< April 3	April 5 >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Němeček[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem notable. There is no references. We should just delete it. Nothing 444 00:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article needs citations and some tidying but does not negatively impact wikipedia Brian R Hunter (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. All towns and cities are entitled to articles. The articles have a right to exist, even if they are not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works", as some of the articles are just outputed census data. Dreadstar † 02:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boggudupalli[edit]

Not notable and no sources. No important non-Wikipedia related google hits Andries (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'The Book of Books: Rasequin’s Chronicles'[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/'The Book of Books: Rasequin’s Chronicles'

Delete: Personal essay. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is basically a book review. Many quotes are attributed to the author of the book, but there are no sources at all which makes it all unverifiable. Besides being unenecyclopedic in style, the book that is the subject of the article is not shown to be notable. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a promotional / original research-y review of a non-notable book by a non-notable author Bfigura ^(talk) 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable, no refrences and a Signature at end of article! I believe this could be speedied Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C) 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is either a review or an advertisement either way its unencylopedic and is filled with WP:OR Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written as an advertisement, with no sources or references. Luk suh 02:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant Advertising/promotion Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure WP:OR/advertising. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Copyvio; from [1] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete not notable, OR, etc. --moof (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freshwater library[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current condition. Unencyclopedic. Terrible English. Not clear it is at all notable. If the main author wants to, he could rescue this article and work on it in a sandbox version, securing references and trying to establish notability, it at all possible. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine it belonging on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hint of notability; no references; unverifiable. Even without these problems, the article would need a complete, ground-up rewrite to be remotely encyclopedic. The present version strikes me as being more like a travel guide, albeit a very peculiar one; I cannot begin to surmise why a travel guide (or encyclopedia) would include a site whose only claim to fame appears to be a "new wheelchair ramp laid in place in 1995[.]" OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely fails WP:RS and WP:N – ukexpat (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Sources, and obiously not notable. Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C) 01:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; no references. Luk suh 02:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs, non-notable public place. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - asserts no notability through providing reliable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eden cole[edit]

Delete: Very short article and fails WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:V. The claim "well-know" is unsourced. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, duly tagged. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing basically and I mean with the information. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per pre-existing tag at time of afd nomination. --BrucePodger (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Dreadstar † 02:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skullcandy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete: Fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has no sources, is consequently unverifiable, and makes no assertion of notability. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. In light of the Google news hits and addition of a reference, I've changed my mind. It appears this company might be notable after all, though the article had not given me a reason to think so. That being the case, I'd like to wait and see if a decent treatment of this subject can be formulated. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 16:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per A7 Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C) 01:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and non-notable. Luk suh 02:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was on the verge of speedy deleting this as an A7 or G11, but the google news hits[2] show some solid potential sources. Based on what I see there, the company is notable and a decent article can be written. I added a quick reference and will try to work on it a bit more over the next few days.--Kubigula (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep crap article, good subject. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added to the text a bit and included several more references. Skullcandy's market penetration must be pretty good, as two of the references are from Britain and Australia. I'm personally satisfied that the company is sufficiently notable, and I hope those initially supporting deletion will take another look.--Kubigula (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per changes by Kubigula. Article now meets WP:CORP.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, unverifiable, unsourced. Et cetera. Black Kite 23:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Brown[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List_of_characters_from_Coronation_Street#Arriving_characters. Character won't even be on the soap for months, absolutely no claim of meeting WP:N or WP:FICTION in article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would normally say merge with List of characters from Coronation Street but since this is unsourced, and therefore unverifiable, crystal ballism, I say delete. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, non-notable. Luk suh 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't possibly be notable yet. DGG (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The contents makes no sense.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Black Kite 23:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Ferro[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, non-notable. Luk suh 02:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. I was not able to find a single piece information on "Clint & Eliza Radio" which is listed as one of his big accomplishments. -Icewedge (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ragas[edit]

Notability not asserted. Fails WP:MUSIC. Written by a WP:single-purpose account that's contesting a closely-associated speedy. Qworty (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost an A7 for lack of assertion of notability. Only possible claim to fame is that a band member is the son of a notable musician, but notability is not inherited. Also, the only source appears to be from usenet--hardly a reliable source. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Luk suh 02:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, fails WP:MUSIC - Milk's Favorite Cookie 04:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party source is: http://psychedeliccentral.com/psychedelicgaragesurf/jimguittard.html

and http://www.archive.org/details/TheRagasLiveAtTheCrookedBarHollywoodCalifornia2000

Jonapfelseed (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is excerpt from webpage interview with Roger McGuinn at :http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/interviews/2004/rogermcguinn-0604.html

Tell me a little about your family.

McGuinn: Camilla and I married in 1978. We just celebrated our 26th anniversary. We had both been in previous marriages. Camilla had no children. I had two sons, Patrick and Henry. Patrick plays guitar and sings. He has recorded several albums, but as a graduate of NYU film school, he prefers making films. Henry plays guitar and sings and has made two CDs.

Roger started the Byrds in 1964 or 65. You can read this at the Byrds wikipedia.

The Ragas are notable among the Byrds fans at the very least.

Jonapfelseed (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these references satisfies the Wikipedia referencing guidelines as the first is simply the artist talking about himself (i.e. a press release,) the second just offers downloads of a few mp3 clips of this duo in concert, and the third isn't even about the group; it only mentions a member. No one is claiming this to be a hoax; we all agree this band exists. There just isn't any evidence that this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I suggest you read WP:RS for what constitutes an appropriate source, and WP:MUSIC for guidelines on what bands or artists should be included in Wikipedia. If you can come up with a source that meets WP:RS and WP:MUSIC, I'd gladly change my opinion, but for now my prior statement still stands. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 16:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Article doesn't seem to assert notability beyond the fact of one member being the son of someone famous. You can bring up WP:RS; however, my delete vote is based on this article's subject failing WP:N, as they don't seem to have done anything notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Next time please simply tag such pages for speedy deletion. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Intermediate School[edit]

Delete: Very short article and fails WP:V and WP:RS. There is no way to understand if the school notable or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A1 speedy delete, tagged as such. Article has so little info I could not even confirm that it exists--doesn't even say where it is. Can't even merge/redirect per WP:SCHOOL as there is no encyclopedic content. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, non-notable. Luk suh 02:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Wake Forest University. I did a brute force merge to Wake_Forest_University#Fraternities_and_sororities, where there was a reference to this as "main article". Please help cleanup. - Nabla (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Forest Greek Life[edit]

Repositiory of wikilinks. The only paragraph actually on this specific system is very POV and unsourced. —Scouter Sig 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Wake Forest University#Student life; Lacks references/notability. Luk suh 02:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, per above and WP:NOT#LINK--victor falk 03:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Merge any useful content into Wake Forest University#Student life. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wake Forest University#Student life. Three new paragraphs would fit nicely. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge salvageable content in Wake Forest University#Student life. Notability is an issue, but it should apply to the individual fraternities/sororities linked there. Here we have a list which may prove handy to a number of readers interested in Wake Forest University (per WP:NOT#PAPER). NikoSilver 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to University of Kentucky Student Life. I did a brute force merge, please help cleanup. Nabla (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Kentucky Greek life[edit]

Simple collection of links. No new information is presented, especially information specific to the campus.WP is not a collection of wikilinks. —Scouter Sig 23:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is nothing more than a link collection. Luk suh 02:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge to University of Kentucky Student Life, per nom & above.--victor falk 03:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Merge any useful content into University of Kentucky Student Life. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge salvageable content in University of Kentucky Student Life. Notability is an issue, but it should apply to the individual fraternities/sororities linked there. Here we have a list which may prove handy to a number of readers interested in University of Kentucky (per WP:NOT#PAPER). NikoSilver 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Delaware Greek Life[edit]

Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT#LINK |Not a list of links]]. The article has no other information than said list of links. —Scouter Sig 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable link collection. Luk suh 02:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and nom --victor falk 04:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#LINK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yahel Guhan 04:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per unanimous consensus; no sources to verify notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scintilla Juris Fraternity[edit]

Uncited article for three months. Minor or no explanation of information such as founding, number of members/chapters, etc. —Scouter Sig 23:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per lack of notability/reliable sources. Luk suh 02:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per cee ess dee slash a seven. Justice will scintillate summarily. --victor falk 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This fraternity isn't as notable as UP Sigma Rho, its rival law frat in UP Diliman. I can't find sources that states that they were the subject of nationwide interest unlike their rival. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus (kept by default)

I considered the discussions here and also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents as a whole while closing.
After merging the discussions the outcome looks like a quite good example of no consensus. A simple counting of unique opinions would be 16 for deletion, 15 for keeping (If I haven't missed any). Both sides have some weak arguments (like speedy delete, and procedural keep). I think most keeps are a bit weaker as most acknowledge the current articles are poorly written and sourced. Yet the balance of opinions remain.
It would be most helpful in a possible future AfD nomination to nominate all these together as they raise essentially the same issues (also List of works for the theatre portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, possibly more). That would keep arguments in a single page, making the work easier for all of us, avoiding possible conflicting decisions in similar articles.
Nabla (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents[edit]

original research PetraSchelm (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I refer you to the talkpage of another user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SocJan#Pedophilia_and_child_sexual_abuse_in_fiction_.28boys.29. Note that he explains very well the policy of not making statements about a work that no one else has made, that do not accurately sum up the work, and serve only to push a point of view. So if no critic believes that Marguerite Duras' novel L'Amant Anglaise is chiefly about "Sexual attraction to children," and the novel is not in fact chiefly about that, listing it on the basis of finding it so is "original research." Note also that "sexual attraction to children" is a huge POV misnomer from a fringe POV. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Petra. (And "ew.")—Scouter Sig 23:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nom is Petra. As for "ew," WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid deletion rationale. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above are good arguments for why the article needs editing, but not for deletion . DGG (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article was nominated for deletion under a different title. The discussion is here; the result was no consensus. LaMenta3 (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with LaMenta3 Broooooooce (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The individual items needs sourcing, big time. So tag each one with ((fact)) and if no one can justify one, whack it then. But give the editorial process a chance, eh? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My view parallels that of Quasirandom. SocJan (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently un encyclopedic -- Naerii 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It might help to explain what you mean by this, as it's certainly not obvious from the topic why it would be unencyclopedic, except if we take "unencyclopedic" as some milder substitute for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bikasuishin (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I promised myself I wouldn't get into writing a huge long rationale for this, but ...

