway: If you couldn't write the same article without information FROM the subject, it doesn't belong in wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I do sympathize with the situation, I do think you need to carefully read through the Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not. That document is official wikipedia policy and something a cornerstone document. The reason I nominated the article is because I am seeking to bring the level of quality of all Flight Simulation articles up to a very high standard. I would be interested in helping, in future, create such an article. If this was the case, we could copy the article to my (or your) user webspace until such time as it satisfied the requirements for inclusion as an article. Please do read the link I sent regarding what Wikipedia is not, it will give you a much clearer picture of why I nominated the article for deletion, why it was successful in being proposed for deletion originally. It will also give a clear picture of what will be required in future to satisfy inclusion of an article in wikipedia. Perhaps the best place for a link to this organization would be the Open Directory Project (DMOZ) Icemotoboy (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I guess this just goes to show you what you get when you volunteer your personal time for a greater community online. I am still skeptical of the motives of the majority of the people opposing this article. Past history has shown that members of other networks are wholly not above attacks on anyone they see as competition in any arena. Due to the fact that wikipedia anonymizes everyone from their other actions outside his site, there is no way to prove otherwise. All I see is blind opposition to this article for no good reason. It's this fact that assures in my mind that here are ulterior motives at work beyond anything to do with wikipedia for most if not all who oppose this article. At this point I am sure that this article will be deleted....not for any valid reason, but because of the bias of those who would seek to subvert any network they don't support. It's to bad that wikipedia is not interested in protecting those who wish to provide valid content against those who would seek to discredit it for their own personal reasons.Ryan Waldron (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, man, we are trying to explain the reasoning. There are clear policies that have been enacted by wikipedia and we are here to uphold those policies. If you can bring independent, verfiable, secondary (or tertiary) sources into the article that assert the notability of the subject then no one is going to let it be deleted out of bias. That is literally all it takes. So once again, I'm going to suggest that you assume good faith and please look at things neutrally. I don't know how many times I can tell you that I'm not a member of VATSIM or IVAO. I've never owned a flight sim in my adult life (and only played A-10 Warthog on an old mac when I was young). I have NO personal reason to reject this article. My reasoning is clear and so is the reasoning of the other editors here. We have linked standing policies that prohibit this kind of article. We have shown what needs to happen to make the article acceptable. What more do we need to do? Remember we are all here volunterring our time to make wikipedia better. Sometimes that means saving articles (see my user page). Sometimes that means removing articles that don't meet the guidelines and policies set forth. We don't usually get a thrill from it. Trust me, I would rather see this article improved and not deleted than see it deleted and have the work go to waste. but my wish to make it better doesn't mean that we can just keep it despite the fact that it does not meet guidelines. Protonk (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability and no references at all in the article (there's not even a "References" section). There are a few GHits, but they all appear to be directly affiliated with the subject, or are mirrors of the Wikipedia article. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Clear violation of WP:SPAM, fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Quite aside from being unimpressed by the creator's heated assertion that no one could oppose his article save out of malice, a web forum with <200 users is quite a small online community in general terms. In surfing to the page, the lead news note is an ominous "I thought it was time to let folks know where we stand. Though it has been a little quiet here lately, Global VAC is very much alive and well," dated back in November 2007. The forum has had only ten posts in the month of April, and less than four hundred fifty posts to date, so I'd have to question how many of those 200 users idly surfed in and surfed right out again. Finally, to answer the creator's plea of how can one add third party cites to something for which one has firsthand knowledge, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and if no such cites can be found, no article about the subject can remain. RGTraynor 14:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7. No assertion of notability. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In case it wasn't clear from above. Protonk (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Protonk (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Protonk (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Protonk (talk) 02:57, 30 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, or collections of various items related to same. No cites - has been tagged with "This article does not cite any references or sources" since May 2007. Writtenonsand (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychonaut (disambiguation). It has its own website, but that's about it. Without sources, it doesn't need any more definition than the small and succinct one given on the disambig page. FusionMix 23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would make better sense to delete this and move the disambig here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. No appreciable coverage in mainstream media. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Made up in one day? The article has hundreds of revisions going back to 21:05, 23 March 2004. (Interestingly it was started from a Level 3 Communications computer). Invalid rationale for deletion. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as to that litle matter of the lack of cites? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT, I don't see lack of sources as grounds for deletion, after-all, we don't have a deadline. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Lots of sources available to those with access to academic journals and the time to read them. Trachys (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to start getting argumentative here, but per WP:Verifiability ("one of Wikipedia's core content policies"): "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Not "attributable", but "attributed". -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Slap an uncited tag for the time being, as references can easily be found.Trips (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 79.122.2.253 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep using Scholar shows sources that aren't the video game TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:34, 3 May 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 - Nabla (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DonorDirect[edit]

This was originally prodded, but the author removed it. This article has no sources to show notability. We have a few links to directory–style listings, but nothing of substance. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added in sources of partnerships with multiple organizations including microsoft. I believe microsoft has notablility and to be a partner takes notability. DonorDirect will also be speaking at Microsoft's World conference. This might not be extremely interesting to you but it does have notablility and sources to verify. Btrain3 (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per general lack of sources. Notability isn't inherited. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At this time, the article does not appear to meet Notability. (EhJJ)^TALK 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a general lack of sources? I have provided plenty. Please go to the Blackbaud page. It is a similar company whose only sources are from its own website. Yet it is still up. And if you click on random article, you will continually come up with articles that are much less notable than this one. Btrain3 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a very good essay about OTHERSTUFF as it is not a valid objection (and, in fact, you are welcome to put Blackbaud up for AfD.) The problem with the references is that they are all advertisements. While they may provide Verifiability, they do not help in establishing Notability per the above mentioned criteria. (EhJJ)^TALK 19:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references you have provided are not reliable sources. Please feel free to list other articles for deletion if they do not meet the requirements. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:49, 30 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 consensus. Merging is not appropriate. A one sentence (or two) summary can be added to the assumed parent article for the school. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sentinel (student magazine)[edit]

This article is an unreferenced summary of alleged controversies involving a high school magazine. There are no sources, just a claim of newspaper coverage on one occasion and another mention of an article in response to a major newspaper. The article is largely original research claiming notability without proof. Given that the article has also been a target for high school vanity (see the talk page for trolling comments), it should be deleted or possibly merged to Melbourne High School if there is anything worth salvaging. Harro5 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is lacking, sorry. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever can be sourced and cited to RS to Melbourne High School (Victoria). A search is proving problematic due to name and the Orlando, Florida paper of the name name, which occasionally mentions Melbourne, Florida TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Bduke (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Melbourne High School (Victoria). I'm sure these budding young journalists, happily free to stir up the pot as much as they please, create firestorms of controversy in their high school homerooms for a day and a half, but that doesn't translate into notability, and no reliable sources exist. RGTraynor 14:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, independent references not forthcoming in a search. 24.106.202.234 (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable outside the local area. Merge as a second option. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevent and sourced content to Melbourne High School per RGTraynor. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Melb High School. Deserves a couple of lines there, nothing more, nothing less. Five Years 11:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply lacks the secondary sources to meet WP:N. Merging is not a valid option; we don't merge unsourced material. TerriersFan (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coatrack article that is focused much more on the controversies of the student publication than on the publication itself. After the deletion, a redirect to Melbourne High School (which will eventually need disambiguation as there is also a Melbourne High School in Melbourne, Florida, USA) would be appropriate. B.Wind (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with B.Wind, above. There's nothing noteworthy here. It's a high school newspaper and it is already referenced in the high school's article. That's enough, there is nothing to merge. - Nabla (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Melbourne High School (Victoria). Hardly notable, but worth a paragraph or two on its high school page. Frank | talk 14:58, 5 May 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. Wizardman 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South African dance music[edit]

Seems to be somebody's essay about the subject Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As has been mentioned on the article's talk, it's a direct copy+paste from [4], but it appears to be the author of that page who posted it here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've listed it as a copyvio pending confirmation that it is released under the GFDL, which should be accomplished by a statement at the source website or an email from there. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if the copyright holder approves the material being released under GFDL, it would need to be rewritten as an encyclopedic article rather than in book or essay form, as it is now. The article began its existence with the admonition at its top: "This article needs to be edited for neutrality and style!!" and these haven't been fixed in the more-than-two-years since. Frank | talk 11:11, 6 May 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) 06:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Fierz[edit]

Subject does not appear to be sufficiently notable to meet inclusion criteria. Apparantly is a chess player but according to fide rankings is #51 in Switzerland so a decent player but not exceptional. A google search suggests that the subject has written a popular checkers (thats Draughts for us Brits) but I couldn't see anything in the first 50 or so hits that hints at event the slightest bit being suitable for writing a biographical article. The article itself lacks reliable sources and cannot therefore meet our verification policy before we even think aboout notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL[reply]
Comment, verification is not an issue, Physicist p.57, Chess player, FIDE Master of chess, checkers programmer. SunCreator (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, the article is full of of unverified information and I don't see that there is sufficient information out there to verify any detailed biograohical information on this man. With regard to your sources, coauthoring a paper on physics does not a bio make, the second mentions his placing in a chess tournament and the third is about the programe he wrote and mentions his name once. If afraid that none of these sources adequately addresses this person as their main subject and cannot be reliable sources or used to verify much if anything about him. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verification and Notability have nothing to do with the article. It's all about the topic, if the topic is notable then the article can be empty; it's a subtle but important distinction that should not be overlooked because with wikipedia there is no rush and today the topic can be empty but in a year or so it could be a featured article, so the Afd is about the topic, nothing else. Hopefully and in most cases the articles contents shows notability. Not in this case however. Each of the four links above ([5], [6], [7], [8] show verifiability, as they are independent of the source, but none of them however show WP:Notability. They show he is a Physicist, he is a Fide rated Chess player and that he is a Programmer. SunCreator (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not know about his other achievements (the aerosol thing and so on), but from a purely "chess" point of view he is definitely not notable. SyG (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The chess is not notable and don't have an information to indicate any of his other things are notable either. SunCreator (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not a notable figure by our standards. --Fred Chilton (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks more like a dilettante than a serious chess player or computer programmer. PatGallacher (talk) 20:42, 30 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. Unremarkable piece of fan freeware. Black Kite 17:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Peart- Mission: The Camera Eye[edit]

This appears to be just some game some guy wrote and put on the web. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. May want to check these as well: Hasslevania and DXF Games- author appears to have a COI. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the [[WP:V|verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wow I really thought this game was written for the C64 or something! Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:12, 29 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 WP:SNOW -Djsasso (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why students may study abroad[edit]

Not encyclopedic; also appears to violate several aspects of WP:MOS. See User:Globalecon/Global_Economics. Enigma ^message 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. 24.6.157.14 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this could be encyclopedic under a different title. (Trends in students studying abroad, or some such thing). Seems to be verifiable, and on a notable topic. Also, violating WP:MOS is most certainly not grounds for deletion. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Delete while there might be potential for an article on trends in studying abroad, I can't see a way to turn this essay into an article on that topic without a total rewrite with different/new sources. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also see Wikipedia:NOT#WEBSPACE. This is basically an essay. I don't believe it belongs in an encyclopedia. Enigma ^message 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at present, maybe, but I think it can be cleaned up into an article. I'll take a stab at doing that. (And if it doesn't work, then I have no problems with changing my !vote). --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment changed !vote. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Nakon 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well-sourced doesn't always mean keep. The main problem with this is in its style as an essay (and, indeed, it draws upon essays from several different sources). It doesn't have an encyclopedic tone; the section of Study abroad that this has been spun off from carries with it an original research tag. Wikipedia just doesn't lend itself to a "pros and cons" type article like this one, which promotes the horizon-expanding benefits of immersing oneself in a foreign culture. Mandsford (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For a discussion of the class project of which this article is part, see WP:ANI#Use of Wikipedia for class project. Deor (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is clearly novel-synthesis of ideas, any sourced information could be added to existing articles, such as study abroad. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a synthetic essay, not an encyclopedia article. Aleta ^Sing 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a studednt paper, it constitutes WP:OR. Toast it and roast it. ThuranX (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely a good essay (done for a class project, I believe), but not really the kind of article that belongs on Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too essay like with an essay-like title. Any sourced information here should go into Study abroad. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the above users indicate, this article is an essay. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Yahel Guhan 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NOR. Hut 8.5 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The MoS problems could be fixed (with a lot of work). But more importantly, it basically duplicates material in another article and violates WP:NOR. It doesn't belong in the mainspace. The article's creator has already copied it here: User:Lilbays1, so at least their work won't be lost upon deletion. It's a pity the professor who organized the project didn't read Wikipedia:School and university projects first. Many of the pitfalls could have been avoided. Voceditenore (talk) 08:17, 29 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 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Avoda[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda (2nd nomination)

Went through one AfD where it was "relisted", whatever that means, with an apparent no consensus result. Went through a second nomination where it appears it was a copyright violation. Went through a PROD deletion where it was nominated for deletion for lack of reliable sources to prove notability. The PROD deletion was overturned following a request at WP:DRV. Even the DRV nominator said, "I agree that the information in this article cannot be verified by an outside published source". There are no reliable sources anywhere that I can find that this is a notable camp. There are claims, and I will gladly withdraw this nomination if sources are forthcoming, that it's the oldest Jewish summer camp in New England, but without reliable sourcing, this has to be deleted. Corvus cornix_talk 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There's nothing on the page to prove notability, aside from your (obviously correct) complaints about the improper process two years ago. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if an independent source can be found for a claim on the camp's website, which claims that the camp is the oldest Jewish boys' camp in New England. I'm going to look. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think these do: [9] [10] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for being oldest Jewish summer camp in New England. Enigma ^message 05:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Enigmaman. The oldest Jewish summer camp in New England. --Oakshade (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided: [11]. Dorftrottel (canvass) 16:09, May 3, 2008
Keep I think the article has had enough improvements for it to be considered legitimate. QuentinV ^message 02:35, 04 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established - the oldest Jewish boys' Camp in New England. M0RD00R (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —M0RD00R (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 80-year old camp is notable for its historical context. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has already been made very clear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda (2nd nomination) and as supported by almost all editors, yet again, here for the 3rd time, and the sources are now in the article. IZAK (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No reliable sources that it will even be made at the moment. Black Kite 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham (film)[edit]

Nottingham is a project first announced back in January 2007; production was delayed because of the writers' strike -- see my userfied version at User:Erik/Nottingham (film). There is no guarantee that production will pick up, and per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not yet warranted. It is already briefly listed at List of films and television series featuring Robin Hood. When production begins, the article can be revived. (Current article was proposed for deletion, but it was challenged.) Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm unsure about the level of WP:CRYSTAL in this one. Specifically, the ELs both have a specific release date (November 2009), but is it enough? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The release date is unfortunately not enough. There have been numerous projects that have been set for a year, a month, and even a specific day. The date does not guarantee that the studio will be able to get the resources together to make the film. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't quite apply here -- there is verifiable coverage, but per WP:NFF, it doesn't yet belong in a stand-alone article. The process at the future films department suggests different ways to handle the coverage, depending on how much there is. There are some large merges, such as Shantaram (film), Logan's Run (2010 film), Fahrenheit 451 (2009 film), Jurassic Park IV, and Spider-Man 4 that had seemingly solid information like this film but still have not been able to enter production. Perhaps Nottingham could be merged elsewhere, such as at Ridley Scott's page. Another director, Neil Marshall, has a number of announced projects that are listed there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Anyone can add stuff to IMDB. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, although I think this is a clear delete based on current practice. I just figure we'll have to recreate it anyways. gren グレン 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not. Ridley Scott has a ton of choices right now. He's attached to adapting Blood Meridian, Stones, The Low Dweller, The Kind One, a Reagan film, and Brave New World. Nottingham could come first, or it could come after all these projects, or not be made at all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing available to confirm this is actually going to be made into a film. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. Many factors, such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. It's already been delayed once; who's to say it won't be again. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 09:28, 30 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 and salt by Cobaltbluetony, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Menks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable as per WP:BIO. Relationship does not confer notability. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article has been deleted eight times and the previous AfD's result was delete. --Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 21:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD added - I was debating it before. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 21:18, 28 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) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sixto Nolasco[edit]

Article has been tagged for references, orphan status, notability and general cleanup since June 2006 and June 2007. It also has untagged but significant problems with neutrality. This is a BLP article (about a 36 year old photographer) with marginal notability and very little activity, and as such it will be generally difficult to maintain this article at a high standard unless/until the subject becomes more notable. We can include it at that time. Avruch^T 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nakon 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with Nakon. 24.6.157.14 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Enigma ^message 21:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:54, 30 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 all - Nabla (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Wright III[edit]

Non-notable rapper whose albums are on his own label. All claims of notability are unsourced. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Tagged for lack of references since June '07. Albums are similarly non-notable and fail WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague assertations of notability, but nothing that seems to put him on par with WP:MUSIC. The albums were apparently self-released and therefore fail WP:MUSIC as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all per WP:MUSIC and WP:V. - eo (talk) 21:18, 30 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 Falun Gong and live organ harvesting as POV fork. Not deleted outright to give people the opportunity to merge useable content from the history. Sandstein (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvesting of Organs from Falun Gong Prisoners[edit]

I came across this while looking through some uncategorized articles. It's hopelessly and irrevocably mired in an anti-PRC, pro-Falun Gong POV mess. This article also contains original research and written like an essay or a political pamphlet. It it unfit for an encyclopedia and needs to be deleted. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Falun Gong and live organ harvesting, which has more sources and active editors (and its own NPOV dispute). Merge seems optional. --Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatant POV fork of the article Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. Merge any useful information into Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. This article is a POV fork of the main article. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There seems to be some decent, cited information here, but definitely a fork, and the title of the other is better. There is a neutrality dispute on the latter, and the creator of this article is an SPA, making me think it's a sock of one of the people involved in the dispute. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. POV forking is not an approved method of resolving content disputes. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:54, 30 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.

Black Sun (Star Wars)[edit]

The result was Withdrawn as duplicate, non-admin closure by --Lenticel ^(talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural. Prodded for the 2nd time. Concern was "Unsubstantiated in-universe plot summary for non-notable fictional element; single "reference" is to an unreliable source." Neutral on this. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn as duplicate. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 28 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 Prince Xizor (if there is consensus that another redirect target is preferable, please enact it - thanks). Black Kite 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sun (Star Wars)[edit]

Non-notable fictional organization. Sole reference is to in-universe unreliable source. Entirely plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, lacks reliable sources and is mostly plot. Anything noteworthy can be included in either the article for Prince Xizor or Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the above. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince Xizor Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plot summary. --Phirazo 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already on Wookieepedia, so Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional element which has not received significant coverage from secondary sources. Article is entirely plot summary. Without acceptable sources, it's unlikely real-world context or analysis can be added. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable fictional organization from notable franchise with sources in existence that just need to be added to this article per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Just because similar articles exist elsewhere does not mean we shouldn't also have an article here, too. If we went by such a policy, we would have no articles as everything we have is covered somewhere else. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I'm not sure it's worth keeping as an article, though it is as a redirect. Even relatively minor things in very important fiction like this should have a redirect. DGG (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A colleague I know wrote that article, I just wikified the thing. Because I don't know much about Star Wars, I abstain from voting for or against deletion. --Keimzelle (talk) 19:29, 3 May 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 move to the correct spelling. I'm using Rambriksh Benipuri, as it is the variant with the most Google hits, and will create a redirect from Ramvriksh Benipuri. Sandstein (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramavriksha Benipuri[edit]

Notability. The article claims this man was a "prominent writer" but google returns less than 40 hist for him (mostly wiki mirrors) and Amazon, zero. The article is full of positive pov, as if written by an admirer. This may well be a hoax, since a search for one of his books returns only 2 ghits, the article itself and a mirror. Damiens.rf 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The name is also spelt Ramvriksh Benipuri, and there are more results when you search with that name. He's in the Indian Dictionary of National Biography and the Encyclopedia of Indian Literature. English-language sources are slim but there's enough for a stub. --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly move to the more common spelling. A DNB entry makes him a automatically notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Move to more "notable" spelling as per wiki naming conventions. Redirect the above spelling. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: If there's a more commons spelling for his name, for God's sake let's use it. Is there a problem with the spelling of his works as well? Also, if someone could add a References section to the article with some reliable sources (are "Indian Dictionary of National Biography" and the "Encyclopedia of Indian Literature" acceptable?), I would volunteer to clean up the pov. I hope no offense is taken by the ignorance of this nomination, but you know something is wrong when the article for a great Indian writer comes up in a search for terms most commonly found on vanity articles about self-published writers. --Damiens.rf 12:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, certainly cleanup is warranted. Keep in mind per countering systemic bias that topics outside of the English language mainstream may be written by people for whom English is not their first language, or as in India, highly dialecticized. You may want to adjust your antennae because this didn't read as spam to me, just inappropriate in tone. --Dhartung | Talk 01:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the initiator of this page: Probably this link of a site of the Government of India is useful [12] - it tells about issue of a commemorative postal stamp on Rambriksh Benipuri by the Government of India, and states, inter alia, that "the Department of Posts (DoP) has brought out a set of commemorative postage stamps on Kazi Nazrul Islam, Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar', Jhaverchand Kalidas Meghani and Rambriksh Benipuri symbolising the theme "Linguistic Harmony of India." This also marks the 50th anniversary of "Hindi Diwas", adoption of Hindi as the official language of the Indian Union. The stamps are in the denomination of Rs.3/-." IMHO, this establishes the notability of this writer beyond any iota of doubt - no Government issues stamps on persons who are/ were not notable. I also take this opportunity to thank the nominator as by such exercise only we can evaluate and establish the credibility of Wikipedia. And, yes - many spellings may be circulating. --Bhadani (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Kazi Nazrul Islam is one of the featured articles :). Yes, undoubtedly the POVs should be suitably dealt with and removed from Ramavriksha Benipuri. --Bhadani (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah! I didn't even find Rambriksh in my earlier searches. That helps locate this confirmation from the Government of India of the postage stamp in his honor, his inclusion in the (unofficial, to be sure) Biographies of Great Persons in Brief, as well as one more indicator of notability, an award named after him (the Rambriksh Benipuri Samman). --Dhartung | Talk 01:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to his proper name. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:56, 30 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 unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aajkaal[edit]

Non notable local newspaper. Although google search shows several ghits, maximum are blogs, forums etc. No significant coverage in reliable source. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. I would like to propose, though, that all newspapers be regarded as automatically notable, in the same way that cities and towns are. Reliable sources generally exist, but are often hidden behind a paywall or are only available in printed form and at a limited number of libraries. In this case, I expect that additional references are available in Bengali-language media. --Eastmain (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Its the third most widely circulated Bengali Newspaper in India. I will update this article with suitable references by tomorrow. And I support Eastmain's view about notability of a newspaper. Shovon (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is verifiable. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. It's a leading newspaper in one of the ten most widely spoken languages in the world. How on earth is this non-notable? Interlingua 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But your claims are unsourced unverifiable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article right now has unsourced claims, but that's a reason to place a citation needed tag inside NOT to delete it. There's a difference between unverified and unverifiable. This article certainly makes verifiable (or refutable, falsifiable) claims. What's needed here is the improvement of the article, not extremist delitionism. Interlingua 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have made good faith search for references, but not found. Article having unverifiable claim is a reason for deletion, the people want to keep this article should take the burden of finding references. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the sourced claims are sufficient to establish notability even if the unsourced claims are removed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It is not a mere local newspaper. It is a widely circulated Bengali newspaper in Calcutta as well as West Bengal.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you have reliable sources to support your claim? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article already cites a survey which puts the newspaper's readership at 33 lakh [13]. That's 3,300,000. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But it does not support the claim "leading Bengali newspapers in Kolkata". It depends on local population if the readership is really high while considering the local population? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source claims readership of 3.3 million. Discounting readership down, that would at least put circulation in the hundreds of thousands. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whats the concern? Isn't this a major paper? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it were only a local newspaper it would be notable as it is from Calcutta. Due to this, it has a readership of sever million, and IMO a newpaper needs a readership of only in the thousands. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 21:19, 1 May 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 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Faaeteete[edit]

Fails WP:ATHLETE: has not played in a professional game; see also WP:CRYSTAL. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hoax: one reference fails to produce any hits on this name. Apparent player for Oregon Ducks, did not play in 2007 Sun Bowl. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think it's a hoax cnnsi link, chicago tribune link, but I don't know if he's notable, either. The thing is that there are a lot of these guys that have been signed as free agents post draft by NFL teams, and a lot of them have had Wikipedia pages created for them. It's true, however, that a large percentage of them will either be cut before they play in an actual game or will be forever signed to the team's practice squad and will never see a real game that way, either. I'm genuinely unsure as to notability issues regarding these guys. Rnb (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of sources establishing notability.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously not a hoax article. He was a star defensive tackle for Oregon and meets WP:BIO as he played at the highest amateur level and there are reliable sources of information. The Oregon newspaper even did a series of stories on him following his career. NFL players are inherently notable. This one is obvious. -B (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: NFL players are not considered notable per WP:ATHLETE until they have actually played in a pro game. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Precisely. The criterion is not "playing at highest amateur level", it is "playing at highest level in amateur sport", which does not include amateurs in professional sports (as is this case). - Nabla (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just as an aside, this guy has already been cut from the Chicago Bears. Rnb (talk) 18:54, 4 May 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. The existence of an AMG page almost always points to notability; and there are enough additional sources now that I believe the band passes WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katagory V[edit]

Article was deleted on April 23 for failing WP:Band. Subsequent speedy for recreation of deleted material was declined. The article is no different to the version that was speedy deleted. It fails to assert any notability. The band is signed to a minor label (not notable - article redirects to Lance King). None of their releases have pages (Present Day is linked to present day, as in today). Nouse4aname (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very weak Delete. No assertion of notability, true. The band has been the subject of tangential mentions in major publications and major mentions in tangential publications. Fail WP:Band.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wp:band. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article IS different to the version that was speedy deleted, as several references and viable sources were added in the second version in the attempt to establish notability. This is far more than most bands of lesser standings on wiki, which many have none at all and are still found notable. Be it a Minor or Major Lable could be an irrelevant argument being that in either case, a bands product is available in the same fashion through the same resources, just on a smaller scale. Nightmare Records is notable, however, the Wiki page does redirect to the lable owner Lance King, and could have been a possible merge from a previous Afd? The band should have a pass on WP:Band through Soundscan charts in the U.S., and Google search pulls up several media outlets of broadcasting. The album pages are still undergoing edits before being added. Pass WP:HMM.--Prog2112 (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.225.88 (talk) [reply]
Keep - I believe the band does assert notability, indeed. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Exactly which of points 1-12 at WP:Band does this article satisfy. I can't see any...Nouse4aname (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Agree with The Haunted Angel. Passes WP:HMM

It helps to read the articles discussion page first to know the articles intentions. There are a slew of bands and artists that fail WP:Bands, just check all the bands that are linked on the articles page. Thus why it falls under said WP:HMM project as notable. Rsdtc (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. These arguements don't make any sense...since when is HMM a criterion of notability. The article fails WP:Band. WP:HMM has nothing to do with notability of articles. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseWP:BAND, like all guidelines, is descriptive of what usually happens, not rules for what must happen. See WP:Consensus can change and the sentence at the top of WP:BAND:
"Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion."
Still, I need more info to change my mind from a delete.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 15:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, what I don't understand is the mention of WP:HMM, which has nothing to do with deciding whether an article should be kept or not.Nouse4aname (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* I am also a little concerned that this posting [[14]] may constitute forum shopping...? Nouse4aname (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention WP:CANVASS ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading back over that post, I feel a bit embarrassed. forum shopping was certainly not my intentions, but rather to get the opinions from others who also work on WP:HMM, whether or not the article falls within WP:HMM, as well as asses its workmanship and cleanliness in that particular forum, or possibly on the articles talk page... not here. I apologize for that. Prog2112 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if anything, those people will know better than I do. You are correct that they are not a notability criteria and that that was a bizzare thing to say. --CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I saw this on the WP:METAL page and came to take a look and it seems like the band's definitely notable enough. They've played with a ton of notable acts and that in itself makes them pass notability requirements. As for there being no pages for their releases that's a small problem that can be solved quickly. Hell, I'll start those pages if no one else does. It only takes about ten minutes to start all of them. Seems to pass WP:BAND. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Thank you for offering to tackle the album pages, which is very much appreciated! However, I was able to finally get them online; I didn’t want to post them until I knew all information was accurate. Also, I was able to clean up the article a bit more. Hopefully it was not all in vain...Prog2112 06:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Can't find any significant coverage in mainstream media. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BAND. Peter Fleet (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly qualifies per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC: multiple non-trivial mention in independent and reliable sources. Interviews here, here, here, here; album reviews here, here, here, here, here, here and plenty more. They have also received news coverage here and of course, on blabbermouth.net where they've been covered many times: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Blabbermouth would not give a band so much news coverage if they are not notable. There is also a biography at All Music Guide that describes the band's debut album as creating a buzz. Article needs clean up, not deletion. --Bardin (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I can see, I wouldn't call any of those above sources reliable or verifiable. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you please explaine why any of those would not be called reliable or verifiable? I should point out that WP:Music cites All Music Guide as a reliable or verifiable source, which has been noted on the articles refrence section. Prog2112 08:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, AMG is reliable, but the others, which include websites such as hardrockhaven.net, metal-temple.com, metal-rules.com and metal-observer.com are hardly mainstream, reliable and verifiable media outlets, and thus coverage in only one such site (AMG) hardly constitutes "multiple non-trivial mention in...reliable sources". Nouse4aname (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be mainstream to be reliable. Just as obscure, heavy-going books are acceptable sources for history articles, decent ezines are acceptable sources for heavy metal articles. On top of that, Blabbermouth is definitely reliable. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 4 May 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 delete as G3 vandalism hoax. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inishbfin, between northern Ireland and the republic of Ireland[edit]

This is a hoax article. There is no island as described. The whole thing is a work of fiction. GNUSMAS : TALK 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as G1, patent nonsense Jim Miller (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious hoax. See recent edit history of Inishbofin, Donegal, where someone has tried to insert much the same nonsense. User:Tropicanmanofthesea has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism there. I assume the creator of this page is a reincarnation. Snalwibma (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Absolute rubbish.--Damac (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Blatantly obvious hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense/fabrication. Selective copy and paste job from here. Subject on this blog is Inishinny (off Gweedore, a different island), but content is similarly inaccurate rubbish. (Even Inishinny is only JUST out from Dunmore Strand. You could wade it at low tide. And so the "in International waters, Ireland has no claim" assertion is total fabricated nonsense in either context.) Guliolopez (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is this? http://www.inishbofin.com/ - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, http://www.inishbofin.com/ is this, not this. Snalwibma (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi Cobaltbluetony. Inishbofin exists. In fact, there are two of them: Inishbofin, Donegal (4 miles out) and Inishbofin, Galway (7 miles out). This article however is about some fabricated "Inishbofin island" which is (allegedly) 38 miles off the coast, in international waters, owned by a person named Cole (no doubt the childish hoaxer) and the site of zoological research. In short. It's nonsense. Guliolopez (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete saying no to hoax. Pundit|utter 19:49, 28 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:A1. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Instability[edit]

Delete nn book by nn author. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real Google hits, zero Google News hits. Sounds not-notable to me for such a "popular" author. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom hit it right...--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 20:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. nneonneo ^talk 18:04, 29 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 17:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rome News-Tribune[edit]

Delete is every small town paper inherently notable? I don't think so, and nothing indicates that this particular one passes WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever else may be true, Rome, GA is a city of 35,000 people. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now has references which prove notability. I would like to propose that all newspapers be regarded as automatically notable, the way cities and towns are. References almost always exist for newspapers, but not everyone knows where to find them, and if other editors didn't have access to the book The last linotype: the story of Georgia and its newspapers since World War II, it would have been harder to prove notability. --Eastmain (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Is every small town newspaper notable?" is a bogus argument. The only issue is the notability of this newspaper, and my opinion is that it definitely is due to the facts that it has been published for 165 years, it has been the newspaper of public record most of that time for all of Floyd County, and the paper and many of its writers and editors have received numerous awards for journalism. Perhaps, Carlossuarez46, if you give an article more than a few hours to be developed, you'll see the reasons for its notability become apparent in the article. JD Lambert^(T|C) 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a notable newspaper that's worthy of inclusion.Ecoleetage (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep Not every small town newspaper is inherently notable. A paper which has published in a town of (now) 35,000 for 165 years seems notable on the face of it. If we treat this like some campus papers have been judged, then in that 165 years a couple of controversial editorial or libel suit which was noted by other papers would be sufficient notability to produce a keep vote. I expect that in a sixth of a millenium they have stirred the waters on at least a couple of occasions; it would be very hard not to have. Also they have won some awards over the years, per Google News archive search, such as "'Georgia Press Association presents annual awards to newspapers.' Atlanta Journal-Constitution - NewsBank - Jun 15, 1985: 'Division B: 1st, Rome News Tribune for "Rome Section"' and "'Newspapers honored for contributions to Georgia AP' Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, GA - Apr 12, 2008: "The Rome News-Tribune received the state AP's outstanding news cooperation award,.." Several other stories (behind paywall) seem to describe other awards won by the paper, and appear in other papers. There is substantial coverage of the paper in books, besides "The last linotype (p 403) cited above. See "The Politics of Whiteness: Race, Workers, and Culture in the Modern South" by Brattail (2004) p. 209 [15]. Edison (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple references are available for the paper. That, along with the age of the newspaper, demonstrates notability for this "small town newspaper". ~ Eóin (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 29 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 00:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - nominated once previously three years ago, seems to have gotten a lot of "keep, interesting and useful" sort of comments. There do not appear to be reliable sources that establish the notability of this direct-to-DVD documentary, written by someone who does not appear to be notable enough for an article and narrated by someone similarly non-notable. Otto4711 (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creator and narrator are both red links, as are many of the films. There are also no reliable sources to back up the info contained here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 10lbHamdog --CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 20:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a direct to DVD video with no theatrical release and no known importance. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no references Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For notability, seek out The Golden Turkey Awards instead! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rotten Tomatoes has no evidence that this DVD has been reviewed by anyone, which suggests non-notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:57, 30 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) 07:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janaki Bakhle[edit]

Contested prod. Academic with one book, which has been reviewed but doesn't meet the standards in WP:PROF; the subject, with dozens of others, of an attack piece by advocacy group Campus Watch, which is the only available independent source about her. Article contributed to, by among others, members of the sockfarm at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evidence-based. Please ignore WP:HOTTIE, as I am resolutely doing. Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn professor, article may be intended to disparage them. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the book reviews in a variety of periodicals (two scholarly journals and one mass-market newspaper, The Hindu) establish her as a notable author. --Eastmain (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The zionism controversy may be less important than her book and other scholarly work. The article would still be encyclopedic if the text and references about that controversy were removed. --Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the Zionism thing because Refero relato wanted to take the article down, and I thought that if I put up news articles the article would stay up. They really are trivial, and I would be happy to see them go. I am new here and I am puzzled. After Relato Refero tagged Janaki Bakhle I went and looked at what makes a professor notable. Whole bodies of work. original concepts htat are widely cited. stc. then I looked around wikipedia. Single episodes of Buffy the Vampire slayer have pages. Newly-published novels. Novelists with one novel out. Art-house movies. Really insignificant Hollywood movies get whole pages. Apparently every actor who has every appeared on screen and every player who has walked onto a major league field seems to have a page. But professors have this long list of qualifications. Obviously, I have a bit of an ax to grind. But hear me out. Professors write things that matter, even when those things appear exclusively in academic journals. It can be useful to watch the young up-and-comers. Useful for them to have pages so that when they pop into the news people can look them up. And hten there is the double standard. Professors are public figures. Why do one-game ball players get their own pages, and people like Bakhle who is doing work that people pay attention to do not? Can we talk about this?Butler stacks (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Butler stacks[reply]
- Professors aren't necessarily public figures. Just taking a job that requires teaching and publication doesn't mean you have to put yourself before the world. One might really wonder if they are so important; their research is far more important in an encyclopedic sense than the people behind it. Furthermore, the basic rule is verifiability, with higher standards for people, to avoid libel and intrusions into libel. Most professors don't have much written about them. Ball players and movies do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An assistant professor with a single publication certainly fails WP:PROF. Her being one of the signatories of a petition that briefly made news seems to fall under WP:BLP1E, rather than establishing notability. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 00:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:PROF is sometimes misunderstood. It states: "If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable." The book reviews arguably establish notability as an author. --Eastmain (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I disagree about the book reviews. If a book with a good press isn't reviewed, it is a complete failure; most academic books are reviewed in a number of outlets. As such, I don't think it points to notability at all. While one can fail WP:PROF and still be notable, it will not be as an academic; I don't see anything in the article that asserts any notability outside of academe. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 01:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - RJC writes that "I don't see anything in the article that asserts any notability outside of academe. " but most of the people on wikipedia are not notable outside the narrow field in which they are notable. To test this hypothesis, I typed in a common surname: Rogers. Up came a long list of people I had never heard of. here are a few I clicked on: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] I am not arguing that these pages be removed. Apparently somebody thinks it important to know that a young man named Charles Rogers played professional football for a few years. What I am suggesting is that the standards for obscure footballers and very minor television personalities are irrationally lower than for members of university faculties. Butler stacks (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Butler stacks[reply]
      - Please be more patient and read what others write more carefully. He said that Bakhle was not notable as an academic, therefore her notability--or lack thereof--outside academia was important.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I take your point. But I continue to see something bizarre in a system by which this remarkable young woman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittney_Rogers is more notable than a scholar like Janaki. It appears to me that the academic notability standards are badly out of line with standards of notability in other fields. And do read my point. Which is that almost everyone in wikipedia is notable only within the narrow field of endeavor within which they are notable. I should perhaps qualify this by noting that my own Wikipedia page is flourishing and not in dispute, that is, there are disputes, ony not about notability.Butler stacks (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Butler stacks[reply]
        I fail to see why someone who has appeared within the public eye shouldn't be more notable than someone who has never sought the spotlight.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment. Might I suggest that this is not the appropriate forum to discuss whether WP:PROF sets the bar too high? That would instead be Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). We simply apply policies to particular cases. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 02:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be quite notable based on sources used within article. Yahel Guhan 04:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose you mean FrontPage Magazine? or Campus Watch? --Relata refero (disp.) 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I mean the other 9+ very reliable sources within the article which prove its notability. Yahel Guhan 06:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review "independent" and "about the subject", please. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:PROF criteria and WP:RS. As an author, she is weak notable but that doesn’t give any reason for having an ency article. Let her prove more notability by writing more books so that we could consider it later. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A relatively junior academic who does not satisfy WP:PROF yet. The Columbia controversy regarding Israel investments, if sufficiently notable, can be covered in a separate article. Nsk92 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per [[WP:PROF] - "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work." Sorry, but the professor's one book doesn't seem to be either significant or well-known. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PROF. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:PROF. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being on track for a successful academic career at a good university is not the same as passing WP:PROF, and it doesn't seem that she does yet pass it. As for signing a petition and being married to someone notable, I don't think they provide any notability at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 30 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 lack of sources, lack of notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leela Mishra[edit]