"unencyclopedic" i.e. something that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Why not List of books portraying brothers who dislike their sisters, List of books portraying people who have a phobia of cheese, etc? There's nothing particularly significant about this literary theme and the list is always going to be a matter of POV because who's to say that sexual abuse to a child necessarily is the same as sexual attraction? Abuse sometimes occurs for reasons other than attraction. Added to the fact that.. who's to say a book is primarily about sexual attraction, in some cases it may be a less significant side plot - the fact that NONE of the sources cited are critics commenting on the themes within the book is a big red flag to me. At this point there isn't a single useful source in the article, just a list of the subject headings which they come under which isn't anywhere near good enough. The list has no defined criteria for inclusion and some of the book choices are bizarre to me; even the references for some books don't help much (c.f. ref #2, "^ Library of Congress Subject Heading: Male prostitutes-United States-Biography"). Obviously you could say that these are reasons for cleaning up the article but in my view it's nigh on impossible for the article to ever be free of POV because the criteria for inclusion is always going to be inherently subjective. -- Naerii 15:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Wikipedia has thousands of 'List' articles Portal:Contents/Lists_of_topics so I cannot understand the rationale for wanting to delete this article. The talk page demonstrates a strong consensus that this article, under its new title, is an important contribution to Wikipedia knowledge.Tony (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Strong keep Nom is apparently in bad faith, please see users contribs. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the nomination not being the best (or even bad faith) have any relevance to the content of the article? I invite you to critique what AFD's are started for, the article, and not the nomination process. — Κaiba 12:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't have any encyclopedic value and fails notability. I fail to see why we would want such a list. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes it is a problem in that it's sort of is original research... at what point do we say that that simple and obvious ordering of information becomes original research, and does this article pass that test? I don't really know but my personal opinion is that it does. Tony Sandel put a lot of work in this which you hate to throw away, and it's surely useful, granting that those are not legitimate reasons for keeping an article. I guess it's a weak keep. Herostratus (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete problems exist with a lot of the content failing WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V, and not only that, but may potentially go against WP:LC, as a list of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents may not assert notability outside of those who study these topics. — Κaiba 10:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It just doesn't seem very useful or notable in the context of an encyclopedia, per previous user's comments. Legitimus (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' The fact that original research is involved is a problem, not to mention notability. The fact that there is consensus on the talk page is immaterial nor is it important that persons have labored on it. It's not encyclopedic and the decision as to what to include or not include appears to be entirely subjective.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale here. Note that these three related AfDs really should have been bundled. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being insufficiently supported by robust sources, and lacking a credible set of inclusion criteria - the criteria as set out in the list header are rather broad and open to interpretation. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the lack of supporting sources or a clear selection process. Many of the works included in this list appear to be arbitrary or whimsical which is of course the problem when their inclusion is not supported by reliable, verifiable sources. This is of course even more important considering the controversial nature of pedophilia and the problems with assigning such an intent to an author's work without reliable sources to support such assignment.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. There's no consensus that the alleged OR / SYNTH issues with this article or its allegedly POV title are severe enough to warrant outright deletion. In view of that outcome, editors are encouraged to seek consensus for a solution to these issues through improving, merging or renaming the article. Sandstein (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Bangladeshis living in India[edit]

Delete: The entire article is POV and constitutes several synthesis. There are different claims "In 2003, former Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes alleged that there are there are more than 20,000,000 of these aliens in India" while "The Government of Bangladesh claims that "there is not a single Bangladeshi migrant in India". There a new topic can be created titled "Illegal immigration to India", but at its present form this article is nothing but WP:SOAP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bangladesh. -- Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is original research ... nothing but the synthesis of various pieces of non-notable news items to justify some of the authors POV. For example, it cites isolated news items regarding some crimes, and based on the nationality of the suspects, generalizes this over the entire (allegedly) Bangladeshi migrant community. (The same kind of "conclusion" can be reached about British nationals by finding "A" news item about, say a British, who is a suspect for a crime in India). --Ragib (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete 20 million Bangladeshis illegally settling in India, nearly 2 thousand deported from a single state, nearly 2 billion Rupees spent by a single state to combat the situation, 3 million Rupees confiscated in a single incident, an entire border fenced - and all we get are handful of dispersed and unconnected sources, many covering it in the passing in the form of politicians' rhetorics. This violates WP:NN, WP:POV, WP:SYNTH and represents a clear attempt at agenda pushing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, tendentiously written wikiwar fodder; WP:COATRACK could be invoked too. --victor falk 04:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Dance With The Devil (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as frivolous nomination. Keep/Merge to Immigration reduction. Many countries have this issue and so it may be best treated together rather than playing favourites. Compare Illegal immigration to the United States. The idea that illegal immigrants in the USA are notable while those in other countries are not is not a NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which is why I am saying a new article titled Immigration to India can be created. Wikipedia has article titled Illegal immigration to the United States, but does not have articles titled Illegal Mexicans living in the United States, Illegal Europeans living in the United States, Illegal Canadians living in the United States or Illegal Asians living in the United States. Immigration to India will be a valid subject, but this one is WP:POV and soapboxing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Comment: Generally articles titled Immigration to X country are valid topics. But when you create articles titled Illegal immigration to X country, that becomes WP:POV. And also look at the article Illegal immigration to the United States, that article also has several problems. The article is tagged with neutrality dispute. So look at WP:OTHERCRAP. Articles titled Illegal people from Y country living in X country is no no. These types of articles become POV fork of Immigration to X country articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; why on Earth does adding the word Illegal make it POV? Illegal immigration to country is often a clearly defined subject, objectively measurable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then I will support Illegal immigration to X country articles. But Illegal immigration from Y country to X country is clear POV fork. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A POV fork of what? Are there any other articles about immigration to India? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I said that a new article titled Immigration to India is necessary. We cannot keep a WP:SOAP like this only because at present there is no article titled "Illegal immigration to India". Carefully read others comments before asking this kind of nonsensical question. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wanting a move then. You don't need AFD to do that. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are carefully omitting the other argument provided above that this article has many original synthesis. Some isolated cases and non-notable news pieces are punched together to constitute an agenda-driven article. Care to the arguments provided by User:Ragib. If you like soapboxing, that's fine, there is no rule that a person cannot have his/her own POV/agenda, but this has no place in wikipedia. Care to the arguments provided by the other people. Be constructive in argument, or quit. Your careful motivated and agenda-driven omission of other arguments is simply disrupting this AfD. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On investigation, I see that the article was moved from a different title already, i.e. Illegal immigration to India. Since you don't seem aware of this and haven't edited the article or its talk page, I conclude that you haven't researched the matter. And since the article has a stack of sources and some editors who are prepared to discuss them, I am changing my opinion accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"And since the article has a stack of sources." - as mentioned above, the article is simly a synthesis of random pieces of information to justify the hypothesis put forward in the article, rather than any coherent theme. WP:COATRACK also applies to this synthesis. --Ragib (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coherent theme is well summarised by the title of the article. I read a few sources and they support this theme. I made my own independent research and turned up a supporting source in less than a minute. There's a notable topic worthy of an article here. If you don't like the way it is currently written then edit it and discuss it there. AFD is not the place to settle your differences. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, does wikipedia have an article on Illegal Mexicans living in the United States? Illegal Canadians living in the United States? Surely, we can dig up a NYT or LATimes article on this, or a multitude of newsreports showing people of X ethnicity immigrating to USA illegally, or of Y ethnicity accused of a crime. But an encyclopedic entry that sounds very much like an op-ed opinion supported by various newsreports is not of much value, and rather suffers from WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:COATRACK. On a minor note, how is a "Bangladeshi illegal"? They are not Bangladeshis by law, and hence "Illegal Bangladeshi"s? --Ragib (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the "article", it is not a news report, but rather an op-ed piece. :) --Ragib (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Immigration to X-country would be a valid article. But the material available in this article is not useful for such a purpose. --Soman (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Link to this page Note that the link to the deletion page at the top of the article is invalid.--ISKapoor (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep: The truth is that the illegal migration of Bangladeshis is very well documented, and this migration impacts India in several significant ways. However Bangladesh government has an official policy of not acknowledging this migration. I see that some of the wikipedia members from Bangladesh would not like to see this fact acknowledged. The editors Ragib, and Aditya know how to to play the game, and I think they will get what they want.

It should also be noted, that in Bangladesh, the population of the minority Hindus has fallen dramatically since it emerged as East Pakistan, and it continues to fall. If you have noted the related articles on Bangladesh related articles on Wikipedia, you must note that there has been a consistant effort to camouflage this fact. That is a shame. Wikipedia should be a neutral collection of articles without selection suppression of unpalatable, but well documented facts. Such suppression does not serve wikipedia readers and does not serve the society.--ISKapoor (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindustan Times article which I cited above seemed to give a good NPOV summary of the situation which is naturally somewhat confused due to the porous frontier and the imperfect nature of the the partition of Bengal. Since such newpapers have a good grasp of the inflamed situation, I doubt that Wikipedia will sway matters much either way. But I'm not understanding why the Bangladeshis would win an edit war over this. Aren't there more Indians? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden, You failed to notice that the Hindustan Times article you cited above is an Op-Ed piece, rather than a news report. --Ragib (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice this. This demonstrates notability since it is tertiary coverage. Furthermore, the author seemed quite perceptive in his analysis which accords with my observations of similar situations elsewhere - Ireland, the USA and England - where we have much movement of peoples. I suppose the author to be an educated Indian who is above simple populism and so reasonably impartial. If our article is written to a similar standard, then we may be glad of it. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISKapoor, what nonsense are you talking about here? Wikipedia is not a battle ground over petty nationalism, and the ethnic identity of users is irre levant in this discussion. We are not discussing anyone's ethnic background here, rather we are discussing the merits of the article in question. Please refrain from making any personal comments like "The editors Ragib, and Aditya know how to to play the game, and I think they will get what they want.". Please stick to discussing the article and NOT the editors. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Bangladeshis in India are a well documented issue. See:

Global Surveillance and Policing: Borders, Security, Elia Zureik, Mark B Salter, 2005.
South Asia in World Politics By Devin T. Hagerty, 2005.
International migration: trends, policies, and economic effects, Slobodan Djajić, 2001.
Demography and National Security By Myron Weiner, Sharon Stanton Russell, 2001

Also please see numerous links to articles in the wikipedia article.--ISKapoor (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see scholarly articles, just a sample here:

Bangladeshi Migrants in Delhi: Social Insecurity, State Power, and Captive Vote Banks, by Sharat G. Lin, Madan C. Paul; Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 27, 1995.
The marginal nation: transborder migration from Bangladesh to West Bengal, book, Samaddar R, New Delhi, India, Sage Publications, 1999.
Trafficking in Bangladeshi Women and Girls, Bimal Kanti Paul and Syed Abu Hasnath , Geographical Review, Vol. 90, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 268-276.
Refugees or Infiltrators? The Bharatiya Janata Party and “Illegal”Migration from Bangladesh, Author: Gillan, Michael1, Asian Studies Review, Volume 26, Number 1, March 2002 , pp. 73-95(23)
Cross-Border Illegal Migration and Conflicts in India’s North-East: Emerging Challenges and Responses, Dr. Archana Upadhyay, Department of Political Science, Dibrugarh University.