Delete unsourced short bio; actress in 200 movies (as an extra? did she star? no sources, as usual. Any normal bio details? no... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per her IMDB page. That is a source.Electricbassguy (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though it is a dead end, unsourced article, checking the incoming links reveal several Bollywood movies with her in their credits. While the author has been improving the prose, Wikification, expanding, and sourcing are very much needed here. B.Wind (talk) 03:27, 5 May 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 17:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penryn college[edit]

Delete is this institution is notable, this is hardly a decent beginning of an article. Then, again, it may not be notable - just because you call yourself a college doesn't mean its a secondary educational instution - rather than an unaffiliated after-school test prep tutory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, single-line substub. No objection to the article but the lack of content means it's next to useless. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Very weak keep. Consensus on whether schools should be included hasn't really formed, and there's no such thing as a school district in the UK to merge it to. I think this just about pushes over the line. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The website states it is an LEA-maintained secondary school established in 1957, with a "gold star" rating from OFSTED and a "leading edge" designation from the Department of Education; also that it was one of the earlier schools in the UK to attain sports college status.[23][24] The OFSTED report (2005) gives it grade 1 and states it is outstanding.[25] There is some discussion of older awards/achievements in this local newspaper report.[26] I don't have the facility to search news archives, but there is also local coverage of school events eg recent visit by Kelly Holmes.[27][28] Espresso Addict (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article with this information & refs. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two points: (1) Notability cannot be established by the organization's own website, which basically the rewrite attempts; (2) that Kelly Holmes visited the place doesn't make it notable - Kelly Holmes has probably visited numerous shops, restaurants, and lavatories but we don't turn WP into a directory or guide to the shopping and digestive choices of thye rich and famous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Espresso Addict. This independent, reliable source in particular addresses the school directly in detail as well as several other reliable sources being available. V, NPOV, NOR DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - a high school independently assessed as being outstanding. Sources easily pass WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict and DoubleBlue.DuncanHill (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as one of the most notable high schools I've seen. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:27, 1 May 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. Bduke (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Oratory School Schola[edit]

No sources, it is just a school choir and self-promoting WazzaMan (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Merge to London Oratory School due to improvement. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. I agree with Stifle and WazzaMan. It is obvious the article was created just to promote the choir without any care for referencing. If there are no sources, it should be gone. Keylock191 (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC) keylock191[reply]
- Vote struck since user later voted merge below. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a quite good start of an article. I rather wish the unreferenced tag had been permitted to stay on a little to give opportunity for them to be added. GoogleNews shows many independent reliable sources and verifies some of the notable claims (recordings of several major movie soundtracks). Even had the nominator been unable to find the sources, I can't understand why he wouldn't have suggested a merge to London Oratory School. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously. The New York Times filmography here, underscores the notability of this outstanding choir. TerriersFan (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have started to add sources to the article. I am concerned by large scale content removal from both this page and also London Oratory School. Whilst unsourced content can, of course, be removed a great deal of uncontroversial factual information was removed from the School article rather than adding sources. Tagging and sourcing is the better way of developing pages. TerriersFan (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: TerriersFan. You need to read wikipedia's guidelines again. Find the sources yourself, then add it to wikipedia. Everything needs to be referenced. Keylock191 (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC) keylock191[reply]

Merge It should be merged with the article for London oratory school Keylock191 (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC) keylock191[reply]
Keep per significant improvement by TerriersFan, reliable sources added. The choir is notable on its own; no need to merge to school article. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:58, 4 May 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 PeaceNT's reference - passes WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance (band)[edit]

Minimally meets WP:MUSIC by claiming to have toured internationally but I'm having some trouble finding sufficient WP:V to support the article. Pigman☿ 17:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. However they are still an ace band ;) I had a look at their myspace, they didn't have too many profile plays suggesting that they were not too big. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Books ref confirms national tour. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:47, 4 May 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 have noticed the calls for expanding this, but a look at the article indicates that it runs afoul of WP:CSD#A1 on lack of context. The entire content is "*Joe Frank Radio Artist, Santa Monica, California", and when the article is in a condition like that it is misleading and not useful to anyone. If anyone wants to recreate this, please go right ahead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1993[edit]

Delete this unsourced one-liner posing as an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand so we have a full list. Somebody just has to cross check for blue links. Fifteen years on, quite a few of those people will have become notable (although just being on the list is probably not sufficient by itself). --Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. If someone wins it, by all means put them in a category. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand properly Starting it this way was wrong, but we can take advantage of it. We have full lists for many other years. DGG (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per carlos & DGG Mathmo ^Talk 08:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no context, very little content. B.Wind (talk) 03:31, 5 May 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. There is a view that 'key' parts of this article should be merged to St. Joseph's Institution. If any editor wants to do this, I will be quite happy to restore this to user space to assist such a merge, but the article as it stands is too long and inappropriately written to just add to the school article and redirect. Bduke (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's Institution National Police Cadet Corps[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Joseph's Institution National Police Cadet Corps

Non-notable school/corps, no major notability established. No sources, citations... seicer | talk | contribs 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not established. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cadet corps at one school. almost none of them will be notable, and there's nothing special about this. I am not convinced that the accomplishment and minor awards listed are really outstanding.DGG (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St. Joseph's Institution. One small section isn't notable on its own. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Stifle. Not notable on its own, and does not have significant coverage. EJF (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to St. Joseph's Institution. This is a significant, award-winning corps. However, the key achievements will fit nicely in the main article. TerriersFan (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This cadet corps is one of the most established in Singapore and is recognised by thousands of people across the NPCC. Merging into St. Joseph's Institution will not be a good option as there is too much to condense. User:Hardypotter (talk) 18:19 , May 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 10:20, 5 May 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FIRST Foliage[edit]

No major notability established outside of a reference in a magazine. seicer | talk | contribs 17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. Qworty (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:11, 30 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. Any editor may create a redirect. Sandstein (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Damicourt[edit]

Sole claim to notability is marrying Louis XIV's court musician and bearing "19" children. There's no evidence she was notable for everything else and the book mentions are limited to this one questionably accurate sentence. Notability is not inherited and the line is covered in his, she isn't notable enough for her own. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~I think you meant to say "marrying Marin Marais, the court musician for Louis XIV".~~ Notability is not inherited, and the spouse of a composer, if that's all she's known for, is not notable -- no matter how many children she bore. --Dhartung | Talk 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Fixed now. --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Notability isn't inherited or married, but there's nothing wrong with having her name up as a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's quite V, she just isn't very N, actually. --Dhartung | Talk 11:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:12, 30 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:G7. Only substantial contributions were by User:Recurring dreams who has voted delete. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Des Renford Aquatic Centre[edit]

Wow! It consists of an indoor *and* an outdoor pool. It also consists of zero notability with RS coverage limited to events at the aquatic centre. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, despite its pool-based wonderment. ~ mazca ^talk 17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I'm sure the pool is thrilling, though. Tnxman307 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of my earlier efforts when I was finding my way around Recurring dreams (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 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 in the sense of "not delete". Whether merging or redirection is appropriate can be discussed on the talk pages. Sandstein (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Armstrong-Jones[edit]

Charles Armstong-Jones is not royal even though the incidence of his birth places him in line of succession to the British throne. That fact is best recorded there, where he appears, and also on his father's page, where all relevant information has already been merged. This page doesn't really serve to any encyclopedic purpose. The boy is, himself, not a non-notable individual within a notable group which already has a page. Charles 17:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the exact same reason (younger sister):

Delete/merge as nominator. Charles 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley as a plausible search term, but a person of insufficient notability to really warrant an article. As per previous discussions exactly where someone in the line of succession has to be to be notable for that alone is fairly vague, but I think this fellow is low enough, young enough and non-notable enough that a separate article serves little purpose. ~ mazca ^talk 17:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also leaning towards a merge, but we should note that there are some wider issues here. This issue has come up in deletion discussions before. Just how important do minor royals have to be to become inherently notable? I would draw the line at the grandchildren of a monarch, but it seems other would draw it lower. PatGallacher (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:Notability (people) for this sort of discussion. It shouldn't be had here since it has a broader scope than this article and has been hashed time and time again on these AfDs. Charles 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a line can be established generally at any particular generation or relationship to a sovereign. Notability means that a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Sometimes a son of a sovereign has not received such coverage, but the great-niece may have. Notability is not the same as "importance" or "closeness to a throne"; it is purely a matter of whether somebody has written about the topic, and therefore Wikipedia should summarize what has been written. I regret that in this discussion there has been virtually no mention of the published sources (although there are some). Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley as a plausible search term. I'm sticking with my rule of thumb that holders of titles are notable, monarchs and successors are notable, but only the progeny of monarchs or heirs apparent should be inherently notable (any other members of the family will have to pass normal WP:N). There's a fair chance as an adult he will pass, but not as an 8-year-old. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am voting KEEP because I think short, separate articles are appropriate for people this high up in the succession. An article for a cousin further down in the succession -- Marina-Charlotte Windsor, was not deleted after a similar AFD debate. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he won't be this high up the succession for ever. There are by my calculation 8 people under 30, all currently childless, higher than him in the succession, it's likely most of them will have kids before long. If the British monarchy survives in its present form then he will probably slip quite substantially down the succession in his lifetime, and he could easily slip significantly in the next few years. PatGallacher (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but at the moment these two kids are 14th and 15th in line to the throne; they are considered of enough note for their presence to be noted, at some length, in the London Telegraph article and probably also in some other national magazines that have not been referenced. The London Telegraph considered them notable. Charles deleted what he terms "cruft" and "fluff" from the article on Margarita Armstrong-Jones. The "cruft" and "fluff" was from the Daily Telegraph article, which is generally regarded as a serious newspaper. I continue to think that these people warrant their own separate short articles and would vote to keep them as they are rather than to merge them. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally regarded" being operative. Everyone has their slip-ups. Charles 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that it's your opinion that this was a "slip-up." In my opinion, they covered an event that their readers found of interest and described relatives of the queen whom their readers wanted to know something about. That's "notability." --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had intended to remain neutral in this debate, since I have no interest in this family whatsoever. However, I have now done a search on Factiva, the largest database of newspaper articles. A search for "Charles Armstrong-Jones" comes up with 26 hits; some of these are references to his father (who has the baptismal name Charles). In addition there are other hits if one searches for "Armstrong-Jones" and "Charles". Most of these hits are mere mentions-in-passing. However, in addition to the articles about his birth and baptism, there is at least one article which is specifically about the individual, "The royal page boy who said 'I won't' at his Uncle William's wedding" (April 29, 2001). To me, this individual is unimportant, and I think it ridiculous that a newspaper would devote articles to him. However, it is undeniable that he is repeatedly the subject of news coverage (whether earned or not). This makes him notable. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, Noel. Would saying "I won't" get anyone into an encyclopedia? He is not notable by any stretch of the word. I am not about to write an article on a friend of mine who has appeared in the New York Times, the Providence Journal, on CBS and on Dateline just because they were on those things because really it is not just that something is "there", its real importance has to be taken into account. Charles 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His relationship to the royal family and place in the line of succession makes him notable. Is he particularly important in and of himself as yet? No. But he is of some interest. I don't know if your pal is notable enough for a Wikipedia article or not, not knowing his name. Maybe he is. Coverage in national media actually is of some note, though he isn't the subject of this particular debate. Granted, I'm more of an "inclusionist" than you apparently are. If it's of interest to someone, I think it deserves an article, provided it's properly referenced. These articles were, for the most part. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting read: WP:INTERESTING. Charles 10:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, I take an inclusionist position. These kids are notable because of their position in the line of succession, because they're relatives of the queen, and because they have been written about in the national press. Both articles are referenced. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. et al. D B D 08:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the top 20 or so in line to the throne would seem to be automatically notable. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, as recently shown. Charles 23:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not because he is in line for the British throne, but because he is second "in line" to be the Earl of Snowdon. He will, barring some unlikely catastrophe, never be King of the UK, but he WILL (unless he predeceases his father and/or grandfather) hold a title in the future. Some of the young heirs (that is, the heir to the heir) to other lesser-known titles have articles. Margarita's article I could understand being deleted, and should the Linleys have another son, he wouldn't need an article, but since Charles is going to be the future Viscount Linley, and then Earl of Snowdon, I would say keep his article, but Delete his sister's. Morhange (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about we worry about that when/if he becomes a peer, not because he may become one. Charles 10:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:15, 30 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 strong, policy based, reason for deletion given, consensus says keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beggar's Oil[edit]

non-notable album of an otherwise notable musician - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No charting recorded at AMG

Comment Does the same apply to other albums by this artist, or is this just a particularly unsuccessful one? In general I prefer to have separate articles for either all or none of a band's albums - removing this particular article while leaving the others in the chronology intact would be a little unproductive, in my opinion. ~ mazca ^talk 17:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The release in question was an EP. The music was created at the same time as the previous recording in the chronology. I agree that having the whole chronology is important. User:Airproofing ^talk
Weak keep Even if it's an EP, it was on a major label and by a notable band; those factors are usually enough to warrant a decent article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a major release by a major artist; my second choice would be to merge it to Sky Like a Broken Clock, it's companion album.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 20:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reviews of this album are linked. If you are unfamiliar with a subject, consider adding a tag to request citations rather than calling for deletion. -MrFizyx (talk) 06:02, 3 May 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 Fundraiser. Sandstein (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fund raiser[edit]

This page originally started with the phrase: "Fund raiser is defined in Italian as..." and went on to give a definition, in Italian. Though now in English and somewhat expanded, it is still no more than a dicdef with spurious "How to" advice and, as far as I can see, has no hope of developing into anything more than a dicdef. Emeraude (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/ merge into Wiktionary - Article doesn't list sources, appears to be nothing be an expanded dictionary entry. Tnxman307 (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge anything useful into fundraiser (itself not much better, but it does have one source). --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to fundraiser. It's basically a duplicate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly written duplicate of fundraiser (possibly by someone who did not know that the phrase was one word and not two). The article itself it a combination dicdef and how-to. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to fundraiser. No useful content. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 29 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 and redirect per Dhartung. Sandstein (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Pen[edit]

Just one of the seating sections of a Stadium. Also no refs. Buc (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I did a google search and cant find any relaible references for this. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and Merge with Reliant Stadium. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge with Reliant Stadium, considering that it is a part of the stadium. I found some references, including an article from Texas Monthly, a well-respected and widely-circulated print magazine. I also found a page on the Houston Texans' site. Trouble is, some content seems to have been directly lifted from that, WP:COPYVIO violation. I removed all that wasn't a suspected copyright violation. Staeiou (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to bullpen with a hatnote to the stadium. Good point, Dhartung. Staeiou (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the idea of merging the info into the stadium article. However about the redirect, wouldn't someone who typed in bull pen be much more likely to be looking for bullpen, the widely used baseball term, as opposed to a section in Reliant Stadium?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how about redirecting Bull pen to Bullpen and redirect Bull Pen to Reliant Stadium? -Verdatum (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't think that matches the principle of least surprise for searchers. --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reliant Stadium, not sufficiently notable to warrant it's own article. Even for the merge, it should probably be backed up with a source... -Verdatum (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reliant Stadium, but redirect to bullpen with a hatnote to the stadium. --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bullpen. That's the most relevant thing for this entry.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just put me 100% with Dhartung.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Dhartung; having this redirect is a good idea, and the information should remain on the stadium article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to bullpen. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Reliant Stadium, then redirect to bullpen, with the appropriate note at the top of bullpen about where to find the stadium seating section.--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:18, 30 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 (all). There is no consensus to delete these albums, there is also not much discussion regarding a merge, which may be appropriate. Merging is a non-afd, non-admin procedure that anyone can do where appropriate without prior discussion. Prior discussion is recommended however for contentious or possibly controversial merges. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Hills of California[edit]

non-notable album of an otherwise notable musician - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard.com does not list the album
Infobox claim of AMG review does not exist
Added to this AFD:
- Honey in the Lion's Head - (review exists, but is this sufficient for WP:MUSIC?)
- Dream Café - (review exists, but is this sufficient for WP:MUSIC?)
- In the Dark with You - same as above
- Songs of Innocence and of Experience (Greg Brown album) - same as above
- Down in There - same as above
- Bathtub Blues - same as above
- Friend of Mine (Greg Brown album) - same as above
- The Evening Call - same as above

I'm curious why these albums do not fit the Wiki album project. Greg Brown is a very note-worthy folk musician and I believe his albums are just as noteworthy and any of the others that are on here. He has many notable ties to the folk music world and his career is well-followed. All his albums have high All-Music ratings and placing them in the Wiki album project gives others the chance to add to the album info without having to do the initial grunt-work of listing credits, songs, etc. Thanks. User:Airproofing

Keep all pending the Wiki Album project being given a chance to expand them. Picking and choosing what to include from an artist's canon is a violation of WP:NPOV. The only exception I'll make is if the initial album nominated can be proven a hoax. Go ahead and delete that one if that's the case. 23skidoo (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete album currently fails WP:MUSIC if Billboard doesn't list it, but as Stifle noted if enough sources can be found that establish notability, then the article can probably have a chance to live. ArcAngel (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I don't have time to do all the legwork, but Folkwax, has reviews for Honey in the Lion's Head, If I Had Known: Essential Recordings 1980-1996, Milk of the Moon, In The Hills Of California, and The Evening Call. All Greg Brown albums get reviews, they aren't plentiful online, but are doubtlessly in the pages of backissues of Sing Out!, Dirty Linen, fRoots, and the like. Wikipeida should not ignore folkies just because they are neglected by the All Music Guide and don't maintain a large footprint in cyberspace. -MrFizyx (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add that Harp has reviews of: Yellow Dog, In the Hills of California: Live from the Kate Wolf Music Festival 1997–2003, Honey in the Lion’s Head, and Going Driftless: An Artist’s Tribute to Greg Brown. Read 'em now while they're still posted online, Harp is going through a bankruptcy. Other places to look for his reviews include No Depression Magazine, and in newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post.
- Greg Brown Albums that have been reviewed in fRoots. Listed with issue number:
  - Bathtub Blues (Red House) 130
  - Covenant (Red House) 208
  - Down In There (Red House) 91/92
  - Dream Café (Red House) 108
  - Further In (Red House) 163/164
  - If I Had Known: Essential Recordings, 1980-1996 (Red House) 246
  - In The Dark With You (Red House) 31
  - In The Hills Of California (Red House) 256 ATR
  - One Big Town (Red House) 84
  - One More Goodnight Kiss (Red House) 72
  - One Night (Coffeehouse Extemporé) 26
  - Songs Of Innocence And Experience (Red House) 46
  - The Evening Call (Red House) 282
  - The Live One (Red House) 156
  - The Poet Game (Red House) 139/140
  - Friend Of Mine (Philo) 121
I am certian a search of Sing Out! would yeild a similar result. -MrFizyx (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PopMatters has reviews online of the following:
  - The Evening Call (Red House)
  - If I Had Known: Essential Recordings: 1980-1996 (Red House)
  - Honey in the Lion's Head (Trailer)
  - Milk of the Moon (Red House)
  - Yellow Dog: Music Notebook Live in the Upper Peninsula (Earthwork Music)
They also list The Evening Call as the #6th best folk album of 2006. Why don't people do just a bit more homework before they call for the mass deletion of things of which they are ignorant? -MrFizyx (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Washington Post:
  - GREG BROWN "Slant 6 Mind" Red House; STEPHEN FEARING "Industrial Lullaby" Red House Geoffrey Himes; The Washington Post; Oct 9, 1998; N.10
  - GREG BROWN "Covenant" Red House; ALICE PEACOCK "Real Day" Peacock Geoffrey Himes; The Washington Post; Nov 17, 2000; N.09
  - GREG BROWN "Milk of the Moon" ... The Washington Post; Nov 29, 2002; T.07
  - GREG BROWN "The Evening Ca ... The Washington Post; Mar 9, 2007; T.9
not enough reliable sources out there? -MrFizyx (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the artist is notable, isn't the work for which he is notable automatically so? (An actor who becomes a painter wouldn't necessarily have details about the painting, but surely the acting work should be included.) Frank | talk 11:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:ALBUM#Notability says: "Many consider any original studio album by a notable artist to be important enough to deserve an article, other editors follow stricter guidelines." Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums states: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." This article is just a track listing, as are all of the others I added to this AFD. While none of thse albums, nor their individual songs, show up as ever having charted anywhere, I would consider retracting the AFD if others would consider the reviews above sufficient to be independent, notable, verifiable, and reliable sources of nontrivial coverage, each album having more than one such review. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:00, 6 May 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cohasse Country Club[edit]

RS coverage limited to events at the country club. No evidence this country club is in any way notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This club does not appear to have any national notability; (PGA, LPGA, Nationwide tours, etc.). It appears non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:20, 30 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 WP:SNOW delete as WP:OR, and also as a likely creation of a sock- or meatpuppet of a banned user. Sandstein (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heisenberg's paradoxical criterion[edit]

This looks like pretty clear original research, in that it appears to be making a very strong argument by weaving together sources and quotations that don't support this argument. I do not believe there is anything to be salvaged here; the premise makes no sense from the perspective of the mainstream physics community, and there's no evidence that the viewpoint is notable. SCZenz (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCZebz said:

"This looks like..."

"I do not believe there is anything..."

'COMMENT:'

A discussion cannot be supported by personal beliefs. Instead of, it must be supported by arguments, based on FACTS. And the FACTS disprove what you say, since the paradoxical feature of Heisenberg's criterion has been pointed out by Einstein, Karl Pooper, and others, as quoted bellow:

1- In a footnote in this paper Popper states that Heisenberg's instrumentalism is far from consistent, and that he has many anti-instrumentalist remarks to his credit, but that Heisenberg's view of quantum theory necessarily leads to an instrumentalist philosophy by neglecting falsification and stressing application.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:KK8sZfg5fccJ:www.philsci.com/book5-3.htm+popper+einstein+heisenberg&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=br

2- Is the scientific method both faith and knowledge based?

Anyway... How do other scientific methods handle your question, "What is the colour, smell, taste and feel of a tau neutrino?"

About the same way they handle determination of the isospin and isotope composition of an uffish thought!

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Mz0BhB65rJ4J:www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-59738.html+popper+isospin&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=br

3- On the Einstein's opinion on the Heisenberg's criterion that electron's trajectory does not exist within a chamber fog:

A theory that cannot be tested and validated by experiments is merely a hypothesis, not a theory. Is there a reverberation of 'positivism' here? Heisenberg⁽¹⁶⁾ who had also been concerned about this issue in the past with respect to quantum mechanics, had described his views, which bear on the experimental verification of a theory, thus, "…I thought it was probably the idea of introducing only observable quantities….Einstein had pointed out to me that it is really dangerous to say that one should only speak about observable quantities. Every reasonable theory will, besides all things which one can immediately observe, also give the possibility of observing other things more indirectly."

16. Heisenberg, W., "Theory, Criticism, And Philosophy", in Unification of Fundamental Forces, 1988 Dirac Memorial Lecture, New York, 1990, pp. 98 - 100. (quoted in the article Heisenberg's paradoxical criterion )

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:oSZJVjXCHEwJ:www.chowk.com/articles/5048+heisenberg+%22unification+of+fundamental+forces%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=br

4-Unification of Fundamental Forces by Abdus Salam, Cambridge, pp 143 8.95 Pounds/$14.95:

Heisenberg's is somewhat fuller of personal detail, explaining his interactions with Sommerfeld, Bohr, and others, and in particular bringing out the importance of Eistein's comment that one could not speak of observation in a theory-free manner. Both lecturers discuss the role of mathematics. Heisenberg takes the view that it can be a brake on progress in physics, a fault for which he criticises Pauli.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:gWfgF2LZ56YJ:www.newscientist.com/article/mg12817414.800-review-the-physicists-gift-of-the-gab-.html+heisenberg+%22unification+of+fundamental+forces%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=br

5- Wikiquote (Albert Einstein):

Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed:

Objecting to the placing of observables at the heart of the new quantum mechanics, during Heisenberg's 1926 lecture at Berlin; related by Heisenberg, quoted in Unification of Fundamental Forces (1990) by Abdus Salam ISBN 0521371406

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:3K1eMHrUYekJ:en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein+heisenberg+%22unification+of+fundamental+forces%22+einstein&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=br

So, it is proved by AN EXTENSE SOURCE that the paradoxical feature of Heisenberg's criterion is notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.97.93.67 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Strong delete. A while back, there was an AfD for Heisenberg's paradox and this looks like the same material. (In fact, the author identifies himself as, in essence, a meatpuppet of the banned user who created that one.) As before, neither Google (Books, Scholar, or just a straight search), Academic Search Premiere, nor JSTOR knows anything about it, so delete as OR. I'd recommend speedy deletion as A4, except that I don't have access to the original page so I can't be certain this is the same. AnturiaethwrTalk 16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Meat Puppet (or sock puppet) of a banned user. It's OR. It's not true. It borders on nonsense. And the AfD debate is going to draw up the same old nonsense. Salt it, to. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REGARDING TO THE TWO Strong Delete ABOVE, look what said Pontiff Greg Bard in the Editing Talk ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heisenberg%27s_paradoxical_criterion ):

Articles may be speedily deleted if they do not have a supported claim of notability. If you can find some places that have published on this topic, include them under sources. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Editing Talk it's also written:

I am YURI2008 YURI2000 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a friend of W.GUGLINSKI, banned out from Wikipedia

Three weeks ago W.GUGLINSKI asked me to edit three articles in here.

The articles have been deleted (speedy deletion) by alleging that W.GUGLINSKI has been banned.

However such argument makes no sense. Because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and I have the right to edit an article.

If an article of mine is inadequate or not to Wikipedia rules, it must be decided in a regular process of discussion. But not in a speedy process, by alleging that W.GUGLINSKI was banned.

After all, I am the editor of the articles, and not W.GUGLINSKI.

Therefore the two arguments above are disqualified, as shown by Pontiff Greg Bard, and they cannot be taken in consideration YURI2000 (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except he didn't SAY any of that. He said this: "Articles may be speedily deleted if they do not have a supported claim of notability. If you can find some places that have published on this topic, include them under sources. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC) " There is no conceivable way you could interpret that to mean anyhting other than what is explicity said. And you have gone one further, by attributing your words as his. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:OR Pigman☿ 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two Delete above are disqualified, according to Pontiff Greg Bard, YURI2000 (talk)
Comment I doubt the various users posting about this will get the hint but here, in unambiguous terms, is why this article doesn't belong on wikipedia. Any debate from YURI2000 on this subject can come to my talk page. I'm not interested in explanations which rest of quotes from Einstein or anything else. As a matter of fact, i am not interested in entertaining any debate on the inherent validity or invalidity of the article. That is not a debate for wikipedia but for the scientific community in general. Here (as we are faced with a repost of past articles) are my comments from the last AFD's.

Whoever keeps making comments about this article being mathematical and therefore not research is missing the point. The WP:OR policy is not designed to prevent editors from gathering data and drawing conclusion from them. It is not designed to enjoin editors against a specific activity. It is designed to prevent material that is novel and unique from being introduced into wikipedia. So, even though the proof that (for example) e is irrational requires nothing more than knowledge and applications of the properties of real numbers, it does not belong in wikipedia unless we are summarizing a treatment from an outside source. The inherent validity of the claim is not what makes it research or not. Empirical claims are no different from theoretical claims as far as wikipedia is concerned--even though there is a gulf between them philosophically. You seem to be capable of understanding the mathematical implications of these articles, so let's make sure you can understand the implications of our arguments. Your defense is based on an incorrect connotation of the word research. You interpret research to mean non-tautological results from empirical data. For one, that isn't strictly true. For another thing, that is not how wikipedia defines research. I know I'm being repetitive, but I need to make sure this point is clear. If I need to be even more elementary, let me. the research is not the creation of the theoretical result (in this case, the paradox) from axioms. The research is the revelation of that result to the world. Regardless of the inherent truth of any theoretical claim, someone, somewhere has to reveal it. The policy of wikipedia is that the revelation not occur here first. Provide a clear, cited source that reveals the paradox and shows that it is notable, then you can keep the article. Until then, no dice.

Protonk (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk said: I'm not interested in explanations which rest of quotes from Einstein or anything else

COMMENT on Protonk words: ??????????????????

Why not? After all, everything gyrates about the following fundamental point regarding to the wikipedia rules: Is the subject of the article notable, or not?.

RESPONSE TO THIS FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION: Well, since the subject was discussed by Einstein, Popper, Heisenberg, etc., and it is quoted in several books and in several websites, this is a proof that the subject is notable.

What is of interest is not the "explanations which rest of quotes from Einstein or anything else", BUT YES THE FACT THAT EINSTEIN AND OTHER ONES DISCUSSED THE SUBJECT , and not if their discussion is of the interest of the wiki members, or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.104.15 (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC) — 189.48.104.15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Right. If those quotes related fundamentally to what is in the article, it might be interesting. But that isn't the case. You trot out quotes by Karl Popper as though his general feelings about logical positivism should be interpreted as a significant secondary source on the subject. You also quote Einstein in a conversation with Heisenberg. While Einstein's stubbornness with regard to Quantum mechanics is an important topic (and is, no doubt, covered in the QM article and the Einstein article), it does not somehow impute notability on to your topic, which is NOT realted to this envisioning of some fundamental paradox in QM. Consequently, we are left with Gulginki's book, mentioning his belief in the paradox and its possible resolution and another source which doesn't bear on the subject in the article. THAT is what I meant when I didn't want to hear about Einstein. Let me put it this way. The WP page is about this elucidation of some supposed paradox. Such an elucidation didn't exist until Gulginski published it. Therefore, Einstein et al could not have been talking about Gulginski's theories (not notable) but were instead talking about existing theories and problems in QM (notable). Don't bring in extraneous material and presume that it somehow provides sources for the article. Protonk (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Wow, everyone is stemming on my statement. Listen, I'm not a physicist, so I am inclined to defer to any active members of the physics wikiproject. However, with that said, very often, the prevailing culture of a wikiproject (or academic department, etc) can miss the significance of things too. If there exist secondary sources that discuss this topic, which perhaps discuss a pro and/or con side, then it should stay --but you have to produce it. If there is only primary sources, then perhaps parts of it should be merged into some other article. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, it's not necessary to be a physicist to understand the point under discussion. The question is: the subject of the article is notable, or not? It's not necessary to be a physicist to understand that the subject is notable, since it is quoted in several websites and several books, writen by Popper, Heisenber, Dirac, Salam, etc.

That's a total falsehood. Nowhere is the material in the article covered in books by Dirac et al unless you throw the net so broadly as to catch practically everything in QM. The SPECIFIC paradox Gulginski and this article refer to nor its resolution are mentioned by ANY of the sources quoted here or on the article page with the exception of Gulginski. The SPECIFIC scope of the article is not something that includes discussion noted in secondary sources. Show me where Karl Popper says that the supposed paradox formed from the repulsive force of neutrons can only be resolved by Gulginski's book? Show me where Dirac says the same, or Einstein. The burden of proof is on you. I can tell you that it isn't going to be hard to find Karl Popper's complaints about the physical sciences at the time. I can also tell you it isn't going to be ahrd to find Einstein's complaints about QM. But neither of those lend any credence to this article. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aspects of old material spun up with a novel and utterly non-notable analysis, precisely what the previously-mentioned-here W.GUGLINSKI (talk · contribs) was blocked for performing non-stop. Maybe Guglinski could have made this clear to you, seeing he was blocked precisely for ignoring numerous warnings of it, but unless a theory or analysis has received coverage in independent reliable sources (i.e. peer-reviewed journal articles that neither you nor your friends had anything to do with), it is going to be deleted. Citing Dirac and Heisenberg isn't going to get you anywhere as they're probably not publishing anymore, and Guglinski's papers are worthless as far as Wikipedia guidelines are concerned. Or maybe you are Guglinski. Either way, I hope I've made this pretty clear. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UNACCEPTABLE ARGUMENT, because:

1- What is under discussion is: whether the subject of the article is notable, or not.

2- The articles edited by W.GUGLINSKI some months ago have been deleted because they were not notable.

3- The subject of the present article is notable, and therefore it cannot be evaluated from the same criterion applied to old articles edited by W.GUGLINSKI in the past.

4- It's not important who is the author of the article, and who edited it. What is under discussion is: is the article notable or not?— 200.222.234.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Also, ZOMG sockz. 189.48.104.15 Is basically using the same tone and formatting as YURI2000. At this point I'm still (sigh) willing to assume good faith and guess that he just signed out, so I won't file anything. But please don't use anon IP's to get into the debate. Protonk (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Actually, upon further reflection, I'm prepared to say that YURI2000 has an awful lot of tone and formatting similarities w/ W.Guglinski. Take a look. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a novel synthesis of ideas at best. This is textbook WP:OR and should be deleted forthwith. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
200.222.234.19 is another sock. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only 2 ghits both of which are wikipedia. I can't find any reliable 3rd party sources. There is also the obvious COI, Meat/Sock thing. Additionally, is there a valid reason why it is nominated for Speedy & up for AfD? Shouldn't it be one or the other?Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started the AfD before I was aware the issues it would cause, and the fact that Wikipedia had been through all of it before. As this has become apparent, some users have requested administrator intervention, both with the speedy request and a post on the administrator's noticeboard; this request seems sensible enough to me. (Does sensible still equal "valid" on Wikipedia? I haven't edited much lately.) -- SCZenz (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - original research by a banned user using sockpuppets or meatpuppets. It actually sounds not too far fetched, but is certainly novel, and I might actually find a bit of truthiness in the piece. But that is not what WP is about. The creator should privately publish this work elsewhere, and pay for it, just like real business people do, or submit it to a referreed journal, just like real scientists do. Wikipedia is a charity -- and it is not the place to make a would-be Nobel Prize winner any money. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 29 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. Those calling to delete have not adequately answered the arguments that this organization has received a little bit of coverage, something which matters according to the WP:N guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access[edit]

I just don't see anything that shows this one as being notable. Giving it a chance at AFD instead of speedy in case I'm missing something. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's had some coverage. WilliamH (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. some more coverage. --DruU (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment asserts at least some importance politically, so not a speedy; I removed the speedy tag. Let's see what can be found DGG (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per the sources provided by WilliamH, and especialy druUtopia. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A7 and, to a lesser degree, G11 (even if it is a non-profit). Frank | talk 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frank above - Importance - First Veteran Association to assist Veterans with Medical Marijuana issues... Very important to a veteran that loses their Medical Benefits even though they have Doctor Recomendation. As for Advertising??? How is this Advertising and Marijuana Policy Project is not? There is no advertising here.--DruU (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First to do or be something does not automatically confer notability. This organization is based in a state where the activity is illegal. As for the referenced article, other stuff exists applies. As to advertising, the page as it stands simply lists the existence of the organization and who runs it. I would add that, since patient-doctor conversations are already privileged communication, the bit about "legal ramifications" is a red herring. This article does not establish notability in any sense of the word. If it came back later and did so - perhaps when it is actually notable - that would be a different story. Frank | talk 15:49, 5 May 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 Kadet Remaja Sekolah Malaysia. As an individual unit of a national youth organization, this is not sufficiently notable. Redirecting it to the article on the national organization keeps the material in the history and allows someone to merge relevant material to the article on the national organization. The Scout people are doing this all the time. Bduke (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinar Bintang School Cadet Corps (SBKRS)[edit]

Article on a school organization in Malaysia with extensive history but no references and no evidence of outside notability. --Finngall ^talk 15:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article on a local branch or a national youth organisation. We have had similar discussions in the past on Scout troops, Air Cadet units, etc, etc, etc, and consensus seems to be that unless there is something particularly and especially special about a single unit, it is not notable. Emeraude (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about an youth organisation that is similar to Malaysia Scout Organisation which also have an article about them in Wikipedia. If Malaysia Scout Movement can post an article here, i don't see any problem doing the same thing. This youth organisation is same important as Malaysia Scout Movement and its directly under the Government of Malaysia. This article enable students to know more about the organisation in this popular wikipedia. This is something educational and far more meaningful than articles about Movies and celebrities over here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keropi88 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, this is not an article about a youth organisation. It is about a single branch of the youth orgnisation, Kadet Remaja Sekolah Malaysia, which may deserve an article but individual local chapters do not.Emeraude (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. And delete the images on the page as well, which are probably copyvios. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move page to Kadet Remaja Sekolah and stub. Whilst I accept that the local chapter is not notable, the national organisation certainly is. There are enough bits and pieces in the existing article to make a viable stub. I was tempted to go ahead and create the new article but that would be a cut'n'paste that would have GFDL problems so a page move, to preserve the history, is better. There are some Google sources on the national body but full sourcing is likely to have to be found locally; we need to be aware of the need to avoid systemic bias. TerriersFan (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is a book here from which the national organisation can be verified. TerriersFan (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move per TerriersFan. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article author has now created Kadet Remaja Sekolah Malaysia, but it's sub-stub level at this point. --Finngall ^talk 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is just not the way to do it since it would be a cut'n'paste. My proposal was to move the page and then stub it by stripping out most of the content. There is not a huge amount of usable prose but there is some. I still think we should do that - move the page over the newly created page. TerriersFan (talk) 20:19, 5 May 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 Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think and Grow Rich[edit]