--ISKapoor (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I personally don't see the need for having to include the passage 'illegal' in the article title, except for pov-pushing and insinuations. More useful would be an article covering the overall history of migration from East Bengal/East Pakistan/Bangladesh from 1947 onwards. However, the present material in this article would be of little use. --Soman (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The issue of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in India is a very notable topic, often raised in Indian political social circles. I agree that the claims of Indian politicians might be highly exaggerated, and this article may be seem very one sided, since it doesn't talk about the exploitation faced by these poverty-ridden immigrants. But that's no reason to delete the article. The topic of the article is very valid and notable, just like Illegal immigration to the United States. POV is no reason to delete an article -- just tag it with ((npov)). As for the notability of this topic, that should not be questioned:
News: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

Government sources: [15][16][17][]

Political parties/NGOs:[18][19][20]

Books:[21][22]

An entire book has been written on the topic: Illegal Migration from Bangladesh (ISBN 81-8069-224-8). utcursch | talk 08:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: "Illegal Bangladeshis living in India" is not a great title for the article. utcursch | talk 05:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per utcursch. Shyamsunder | 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to Immigrants in India removing OR sections: The higher level article Immigrants in India need to be created first. If illegal immigrants from Bangladesh to India is the major issue there, that can be mentioned with proper citation in that article. If the article tends to become too long, only then it could warrant splitting it into "legal" and "illegal"; and if the article on "illegal immigrants" becomes too long then countrywise separate articles may make sense. Without creating the higher level articles, creating separate articles focused on a single country does violate WP:NPOV. This is comparable to creating an article like Outsourcing US Jobs to India without creating the higher level article on outsourcing issue. Arman ^(Talk) 11:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are neutral or non-neutral in and of themselves on the basis of their own content, not on the basis of what other stuff exists; there's absolutely no requirement that we have a parent immigration to India article first. We have neutral articles about child topics without parent topics like:
  - Japanese language education in Vietnam and Japanese language education in Kazakhstan, but no overview Japanese as a second language
  - Little villages like Mpack, Senegal and Tianweiban, but no district articles Niaguiss Arrondissement or Donglu Town
  - Organisations like the Beijing Weather Modification Office, but no parent organisation article Beijing Meteorological Bureau or topical article Weather modification in China, etc.
We find sources and we write about the specific topic of those sources; we don't find sources on a specific topic and try to make WP:OR generalisations to parent topics (like trying to write an article about all immigration to India from all countries on the basis of sources about illegal immigrants to India from a single country). cab (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Utcursch. The article could use a cleanup, but it is a valid topic. Noor Aalam (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per utcursch as a notable topic with numerous sources demonstrated to exist. Illegal immigration from Bangladesh to India or somesuch may be a better title. No need to create any parent topic like immigration to India first. cab (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about WP:NPOV? The per Utcursch thingy is fine, but it doesn't help the subject to xenophobic, slightly racist and utterly opinionated. India doesn't only have illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, and Bangladeshi illegal immigrants don't just go to India. If the Nazis were publishing articles on Jewish domination of German commerce would we still be as accepting? The Jews did dominate, as could be proven by financial audits and academic discussions, but was that a valid NPOV topic? You want a cleanup? Then begin with the subject itself. It stinks of prejudice, especially without any context of Immigration in India or Immigration in India. Valid topic? Sure, like Proof in Islam of the demonic ways of the West (I am sure, if written, it will have plenty verifiable and reliable sources to quote). Do we really want to keep the title and create space for a WP:COATRACK willingly? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fail to understand your analogies. I also suggest you read up on Godwin's Law; comparing this article to the genocide of six million people is insultingly trivialising, and calling anyone who discusses the fact of people from one country going to live in another country without following that country's visa procedures a "Nazi" itself reeks of censorship. As a person with no connection to either country in question, what I see is a collection of sad facts like "Centre for Women and Children Studies estimated in 1998 that 27,000 Bangladeshis have been forced into prostitution in India" or "India is building a fence along its entire border with Bangladesh" which are clearly related to the illegal migration of Bangladeshis and are cited to well-regarded sources, as well as point-counterpoint about the opinions of India's and Bangladesh's governments, with the points of view clearly attributed to each one. The article nowhere claims that Bangladeshis are the only illegal migrant group in India or that Bangladeshis go nowhere besides India, nor in its present version does it make any claims that Bangladeshi illegal immigrants in India are the root of all evil, as you make it sound. So perhaps you can explain to me what part of this article is sparking such anger from you? cab (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (inserted) No one called no one a Nazi here. Perhaps your observation of ghosts in innocent shadows will tell you why it is imprtant to have an attitude of NPOV. Or perhaps not, as you seem to be more interested in sensitivity in discussion pages than sensitivity in the article itself. Sad. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about Illegal Jewish immigration to Sweden (1933-1945)? Jews from Germany and other Axis-dominated/occupied states took refugee in neutral countries during this period, often in breach of the then immigration laws. Emphasising the word 'illegal' for a group of people is dehumanizing, and should be avoided in wiki article titles, not only in this case. --Soman (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whether or not to use the term "illegal immigrant" to describe settlement of foreigners without a visa/in violation of visa terms is not a matter likely to be decided here on a single AfD. You may want to try reviving the discussion at the talk page of the old proposed guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration). cab (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Utcursch.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we trying to turn Wikipedia into a joke or something? Get 10 cites and 10 editors to say keep and you can have any amount of derogatory defamatory synthetic and rhetorical POVs included as an article? What is this? Western ignorance of eastern realities? Or plain pretension that we are not getting what's being discussed here? It's not jst about the title, it's about the subject itself. No amount of lawyering would be able to remove the strong POV from the article. If you find the "illegal" and "Bangladeshi" parts this suitable, why not try an article on Bangladeshi threat against Indian integrity as well. If you need references for that article, I am sure I'll able to supply you with quite a few. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and incorporate whatever reliably sourced material exists into a fresh article under a more appropriate title - Immigration into India, for example. It can't stay at this title, definitely, and as it stands its simply a laundry list of which politician made a speech when. --Relata refero (disp.) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Utcursch and cab. Actually, the title and the subject of this article is somehow hurting Bangladeshi editors. But subject is well sourced and apparently that establishes its notability.--NAHID 17:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most political rhetorics can be "well sourced" and hence claimed to be "notable". The issue here is NPOV, which you conveniently ignored. And, perhaps you have noticed that even Utcursch is no great fan of the title you supported "per Utcursch". Please, refrain from fly-by voting. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. That "per X" and "per Y" attitude shows much lack of individual reasoning, and clear signs of straw-polling. A lot has been said after the keep-sayers discovered their rallying point, and none of that is being addressed in their "votes". Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Fairclough[edit]

As a professor, he seems to fail WP:PROF. If he teaches "Borland C++ Builder and Java", he's teaching vocational skills rather than research computer science, and so isn't likely to have made significant contributions in the field, and indeed a search on Google scholar turns up nothing of note. As the article suggests, his importance to Novell's development is also questionable. According to this history, he was never a full-time employee, and Google web, book, and news searches reveal no substantial coverage of his role there (or of him in any other respect, for that matter). Jfire (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont think he's necessarily notable as a professor--seems a second career. His notability is as a founder of the precursor company to Novell. This was pre-google, of course--most of the information in Google is derived from Wikipedia, but I found among them two reasonably good internet sources. as their reliability depends on the reputation of the authors, and I don;t know about this myself, I rely on the people who do to help out with this one. DGG (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sources are [23] and [24]. Reading the former, one is inclined to believe that Fairclough played a rather minor role at Novell's precursor, Novell Data Systems, working there part time as a hardware engineer as he finished his PhD. On the other hand, the second source, a blog post, presents him as the "real founder" of Novell -- though note that in the comments to the blog post, the author admits that he hadn't read the first source, and that after reading it he realized that "There were many details I didn't know. My myopic view included one small part of the proverbial elephant." Jfire (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a founder of Novell, he is at least semi-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luksuh (talk • contribs) 03:55, April 5, 2008
Keep Notable person. Also nominator used google as justification of AfD in a manner out of line with wikipedia guidelines. --Firefly322 (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- "out of line with wikipedia guidelines"? Please Firefly, that's clearly not true. Jfire (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firefly, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Search engine test. A "Google Test" is perfectly acceptable at a general level. Please don't accuse other editors of not understanding guidelines when your own comments indicate that you do not. Pedro : Chat 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CX Racers[edit]

Future game with no notability criteria met. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per lack of reliable sources. Luk suh 02:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. It's possible this game may not come out for a long time, if at all. Daltxn (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL & lack of sourcing. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 10:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Gallien[edit]

Gallien is the last person to see Christopher McCandless alive and apart from that he seems non-notable. Everything on this article is already at McCandless' except for one line. Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every mention of Gallien I can find is in relation to McCandless/Into the Wild—he exists in sources only as 'that guy who who gave McCandless a ride'. If you Google him but restrict all mention of anything related to Into the Wild, you get one false positive. Thus, he appears to have no independent notability; and there isn't enough verifiable material on him for this to ever be more than a redundant permastub about him giving that ride.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of notability. Luk suh 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't recall if the book indicated he had any importance, and lo and behold, our article fails to indicate he had any either. Per ONETENTHOFANEVENT. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Black Kite 23:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isenso ltd[edit]

fails WP notability for corporations - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - notability not asserted. – ukexpat (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"they are the only web design and hosting company in Birmingham that provide in-house solutions, for both design and hosting" - A7 is always tricky. This marginally asserts some form of notability/importance. I think it's on the cusp of A7. The AfD should probably be allowed to run its course. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author's comment: There is enough information in the article for you to stop marking it for deletion. There is no reason for it to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leighbe (talk • contribs) 17:11, April 4, 2008)

Comment - My advice to you would be to try and come up with some reliable sources that shows notability. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete per the nom re notability and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Absolutely nothing in the article or references to indicate notability, nothing shows up on a search of secondary sources, domain was created just under 8 months ago, and they don't even have their portfolio section up. The provided ref doesn't support the the "only Birmingham" assertion and couldn't find any support for this anywhere else on their site. – Zedla (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per lack of reliable sources/notability. Luk suh 02:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dime-a-dozen webdev/host shop with 61 unique Ghits, apparently being promoted on Wikipedia by its staff, arguably an WP:SPA. I also can't find anything on the cited page that supports the "they are the only web design and hosting company in Birmingham that provide in-house solutions, for both design and hosting" claim, and if that's the only thing keeping it from being an A7... Shawisland (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent sources provided to demonstrate notability. -- The Anome (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per The Anome. --Edcolins (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. Borderline promotional effort. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Redundant. Black Kite 23:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flo Rida discography[edit]

This is a discography of someone who has published a single, far from successful album (nowhere close even the gold RIAA certification). He's simply a one-hit wonder with his song Low. In addition, the article has no references and also, the Flo Rida article has a more complete discography section that this article. Udonknome (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to say merge, but it looks like this is already in the main Flo Rida article. No reason to duplicate the content in it's own article, especially when the parent is so small. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to existing Flo Rida article and an unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly redundant to what is already on the Flo Rida article. Luk suh 03:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the furrrrrrr per everyone. JuJube (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...hmmm, when is anyone going to close this AfD?!? Udonknome (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has about the same content as the discography section of the Flo Rida article + the article is unreferenced. Holiday56 (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, without prejudice against re-creation with reliable references. Walton^One 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Storage Media[edit]

While the idea is certainly intriguing, it is nothing more than a patent. Non-notable crystal stuff. If it was worth mentioning in the 'pedia, it would most certainly be mentioned in one of our numerous articles related to hard disk drives. Jobjörn (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Jobjörn (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's been written about in Discover magazine[25]. The Inquirer wrote about protein memory[26]. I see few sources online for "biological storage media", but I do see some sources for "protein memory" and "chromophoric memory" and "dna optical storage" on Google/News/Book/Scholar. --Pixelface (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article talks specificially about DNA storage, but the Discover Magazine link seems to qualify. However, I still think that this article is unsalvagable - best delete it and perhaps create a new one somewhere else. Jobjörn (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per lack of reliable references. Luk suh 03:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I'm certain this has also been written about in several New Scientist articles in the past year. Suggest this article could be rescued, if someone was willing to volunteer - and, I guess, if we don't already have the article under another title somewhere else. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Walton^One 15:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Nasser Tawfik[edit]