WP:NN book. Related AFD at Think and Grow Rich!: The Original Version, Restored and Revised. Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable book, one of the first on the scene of the motivational-thinking craze. The fact that it's still in print after so many decades is a testament that it's notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment deleted half the article as it was copy and pasted from http://www.amazon.com/review/R13S2L7Q9PKXS8 .--Otterathome (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge: Chronic repository of 'pseudoinformation' of doubtful (non-WP:RS and/or WP:COPYVIO) origin (aggrevated by difficulty to police this due to lack of inline citations). No WP:RSs indicating that it meets WP:NOTE or WP:BK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How on earth doesn't it meet WP:BOOK? It's one of the most popular and successful books of all time, selling more than 60 million copies and is still in print after more than 70 years. If this doesn't meet WP:BOOK, nothing does. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "How on Earth"? Here's how: (i) we have no WP:RS cited for it "selling more than 60 million copies" (ii) WP:BK (not WP:BOOK, which is a wikiproject) has no sales-based criteria for notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to WP:BK, a book that's the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works of all kinds is notable. A quick Google Books search reveals this to be the case here. Klausness (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Most of the Google books hits are to books Hill himself (co-)wrote, so are hardly "independent". Further, the criteria cited above goes on to say "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." From a quick browse of the hits listed, I didn't see any that were likely to contain any "critical commentary" at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging per Ttiotsw's rationale below would be an acceptable option. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after appropriate stubbing. Generally speaking, any book from the 1930s that's still in print probably meets reasonable criteria for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong Keep- it doesn't matter if it's 'pseudoinformation,' reliable sources discuss it. 448 mentions in google news archive when combined with the author's name [29] . Merkin's mum 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What "reliable sources discuss it"? "Google search results are not a reliable measure of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you looked at my link- that is a google news search, ie. a search of archives of newspapers, not just websites. If you click on it you can see the hundreds of mentions of this book in newspapers. Merkin's mum 12:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, based on how widely it appears to be discussed and cited, no matter what you (or I, for that matter) think of the contents. Klausness (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If something obviously notable, like this work, lacks sourcing in its article, then the proper solution is to source the article, not to delete it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, book of long established notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I think the original nomination was highly mistaken. I forgive you. ;-) Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we seem to have a large number of bare assertions of notability from editors who (with the sole exception of KleenupKrew) have not bothered to substantiate these assertions by actually coming up with WP:RSs (the explicit basis of both WP:NOTE & WP:BK) for this article. If every editor who opined with such confidence that this topic is obviously notable would actually provide (in the article) a single inline-citation to an independent RS for a single fact, the notability of this article would be iron-clad. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to add another; most studies of Werner Erhard and 'est' cite Think and Grow Rich as a significant influence on him. It is also often mentioned in the business press as an influence on a number of entrepreneurs, and sometimes as one of the two books that started the whole motivational, self help book craze. I can look for more specific references as time permits. I'm very much the deletionist on marginal books but this one easily passes the notability bar. Just needs more cites and expansion. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Napoleon_Hill (which ALSO has no references I might add )!. That way all this unreferenced stuff stays in one place and the author article is the right place. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a plan actually- I'm not sure if we need both of these. Merkin's mum 12:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on merging. Both should be kept. Think and Grow Rich was by far Hill's best-selling book, but there were numerous others, nor was writing his only accomplishment. If all he did was write the book, I'd agree, but it isn't so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, highly notable book judging from sales figures quoted. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An all-time classic- started the whole financial-inspiration-positive-thinking genre. One of the most notable self-help books of the twentieth century (no, that's not an exaggeration); cited in hundreds of books. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:34, 30 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 Think and Grow Rich. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think and Grow Rich!: The Original Version, Restored and Revised[edit]

Should be covered in Think and Grow Rich if it is Notable. Failed Prod. Main article also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think and Grow Rich Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Think and Grow Rich. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Merge to Think and Grow Rich. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Think and Grow Rich. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree and expect it to start snowing shortly. WilliamH (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and someone may as well go ahead and do it. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Note: article it's being merged to has been [correctly] kept. Frank | talk 15:07, 5 May 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 in light of the addition of some third party sources which establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inciclopedia[edit]

Notability has not been established. A notability tag has been on it for nearly 3 months now. No third-party references still. So fails WP:WEB. Otterathome (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another non-notable wiki. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to uncyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge This article sounds like an advertisement written by the website's users, also. It fails WP:N in that it is non-notable. Gary King (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears notable (the article was translated from a valid page in the Spanish-language Wikipedia) but merging this would overload the Uncyclopedia page with info on a non-English wiki. --carlb (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having it on another wiki doesn't automatically make it notable here.--Otterathome (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd like to believe that notability in Spanish implies notability in any other language. Syndrome (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a short section on the site's notabilty. It's jimbo wales' wikia's most popular Spanish-language wiki, probably the most popular non-wikimedia foundantion wiki in Spanish too, it has been widely covered by the press, I think that should be enough to establish its notability.--Rataube (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it notable for the same reason that WikiX site is the most populate site in X language. If it has been widely covered by the press then add it to the article or here.--Otterathome (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information already has been added. If your original concern was that the page was missing citations to external sources, that has been resolved, so it would be best to close this pointless discussion now. --carlb (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One source doesn't mention the actual website name, another is just a small video mention. The newspaper article is the only good source. The rest are primary sources. So still fails WP:WEB.--Otterathome (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being the most notable wiki in X language doesnt make it notable? When X is the third most widely spoken language in the world, with about 400 million native speakers, it does. It's just as notable as the site in english. Unless of course you are to claim all non-english culture is not notable per se. I can provide more links to the press. Would that make you happy?--Rataube (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not, I was using the term in general per "third most popular wiki on the wikia.com domain" doesn't make it notable. Another non-trivial reliable source is required for it to pass WP:WEB.--Otterathome (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of the article has been established. Ther is a section in the article that gives reference to the notability of said article. It also cites links for verification. I think that the article should be kept. J.T Pearson (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The site itself is worthless, but notability is established. Frank | talk 15:21, 5 May 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 by original/only editor's request. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MetaCarta[edit]

Non-notable company that has been speedy-deleted and recreated by original author. No independent media coverage apparent. Recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No independent media coverage?

Lets see...

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9901084-7.html
http://media.baliz-geospatial.com/fr/blogue/quels-sont-les-grands-titres-des-nouvelles-pres-de-chez-vous
http://www.visualbeta.es/3802/aplicaciones-web/metacarta-noticias-geolocalizadas/
http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/531211.php
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9901084-7.html?tag=blog.1

I think it's a notable company but the article as it is now is speediable under criterion A7 as it does not assert the significance of the company. I have removed the "controversy" section as the source is clearly not reliable, and I could not find the information from any other sources. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^Ok, I agree with part about controversy - maybe it wasn't necessary. I'll add more outside sources of information about company eventually.

Hopefully it looks much better now...

By the usual measures of size (over 50 employees, over $5m in receipts) MetaCarta is somewhere in the top 100,000 US firms, perhaps not notable in and of itself, but quite sizeable for high tech. More importantly, MetaCarta has been singled out for innovation on several occasions, e.g. as a Red Herring Top 100 innovator (2005) and as one of KMWorld's 100 Companies that Matter (2007). I'd be happy to add links but I'm not sure it's right for me to edit the page (the info is available from the company website). The controversy mentioned earlier may not matter much now, but was very real at the time. Another aspect of the company that may be more worth mentioning is its support for FOSS, in particular the OpenLayers library. MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My calendar is one year off. The awards were 2004, http://www.redherring.com/Home/11067 and 2006 http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=15156&PageNum=2 , sorry. MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor toward notability is that industry analysts from the major research and advisory firms (Gartner, Forrester, Seybold, IDG, etc) now consider the company notable enough to cover it. MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)— MetaCartaEmployee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy ~~keep~~ close It hasn't been up for a day yet. Give it time to develop. Some of what their employee has posted may be useful. (I'll note that, unless they're a sock, that user has only posted here, not edited the article itself.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please can you explain which of the requirements for a speedy keep are met here. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't, I'll change my wording to clarify. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here's something related to deleted "Controversy" - http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/06/28/daily10.html?jst=s_cn_hl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.128.107 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, all in all - I think that its entirely unfair that this whole article was deleted for a second time due to a particular editor lack of knowledge about the company.

Comment User:SitnikovI and an unregistered IP (98.216.128.107) has left a string of messages on my talk in response to my reversion of his MetaCarta advertising related to edits to MIT ([30], [31], [32]) and later tried to blank them using an unregistered account .

Talk edits to User:Madcoverboy include calling me a "moron", refusing to engage in a dialogue by blanking comments, etc.: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Looking at SitnikovI's talk page, he has engaged in a series of actions that have been warned against in connection with advertising. As always I try to WP:AGF, but it seems the user is trying really hard to get blocked. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all - I deleted the comment with a word in question this morning (I admit that its a bit childish to start virtual war here, after all) and now you're bringing it up again - how nice of you. After all, it was you who made Forbes 500 [[39]] comment first. Your comment above have nothing to do with an actual debate on whether or not this page should be deleted.

I can hardly see where you're trying to WP:AGF, sorry.

Hah! That Forbes 500 comment is teddy bear stuff. Pretty small beans compared to vandalizing someone's userspace and calling them a moron. Protonk (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say what you will, but pretty much its all "Whatever you'll say, will be used against you..." principle.

Delete, can't see how this is notable. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again - I'm sorry if your personal opinion is taking over actual facts, but the reasons why this company is notable were provided. If you can't see them, there's not much that I can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SitnikovI (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC) — SitnikovI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I looked at the corporate notability guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP, and I think the criteria listed there are easily met. The company is regularly written about in business publications such as the Boston Business Journal and Forbes.com, in trade publications such as SearchEngineJournal, Directions Magazine, AllPointsBlog, and IEEEE Computer, and is regularly covered by analysts (IDG, Forrester, Gartner etc.) The company web page at http://www.metacarta.com/news-and-events-in-the-news.htm documents over a hundred and fifty such writeups, and less than half of these are occasioned by press releases by the company itself. The rest is self-standing, clearly meeting the WP:CORP guidelines -- this is particularly clear for the awards. Add to the print material a rather sizeable web footprint (Google has over 81,000 hits, and only a small fraction of these are at the company website) and it seems the company passes the notability criteria easily. MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company. ➪HiDrNick! 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete It's pretty borderline. The company appears notable, but what worries me are the SPA's posting here and the very likely COI in building this website. I'm prepared to go either way. IF the SPA issue gets worse or there are some sockpuppet problems, then I'll switch to strong delete and file a checkuser and put something up on ANI. I presume MetaCartaEmployee is already on the list to get a name change for violation of naming policy, right? Protonk (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They were reported as a possible username violation, but consensus was that it's wasn't enough to block. They'd contacted me already and I warned them of the COI concern of editing the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not interested in personal attacks or anything of that nature and this whole thing with bickering is idiotic, for a lack of a better word, as it have nothing to do with this debate.

I find Forbes 500 comment insulting, still - "teddy bear stuff" or not, advertising or not, right or wrong - yes, it wasn't personal, but it was meant to provoke me anyway and maybe I shouldn't have used the word "moron", but there you go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.128.107 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — 98.216.128.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm curious - do you guys argue in the same way about career criminals and how many people they murdered and whether they are notable or not because they killed 4 people, and not 14? I know - it may sound like a terrible analogy, but I'm just wondering if this whole issue have to do with my personal interest in this - I'm not going to get anything out of writing article about MetaCarta (except for personal satisfaction) and I'm not going to be rich/famous when (or if) it will be published.

That's seems like an odd thing to be curious about unless you want to provoke someone. As a matter of fact, articles for criminals on WP have to follow the same guidelines for notability as any other biography(WP:BIO). If the subject has seen sustained, significant coverage in secondary sources then it is notable for wikipedia. If it isn't, then it isn't. It is that simple. For corporations there are guidelines (WP:CORP) in place to make sure that wikipedia doesn't serve as a venue for advertising. This includes guidelines that frown on (but do not prohibit) articles formed by people with a conflict of interest (WP:COI). Also, because decisions are made by consensus--in other words, we are not blindly bound to policy, if you convince us here that the article should be included then it will be--wikipedia has a strong policy against the use of accounts made for the sole purpose of influencing the debate (WP:SPA). All of those policies existed before you got here. None of them are personal attacks. None of them hinge upon your financial fortunes. So please don't say things like this: "do you guys argue in the same way about career criminals and how many people they murdered and whether they are notable or not because they killed 4 people, and not 14?" It doesn't help your case in the least. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is not personal, then why would Madcoverboy would bring up the whole story with deleted comment(s)? And why would someone bring those comments up again once I deleted them, because I wanted to avoid personal conflict with editors (well, that's "vandalism", apparently)? Isn't that an odd thing too?

No, this isn't a personal thing - I'm sorry, I'm the only one who see it that way, of course. And thank you for educating me on the matters of Wikipedia and how it existed along with all the policies/guidelines before I started this article and, of course, tried to destroy it all in the process - now I'm feeling so enlightened, its just amazing. Live and learn, as they say. Would I make it easier for you if I'll just delete an article right now? Would you breathe a sigh of relief, perhaps?

Aren't you charming? Presumably madcoverboy brought up your disruptive behavior on his talk page because he felt it was inappropriate. And given the way you are behaving after I've been pleasant with you, I don't blame him. We all try to assume good faith and be nice to people who are new to wikipedia, but don't assume that means you can talk smack and not have it brought up later. In that case it is pretty clear. Someone hoping to promote metacarta put a link to their page from the MIT page. That link got removed. Then contribs et al vandalized madcoverboy's page for removing it. To think that this ISN'T connected to the case of metacarta in the eyes of madcoverboy is silly. In the end, someone other than him or me will decide whether or not the page is notable. But more to the point, if you are just going to be a jerk on wikipedia I have no trouble telling you that you won't be missed. At all. Protonk (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - and I won't miss you either. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.128.107 (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. So you'll blank the page and we can have it speedily deleted? That's wonderful. Just post on here when you've done that. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blanking the page repeatedly. I'll be bold and speedy delete the page per author's request. Useight (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least someone around here have some decency in not trying to turn this into an idiotic spectacle, even though it took me such a long time to prove that this have nothing to do with vandalism.

Bye now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SitnikovI (talk • contribs) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the page per G7, single author who requests deletion or blanked the page. Feel free to contact me if you feel this was done in error. Useight (talk) 16:21, 30 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. I'm going to follow the suggestions presented by User:Kariteh and drop the tables into their respective articles. Since the history needs to stay visible to satisfy licensing requirements, I'm going to redirect the article under discussion to Final Fantasy (series) for the time being--feel free to change it in the future if a more appropriate target is found. --jonny-m t 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Final Fantasy cast members[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unorganized list of names. The notable information is already present in other, relevant articles (as shown by the out-of-date merge tags), so this article is redundant and unnecessary. Kariteh (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Kariteh (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where appropriate to respective articles,Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within#Cast, Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2, Final Fantasy: Unlimited#Characters, Final Fantasy VII Advent Children#Cast. Though much of the content is duplicative - and already covered in the individual articles. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And have this information in the various articles from where they come. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish people would read the full page history before placing on AFD so at least the nomination contains full disclosure. In any case, this article was created as the result of a CFD nomination back in 2007. The consensus was to listify Category:Final Fantasy cast members rather than delete it. Do with it as you wish. RedWolf (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder how you can know whether people read or didn't read the page history. There are links everywhere from history pages to talk pages and this AFD page here, so people could easily have read them. Anyway, the cast members are already listed in the articles mentioned on the merge tags (the same articles AtaruMoroboshi mentioned here). There are multiple "target" articles so the page can't be turned into a simple redirect, so that's why it should probably be deleted. But it's only the page that should be deleted; the information itself is not deleted nor lost. Kariteh (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point was that the article was created as the result of a CFD decision. RedWolf (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Not really notable, and redundant with other articles that would be a more suitable place for this information. Randomran (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge this notable and discriminate list with Final Fantasy (series), because this list concerns one of the most enduring and popular video game systems in video game history and so it is likely that readers will be interested in this kind of information, even if some find it obscure. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no connection between FF:The Spirits Within, FFX/X-2, FF: Unlimited, etc. in terms of cast members, because the voices actors were different for each installment. Therefore this list is not discriminate, and there is no reason to lump together all these separate productions in a common list, whether it is in a distinct article or as a section of Final Fantasy (series). As for your other points (popularity of the series and usefulness of the list), please read WP:INHERITED and WP:ITSUSEFUL as these are irrelevant. Kariteh (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable information has been merged to their proper articles. No mainspace articles link to it, either. I would say redirect, but there isn't one good article to redirect to, as the list encompasses a wide variety of Final Fantasy games and movies -- probably all the better reason to delete it. Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the more notable names and roles. No use for having a seperate list, and we certainly don't have List of the Simpsons cast members. I kno about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but the concensus is to not have articles like these. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 19:18, 6 May 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 21:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famelix[edit]

No real indication of notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, and all references currently provided are primary sources. Gary King (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:48, 30 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. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 08:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Kansas State Wildcats football team[edit]

violation of WP:CRYSTAL - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article is largely speculative and the little currently available information could change significantly between now and the 2012 season. Player roster is unknown (at this time only incoming freshmen who take a redshirt will still be eligible in 2012) and NCAA football schedules are routinely changed for a variety of reasons. --Allen3 ^talk 14:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Crystal and so forth. I suggest checking back in four years. Tnxman307 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Policy is firmly against making articles for future teams. Enigma ^message 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 19:04, 29 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) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JITOA[edit]

Looks likely to qualify for A7- group speedy, and I did so twice. But something was nagging in my brain on this one that I might be missing something, so I'm giving it an AFD chance instead. But beyond a nagging doubt, I really don't see why this group would be notable given what is presented on the article. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio from jitoa DOT org and spam.--Otterathome (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Otterathome. Creator is also an SPA; most likely a COI. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:50, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madden & Finucane[edit]

A7 deleted a couple of times, I've decided to give this a chance at AFD this time. I just do not see this rising to the necessary level of notability. Even the "Bloody Sunday" case mentioned does not IMHO give notability to the law firm involved, even if the case itself is notable. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio from http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=4905007386. Apart from that there's no third party sources.--Otterathome (talk) 15:40, 28 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 00:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Black Mask (comics)[edit]

Multiple reasons. Nearly a working definition of a random collection of information or listcruft, this page is simply a list when a supervillain has appeared in comic books. It has been tagged for lack of citations since September 2006 with extremely little editorial interest since. The publisher of this comic book character is capable of providing published bibliographies of its copyrighted characters if it wishes to, Wikipedia is not the place for primary source lists with no practical context.

There are other bibliographies similar to this one. Based on the outcome of this AfD I'll list several of them in a later group AfD nomination. Markeer 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as empty or copyvio copy paste from http://www.dcuguide.com/Bm/Tec.php.--Otterathome (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the copyvio here. There's a list in the same format as the link provided, but quite a bit from the list isn't in the EL. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems unnecessarily detailed and doesn't seem the kind of thing that should get to such a size that it requires its won entry (for such a middle-ranking character, especially). It might be worth transwiking this to the DC Comics wikia but all we really need to cover this are links to relevant databases. Comic Book DB, for instance pretty much has this covered and I notice that Black Mask (comics) is completely lacking in anything to even address WP:V I think it'd be better to focus on that and some database links would start to deal with that and head off the need for a lengthy list of issues. If you want to include published material then you could do something on the trade paperbacks that the stories have been collected in, for example. That'd be the way I'd approach it. If you want to mention specific issues then use footnotes to insert primary references to the specific part of the article being referred to. I think working those angles is a better way address the various issues and make Black Mask a more solid entry in the process. (Emperor (talk) 22:43, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zija[edit]

This article should be deleted because it does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion at WP:CORP. Also, as written, this article is mere PR marketing fluff. Article contributors have been involved in linkspamming, indicating that this article may exist as a marketing tool. Deli nk (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I wouldn't be surprised if this were copied/ pasted from their website. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam, needs to be completely rewritten. WP:CSD G11.--Otterathome (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this advert. Emeraude (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company appears to have some accounts that they are using to spam. I'm going to file a SSP. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 29 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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Belin[edit]

This article was previously proposed (not by me) as a db-bio speedy deletion, but the speedy was declined by stating that the article does assert the importance of the subject. I suppose that hinges on whether "was the Republican nominee for [C]ongress" constitutes an assertion of notability. It is my contention that it does not -- or, more relevantly, that even if it does constitute an assertion of notability, it is not sufficient to establish that notability. Powers ^T 13:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed congressional candidate from 2006. Sufficient importance for an encyclopedia article not established unless they actually get elected. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This congressional race was not notable enough to establish notablity of the subject. --Tdl1060 (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strong consensus has established that running for office does not confer notability. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidate not automatically notable if a failed candidate. No further/supporting assertion of notability present in the article. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think major party candidate for national office are more notable than state legislators. Weak because the consensus has not previously agreed with me. DGG (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Stifle. BWH76 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 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, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain SNES: The Gamemasta[edit]

Deprodded, Unable to bring up any news sources for this webcomic. Google search [40] yields under 5000 hits. Article has been tagged with notability and references concerns for 7 months.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no secondary sources; fails WP:N and WP:WEB. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed. Does not meet WP:N. The article title also implies a lack of encyclopedic content.-DevinCook (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged this as failing WP:N in October 2007 and no move has been made to address this concern. Time to draw a line under this one. (Emperor (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Fan-made sequel of Captain N lacks absolute notability. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:49, 30 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 ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DefCom Australia[edit]

Unnotable "loyalty program" which is in essence nothing more than an employee benefits scheme Murtoa (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Murtoa (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while may not be as famous as Base exchange (better known to me as PX), it is the Australian equivalent and I see no reason to fail to include an article on the Australian attempt to provide benefits similar to those quite famously enjoyed by the US military. I believe this nomination is an unfortunate example of bias as per the point made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias - Similarly, systemic bias may cause articles of local interest to places (from where few Wikipedians come), to be nominated for deletion for lacking notability, because they are obscure to the majority of Northern Hemisphere Anglophone editors. The nominator is based in Australia so I am not suggesting he is based in the Northern Hemisphere and thus biased against an Australian article, but rather in my view to ensure reasonable coverage of issues we should have an article on the benefits schemes of other military organisations not just the US scheme to help provide balanced views across Wikipedia. It may be that this article content would form part of a larger article on the topic (not all of this article's content would need to be included!). --Matilda ^talk 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No intention to introduce regional bias. Just not convinced that an employee benefit scheme is inherently notable. Scale of the US version appears to be driving notability. Murtoa (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy and prove notability. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a ref as per Stifle's criteria has now been added--Matilda ^talk 06:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, you've proven it exists. Now please explain how it is notable. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response re notability - notability is not a criteria for inclusion in wikipedia necessarily - the inclusion criteria is based on verifiability and then a number of things which wikipedia is not. The reason for retaining inclusion of this article as per my comments above is to add some perspective on military benefits provided by military other than the US. In principle I would have no objections to the content being merged with another article (subject to that being proposed and evaluated separately) but I do have an objection to the material being eliminated - we are otherwise giving undue weight to US military as opposed to the military of other (admittedly much smaller) countries. As per an old link I saved from some time ago: Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#No: Jimbo Wales - 'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms.) To continue - our current guidelines on notability state is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article - the topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity" - I believe this is notable, as in worthy of notice DefCom is the Australian response to US military perks; it does not have to famous. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is not relevant as this article is not about the company, this article is one of many on the Australian military and I don't think there is any dispute that we should have articles on that - or any other military.--Matilda ^talk 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matilda. Just as notable as Base exchange (to an Aussie at least).--Sting au Buzz Me... 05:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the terms outlined by Stifle. X Marx The Spot (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm satisfied with Matilda's response here. X Marx The Spot (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Matilda ^talk 00:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but, as the person who established this page, you'd expect me to say that!) Several days ago I bought some items at a local auto parts supplier. After the bill had been rung up, I presented my credit card with the DefCom logo on it. The sales assistant said, "If you'd only told me about this before I rang off the sale, I could have given you 5% off." My 'bad'. I lost the benefit, which I should have known about if I'd looked up the brochure. I'm a "believer" (even if I didn't use it that time.) For me, it's notable! - Peter Ellis - Talk 09:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It might be a great scheme for defence personnel, but I'm still to be convinced that this confers notability. Ultimately, it is simply an employee benefit. Is the employee discount available to 165,000 Coles Group employees in Australia notable? Or similar sized benefit programs for public servants? I can't see that simply owing to it being within the military that this confers greater notability. The strongest argument appears to be that the US has one, so a smaller Australian version must be similarly notable. Would that mean that a similar scheme for, say, Fijian military would also warrant an article? Murtoa (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say that a similar scheme for the Fijian or any other military would warrant an article or perhaps there could be an article on benefits for the military if a sensible article could be made without reverting to original research. The employee discount available to Coles Employees could form part of the article on the Coles Group (along with the now defunct shareholders' scheme which was very significant in shaping the ownership of the company and it subsequent management fortunes (aha it is mentioned in the article but not its shaping of the ownership of the company). I am unaware of any benefit scheme for public servants that was established as a condition of employment (as opposed to union membership) ... The question to me is whether wikipedia is better off with or without this information - I believe this information adds to the sum of knowledge - there is an issue about the disparate benefits between different military organisations, particularly when they serve alongside each other. I note in passing that Australians had access to the NAAFI during WW2.--Matilda ^talk 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - At the risk of continuing to be a minority voice of dissension, I still can't see how this scheme is any more notable than benefit schemes in non-military environments. Social clubs of typical large Australian organisations offer discounts and other benefits to their employees but these arrangements are not inherently notable. The fact that defence force personnel have a similar benefit in my view doesn't advance Wikipedia one iota. Murtoa (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Matilda. Five Years 11:56, 4 May 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 copyright infringement. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 01:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Voorsanger[edit]

Barely-notable, but with no sources for (what would be) the notability claims. A game programmer that worked for some big and small companies with varied degrees of success. Not an influential person, IMHO. A previous PROD was denied on the basis that sources should be added. Damiens.rf 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Only 400 or so GHits, and those are mostly just directory type listings, so not sure what sources the PROD remover thinks can be added. Collectonian (talk) 16:27, 22 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, MrKIA11 (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G12 - Blatant Copyright Infringement of this page. Tagged as such. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 21:56, 28 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 g3 vandalism, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starvin' Marvin Trips to South Park[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Starvin' Marvin Trips to South Park

Hoax. No Google hits, South Park episodes are usually announced less than a week before airing, no episodes will air before autumn. 96T (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HOAX. South Park does its seasons a little different than most shows. Since 2002, It splits its season in half: one half runs from March to May and the other half from October to November or December. It hasn't shown a new episode in June since Season 6. I can also find no reliable sources for any of the claims made in the article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 as blatant hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:00, 28 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:A7. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebelscum.com[edit]

No citations to reliable sources, no claim of significant third-party coverage. Does not pass WP:WEB. --EEMIV (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, unsourced, ad/vanity. JJL (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found the site itself extremely useful, with great reference pictures of all the vintage SW figures, but I agree it doesn't pass WP:WEB at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 28 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Young[edit]

This bassist may be non-notable due him being in a famous band but there is nothing more to say about him beyond what is already written in the main article so he does not deserve his own article and I doubt there ever will be. Munci (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:52, 30 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) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slo Ball Placement[edit]

Unencyclopedic, limited to local scope, "onesource" - and that one scope basically says "No more Slo Ball Placement", so that source created the beginning and end of this topic, hence WP:ONEEVENT - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable term, fails WP:NEO. Article content not substantiated by sources. Huon (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in the garage one day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the previous observations. This article does not seem salvageable. AltioraPeto (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 29 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. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Cup (football)[edit]

I understand that this is the second nomination, but the first addressed the existence or otherwise of the competition. My concern is over notability. Virtually no third party sources. Personally, I can't see that this meets the notability rules. Which is unfortunate, but true. Traditional unionist (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In which way does the tournament fail notability standards? It was one of the first (if not the first) international club tournaments in the sport which in itself is notable enough IMHO. And what does online sources have to do with notability? Just because you can't find any sources online doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on the tournament. Try to find comprehensive online information on any of the less known early football tournaments. – Elisson • T • C • 12:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elisson. Giant Snowman 12:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless comprehensively proven that this tournament actually existed. - fchd (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment RSSSF does show that Glentoran (who they bizarrely call "Glentoran Dublin") did play some matches in Vienna in 1914, but it doesn't list them as being part of the Vienna Cup however it lists matches involving Blackburn and Oldham in 1911 as being part of the/a Vienna Cup.......?!?!??! ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Glentoran's victory in the Vienna Cup, being the first club from the British Isles to win a European tournament, is referred to here (on The Times online), as well as here, here, here and here. 96T (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely only one of those references is a reliable one?Traditional unionist (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is reliable but not independent, given that it is the club's own website. The Times link is to a page where readers submit answers to other readers' questions, so I'm not sure if that should be considered reliable. The others look a bit more questionable...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. As mentioned above, the sources there at the moment aren't reliable. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is another one which is WP:V and WP:RS the Belfast Telegraph-- BigDunc (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:V and WP:RS mentioned above. --Domer48 (talk) 08:43, 2 May 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) 20:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chehelsotoon, Qazvin[edit]

No assertion of notability THobern 09:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable mansion. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. I did my own searching for references, but everything seems to be about a similarly-named but unrelated pavilion in Isfahan, which has its own article at Chehel Sotoun. Couldn't find anything on this, certainly nothing that looks like a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:53, 30 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 consensus. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen MacLoughlin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Local Councillor, lost at last general election, fails WP:BIO, not a notable person. First AfD was closed because it was not listed correctly. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, was in a hurry and never got round to re-posting after the initial malformed nom. Local councillor not notable for any other reason apart from failing to get elected at the general election- I believe there is a precedent that failed GE candidates are not notable for that reason. Delete per nom. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's not just a councillor - he is Leader of the town Council, which makes him the top elected bod in Bournemouth politics. (Incidentally, the statement: "failed GE candidates are not notable" is false. It would be correct to say that claiming notability solely on the grounds of having lost an election is unacceptable, but there are plenty of failed candidates who are notable in other ways.) Emeraude (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's what I said "...failed GE candidates are not notable for that reason". Possibly badly phrased however. The top elected official in Bournemouth politics is the MP, and council leader is not a position directly elected by the people (at least I don't think it is, correct me if I'm wrong). I doubt even if the majority of people within Bournemouth would recognise this man or put a name to his face, and our notabilty standards are quite a lot higher than "he's big in Bournemouth" anyway. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - it was the way you phrased it that caught me out. Bournemouth's MP is not, of course, a Bournemouth official involved in Bournemouth politics - he is involved in national politics. Council leaders are not as you say, directly elected, but then neither is the prime minister! I suspect that the majority of people in Bournemouth may not know his name, but they will certainly know his position. The key thing here is this: if the top councillor in this English town is not notable, then neither is the equivalent in any other town in England, Britain or the world. That may actually be the case, but I'm not saying it!Emeraude (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touche re the Prime Minister not being directly elected...but I think the numbers of voters involved in national election (10s of millions) versus that for a local council ward election (a few thousand if not a few hundred) is significant. yes, I think that is the precedent, as you say. The leader of e.g. the city-wide council for a major conurbation (London, New York, Paris, Cairo, New Delhi, etc.) may be notable, because of the budgets, numbers and prestige involved. I believe as a general rule of thumb those quite this far down the scale aren't. Unless he is a national figure (he isn't, or at least no-one has yet proffered any evidence that he is) then I think his article should, and will, go.

Bournemouh locals may well know his position, and it would therefore be a good idea to create Local Council Leader or similar, as a generic article (or expand the relevant section of an existing one). That doesn't mean he has to have an article. I know that the captain of my local village Sunday cricket team exists- I don't know his name though, and I'd be mighty surprised to see an article on him show up here on Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are hundreds of Council in the UK and thus hundreds of council leaders, unless they are directly elected mayors then they are just a councillor and not notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken on the numbers, but a council leader is not "just a councillor".Emeraude (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even being leader of a council still makes him just a councillor, there is no extra weight because he leads the council, and in fact he could be voted out of office by the other councillors in his group at any time. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed...for the benefit of potential non-UK contributors, "council leader" is not a position that carries a great deal of weight, prestige or additional responsibility, and he could indeed be gotten rid of at any time. It's not a directly elected nor full-time position and really he's hardly more notable than an ordinary councillor...who are not in themselves notable at all. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! It carries a great deal of weight, prestige and additional responsibility. A large number of council leaders are well known outside of their areas (e.g. David Blunkett was well-known as the leader of Sheffield council long before he became and MP). None of this has any bearing, though, on the present subject. Emeraude (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, and no, it doesn't. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Membership of the council does not confer notability, nor does his unsuccessful candidacy in that election. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local politicians are not inherently notable. BWH76 (talk) 12:53, 5 May 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 due to lack of reliable sources to verify the article and failing the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Arand[edit]

Non-notable, search for information on subject reveals no information, cannot find any references to support the given information ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Article makes no claims of notability beyond winning one race. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:55, 30 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, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live class[edit]

Live class is a "general term" that is unsearchable for obvious reasons. The article is pure OR, synthesizing bits from a number of other distance and in person class issues. There is a merge proposal but this wouldn't add anything to distance education and is not a likely search term to be worthy of a re-direct. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:39, 22 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, Davewild (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Don't merge, it wouldn't help. (I must show this to my brother, who is an expert is distance education, he'll get a laugh out of it).Doug Weller (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be an ad for a nn product ([41], "Live Classroom is offered as either an annual or perpetual license..."). JJL (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination: this is barely readable original research. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 29 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) 20:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amante P. Marinas Sr.[edit]

Notability. This article is just a resume. Damiens.rf 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable blowgun and martial arts bio. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What in the world is the international blowgun association? Stifle (talk) 19:12, 29 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 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green-storming[edit]

Advertisement for a non-notable book with 4 google hits. Damiens.rf 19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Nominator is correct: Notability of the book is not at all established. Moreover, the article reads more like an advertising. --Abrech (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable book. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published non-notable book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Delete This appears to be mere advertising to me. I don't see an encyclopedic level of notability. Deli nk (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 29 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, website does not have the significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InterMat[edit]

I propose that this article be deleted, as it appears to be about a non-notable wrestling website. There are no reliable sources listed and any claims of notability appear to relate to associated people, not the website itself. If some sources could be listed, it would be a good start towards making this a good article. Tnxman307 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it is a notable website, I don't think it should have it's own article. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 13:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because a population is uneducated on a particular sport does not mean you should just strike it from the annals of Wikipedia. This site has been a news resource for college, high school and Olympic wrestling for over 13 years. That's longer than Wikipedia has been on the net.
- Also, I had this page "vandalized" by a rival web site. Had I not showed up and made the fix, would it have shown up in the recent changes? How much more content do I have to add to basically validate this page?

Oduwildman (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some material may be useful for an article on National Wrestling Coaches Association, maybe a stub for Jason Bryant, but the website itself would rely wholly on the notability of the Assoc. involved. Also, contact info is considered somewhat spammy. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ The web site does NOT rely on the Association. In fact, the media web site gets 10-15 times the traffic the association site does. You're telling me that a 13-year media web site (Which was independent prior to 2004) and has its news running on ESPN and the USA Today isn't worthy of a listing. I'm sorry I don't quite "grasp" your wikipedia relevance, but this site is relevant to thousands and thousands of people. I'm trying to keep building the listing to please you wiki people who obviously know ZERO about wrestling. Instead of being a pain in the butt, how about some tips on what else you people would want to see. Google InterMat Oduwildman (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out keep, you only get one "vote". Stifle (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sets my WP:SPAM alarms off. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright guys, have your fun. If that's how it's set up, that's how it's set up. Oduwildman (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the creator of the page Oduwildman doesn't seem to understand the policies of the site. Websites need a ton of back up to be notable. This article fails WP:N, and the creator complains that "this page (was) "vandalized" by a rival web site. Had I not showed up and made the fix, would it have shown up in the recent changes?" meaning that he didn't want it to be seen? Does he acknowledge that the page is not needed and hoped to keep it secret but recent changes have flagged it up? Also he seems to have issues with ownership and conflict of interest. The website exists, but the high Ghits come from pages which simply list page names or are not related to the page in question. But more importantly does the editor who created this page (and has edited little else since) really believe every website needs a Wikipedia page, if so then we will simply be duplicating the internet. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:50, 1 May 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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the 309[edit]

Notability. not a single, not enough info. LukeTheSpook (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and yes, I am the creator of the page). This was one of my very first articles on Wikipedia and I can see how it is not very relevant. I believe we should still mention in Cash's main article or the page for American V that this was his last song written. [42] conman33 (. . .talk) 05:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete info and reference already in American V article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable song by notable artist. Merge is fine too. Stifle (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American V as important information is already included. B.Wind (talk) 03:46, 5 May 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 redirect to The Amanda Show, Copyvio from http://www.tv.com/the-amanda-show/show/2917/episode_guide.html .--Otterathome (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Amanda Show episodes[edit]

Not notable, no references Llamabr (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no convincing reason given to delete. While I don't think the show was particularly popular, it was a prime-time show that ran for 3 years on a major cable network and I see no reason not to have a list of episodes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per starblind --Armanalp (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copy and pasted from http://www.tv.com/the-amanda-show/show/2917/episode_guide.html.--Otterathome (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmmm. Some people may not be reviewing the article before they !vote. The ~~current~~ (and nominated) version is a redirect to The Amanda Show. The version I had tagged for speedy d was what I believed was nonsense. The speed tag was repeatedly removed, and the article became a chart consisting of a couple of purported plot summaries. Having never seen a single episode, I do not know whether the summaries were accurate. However, they identified a seemingly main character that is not listed on IMDb page for the episode. If the article was not a hoax, it was unsourced original research. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Otterathome. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:33, 28 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Dragonfly[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 11:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you wanna delete this Opera Dragonfly entry, BUT, this product is sure to be released. This product is documented by Opera developpers on several official blog. This entry will be created again, as soon as it will be released in the forthcoming days. (3 days from now on) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.209.241 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. Deb (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if there was anything noteworthy about the forthcoming software it is written as a marketing release, i.e. '...there were many rumours what it would be' PRasmussen (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Stifle (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:14, 30 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 consensus. This title, however, will be redirected as a [slightly] plausible search term for the parent. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sangamon's Principle[edit]