Fails both Wikipedia:Notability basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). This appears to be shameless' self-promotion, as the vast majority of edits have been by Amtawfik (talk · contribs) (who uploaded a picture of himself and added it to the article) and by several IP addresses in the 41.232.0.0-41.232.255.255 range, which are registered to one company in Cairo, Egypt (where this guy lives). This appears to be an WP:Autobiography. (EhJJ)^TALK 21:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ GoogleScholar produces only a few hits. A WOS search lists 9 articles by the subject, with citation hits in single digits for each. The awards listed in the WP article about him appear dubious. There does not seem to be any such thing as an "American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Membership Award" (see the list of AAAS awards at [27]). Most likely he is talking about general membership in AAAS which is open to everyone for a membership fee. The American Biographical Institute award also does not inspire much confidence: ABI is a business entity that makes money by selling its books and certificates to its honorees, essentially a vanity press outlet. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO and should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to my vote to Unsure per David Schaich's research. We might have been dealing with differences in spelling and hyphenation which first produced low results in WOS. I did a SPIRES search and also found some highly cited papers by the the subject, see here[28], where two papers (numbers 12 and 13 on the list) have 94 and 93 cites. I don't know enoough about typical publication and citation rates in this branch of physics, but these results may well signify notability, the horrid state of the WP article about him nonwithstanding. Nsk92 (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 9 published articles according to Web of Science, the most cited one cited only 7 times. Not yet notable. But we can get it out of WP without using unfriendly language about the subject/author.DGG (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable enough to warrant an article. Luk suh 03:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Weak delete. "Scientific contributions" section of the article only discusses topics he's studied, without describing any specific contributions. Few papers and citations, unimpressive (and unreferenced) awards. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A belated SPIRES search pops up at least a couple dozen papers, two with nearly 100 citations, but I still don't think there are notable contributions. Apparent autobiography doesn't make me inclined to be generous. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reconcile this with the WoS results, looking at Spires, the most heavily cited papers are "Thermodynamics at nonzero baryon number density: A Comparison of lattice and hadron resonance gas model calculations." F. Karsch (Bielefeld U.) , K. Redlich (Bielefeld U. & Wroclaw U.) , A. Tawfik (Bielefeld U.) . BI-TP-2003-16, Jun 2003. 15pp. Published in Phys.Lett.B571:67-74,2003. 94 citations and "Hadron resonance mass spectrum and lattice QCD thermodynamics." F. Karsch (Bielefeld U.) , K. Redlich (Bielefeld U. & Wroclaw U.) , A. Tawfik (Bielefeld U.) . Mar 2003. 18pp. Published in Eur.Phys.J.C29:549-556,2003. 93 citations. My WoS search used only the form with the middle initial--repeating it, it gives 64 and 61 citations for the two papers, but it includes only peer-reviewed papers and the HEP database at Spires includes much else. It's Karsch & Redlich who are the really notable physicists, and need articles here; they do not have them. Thus the coverage paradox of Wikipedia. In the absence of people entering bios systematically in most subjects, we have preferentially the bios of the people whose COI has induced them to insert them, and these are not usually the most notable.

I have argued before to give a certain about of tolerance to people working in countries with less modernized academic systems. i think it might apply here as a deciding factor.DGG (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet sufficiently notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Refresh this page. It contains important infos about the person and his background —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damtmueller (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 12:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Rider Boarding School, Ratnanagar[edit]

Delete no sources for this one-liner, no indication that this is a secondary school or is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per lack of reliable references/notability. Luk suh 03:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no refs, barely any content. Dark Formal (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Moro[edit]

Basically both a nonsense and an attack page against a non-notable person. Various speedy deletion requests have been removed by anonymous IP editors. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to speedy delete this since it's clearly an attack article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gregory Triplets[edit]

Fails WP:BIO - specifically Entertainers, the section for models, which advises that they need to have had "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". None of these appear to apply. Contested Prod. Possible self-promotion. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 13:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep marginally notable per Google, e.g. [29], [30]. JJL (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UKScreen is not a reliable source - as shown here, it's a self-written directory which costs the Triplets £15 a year. The Talent magazine is a more interesting source, though that doesn't confirm the criteria in Entertainers. SilkTork *^YES! 22:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Article would be fine with a rewrite. archanamiya · talk 20:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO per the nominator. I see no secondary or tertiary coverage of this group [31]. The above diffs that were provided are not reliable indepedent sources. Here too [32]. I see myspace, blogspots, trivial mentions. Perhaps ethnicnow.com is somewhat reliable, but I feel it's marginal. By itself, it just doesn't do the trick. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 12:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald J. Trump Award[edit]

Article is about an award presented by an organization, the Beverly Hills Greater Los Angeles Association of Realtors, which does not and probably will not have its own Wikipedia article. Trump himself was at the first award ceremony, but there are only a few unique Google hits on the award itself and it apparently received little or no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Also the article itself seems to be largely promotional in nature. Barring evidence of notability, this should be deleted - it can always be recreated later if the award begins to take on particular significance. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My first inclination was that this award would certainly be notable, but [33] and [34] definitely suggest otherwise. It seems it's only been awarded twice, so it's no wonder why there isn't much in the way of second and third party sources. Unfortunately, this means a failure of notability. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't establish notability. archanamiya · talk 20:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable references. Luk suh 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Leave it to Beaver; however, since the game was included in the article on April 4th, there is nothing of significance to merge. I am, therefore, redirecting. If the editors of the Leave it to Beaver article choose to merge this material according to the procedure set out at Help:Merge, the information remains in history. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave It to Beaver Money Maker[edit]

Non-notable board game, no historical significance except for being based on Leave it to Beaver, could certainly be merged. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Leave it to Beaver for its (the show's) cultural significance. This doesn't warrant an article on its own. [35] and [36]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Wisdom89 archanamiya · talk 20:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if the article could "certainly be merged" as the nominator says, it shouldn't be brought to AFD. Try using a ((merge)) tag next time. --Pixelface (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My vote was still to delete, I just said that any pertinent information could be merged. I wanted to leave that up to consensus. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't say it was the Christmas sellout of the year, or was in print for decades, or is sought after by collectors, or anything else of the sort. It appears to be a rather ordinary board game that was loosely tied in with the TV show. Could be mentioned at the Beaver article with other contemporary tie-ins. WillOakland (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Leave it to Beaver. Luk suh 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What needs to be merged beyond "LITB was promoted with tie-in products, including a board came called 'LITB Money Maker'"? WillOakland (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of it until now. I say a merger is in order. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and trim down so it won't dominate the TV article. Way too much detail for a short-lived game (it ain't Monopoly). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete G11 by User:Toddst1. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apogee electronics[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. The claim "leading manufacturer" is unsourced. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio and spam, just as Apogee Electronics was before. Why are we bothering with an AfD? --Finngall ^talk 19:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 and G12. So tagged. —BradV 19:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete if we're still bothering with an AfD. Copyvio. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 20:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per last 2 votes archanamiya · talk 20:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glen austin sproviero[edit]

My Google-fu isn't the greatest, but I can find scant few references to either "The Parthian Standard" journal or the "American Conservatism" book online. In general, I see very few references to this person online. If someone can find more on this person than I can, please do. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. I just checked the history now and ralize I coul have speedied it under G7 as the creator had blanked it... hbdragon88 (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The subject has left a note on the article's talk page asking that it be deleted. He claims that it is plagiarism and that it is incorrect. —BradV 19:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable references. Luk suh 03:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtspeak[edit]

~~Completing nomination for User:JamieS93.~~ A tenuous claim to notability keeps this band from an A7 speedy, but nowhere near meeting WP:NMG. Delete. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Short, uninformative, unreferenced article and Google shows little apart from a MySpace page. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability, one recent album, no awards, no significant coverage. [37]. Fails WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Should have been given a CSD A7 in the first place. archanamiya · talk 20:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND, probably should have been speedied. The Dominator (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable references/notability. Luk suh 03:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of reliable sources demonstating that this group meets the notability inclusion guideline for WP:bands and musicians. Suggest redirect to telepathy as a phrase used in some fictinoal works to describe telepathic communication (Animorphs is one I think of off the top of my head]]). -- saberwyn 05:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree that it should have been speedy deleted per CSD A7. --Bardin (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Dreadstar † 06:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tigerstar[edit]

This character has no notability outside the books he is in. Everything is in-universe. Metros (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - In-Universe Shrewpelt (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, bordering on a speedy for no context. Stifle (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and the other character articles from this series into one page. Hobit (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per Hobit. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It's a soapbox. archanamiya · talk 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment in what way? Beeblbrox (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable references/notability. Luk suh 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Now Keep~~ - I just rewrote the article. It should now have enough out of universe content and references to be kept. Shrewpelt (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being mentioned as part of reviews of the books that the character is in is not "out of universe". Metros (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Still nothing establishing the characters notability for a stand-alone article. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and those references do not seem to meet guidelines for reliable sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The article has third-party sources. Shrewpelt (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I believe I'm seeing is that you've listed the books themselves and added listings from sites that sell the books, I don't think any of that is reliable third party coverage. The only other thing is an interview on a fan site, unless I am sorely mistaken, you have established verifiability, which I don't believe was under debate here, but not general notability,that is, why the character is important to the general public. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. Changing my vote back to delete. Shrewpelt (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Main antagonist for the first six books in a series is a clear sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Warriors (novel series). It seems the character is known only within the context of the series. B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Holladay[edit]

Assistant coach at UNC. As a Tar Heel fan, I hate to hit the AfD button, but I can't find any evidence of independent notability aside from having a hand in Roy Williams' success over the years. Blueboy 96 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable references/proven notability. Luk suh 03:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete inasmuch as his team just killed my bracket, a bracket that was in the 99.8th percentile in the ESPN Tournament Challenge and had me in line to win, inter al., an Antonin Scalia bobblehead. More seriously, I don't know that the lack of coverage of the subject in secondary sources would be particularly problematic were we to determine collegiate assistants to be necessarily notable, but even as my rather inclusionist tendencies might dispose me to !vote "weak keep" here, I don't think that one can plausibly submit that the community's understanding of WP:ATHLETE goes quite that far. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 03:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sources insufficient to establish notability. Dreadstar † 06:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A&M Entertainment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article fails WP:ORG because of a lack of reliable, third-party published sources. Press releases and directory listings do not meet the standard for notability for companies. dissolve ^talk 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The references in this article are fine. archanamiya · talk 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From WP:ORG: "Secondary sources" "except for the following: Press releases" and "other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people." i.e. the company submitting info for a directory listing. Which source in the article exactly doesn't fit into this criterion? dissolve ^talk 23:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree, the references are fine. 23skidoo (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References are reliable, article subject is notable. Luk suh 03:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not so sure the references are fine, in terms of WP:ORG. There are six references (one reference is cited twice) and two company-related ELs. Among the six references, I see 2 PR style releases (1 2 (<--could be a directory listing, says it is, but I put it here because it was obviously written by the company), 2 directory listings (1, 2), 1 blank page (1--maybe it doesn't like Mozilla? Based on its name, it looks like a PR source; looking at this other release about the company at the same page, it sure seems like it)) and 1 page that currently doesn't seem even to mention the company (1 Perhaps it can be searched to disclose information...by subscribers.). A google news archive search brings up 3 hits. I got 215 unique hits on Google. I scanned all 215 of them, and I didn't find a single usable source. (I thought I did, on a Tupac Shakur website. Should have known it would be a fansite.) There may be more information locatable by searching A&M without entertainment, but this runs into the problem that the big A&M in music is A&M Records. You search "Busta Rhymes" (which the article claims is represented by A&M Entertainment), and A&M Records is what you find. I thought maybe I could trail this press release here to something, because a Tupac Legacy Tour would surely get some press, but it was evidently postponed...and then disappeared. In any event, I can't figure out what happened to it. I tried doing a linked search of "Mike Coates" & "A&M"; I got 58 unique hits, many unrelated, none that I saw reliable. This seems to be an international company. It claims to represent an impressive roster of performers. Why isn't there more reliable sourcing out there? I'm waffly over WP:ORG. If this article is to be believed, the company is notable. But where's the WP:V? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danag[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP, WP:RS and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otolemur. Elastic credibility level exceeded. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable references/notability. Luk suh 03:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it actually was a multi-million dollar, public company, it would be notable. However, most evidence available seems to indicate it's neither. Shawisland (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was 'Speedily deleted as blatant advertising (g11). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peeled Snacks[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and the arts[edit]

This article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. The edit screen for creation of a new article clearly warns editors that unreferenced material may be deleted, and this article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006, which is quite long enough for references to be have been added. However, they haven't been added, and after 21 months it's time for this article to be deleted as unverified. A new article on the subject may of course be written in future, if it is referenced to met WP:V and to establish notability. (It was PRODded soon after it creation, hence this AFD rather than a PROD). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh wow, now it's BrownHairedGirl vs. the Muslims. ;) Neal (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Umm, are you really sure that Roger Ivie is muslim? ;) Seriously, though, I guess that working through the "I" section of Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 is bound to pick up a few, but I had done all the Hs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious comment Okay but seriously though, I just checked, we have an Islamic art. How is "Islam and the Arts" and different? So 1 is properly sourced, and this 1 isn't. So merge. Neal (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Merge any useful info (If any) and Redirect to Islamic art. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect does look like the best choice. This is really about religious/cultural restrictions rather than the arts themselves, but there is only a tiny bit about that in Islamic art and it could arguably be improved in that direction. --Dhartung | Talk 04:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Islamic arts is about the actual art produced by Islamic cultures; this is about the attitude of Islam to the arts asa religious concept. Enough on both to justify separate articles; keep and expand. DGG (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge and redirect. Even accepting DGG's distinction above, this is a magnet for OR. Eusebeus (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would be a keep without the refs due to importance of subject, but with the new refs it's a no brainer. -
Keep. The nominator seems to be confusing the concepts of being verifiable with that of being verified. WP:V says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged". Is there anything here which is challenged or is likely to be challenged? I note that the nominator hasn't specified which statements she challenges, so I have started on providing sources for every statement in the article, and have got about half way through so far. The only problem which there has been with this has been in selecting from the hundreds of possible sources for each statement. As regards merging, this is, as DGG says, a completely different topic from Islamic art. This article is about Islam, and that one is about art. Anyway merging is a discussion for talk and project pages, not AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, you ask "Is there anything here which is challenged or is likely to be challenged?". Ok, let's start from the top of the article as it was when I nominated it:

"Many Islamic rulings relating to the performing arts are gender and event specific." Which rulings? Says who? References, please
"Certain schools of Sunnis as well as some Shiites hold that music is forbidden with the sole exception being that women can play the Daf, a traditional one sided drum, at celebrations and festivals." Which schools? Says who? References, please
"Islam does allow singing without musical accompaniment within prescribed circumstances - namely that the performer be of the same gender as the audience." According to which schools of Islam? All or some? References, please, which explicitly address the diversity of views in Islam.
"However, the general consensus is that music is permitted in Islam provided that the lyrics are not obscene or vulgar." A consensus which omits significant chunks of Sunnis and Shias? Who is saying that there is such a consenus? References, please

... and that only brings me to the end of section 1.1.

This article is a disgrace. It's a collection of vague and unsourced generalisations, in an article on subtle points about a major world religion which is the subject of heated and bitter controversies, and whose divisions are a major factor in the war in Iraq.

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a distillation of the best sources on subjects of importance, not a noticeboard for jottings which would be failed if they were submitted as a school essay. Why on earth are some editors so outraged that after nearly two years of this abysmal effort falling far below our quality standards, the community has been asked to delete it? Sure, there are plenty of good articles which could be written on the subject ... but why the assumption that just because a topic is notable, any old space-filler is acceptable?

WP:V says that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references". This one has had 21 months of being prominently tagged as lacking refs and has been categorised as such. How much longer are we expected to wait before an article is brought up to acceptable standards before time is called on it? 21 years?

Critics of wikipedia denounce it as unreliable, and we reply by pointing to policies such as WP:V. However, unless we actually mean it when WP:V says that unreferenced material may be deleted, the policy is only window-dressing. There are plenty of wikipedia editors working very hard to write articles of a decent standard, in good prose and with clear supporting references, but the reputation of those articles is unfairly undermined by the excessive tolerance shown to articles whose editors have make no attempt to meet one of the encyclopedia's most fundamental policies.

The references now being added by Phil are a useful start towards making this article something worth keeping, and maybe when he's done it will be worth keeping. But I make no apology at all for seeking the deletion of the vague and unreferenced jottings which I found two days ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 1 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, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per BrownHairedGirl. archanamiya · talk 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? I argued for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possibly your last paragraph about how appropriate references were being added may have had an influence. You do seem to be indicating its been improved beyond when you nominated it. 02:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Only the first section has any references, and it remains a collection of glib and simplistic assertions. A few refs were added, but that's all; the article needs a complete rewrite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is about a notable topic and contains reliable references. Luksuh 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't dispute that it's a notable topic, but even with the addition of a few references it remains a simplistic and misleading treatment of the topic. Much better delete it, withiut prejudice to recreation if someone can write a decent artricle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. AfD is not forced cleanup. The state of the article is irrelevant, as it can be improved via other methods than deletion. Article is about a scholastically notable topic and contains ample references. No reason to delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of references is grounds for improvement, not deletion, and references are being added to the article. Edward321 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May need some improvement, but definitely a notable topic. Klausness (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic and the current content is in alignment with foudational concerns (WP:NPOV, etc.). --Firefly322 (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as cut and paste of http://www.apogeedigital.com/company/ marked as © 2007, Apogee Electronics Corp. All Rights Reserved. nancy ^(talk) 19:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apogee Electronics[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam and blatant copyvio of http://www.apogeedigital.com/company. --Finngall ^talk 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fried Chicken Friday[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Nothing to indicate it's any more than some guys in Seattle and a restaurant somewhere. I would have speedy deleted this if an AFD hadn't been started. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable activity apparently made up at work one day. --Finngall ^talk 19:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Looks to be made up and non-notable. (Either that or I need to go and write an article on the 'pizza meetings' we have) --BrucePodger (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article is a load of crap. archanamiya · talk 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Any article that starts "As the story goes..." can't be very good for WP:V. Note that this article has been submitted to Reddit[38]. --Mdwyer (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball speedy delete Come on, seriously now. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. The sole link is to a blog about how to create fake dishes for wanna be vegetarians.jonathon (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted as recreated AfD material. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Prooth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete Article has been nominated and deleted twice already. Please note the editor who created this article has only one other unrelated edit. Chances are its another sockpuppet or meatpuppet of User:SebastianProoth. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deletion (G3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zack's Wronskian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zack's Wronskian

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Walton^One 15:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh (Ras Kass album)[edit]

As with Goldyn Chyld, lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources. Not notable, per WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There was a September 29, 2001, Billboard story on this album (not available online) and an October 2007 story in PR Newswire that discussed it but that's about it from what I can see in a Nexis search. It's quite possible (actually likely) that there is other coverage in rap mags like XXL and The Source that are not available online but I can't verify that. This was unreleased so the notability is questionable here to begin with and we don't seem to have enough sources to establish it. Ras Kass is definitely a notable hip-hop artist - extremely respected and influential even if not that well known in the mainstream - and the fact that he has had so much trouble getting his albums released is a huge part of his career arc (he was tied up in court for a couple of years over this stuff). Per our policies I think this should technically be deleted, but given that a lot of the music from this and Goldyn Chyld leaked and is therefore well known, and given Ras Kass's significance to hip-hop, I don't really feel good about that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources should certainly be used to add information to Ras Kass, but without significant media attention, this unreleased album just isn't notable enough on its own. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello Control (talk • contribs)
Delete per lack of reliable references. Luk suh 03:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are no other sources for this valuable entry that are easily accessible. Other sources about this subject cannot be accessed without an expensive subscription to a content provider. The archives of XXL and The Source are not easily accessible, either. Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This does not address the notability concerns. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ѕandahl 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allergo[edit]

Defunct band. One reliable source, no evidence of being signed to major label. Probably not CSD-worthy, but no real evidence of notability either. Recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I actually would have given this a CSD A7. archanamiya · talk 20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable references. Luk suh 03:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No 3rd party references supporting notability. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - maybe not speedy, though. Band was unsigned, their "festival appearance" seems to have been on a second-stage as part of some competition or something. They self-released their CDs, which were home-recorded. Author seems to have been a single-purpose account. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malhis[edit]

This article was previously nominated for deletion in a group AFD in April 2007, and was kept after plenty of claims that it could be improved. A year later it still has no references at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, and no references. The article doesn't even make sense - is it about a person or a clan name? —BradV 23:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BradV. archanamiya · talk 20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable references. Luk suh 03:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep --JForget 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interchange (Australian rules football)[edit]