Delete. Does not meet the notability requirement for fiction-related articles. In addition, includes much more information not directly related to either the subject of the article or the fictional work from which it is derived. Goes on to cite an irrelevant example of the principle not occurring in another of the author's works. This subject merits no more than a one-line mention in the Zodiac page. Juansmith (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Zodiac (novel), where quoting the principle it is acceptable, but none of the drug table or other uncited comparisons, so we don't need anything from this article. I suppose technically if someone wants to save the table it could fit in the Wikia Annex. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge exegetical content to Zodiac. The topic is not independently notable, nor does the synthesisized material belong in an encyclopedia, but it is a significant plot device in the novel. Skomorokh 13:10, 4 May 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. Won a local competition - there's nothing else. Black Kite 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tejas Kumar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tejas Kumar (2nd nomination)

This appears to be little more than self-promotion. Sources seem to be little more than the person's own website and some local newspapers, etc. It is therefore in violation of the following notability guideline: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it indeed looks like self promotion. Shovon (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somewhat accomplished, but not notable. More like 15 minutes of fame at this point. Frank | talk 23:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm confused where the first AFD is located (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tejas Kumar is red) ? It might be helpful to read the previous debate to see why an article has survived a deletion debate before. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:14, 4 May 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. Wizardman 13:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Track access controller[edit]

This article describes a role or job level at a specific company (London Underground). It is unsourced, and does not seem verifiable in this detail. As long as this company-internal role is unknown to the wider public (which the few Google hits do not seem to indicate), the topic fails WP:N. Tagged with ((notability)) since June 07; PROD was contested. B. Wolterding (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't see why the "wider public" has anything to do with notability. It's a position in a field of interest in which we have rather comprehensive coverage. DGG (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I was referring to regarding the "wider public" is some independent coverage, in the mainstream press or similar, which seems to be missing here; or at least I currently can't attribute the article content to sources of this kind. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there are a handful of sources which could help source/explain the role this job serves within the London Underground. According to GScholar, it's also mentioned in this book, although I don't have access to it. I don't think it's a particularly notable job, nor do I think we have clear guidelines on what constitutes a notable job. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProjects notified: WikiProject London Transport and Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways. Slambo (Speak) 11:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The main 'sin' is the lack of sources to back-up the content. Whether the article should remain stand-alone or be merged-in with one of the other London Underground articles is another matter. Either way, the content is worth retaining. EdJogg (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I strongly object to articles being put up for deletion WITHOUT prior discussion on the talk page. The only sin this article has committed is that it has failed to add any references. At the very least the content should be merged ... which again should have been discussed on the talk page.Olana North (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I suspect that sources could be found to write a decent article on the subject, a lot of the current content is very poor indeed. The sins go well beyond a simple lack of sources: there's a great deal of unattributed opinion, much of which seems designed to puff up the importance of the job. "The post of Track Access Controller is highly sought after...", "If you are ever stranded in the morning due to "overrunning of engineering work" you can be sure that a Track Access Controller somewhere is working hard to get the problem resolved for you", "Between them they have a wealth and breadth of knowledge that is the envy of other London Underground departments" and numerous other examples. Merging this sort of material is a bad idea... if it is kept it would need to be severely pruned if not cleaned up quickly. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Comment] OK, so some of the wording is poor, granted, it is unlinked and barely categorised, but the 'main' sin remains the lack of sources. A little rewording could easily change this from unsourced POV to unsourced content (:o)): "T~ A~ C~ positions attract large numbers of applicants", "A T~A~C~ is responsible for managing engineering over-runs and minimising consequent delays.", "a T~A~C~ requires a knowledge of the entire Underground network", etc. However much pruning might be required, merging is greatly preferable to deleting, and the unpruned version gives other editors greater scope for filling in the detail appropriately. EdJogg (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the article twice, cleaned up what I could, and I still can't tell exactly what a Track access controller is. There were major WP:PEACOCK issues and I fixed some of them. It reads like a recruitment posting, not an encyclopedia article. If reliable sources can be found, this article can be recreated later, but as is, if I were to paraphrase the article, i would only be able to come up with "they work with the London Underground safety stuff, they much be really really really really really really really good." -Verdatum (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not tfl.gov.uk. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slash and Merge The text looks like a copyvio of a job posting, but the bare facts are mergeable with LU if true though. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep but give it a decent wikify and copyedit. --AlisonW (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scrape clean and start anew. We have a grand slam here - an orphaned, deadend, unreferenced article that, despite all the work performed on it since the opening of the AfD, still reads like a magazine article or the beginning of an editorial/opinion article. B.Wind (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this is surely a subject worth having an article about, although perhaps this article is not it right now. I'd like to see it improved, and there doesn't seem to be much interest in doing so, but the peacock wording seems largely gone...let's give it a chance. Frank | talk 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Travellingcari. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 6 May 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. Zsinj^Talk 05:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive acculturation[edit]

Original research. Failed prod - removed as first edit of user:Krowder . Toddst1 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reads like somebody's paper, and may be a copyright violation. The text is vague and abstract to the point of evasiveness. The article begins: Interactive acculturation takes account of the dynamic interplay of host community and immigrant acculturation orientations. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 29 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 non-notable fringe theory and probably original research. Sandstein (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GEM unification theory[edit]

Parochial, non-notable idea that is basically original research. In fact, the idea is held by only one guy (Brandenburg) who is apparently going around Wikipedia blasting his wares to gain notoriety for his fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable fringe outgrowth of Plasma Cosmology. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here is my original argument: I'd like a second opinion, but I strongly suspect this topic is not notable. It seems to be the baby of one man, who tends to publish in obscure places. Where is the mention of this theory in a text book or a review paper? Where are the critical commentaries and extensions or even objections to this theory in peer reviewed journals? Maybe it is serious science, but if it is so new that it has not yet attracted significant attention from the scientific community, then it has no place in Wikipedia. Art Carlson (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This theory gives the value of the gravitation constant! It is the only published theory that does so. Has all the community of string theory done this??? It is part of Plasma Cosmology, the article is heavily referenced with peer reviewed references, including its presentation Coral Gables in 2003, to Noble prize winners. Is Wikipedia to be only a forum for the the mainstream? The blessed? The consensus view? The fully funded? Or is to be a democratic forum where alternative views can be presented as well as the standard ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.91.173 (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC) — 75.100.91.173 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia is not a forum. And you will find many notable alternative views here, along with their criticisms. Plvekamp (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rather lengthy article fails to explain where the formula for ${\displaystyle r_{p))$ comes from, and one might suspect that it was concocted specifically to produce that "result". — DAGwyn (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Art Carlson's comments above are persuasive. While Plasma cosmology had a notable role in the history of cosmology, there's no evidence that this "unification theory" has had any impact on the scientific community whatsoever. There is a place on Wikipedia for notable non-mainstream views, but it is certainly not a forum for anyone with a few little-cited papers and a website. Do you have information about the impact of GEM unification theory that we're not aware of? -- SCZenz (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this theory is based on tested data and has already been published. This is the perfect subject for a WikI. please disregard the rants of the power of 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.5.46 (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikpedia policy on WP:Notability before stating your opinion here: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Mere publication is not sufficient. And please sign your posts (simply insert four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~), so that we can keep track of who is saying what, especially in a discussion like this. Art Carlson (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The theory is referenced in the following article. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060308_exotic_drive.html read it and weep! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepthought137 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read what and weep? What are we supposed to glean from that article? Protonk (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That space.com interviewed some wackos at a conference, I guess. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Crackpot science. Hits every warning sign. It's poorly received it's covered in poplar press and not peer-reviewed press (in any significant fashion. It has OUTRAGEOUS claims which, if true, would make this discussion for deletion silly. It relies on mostly algebraic manipulations: despite the subject matter nothing is expressed as a vector quantity, no dimensional analysis is done. What does the claim about a more accurate evaluation of G even MEAN? There is no testable proposition given. There is no evidence given that this is anything. ~~And whay does it mean to say the equation is 'inverted' in this sense~~? Also, the Dirac large number hypothesis is not a very strong basis for this. The original notion from Dirac is a little shaky, and further extrapolation is total fringe. I mean, read the article and visualize what it actually means to use it in the GEM article. It's crackpot, all the way. Protonk (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it does smack of crackpot science, it's not as obviously so as most such theories. It should be evident that a genuine prediction of G from first principles would be testable. The meaning of "inverted" is obvious to me: $r_{p}=f(G)$ inverts to $G=f^{-1}(r_{p})$ .

Fair enough. I've struck the specific statement. Protonk (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See talk (there is more behind the person Brandenburg). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.48.201.232 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC) — 91.48.201.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. <-- Moved by Protonk (talk) in order to thread the comment properly so it doesn't come above the nomination. Protonk (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My concerns are less with the validity of the theory and more with notability and balance. Even a massively failed theory such as phlogiston can be notable for encyclopedic purposes, due to their significance in the scientific debate. Also, this article is not about Brandenburg the physicist, its about GEM the theory. Statements like 'B is a great guy and entertaining lecturer' or 'B is a crackpot' are completely irrelevant. No, the crux of the matter in my opinion is that this theory has received very little attention in journals - it's hard to find any material by anyone other than one man (doesn't matter who that one man is, just the fact that it's only one man). Also, the article doesn't show much critical comment, which I believe is mandatory for a non-mainstream theory. I couldn't find any critical comment on the web for the simple reason that hardly anyone is talking about it, other than a couple adherents. If this theory starts receiving more notice from the scientific community, positive or negative, I might change my mind. As it stands at present, though, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. (I listed the few references I could find on the talk page. I only found a couple more references, which weren't significant.) Plvekamp (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither me ~~nor scienceapolgist~~ are attacking the physicist. I couldn't care less. He's probably a great guy. I'm sure he goes to church or helps the poor or whatever. My point is that the article is a presentation of a theory that rings false to me. there are not really significant secondary sources (sources that aren't papers from Brandenburg) covering it, so the substance becomes an issue. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Ok, I can't make as strong a claim for the both of us, but I'm certainly not attacking him as a person. Protonk (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I was just trying to make sure it was clear that the argument was not personal. Adherents of WP:FRINGE theories frequently take it that way, and I wanted to defuse that immediately. Plvekamp (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for that. Protonk (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the concern about lack of notability. The theory may or may not have some merit, but we don't need to (and shouldn't) try to decide that. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the author: The symbol r_p stands for the Planck length and is in its conventional form, I have added a link to that page, to make this more clear. I have also added the specific criticisms voiced by other physicists at conferences where it has been presented. The basic criticism is that GEM treats the proton as a fundamental particle , when according to the Standard Model it is a composite body made of quarks. The author has no problem with the standard model, it is just that the math turns out that way. This stems from the the Dirac large numbers hypothesis ,which features the proton mass. This problem is being addressed, but has hindered consideration of GEM theory by the mainsteam physics community. However, the cosmolgy which results from GEM is a Big Bang followed by a continually inflationary cosmology. Kind of like a light bulb turning on and then burning continuosly. It is only a plasma cosmology because it couples EM scales to the cosmos at its largest scale , the Hubble radius itself. I appreciate the critics of my GEM article efforts to avoid "ad homimen" arguments. --Deepthought137 (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepthought137 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete---please note the author's comment (below) from his talk page; this is an admission that the topic is NN but that its author hopes for it to be notable someday. Because all authors feel that way, we have a policy to sort them out. Bm gub (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(from User_talk:Deepthought137) I have decided to make the theory either "famous or infamous" by the end of this year. I will be presenting the theory to the physics community again, in its newest form at the American Physical Society Meeting in Portland Oregon may 15-17. I also have submitted yet another article it to International Journal of Theoretical Physics, and I am awaiting refree reports. I am working to maximize press coverage of this, so if you see headlines (hopefully good) and also hear the predicatable cries of "Bah Humbug!" from my learned colleages in the string theory community, you will know I have succeeded. If this happens, where best for the eager public to gain basic knowledge of the theory that to look it up on Wikipedia?
Keep. This article includes 10+ references to scientific articles, and the subject is notable (even if the theory is questionable), because this is about most fundamental laws of nature.Biophys (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look up what "notable" means in Wikipedia: WP:N. --Art Carlson (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, how does a theory being "about" something notable automatically make it notable? And do you believe that any theory which has a few papers by one author is automatically suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? -- SCZenz (talk) 20:53, 3 May 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. The article has been substantially improved and eight references were added during the AfD. Well done. Sandstein (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quest (gaming)[edit]

Complete patent original research. Article has been tagged for cleanup for over a year - AfD is not for general cleanup issues, but this article has serious verifiability problems. Chardish (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I'd dig up my sources first, but the nature of this topic means that sources could be buried in books, journals and in a thousand places that take time to reach. In terms of verifiability, such a huge aspect of gaming (both table-top and video gaming) is going to be covered in the numerous game design books floating around out there. For a taste, here's an article from The Escapist, the second place I looked after the horror of trying to find sources via google set in. It's no less than a four-page article on escort missions. They're out there, perhaps someone with access to more powerful search tools than google could pull out some more, but losing this article doesn't seem necessary when it could eventually be brought up to standard. Someone another 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a staff member of IGN's musings on fetch-quests. I'm not looking any more, not enough weeks in the hour :| Someone another 15:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep, per Someone. This is an EXTREMELY notable aspact of gaming. Clean up if nessesary --Armanalp (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You see original research, I just see a lack of references. This is a pretty notable topic. The article is in bad shape. But hopefully someone can at least begin to do the hard work of referencing this notable and important concept. Randomran (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's original research or unverified claims that potentially has too broad a scope unless proper sourcing is inforced. Potentially, anything you do in any game can be considered a quest. It can also be considered a goal, objective, mission, task, etc. The names for categories of quests appear to be a listing of unestablished neologisms. It would be very cool if a reliable source took it upon themselves to synthesize together all the information about the abstract concept of the quest in the realm of video games, but until I am shown evidence of it, I doubt such an effort exists. (Anyone wishing to find such a resource, I'd guess the best place to look would be textbooks on game design). -Verdatum (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article has been extensively cleaned up and now has further sourcing added. Please can you review your argument in light of these recent changes. Many thanks,Gazimoff ^Write _Read 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The games discussed are widely reviewed in published sources, so it seems fairly obvious that sources could be found. The actual statements of the article seem generally uncontroversial, and are easily recognized by the many people who play the games. It would be a more interesting article if the programming side were addressed, showing how variables and counters tend to make the quest mechanic attractive to game creators. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems probable the nominator fell into the common trap of thinking that a bad article warrants deletion, when the topic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest the nominator withdraws, and edits the article instead. User:Krator (t c) 17:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bstone (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD is not a vote. Could you justify your position? -Verdatum (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable subject.--Berig (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I dug up enough references to satisfy the notability requirements.—RJH (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per nominator. As notable as the subject may be, this is pure original research. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a thin line between original research and verifiable content that just hasn't been referenced yet. I don't think you can find much in this article that seems particularly controversial, biased, or untrue. The problem is the references. That doesn't really justify deletion. Not yet, anyway. Randomran (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the material can be referenced, and mind you it has been tagged for cleanup and references since February 2007; over 14 months ago then I will happily withdraw my motion. I hope that all those who have !voted to keep have the same open mind. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has now been cleaned up, with OR removed and citations added. I'm working on adding further information to add more depth to the article, but I think your immediate concerns have been addressed and I'd ask you to reassess your decision in this light. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 08:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of a quest is central to many games. Some of the article is probably original research, but there are some references given. I do think the article needs improvement in terms of references, but at this point, it doesn not merit deletion. Andareed (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm in the middle of sourcing some MMO gameplay articles and have a fair few reliabe, third party sources that could be used to demonstrate points in this article. These sources are mainly reviews, previews and so on where gameplay elements are critically discussed. If it would be of benefit, I'll move on to giving this article a spring clean after I'm done with the others, but I can provide some relevant sourcing in the meantime. Hope this helps. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 12:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why are so many people !voting keep on the basis of "notability" when notability isn't the reason this is being proposed for deletion? This article has serious problems; address the problems instead of using a straw man. - Chardish (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing administrator will take note of this and weigh the arguments accordingly, I am sure. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am cleaning up the article currently, adding further sourcing from strategy guides and review articles in order to assure editors unfamiliar with the terminology that these are commonly used terms and concepts in a wide variety of computer games, although I think the tabletop RPG community will probably see some parallels as well. Please feel free to review the work as it progreses. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Someoneanother. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gazimoff's recent additions, which do address the concerns of OR. --Izno (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The one remaining area of OR/Synthesis was actually the lead sentence and I've added a ref that seems to nail that one. I fully understand the nomination but the improvements made during the AFD (always a good outcome to an AFD) are sufficient. BlueValour (talk) 02:46, 3 May 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, consensus is that this is a valid topic for a list, all members of the list are now references. Davewild (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anglo-Indians[edit]

Completely unreferenced racial biology-based list. Rejected prod. Includes unreferenced assertions about the ethnicity of living people. John (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Needs references and improvement, not deletion. Racial lists have numerous precedents (List of African Americans, List of Chinese Americans, List of Welsh Americans, etc). Deleting this would put a hole in our coverage of people by nationality (Lists of people by nationality). If there are unreferenced statements, tag it as such or help by finding some sources, not by nominating it for deletion. The nominating rationale is essentially "It doesn't contain sources". However, there are sources available within the articles for the vast majority of the subject's contents. If you feel the list itself needs to contain them, simply copy them over. I'm not really seeing the deletion rationale here.Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, I don't see a nomination for the category. Is there something about the category that makes it better than the list? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your assertion above ("there are sources available within the articles for the vast majority of the subject's contents") seems incorrect based on a sampling of the items of the list. If the article was stripped to contain only those names we can reference, I think it would become vanishingly short. Long or short, it is hard to see the benefit in keeping this. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good or a valid keep rationale. --John (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As I suspected, trimming out the completely unreferenced entries from the list leaves only five, as compared to 27 before. The category will be getting cleaned up too, don't worry. --John (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to strongly disagree regarding sourcing concerns. Out of the first eleven, only three don't have clear, obvious sources pop up either on their articles or with a simple gsearch; I didn't even have to go into my subscription databases for these. And no, this isn't OTHERSTUFF. I'm not saying it should be kept because there are similar articles in existence. While that's certainly true, my point is that this would put a hole in our table of contents system covering people by their nationality/race. It doesn't seem particularly fair to cover some nationalities/races and not others; ipso facto, they're inherently equal. In fact, it seems quite the opposite. There's no issues of notability or verifiability with most of the contents. While you may not see the benefit in keeping is, I don't see the benefit in not keeping; it does no harm to BLP subjects (those whom sources can not be found for should be removed from the list and accompanying category, just like any other article), serves as a part of the navigational system and as a human-readable equivalent of the Anglo-Indian category, coalescing subjects based on their nationality/race. In short, this is an ideal LIST. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one source I checked of those you provided does not support the ethnicity, it is merely a mention of Engelbert Humperdinck in an article about Anglo-Indians. If they are all as weak as that they are no good for our purposes. Sorry. --John (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll just have to part ways, then. There are some print sources, too, judging by the local library's index; ("Under the Shadow of Man-Eaters: The Life and Legend of Jim Corbett of Kumaon", who apparently went on a hunting trip in India, has a chapter on what he terms the "Anglo-Indian exodus", in which he dedicates a few sentences to that particular subject's ethnicity). Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significantly source, and ensure some useful information is in the list beyond just names. Being Anglo-Indian is a fairly unremarkable designation. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've restored the entries of those with sources readily available. I think short summaries are in order for each individual remaining, and I'll see what I can do tomorrow about finding sources for the remaining ones. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks as though the article contain references to support the claims of ethnicity. AfD is not cleanup. -Verdatum (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an article-worthy list.--Berig (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to a category. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please have a look at CLN. Redundancy between categories and other navigational mechanisms is not a reason for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm well aware of that guideline, and I don't subscribe to it. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:18, 30 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 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mehtab-ud-din[edit]