Does not seem to warrant own article. Information could be merged with Australian_rules_football_positions#Interchange_Bench, although some seems to have just been copied across. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australian_rules_football_positions#Interchange_Bench. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 14:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This could be easily referenced from Aussie media sources. I see potential for this article to expand further. Even though Australian_rules_football_positions#Interchange_Bench has the summary, the usual practice here is to split off sections into stand alone articles to make articles more readable.--Sting au Buzz Me... 21:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I disagree with Sting...I don't think there's enough information to justify an article about...a bench. Australian_rules_football_positions#Interchange_Bench does it fine, IMO. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but it's not just a "bench" when it is used as a gameplay tactic. Coaches have long used the interchange system to win matches. The litmus test is can this subject make a stand alone article with references from reliable sources? Yes in my opinion it can. I probably should get myself busy and work on the article. I was hoping for a little more support from other obviously biased Aussie rules fans out there? Am I being inclusionist with my "keep" opinion? Yes probably, but Wikipedia is built on volunteer labour. That's right folks. No one's getting paid for the hours we spend here trying to make a "real" encyclopedia by using free labour put in by bankers, cooks, housewives etc. Who once Wikipedia gets so completely huge and perfect that it outshines Encyclopedia Brittanica (build by paid labour by the way) and then Jimbo decides to sell it off to the highest bidder who then stuffs it full of paid advertising! Will probably feel that they shouldn't have bothered with all the effort they devoted here in the first place? The Interchange article is part of a series of Aussie rules positional articles that those unpaid volunteers, when you take a look have put a lot of unpaid work into. If this article was an obvious case for deletion I wouldn't bother getting up on a soapbox like this, but this one can and should be expanded and kept. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Precedents have been created with each of Substitute (football) and Substitute (cricket), although it may be doubtful there's sufficient notable content to justify this entry. Murtoa (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason for deletion has been given by the nominator. Merging is an editorial judgment which should be discussed on talk or project pages - it doesn't require an admin to hit the delete button. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any violation of guidelines/policy. The nomination appears to cite issues that could be dealt with elsewhere. Suggest placing a merge template. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to merge. archanamiya · talk 20:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Topic is notable enough for article. Luk suh 03:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XYplorer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete Non-notable piece of software. Previous nomination resulted in delete. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. —BradV 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, PC Magazine saying it's among the best free software[39] is evidence of notability. --Pixelface (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to its download page, it's not free. The blurb in PC Magazine is undated, and of questionable value since much of the text on that page is copied from other sources. Tedickey (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the program is a shareware program, an older free version is still available. The free version page was linked from the download page at one time but was moved to a link from the FAQ page instead due to support request problems. See the next to last paragraph in License section of [XYplorer FAQ page] for link to the freeware page. And the issue of notability is for the program itself, and not the free vs shareware issue. The listing in PC Magazine appeared on page 82 of the March 2008 print issue (vol 27, nbr 4) and can also be seen at their web site via [The Best Free Software] where it is dated as Feb 8, 2008. The entry itself is at [Interface Enhancement]. Given the nature of the article, it is a brief summary of each application. Other items appearing in same section are Google Toolbar and Yahoo Widgets, so it's in good company. This article is one of a handful of similar "Honor Roll" type articles throughout the year that make that magazine well-known, so to be included in that may be more noteworthy than appearing in a standalone review. Whr76 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References demonstrate that it has been noted by independent parties, and is thus notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only real review in the References section is the one from PC World, and possibly the one from Gizmo. All the others urls say nothing more than "XYPlorer". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The References section was revised/moved and the first three External Links are now XYplorer specific sites and the others are reviews and mentions in web and/or print publications. The latest added is from Fred Langa's web newsletter (LangaList 01/23/2006). Fred is a very well-known writer and was Editor-in-Chief of Byte_Magazine for 4 yrs so while he may not have a WP page of his own, he is certainly known in the computer tech publishing area. Also, discussion of a program in a publication read/heard by tens of thousands of subscribers worldwide should be enough to establish notability without the requirement of it being a formal review. Whr76 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contains notable references, such as PC Magazine. Luk suh 03:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Original article was deleted prior to the two major media reviews/mentions (PC Magazine and Windows Weekly podcast) occurring which caused me to request a reconsideration from a moderator (Hdt83) of the article. See User_talk:Hdt83#Follow-up_to_XYplorer_deletion_from_last_July for reference. It was his decision and initial action that resurrected the article, so that's why it's back, as these two items were notable enough in his opinion that it now qualified. While the review in that particular PC magazine article was brief as all others were, it was the only file manager product in that category. There has since been a review on PC World site also as mentioned above.Whr76 (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: A number of the undesired recent article edits by an IP addr 77.201.147.100 user made the article more likely for deletion, and are now in process of being removed and/or modified. Please consider this as part of your decision, and look at the article as it exists more recently.Whr76 (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Pretty widespread and well-known shell replacement for explorer. I'm surprised at the lack of readily available sources, however. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See no reason why we are deleting this entry, but keeping for example a43. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skela (talk • contribs) 09:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Copyvio speedy delete. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soti[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of http://www.soti.net/default.asp?Cmd=aboutus. --Finngall ^talk 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete as blatant advertising (G11). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red espresso[edit]

Delete one-line article is a life-support system for the spamlink disguised as the reference. No indication that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I think this would qualify as CSD G11. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy redirect. Singu larity 00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The holy goalie[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Artur Boruc. It does appear to be a nickname in somewhat popular use as a Google search indicates, but there is absolutely no need for a seperate article. Possibly create The Holy Goalie as a redirect too.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Should have been CSDed for lack of content. archanamiya · talk 20:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect as per above. Luk suh 03:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a redirect. Peanut4 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peanut4. – Pee Jay 22:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete - insert info into Artur Boruc article if notable, then delete. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

70/20/10 Model[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/70/20/10 Model

70/20/10 Model ([[Special:EditPage/70/20/10 Model

Keep It's got a lot of documentation actually, take a look at the g-hits. JeremyMcCracken
Delete Since when were google hits the standard for notability? if i mention the 70/20/10 in my 6000 blogs it counts as "hits." Also I like how the google-biased defense comes with google being the only documented company in the article. no wikipedia:bias here huh LightSpeed3 (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean the number of hits; read the articles. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability with [40]. Reference added to article. ChessCreator (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. archanamiya · talk 20:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the two links go to the same page, which is about their business rules of which this is only one. But a Google search turns up too many other references to it to ignore (e.g. [41]). The phrase is in sufficiently widespread use to make this a Keep. JJL (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Perhaps this could be merged with the Google article? It seems too small and not very notable by itself. swa q 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This seems like a Wikipedia:Permastub right now. I'm not even sure that this model was pioneered by google - I thought that 3M had a similar policy. It feels a bit like hype rather than encyclopedic content. Andjam (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment correct, not just Google, which is why it's a Keep not merge with Google! SunCreator (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Google. Topic is too small to warrant an individual article. Luk suh 03:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may be a bad faith nom due to an anti-google bias on the nominator's part. They are part of a sockpuppet case where this is included: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LightSpeed JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stub. Well documented with independent reliable source (CNN), but needs additional information such as the application of the rule, purpose, and so forth. B.Wind (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JJL. Secondary sources exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Quense[edit]

No evidence of RS coverage, in-linke links are to the orgs and publications he mentions, not citations. Ghits include directory listings of his work, forums and blogs but I don't see evidence he passes WP:BIO for authors. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His name is turning nothing on Amazon or Google Books, there's nothing to indicate he's had any publications other than online fiction sites. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Should have been CSDed. archanamiya · talk 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "has sold more than twenty stories to anthologies and small press magazines." is probably enough to avoid a speedy. Go try it if you want but I didn't think it was non-notable enough TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable references. Luk suh 03:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted as blatant copyright violation. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Arian[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam and copyvio of http://www.masterpiecepublishing.com/Artists/Arian/bio.html. --Finngall ^talk 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ѕandahl 00:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arion Quinn[edit]

No online sources due to time of death. "...never got them commercially released".... no evidence he passes WP:MUSIC. Assertion of a 'dedicated following' probably avoids a speedy. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. No commercial releases means no albums, no label, no tours. No sources provided to even prove the person existed. DarkAudit (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable references. Luk suh 03:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear failure of WP:MUSIC. Qworty (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete (G7). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highwall mining[edit]

WP:SPAM. This article looks to me like a thinly veiled advert for the company whose website it links to three times. ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can the term be found outside of the website being promoted? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes it can, and identical text to this article can be found in surface mining. There is something fishy going on here - the changes to surface mining were made by User:Coalminer01 and highwall mining was created by User:Coalminer02. In any event it does seem to be a legitimate mining technique but to me it looks like the article has been created for spammy purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a spinoff from Surface mining #Highwall Mining, and a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article. I agree with nominator that the links to the Terex corporation don't belong, since there are various manufacturers (CME, Takraf and Terex, Wilcox, Jeffrey, etc.) of equipment for highwall mining. Mandsford (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not a spin-off, but another copy of the same text, making it seem more spammy. Need refs for other mfgrs and discussions of the practice/method. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment: The author has explicitly asked that the article be deleted on its talk page. Should I close this AFD and speedy delete it based on that criterion? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yup I think that's a G7. But it's still fishy given the same text in the other article. – ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Othman III[edit]

I tried to source this. Nothing here adds up. The ruler of Bornu in this time appears to be Muhammad Rumfa 1463-99. And I don't think the empire was united till slitghtly later from what I can find in the the history this was originally a redirect to Osman III and everything since should that should be restored. But I am not certain as I know know nothing about this subject. BirgitteSB 17:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there are absolutely no sources mentioned. Although I'm all in favor of making as detailed a record as possible of African history, it has to be accurate and verifiable. I found [this] from historyfiles.co.uk, but, like you, the other lists I have point to Muhammad Rumfa. I don't see "Othman III" in anything listed on Google books. Mandsford (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this could be a possible source but the dates are different. (Othman III would be "Othman son of Kade" 1461-1466). According to this Mohammed Rumfa was the King of Kano, not Bornu. No comment as to whether to delete or not. ascidian | talk-to-me 19:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that searching for Othaman III gave mave so many Ottoman results I resorted to searching for Bornu and 1463 trying to find the reign. And I must of have gotten confused that Rumfa was a contemporary from nearby. I think our entry is incorrect, by the strong confirmation I got for the old redirect. But I wanted to bring it here as I couln't be completely certain. Maybe it would be best to move this to --BirgitteSB 19:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw my searches were to dependant on the dates being right to filter out the Ottoman results. I am finding some information to support this now.--BirgitteSB 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Although Othman (Uthman) son of (b) Kade (Kady) seem the variations used by the better sources over Othman III.--BirgitteSB 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable references. Luk suh 03:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. I agree with Moonriddengirl below, as well, that a merge may or may not be appropriate, and should be discussed elsewhere if warranted. --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Humanity[edit]

Completing a nomination by an IP. The reason given was "what research? one chappie and his one website, nope, it won't wash, it's garbage and you know it!". Stifle (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All micronations are inherently non-notable in my opinion. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Including those who that meet our notability guidelines by having secondary coverage? You've got an uphill swim against the current, if you want others to agree with you. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. I'm aware it's a minority opinion. By the way, I still feel the article should be deleted in the light of the revelations of vandalism. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominating IP has gutted the article since it was nominated; some sources were removed, might want to take a look at older versions before deciding on this one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make that vandalized: [42] IPs have been adding "fictional" and "fantasy" all over this article; I think this was probably a bad faith nom on the IP's part. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've got to the root of this; speedy close. The first addition of "fictional" was [43]; the editor doing so is now indef blocked, and almost certainly the one editing under the IPs. It's a bad faith nom by a sock of a blocked user. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent decent version is the 22 March 2008 revision, before the IPs came in. It should be reverted to that as well, but I'm not going to do that while the AfD is open. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've essentially reverted it for you. An article can certainly be altered and improved during the AfD process, especially when problems in the article are a result of bad faith editing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads seems to have gotten similar vandalism. Agree with with speedy close to scrub these articles; if after the disruption has been removed there are still notability concerns, we can bring it back with a clear sight of what we're looking at. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter rubbish. Non-notable web fiction. The other one too.--Him and a dog 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Luk suh 03:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not fiction; that's part of the vandalism. The article didn't originally say it was a fictional micronation, and their location is a real group of islands. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely real; google the name and click on any of the links; they tell the story. This micronation and the other that was mentioned as vandalized above were competing governments for the same islands, that eventually merged under the name of the other article. This one would probably warrant a merge into the other, but I'm not going to suggest it as part of this vandalism mess- after closure of this, it should be reverted to 22 March, and then looked at. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another important point- I was looking up the blocked user because I filed an SSP; the user was in multiple arbcoms (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al., Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3) where they were determined to be editing from a pro-China standpoint. The Spratly Islands where this micronation is said to exist are claimed by China. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have been a real place. Is referenced. Orchestrated vandalism seems to be at play. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep, page protect and improve - see [44] for 12 references on Google Books. To the extent that anything to do with the Spratly Islands would be notable, this probably meets the standard. Real (not internet) sources exist. Article can be improved. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the diligence of JeremyMcCracken and the excellent work of AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. A merge may not be inappropriate if those google book references are not extensive, but this material seems obviously at this point to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia somewhere. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it may be possible just to merge this info - probably the best merge target would be Spratly Islands under a "History" section. I'd personally prefer keeping the article by itself, as it's debatably notable enough on its own. But I'm not against a merge if a keep cannot be done. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to clarify that I would not argue that this AfD should be closed as a merge. :) My note about merger was meant to suggest as a result of a conversation after AfD, not as a closure of the AfD. I suspect I was not clear enough on that point; sorry! I think given the history of this article and the other potentials, such a merge could only really be established by consensus based on the merits of the article and the appropriate parent. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Comments: This is a notable specialist product which has attracted non-trivial neutral coverage in the trade press. The article has references but no inline citations. The absence of inline citation makes it difficult to determine what is puff and what is sourced (Extensibility is an example of this). Conclusions: material which might be challenged and cannot be sourced should be removed; editors with conflicts of interest should recuse themselves from further editing of this article.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OmniPeek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete COI advertising plain and simple. Article was previously nominated and deleted in June 2006. Then recreated in December 2006 by SpacePacket who admits he works for WildPackets. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4. SWik78 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears to be coverage in reliable sources. See this Google News archive search. --Eastmain (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that most of those results are just pointing to people who are republishing the companies press releases, right? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per SWik78, as well as being advertising. - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added three references -- actual reviews, not republished press releases. --Eastmain (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it doesn't matter that the article was written by an employee of WildPacket? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack notability. Luk suh 03:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was very careful to add references which are reliable sources, and I think that the three reviews are sufficient to establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added two more references -- one is a recent review, and the other is a reference to a section describing integration with Cisco, on Cisco website. There is an endless number of other references on the web. SpacePacket (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is not advertising. It comments on, and is strictly limited to, the unique ability for OmniPeek to run plugins through a well-defined API. Of all the advertising copy that one could post about OmniPeek, this article has been carefully constructed to avoid, and focus only on extensibility, which is a notable characteristic, with references. This article is in no way any more of advertisement, and even less of one, than the article on WireShark. SpacePacket (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SpacePacket aka Chris, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is an excellent read. Thank you for the recommendation. Having read this article, I do not think I have violated any policies. The article in question is about an extensible network application platform, and describes some of the ways in which it can be used and extended. I think it is notable, as there is no other network application platform like it. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to make the entry more appropriate as an article for Wikipedia. SpacePacket (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Prejean[edit]

I'm aware of proposed new guidelines for notability of crime related articles, but this is an unreferenced recap of the crime. Yes he was under 18 and yes he may have been intellectually limited, but neither makes him notable. There is RS coverage from when the case was in the news, but there appears sto be nothing since 1990 when he was executed. In the news, yes. Notable, no. Please see WP:BLP1E, ONEEVENT TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a lot more than a recap of the crime. It attempts to place the crime in the context of Prejean's personal history. Understanding the risk factors (including an appparently unsupervised release after a previous crime) and relevant personal history is an important part of understanding the crime. --Eastmain (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have added some references demonstrating that his case received international attention. As evidence that the case continued to receive notice, there are book refs as well ([45]), some dating from the 2000s. Novickas (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to both Novickas and Eastmain: I never said he wasn't in the news, but rather that he's known solely for having committed crimes. This doesn't make him encyclopedically notable, which is exactly why BLP1E is used. There will *always* be international reaction to murders here because of the general perception on the death penalty. That doesn't make Prejean notable. Just my .02 TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of article is notable and contains reliable references. Luk suh 03:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I originally wrote this article. It is not unreferenced. I cite clearly to the Louisiana Supreme Court case that upheld his conviction. Everything comes from that case. As I previously stated, I believe that everyone who has been executed in the United States since the reinstatement of capital punishment is noteworthy enough to have an article on WP. Nolamgm (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ѕandahl 00:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mockup (operating system)[edit]

Delete Non-notable. An open source project that didn't manage to produce anything. An article on this project was previously deleted, back when it was called BeFree. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Strong keep I see absolutely no reason to even consider this article for deletion. archanamiya · talk 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Their website is dead, it has been non-existent for months. Their domain has been bought up by someone else who is using it as a spam-vertising site. They did one very early nowhere near finished release three years ago and then the project died. Same as happened back a few years ago when the project was called BeFree. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable references/notability. Luk suh 03:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --moof (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete.. Ghits - 73 [46]. GoogleNews - 1 hit (and that an opinion piece) ([47]). This is a neologism and the article is synthesis, throwing together passing references to the word. Black Kite 23:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinophilia[edit]

Delete: WP:NEO, fails WP:N. The term has no significant coverage in third party reliable scholarly sources. A google book shows 8 ghits, [48] but all are passing sound. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: The article has several original synthesis. For example the quote by V.A. Dymshits, "As for Jewish Nationalism, having come into existence at a fairly late stage, it took at once the shape of Palestinophilia, and then Zionism, i.e. it was built around rejecting the nation as it was in favor of the nation as it should be, as well as rejecting Yiddish in favor of Hebrew" only mentions the term "Palestinophilia", but does not discuss it elaborately. [49]
- "Today, the term is used by supporters of Israel to explain the blind support for the Palestinian Arabs that some are alleged to offer" This is original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not notice there is already a discussion in talk page. Talk:Palestinophilia#Proded_again. So there is no need of AfD, as it will be merged with another article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything worth merging here. Fails WP:N and WP:NOR. csloat (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Major problems with OR and synthesis. As discussed on the article talkpage and User talk:Keyed In, I intended to redirect or merge this to History of Zionism#Pre-Zionist Initiatives 1799 - 1897 which is basically the only context in which the term is used in reliable sources, with reference to that component of pre-Zionist pan-Jewish movements that believed in returning to Israel. Otherwise its just another neologism used half-a-dozen times with reference to how those leftwing liberals just love the Palestinians. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks notability. Luk suh 03:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to be notable based on the sources taht are currently present in the article. Yahel Guhan 07:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has importance from an historical prespective. This is what encyclopedias are for... Zeq (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Clearly has importance from an historical prespective" - you need to prove this. Just throwing a note of this kind in an AfD debate is doing no help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The support to the Palestinian Question is important for many political parties in Europe so I think that wikipedia requires to have an article about Palestinophilia. The article requires to contains also information about european situation. (User:Lucifero4)
Delete: This is clearly WP:NEO. Imad marie (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. — Scientizzle 15:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Life in the Death of Joe Meek[edit]

Film with no evidence of notability (WP:NOTFILM) provided or found. PROD removed by original editor, adding evidence of the subject of the film's notability. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is some media coverage of the film [50][51][52] AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those sources don't do much. The first is not a reliable source, just a webzine talking about the film being made and offering a trailer. The second is a "capsule reviews", specified as trivial coverage under WP:NOTFILM. The last one is about Meek and has one sentance mentioning the film at the tail end, clearly not substantial coverage. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. Luk suh 03:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sources mentioned above it was briefly reviewed here, after the premier in Oregon, and briefly mentioned here in the Guardian (somewhat tangentially, before coming out). The BBC blog piece cited by AlbinoFerret called it "one of the highlights of this year’s Glasgow Film Festival" (although, again, before it actually came out). It's been screened at three film festivals and features interviews with at least 15 people notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. The subject of the film is himself a quite notable figure. I take the view, which I have just been reminded of, that the guidelines for notability of films- and they are guidelines - at WP:MOVIE are too restrictive. A few brief write-ups in the mainstream press, screenings at several film festivals (within the first two months of release), and a notable subject with notable folks in the film equals a keep for me. My Wikipedia philosophy says we should preserve articles on small cultural fragments like this one, not cast them aside because documentaries can't get distribution deals. We have enough here from film festival schedules and brief mentions in secondary sources to maintain a sourced article about what is apparently a fairly well done documentary about an important figure in the history of British music.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This a serious two-hours-long documentary film with many *original interviews*, not just a collection of material. It took years to produce it, and is targeted at fans, who know the topic, not a superficial insight. ((E-Kartoffel (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)))[reply]

Comment: The notability of the topic of the film is not the issue. There are thousands of non-notable documentaries, often with footage of notable people included, about notable subjects. Blurb reviews aren't going to do it: again, far too broad a net. If we go against guidelines under WP:NOTFILM (a.k.a. WP:MOVIE), at best, brings it back to WP:Notable. These are "just guidelines" as well. Eventually, the question has to be why are you setting aside guidelines -- "a generally accepted standard that editors should follow" -- for this particular film? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I think those guidelines are too restrictive (I've started a conversation, or at least tried to, on the film guideline talk page about this very issue) and this film is an example of a category of films that perhaps technically fall outside the notability guidelines but should not (in my view). It's not about this particular film, it's about this film and others films like it. AfD's are not the place to change policies or guidelines, but they certainly can be a place where we question existing guidelines (which of course can always be treated with the occasional exception) or work out the limits of what is or is not notable. I don't know how many (you suggest thousands) documentaries we are talking about that screen in multiple film festivals, are reviewed in reliable sources (even if only in blurb form), include interviews with over a dozen notable people, and are about a topic/person of some historical importance, but I don't at all think that casts too wide a net. When you add all of that together I think you have enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. We have enough reliable sources to say when and where the movie screened, to provide some brief comments on it from reviewers, along with giving the basic information on what the film is about, who appears in it, who made it, etc. I think we should do that. Believe me, it's not my style to argue against existing guidelines and this may be the first time I've done this in an AfD. I just think we do readers a disservice when we don't have small articles about serious documentary films about notable subjects when said films have received some attention at the time of their release. My argument is based on the relatively inclusionist spirit of Wikipedia on matters cultural rather than the letter of WP:NOTFILM, which I believe is quite biased against serious films that don't necessarily get distributed (which means we in large part base our notability guidelines on the film industry's standards for what should or should not be distributed - i.e. standards based almost solely on profit). I would also add that it's unfortunate that this film is receiving it's English premier in Sheffield in just a few days, after this AfD will close. The reaction (or lack thereof) to that screening would probably speak to our notability concerns.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Joe Meek. Proposed target already has a mention of the film and has room for a more complete treatment. Should a merge occur and the film gets more notability per the scenario mentioned by Bigtimepeace, a more fleshed-out article emphasizing increased notability can be (re)generated in the place of the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
close as keep since this article on a documentary is for sure notable , but if the consensus isn't reached then you may even consider to merge it with Joe Meek , but merging or deleting wont be nice . though this articvle deals with the same personJoe Meek which has an existing article , merging this article to it would be unwise .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it appears to have garnered little but enough media coverage. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted (G2 - test page) by Woody. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to hack flash games[edit]