Google throws up nothing of note[43]. Non-notable journeyman journalist who showed up here to write an article about himself, violating WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, WP:Single-purpose account, etc., etc., etc. This thing should've been speedied, but we can do it here with the same result. Qworty (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seem to be quite a few Mehtab-ud-dins floating around, but I'm not finding any sources for this one. (The paper of which he claims to be managing editor doesn't look notable, either--one unrelated Ghit--so I'm thinking he might not be notable even if we can source this.) AnturiaethwrTalk 05:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Deli nk (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:18, 30 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 (non-admin closure). Following no comment at all to delete, the nominator withdrew the nomination on the basis of the consensus formed, that achieving 2 blue ribbons is notable. Proposals to merge can be discussed at the article's talk page. WilliamH (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brumfield Elementary School[edit]

No assertion of notability; totally unreferenced. Given that elementary schools are as a rule of thumb non-notable, this means it probably isn't. If we keep this it should be moved to the page for the appropriate school district. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Nomination Withdrawn. Two blue ribbons is sufficiently notable. That said, this might be better merged into the article on its school district if the only major detail available about the school is the two blue ribbons. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to North Gibson School Corporation; nn on its own but merge seems to be teh standard way to handle these now. JJL (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment with over 3000 schools on the Blue Ribbon list, I don't see that as making the school notable by itself. I'd still favor a merge, where this fact could be noted. Is there a more specific policy/precedent on this? JJL (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as usual. Merging and redirecting schools don't require AfDs, in general. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The existence of the subject is clearly verifiable, which is the only relevant criterion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:N must still be met. Both the proposal WP:SCHOOLS and consensus (neither of which is binding in any way) that elementary schools be merged and redirected to their districts. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it needn't. So-called "notability" is substantially undefined, meaningless, and totally irrelevant. Removing information is NEVER a good idea. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Saying must be met is a little too strong. WP:N is a helpful guideline for interpreting Wikipedia content policies. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt's opinions, to which he is entitled, are not shared by a large majority of Wikipedia users. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the Blue Ribbon award is the highest award an US school can receive and this school has won it twice; a highly unusual occurrence. This will be sourced in the next day or so. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it that unusual? If so then it would merit keeping as an individual article, and the article should cite a neutral source noting the unusualness of this. Otherwise merge this to the main page. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep upon addition of sources or, at worst, merge to North Gibson School Corporation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. Monobi (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since rewritten, the notability argument has been vacated. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep per TerriersFan. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Blue Ribbon is awarded to many schools, and might not confer great notability on its own; winning two, however, seems to be quite an achievement. If it was awarded randomly, only about 65 schools across the US would have two or more. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:19, 30 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 WP:CRYSTAL. Black Kite 19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Birds And The Bee Sides[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:Crystal: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No sources/citations. —Scouter Sig 03:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find nothing to back this up. It's Speculative and etc. Noble Story (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL.- JulesN Talk 09:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL Enigma ^message 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP References added
- One reference to a blog has been added. Blogs aren't reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am adding a link to the band's official site, will that be enough to keep it?RoryS89 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)RoryS89[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Black Kite 19:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nashville Tennis EP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:Crystal: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No sources/citations. —Scouter Sig 03:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL.- JulesN Talk 09:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL Enigma ^message 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP References added
- One reference to a blog has been added. Blogs aren't reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding a link to the band's official site.RoryS89 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)RoryS89[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journey's End (song)[edit]

This article has been tagged for notability concerns since last September. It appears to be about a piano piece, but contains no information about the composer of the song or any reason why it would be considered noteworthy. I suspect that it may be this piano piece by "BAUMGARTNE", which may be Paul Baumgartner — or may not. WP:MUSIC#Songs recommends that most articles for songs be turned into redirects to an appropriate artist or composer, but since this article doesn't indicate who that composer is we can't tell what the target of a redirect should be. And since there's clearly nobody interested in expanding the article into something useful, I'm nominating the page for deletion (a first for me). Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's going to be practically impossible to identify this piece from the description given - "medium difficulty" is entirely subjective, and "ends in the style played in the beginning but with a slightly different twist" describes most music. The "fast upbeat sequence of E chords" might be useful to confirm the piece's identity, but it's hardly something that you can punch into a search. Given that this would be a redirect anyway, there's not much of a point in doing the research. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of context, does not meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. The "BAUMGARTNE" above is Eric Baumgartner. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:56, 3 May 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, which defaults to Keep. A merge may or may not be suitable, but that is for the talkpages of the relevant articles at this point. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kir Kanos[edit]

This is just in-universe plot summary from the Crimson Empire comic series. More appropriate for Wookieepedia. --EEMIV (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per mon. Seems like an important aspect/character. Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - So important no one has yet started on article for the material in which the character appears? --EEMIV (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Be bold and make the article. Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely, since I don't think the comic series meets the notability standards, either -- and you're the one advocating keeping this material... --EEMIV (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crimson Empire article (if someone more in the know cares to create it). Character is only notable within the confines of the series as far as I'm aware he hasn't appeared in other Star Wars media. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Already on Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question If in the case of things already exiting on other "pedias" and such would redirects to those articles be possible and/or reasonable? If so than I'd change my merge above to a redirect. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we can't redirect to another website. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on fictional characters. Character appears in toys and published books. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character. Mostly plot summary. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 20:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not fixable for such a non-notable, trivial element; there's insufficient material for an appropriate out-of-universe treatment. --EEMIV (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The topic is notable enough for Wikipedia and as for out of universe information, unless if every fiction related magazine that has a realistic shot of having information on the topic then we're jumping the gun when we do not need to as there is no deadline. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So how about you take these assorted in-universe, trivia- and plot-laden, non-notable elements of Battlestarwarstrek to your user space for development and "scratchpad editing" and spit them back into mainspace once they, you know, abide by WP:V, WP:N, etc. No rush -- there's no deadline. --EEMIV (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because there is a much greater likelihood that other editors will help in finding and improving the articles when they are in mainspace. I am only one person and I just uncovered a comprehensive sock farm that created a host of hoax articles that absolutely should be deleted (please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Albert Ramos Jr (Football Player)). Thus, just as I too am willing and do go after more immediately problematic articles, I appreciate any help improving those that are far less of an immediate concern. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - existence of wookieepedia material is irrelevant for discussion here. Nature of material suggests sourcing can be found, could be merged to parent article at a stretch. Needs references but I am prepared to AGF for a while. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unlikely to be able to assert real-world significance per WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Eusebeus (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber; Wookieepedia discussion is irrelevant. Clearly covered in books and other sources. GlassCobra 03:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails multiple policies, no sources, basically plot summary - I would've AGF'd to a merge into the material about the source material, but there isn't one. Black Kite 22:52, 4 May 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 have read the argument from Eastmain which is not unreasonable, but it does not refute the fact that the list is at present an incomplete and unannotated list of bluelinked articles, duplicating a category exactly (apart from being incomplete). Since the consensus appears to be to delete this article, I cannot let that argument overrule it. Note that recreating an article which addresses the concerns given in this AFD will not run afoul of WP:CSD#G4 on recreations, and if anyone wants the content as a basis for further work just ping me or another admin and it will be provided to you in some form. (If you request it from another admin, just point them to this AFD.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of railway stations managed by Southern[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. This list is not particulary informative, and the topic would be better served by a category. Now that we have Category:Railway stations served by Southern, which performs a very similar, although not identical role, this would appear to have been achieved and therefore this page can go. (That the list is incomplete is not a reason for deletion in itself: it would be a straightforward but dull task to complete it.) RFBailey (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redundancy is not always a bad thing. If a complete list of stations managed by Southern can be found and added to this list, then any redlinks would indicate either an article that needs to be created or inconsistency in naming articles. But it would be less obvious if a station were missing from the category, because categories don't have redlinks. Lists and categories can coexist. --Eastmain (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list of railway stations served by Southern will include all of those that it manages. This list id therefore redundant. Duplication adds to the workload of the project and leads to them being out of synch with each other. Furthermore, lists need to be compliant with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Categories are preferred to lists. Olana North (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the list of railway stations served by Southern include all of those that it manages, but it also includes others, so this list is not redundant. I think this is a good example of where a category would work better than a list, but such a category does not exist. Klausness (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I figured I'd just go ahead and create the category and add everything on the list to it. This resulted in someone leaving me a note on my talk page suggesting that I stop doing what I was doing and discuss it on WT:RAIL. I'd already added everything on the list to the category, so I added a note about what I'd done to WT:RAIL. Klausness (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am all for the redundancy of categories and lists, but only when the list provides something that the category does not. Since this is merely an alphabetical list with no additional content, it serves no purpose that I can see. -Verdatum (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and as for the AfD, if the folks at WT:RAIL don't like the new category, I guess get rid of it again, and Week keep on this article, since it's not redundant. If the category is kept, then Delete on the article, since it's redundant and adds nothing to the category. Klausness (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, category is sufficient and this list adds nothing to it. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per eastmain. Mathmo ^Talk 08:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category is sufficient, more complete, and easier to maintain. Frank | talk 15:09, 5 May 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) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aurofinian School, The[edit]

A literary movement whose only evidence of existence is in Wiki mirrors. I don't think so. Most prominent author of the movement known only by a screen name. Doubly so. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 31 hits on Google, none of any relevance or importance. Noble Story (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Literary scenes that don't have books written about them are not scenes, and scenes happen because a number of the participants become famous. In this case, no references and no fame = hoax. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the hits were wikipedia or the many spin-offs...non notable is my finding. --Stormbay (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Complete lack of reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:14, 3 May 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 Boldly redirected to Supergrass Is 10. This was a case of duplicate articles with the same content. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supergrass is 10[edit]

There is another article with the same name except the title has a capital I for the Is part of the title TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge and redirect the "capital I" article to the "little i" article, as this (according to the cover image) is the form used by the title. The content of the two articles is identical (or if not, almost identical). -- saberwyn 02:49, 28 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) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Benjamin[edit]

Is the author of Juvenile Injustice The Chicago Story ;Published in 2003, the book is based on the murder of Ryan Harris. "The 1998 case captured national headlines as the two boys became the youngest children in the nation ever formally accused of murder". Ryan Harris an 11-year-old African American girl was brutally raped and murdered on the south side of Chicago in the summer of 1998. Two young boys seven and eight were held and charged with her murder, making them the youngest accused murders in the history of the United States. The book gathered national attention and quickly became a source for researchers in that genre.The Ryan Harris murder and the story subsequently changed the Laws governing the detention of minors in 2004. Mr. Benjamin is also an official candidate for the City Of Miami Mayoral Elections November 2013. Jeff Benjamin is also television analyst, who has appeared on Court TV, MSNBC ,CBS and a variety of local networks. Jeff Benjamin was born on the Caribbean Island of Trinidad. His mother was a Grenadian citizen who migrated to the United States in the early sixties. His father's family are Russian Jews who migrated to the United States in the early 1900's. Mr. Benjamin also possesses a P.H.D in Neuro EEG and recently finished writing; Love & Cholera a book based on the Haitian Earthquake in 2010 Juvenile injustice : the Chicago story / by Jeff Benjamin. Is available at most Public Libraries http://www.chipublib.org/search/details/cn/1974610?branch=93 Author: Benjamin, Jeff. Publisher: Bloomington, IN : 1stBooks Library, c2004. ISBN: 1414021860 (acid-free paper) : Description: vi, 349 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. Subject: Murder Illinois Chicago. Homicide Illinois Chicago. Murder victims Illinois Chicago. Trials (Murder) Illinois Chicago. Trial transcripts Illinois Chicago. Notes: "Based on the true story."--Back of jacket.

More information on this candidate can be found at:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jeff-Benjamin-For-Mayor-City-Of-Miami/140607496034643?ref=stream www.jeffbenjaminformayor.com

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Salisbury (married Frances Webb)[edit]

Thomas Salisbury seems unnotable in his own right. Evident by the title, the only thing he is notable for is marrying Frances Webb. Tavix (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI can find nothing on him alone, and as per Relationships do not confer notability, he shouldn't be included based on his wife's status. Noble Story (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Udonknome (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete(Sigh, ok, convinced that refs are insufficient to satisfy WP:BIO) ~~Not that~~ distant an ancestor of a Queen Mother and a Queen of a major country. ~~Sources likely exist with more information of this individual than is included in the article.~~ (disclosure: likely my distant relative). Edison (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Great Great Great Grandfather?" I would say that's definitely a distant relative. Maybe we should include the Queen's third cousin twice removed? Seriously though, there's basically no information about him online, and he has no notability other than a tenuous hold to royalty. Noble Story (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, third cousin would be less interesting than ancestor. Edison (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Being a distant ancestor of royalty is not an inherent claim to notability. In this case, there is no indication of when the subject died, where he was born, or where he died, or what he did in his life besides marrying and fathering a daughter. His date of birth is not specified except as to "circa" the decade. Nor are any sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no biographical details, and notability is not inherited. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely a genealogical entry, which Wikipedia is not. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. Recreate later if sources show that he himself did something notable. -Verdatum (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung; purely a genealogical entry. Choess (talk) 02:06, 1 May 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, default to keep. The earlier opinions could not take his status as "Obie Yadgar" into account, for which Novickas has added references. Would probably have yielded a "keep" consensus after a relisting. Sandstein (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obelit Yadgar[edit]

Writer who has paid to have books printed through notorious vanity press AuthorHouse. Both titles completely fail WP:BK. Google throws up nothing of consequence, significance, notability, or even general interest. Qworty (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-published or vanity-published books are a strong indicator of non-notability, and when that's the only claim to notability in an article, well, that's just plain sad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has books, are any of the books notable? Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL SunCreator (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't. They're "published" by a vanity press, which by definition will publish virtually anything for a small fee. See vanity press, and specifically AuthorHouse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article looks like advertisement. Notability not established. --Abrech (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not even call it marketing as the entry is to weak for that and vanity publishing is not a good way to go. If we include this we will have to include every man and his dog PRasmussen (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of radio-related deletion discussions. Novickas (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is much more notable as a radio host and as Obie Yadgar - the subject of profiles at Chicago Public Radio [44], the Chicago Sun-Times, [45] and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel [46]. Give me a day or two and I'll put info from those refs in the article. Novickas (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Added refs from those sources and from Zinda (magazine). Novickas (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO lacks references.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep a article is well-referenced with specific, in-depth articles about the subject in reliable secondary sources including the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the Chicago Sun-Times which establish clear bright-line notability as a major-market broadcaster. - Dravecky (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per points made by Novichas. Please be aware that google search can be misleading. Chaldean (talk) 00:54, 3 May 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, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affinity Technique[edit]

A group problem solving technique. No references to help us judge its notability. Difficult to judge from a Google search for "affinity technique" because many of the hits relate to affinity chromatography. Also written as an how-to guide. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable references provided, seems made up. Dwilso 01:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources and as written it doesn't actually make much sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have heard of this and a Google book search shows results. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL SunCreator (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources aren't discussing what is being described in the article. The article is semi-nonsense about shuffling around index cards on the floor. It's nothing to do with protein or DNA, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree the top book seems to be fully in keeping with the article. ::Fundamentals of Total Quality Management: Process Analysis and Improvement - Page 139 by Jens J. Dahlgaard, Kai Kristensen, Ghopal K. Khanji - Business & Economics - 2005 - 372 pages

'One of the exercises that the groups did was to use the affinity technique (after

proper introduction to the technique) to define and group elements that ...' SunCreator (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Supposing, hypothetically, that this were a current rage or a mindblowing method, it would be information housed in an article on problem solving or whatever type of psychology/business this is. By itself, it's a method. Until the method draws significant commentary, about itself, there is no article to be written on it. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like most such "techniques", the point here seems to be to make up neologisms to give the appearance of system and teachability - and therefore, sellability - to unremarkable and pre-existing methods that you probably could have thought up yourself. This one does us the favour of actually describing the process taught, which makes its obviousness pretty self-evident. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:47, 30 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 a tie between "merge" and "delete", so technically no consensus to delete. As there's consensus that this should not currently be a separate article, I'm merging the first section only to TheForce.Net, but not the second, which sounds spurious and trivial ("Some members of Theforce.net's message board disagree..."). Per WP:V, anyone may then delete the merged content from TheForce.Net if no sources are provided. Sandstein (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Technical Commentaries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No discernible progress to substantiate claims or establish notability since last AfD. One suggested merge destination -- Curtis Saxton -- still does not exist. Article still does not meet WP:WEB. --EEMIV (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, though I guess I can't see much harm in a redirect to TheForce.Net either, since that's the site that hosts it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with theforce.net. I think it's worth covering, just not by itself. Noble Story (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!!! What happened to WP:WEB and how did this get passed a first nomination???? Udonknome (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was kept because nobody could agree on what should be done with it, leading to a no consensus closure (default keep). --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with TheForce.Net, of which this is a running feature without independent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB; does not establish notability Gary King (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with TheForce.Net as it seems to have more relevance there then as a stand-alone PRasmussen (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.--Berig (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those suggesting merge - How do you address the fact that this article contains no reliable sources? TheForce.Net is well-sourced material; the suggested merge material is not. Perhaps it would be sufficient -- or, at least, most appropriate given the lack of sources -- not to merge but instead ensure the the TFN article mentions hosting the SWTC and adding (if it's printed in a cross-sections book) mention of the cross-sections book referring to/acknowledging SWTC influence. --EEMIV (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's plenty of good information on WP that is not referenced. If there's indeed nothing useful to merge, why not make it into a redirect?--Berig (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within an article on a notable topic, it is possible to use self-published material. It should not be done for superlative or comparative claims, but there's no reason this can't be mentioned in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge, delete - No references mean no establishment of notability, there is no point shuffling it off to another article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with TheForce.Net Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, I feel this fails WP:WEB as notability is not reasonably established. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:22, 30 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 provided news source from Newsnet10 doesn't establish notability for the subject, and the news source from accessmylibrary doesn't appear to contain anything either. The lack of proven notability, plus the consensus determined from this discussion has lead me to close this as delete. Malinaccier (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ConQuest SAC[edit]

Non-notable convention, no claims of notability, no sources to prove notability. Corvus cornix_talk 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per their site, this is a small local con outside the scope of an encyclopedia. No Google news hits indicate there are reliable sources to be ad, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - News Source here Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

WP:NOT#NEWS Udonknome (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to combat false argumentation on Wikipedia, regardless of whether the source is good or not, the response by Udonknome is completely irrelevant. User:Krator (t c) 10:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not notable. Udonknome (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable event. The one source found doesn't seem to convincingly establish notability Bfigura ^(talk) 04:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single source doesn't establish notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - while the source indicates that the information is verifiable, it doesn't help to establish Notability. Further sourcing would be needed in order to demonstrate notability. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 12:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and pointless Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News Source establishing notability. http://www.news10.net/video/player_news10.aspx?aid=53618&sid=40086&bw=hi&cat=27 Mondoman (talk) 04:46, 30 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.