Badly-written OR essay on what appears to be an illegal (or immoral) topic. Nothing worthy of inclusion, and not an encyclopaedic article. Booglamay (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. ... discospinster _talk 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, though the speedy should do the job as well. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - noticed the speedy template after I'd gone through the rigmarole of putting this here. The article's gone, nonetheless. Booglamay (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Article does not demonstrate notability. Evidently, an effort made to locate reliable sourcing failed to disclose any. Notability must be independently established for articles even if they are subsets of larger groups. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Limit (game)[edit]

No references in article. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is that really a valid criterion for deletion? Perhaps this ought to be nominated under WP:TOYS? Google search doesn't really turn up anything worthwhile. Any thoughts? Booglamay (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability/reliable references. Luk suh 03:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment. The article has been shown to be faulty, not necessarily irredeemable. To my understanding being a commercially released video game is considered to confer notability, and there are arcade game databases and catalogues to draw on. We'll need to go bug the local experts about this. --Kiz o r 12:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources are shown to demonstrate notability. If it can never be more than an entry on an arcade game database then that's where the information should be. Someone another 12:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, it's copied from another website! Second, I could only find one site that mentioned it not counting the one that it was copied from and it just said it was a game. Not that it was an arcade game but just a game and nothing else. That reference was http://www.coinop.org/g.aspx/102239/Time_Limit.html and I don't know if thats considered a reliable reference.

Cool200 (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per criteria G12 - Blatant copyright infringment from this site.--Gazimoff (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who put in the lifted text, but I have removed that text which violates the copyright of the Killer List Of Videogames. Guroadrunner (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per unanimous consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale's second studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ashley Tisdale's second studio album

No title. No release date. No tracklist. No label. Nothing. Pure WP:CRYSTAL. Kww (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Gosh, so she wants to produce a second album. Hooookay, sure, and when she actually does, no doubt someone will write an article about it. Ravenswing 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is one OMG moment after another, with Tisdale revealing even more secrets about "High School Musical 3", a new CD, what she reads about herself on the Internet and what the editor saw in the crystal ball or copied from a fansite. Nothing more to see here. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal ball. Luk suh 03:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ball until there is reliable, third party information available to use in the construction of a sourced article. Such information would include all of the following: the album's title, specific release date, tracklist, and first single. This information needs to be taken from sources independant of the artist or producing record label, and should not include rumours, fanspec, or interviews where the artist says things like "I'd like to do a new album" or "Some new stuff might be coming out in [insert year here]". At which point it will be created at the correct article title anyway. -- saberwyn 05:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OMG, OMG, OMG! - eo (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article also appears to have been recreated as Voices (Ashley Tisdale album). However, there are no sources referenced there either. —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged that one for deletion as well.Kww (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by pelting with SNOWballs. Please, someone put this one out of our mysery. SNOWballs are less painful than CRYSTAL balls. B.Wind (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kroner[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. Biography of journalist. I could not find any third-party commentary about the subject. article was prodded and contested. - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although I usually don't discriminate by age, I find it unlikly that this 23-year old journalist is notable. Indeed the lack of sources back it up. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. No real assertion of notability, article created by an SPA with no other edits. Catch us in a decade, Mr. Kroner. RGTraynor 16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Robert Rock (UVF). Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Per this edit, the misinformation in the page, alluded to in the AfD, appears have come from a piece of schoolboy vandalism. No need to keep it visible to search engines. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), AfD closed by nominator. At the time of the AfD nomination Robert Rock had been hijacked by a hoax later disambiguated to Robert Rock (UVF) which passed speedy. There has been little interest apart from Keep and invoke WP:SNOW with caveat that the article is moved back to Robert Rock and that it be expanded. -- BpEps - t@lk 04:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rock (Golf)[edit]

No Sources. Not well Known. WP:N failure BpEps - t@lk 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC) et plus possible copyright violation from Coren Search Bot-- BpEps - t@lk 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as professional sportsman with plenty of decent sources, but move back to Robert Rock as there's now nothing to disambiguate. I've rewritten to make sure it's not copyvio, though the original article as at Robert Rock has been around long enough that it's just as likely that the Golf Digest paragraph was copied from Wikipedia. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 13:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move and keep viable stub. WP:SPORTS seems satisfied here as he is a professional golfer with high rankings in British and South African Opens. Robert Rock redirects to this; it should be the other way around. B.Wind (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goldyn Chyld[edit]

Non-notable unreleased album with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Deleted via prod but restored—notability claimed but article has not been improved. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I missed the part where links were added to the talk page. While they do verify that Ras Kas had an album called Goldyn Chyld shelved, they do not show notability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ras Kass already has more than enough information about this album, insufficiently notable for standalone article.Kww (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As outlined on talk:Goldyn Chyld, lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources. It existed, but it is not notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Per our notability guidelines for albums this should technically be deleted, though I don't necessarily think that's good idea given Ras Kass's significance within hip-hop (see further thoughts along these lines in this related AfD).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bris Vegas[edit]

There's no evidence that this term is in widespread use, and it lacks notability as far as WP:N is concerned - it's not the main subject of any published work (the subject of the only source referenced in the article is Brisbane itself or the History of Brisbane, not this term). Waggers (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator Waggers (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~; as noted above, may be worth a mention in Brisbane if a source can be found. I've heard of people going to Vegas to get married; never heard of anyone going there to get circumcised. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as a section in the Brisbane article. The usage of the term seems quite adequately established. But since all accounts seem to concur that it refers only to Brisbane, I'm not sure it is really a separate subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question, of course it's applied only to Brisbane, it's Brisbane's well-known and used nick name. There's extensive use in other sources that can't be cited because they're not reliable sources but as someone who has lived in Brisbane, I can tell you it's used a lot. Without getting into an otherstuff argument, Big Apple applies to only to New York City. I don't see reference to one city being a good reason to merge it. It's a valid, used name in many reliable sources. FWIW I think, I think you and the nom misunderstood what the term meant when talking about the ritual, and the nom missed the chapter in the originally cited book which lends a chapter to the origins of the nickname. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue for me is whether there's enough there to justify a separate article. With Big Apple, there easily appears to be. Were there less, it could merge happily into the article in chief about New York City. It's not a question of notability; it's a question of undue weight; the chief article about New York is long enough that forks are justified, and devoting several paragraphs to one of its nicknames may strike a discordant note. Last time I looked this was fairly brief, brief enough to merge without either losing information or giving the main article on Brisbane undue emphasis on the nickname.
The note about the ceremony was another of my lame attempts at humor. Apparently I'm not very good at it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I was genuinely puzzled but now it makes sense, even if I don't completely agree. We'll see where this goes. I admit the original article didn't assert the nickname's notability, but I think it does now. That's biased, I re-wrote it. I'm bad at understanding humor so I'll take part of the blame for that TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep plenty of RS coverage including how it got its name. It needs cleanup, not deletion. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've now re-written it. It still needs to be expanded but it's sourced from some relatively unknown publications such as the BBC, The Age and The Courier Mail. Some help from local folk with access to print sources would also help. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - clearly notable with just a trifling amount of looking. Used in news stories Brisvegas sheds tawdry image for uber cool look (Sydney Morning herald, March 3, 2008), as a book title Meanjin to Brisvegas: Brisbane Comes of Age (2005), referenced in The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, commonly used in books, news and others to refer to Brisbane. The term clearly is in widespread use and is notable as far as books and news are concerned. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:Travellingcari. I absolutely despise the nickname, but it's in fairly wide use here in Brisbane, and as shown, there are heaps of sources for it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Hesperian 01:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as edits since nomination now show term notable. Being a Brisvegas resident I often use the term in my emails to indicate where I'm from.--Sting au Buzz Me... 11:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to good work of editors providing reliable sources and cleaning up the article! -- Chuq (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely used and useful entry. —Moondyne click! 01:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was } no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Since 2006 our policy on biographies of living individuals has become a lot firmer, and we have become less tolerant of articles which purport to be biographies but are in fact about something else. I believe this is one such. I think it is fair to say that the detention of political prisoners without trial in the cause fo "freedom" is one of the greater ironies of the 21st Century, but Wikipedia is not Amnesty International and we should not be writing faux-biographies to cover essentially generic content such as the fact that no proper independent review process exists for detainees, if only out of practical considerations of redundancy. A quick survey leads me to conclude that most of the articles on individual detainees are, in the present WP:BLP climate, merged or deleted, and I believe that is fundamentally right. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless a merge target can be found for abridged info.--Doc^g 14:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Press coverage of the proceedings has made him notable. --Eastmain (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, press coverage of the proceedings has made the proceedings notable. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.

I would appreciate a fuller explanation as to why nominator considers this a "faux-biography".

Please note:

Analysts accused him of being an Osama bin Laden bodyguard.
although the rules required his continued detention to have been reviewed in 2005, the record shows it was not reviewed.
he did have a Review Board hearing scheduled for 2006 -- a month after he had already been released.

I disagree with the nominator that material like this turns the wikipedia into "Amnesty International". I already responded to this assertion yesterday, on the nominator's talk page. I pointed out that Amnesty International is a kind of advocacy group, that the material it publishes makes no attempt to comply with anything like the wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view. I believe this article, on the other hand, fully complies with the wikipedia's policies, including WP:NPOV. If there is some passage(s) the nominator, or anyone else, thinks does not comply with WP:NPOV, or any other policy, please be specific.

Frankly, I am puzzled by challenges like this one. They leave me wondering whether some contributors think there should be some kind of unofficial cap on the number of bytes that can be devoted to certain topics. If the wikipedia community wants to put caps on the amount of coverage of certain topics, then lets talk about those caps openly.

The wikipedia already covers lots of topics I am not interested in, and some I think are patent nonsense. I think the field of Homeopathy is patent nonsense. But I don't dispute that an article that cites good references could be written from a neutral point of view about it. I wouldn't dream of trying to suppress coverage of any policy-compliant material because I, personally, thought the topic was nonsense.

Similarly, I am not a fan of American football. I didn't play it as a kid, and don't really know the rules. I took a look at Category:American football quarterbacks. It currently contains 1136 entries. I started looking at the articles, and found about a third were mere stubs, only a couple of sentences long, that didn't cite any references at all. Football is popular. I can see people wanting to look these guys up, even if our articles don't provide much information. I wouldn't dream of trying to suppress coverage of that material, just because I, personally, don't find it interesting myself.

Do people read the wikipedia's material on the war on terror? Absolutely. Do readers use the wikipedia's material on individual Guantanamo captives. Absolutely. I get questions from readers about material I have contributed on this topic, both on my talk page, and by email. I see places where articles like this one are explicitly cited, and instances where I am morally convinced an author used our material without citing it. WP:ATA suggests "usefulness" is not always a good argument for inclusion. But, since this article does fully comply with policy, I would suggest this is one of the instances when usefulness is a good argument for inclusion.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Media coverage of Guantanamo have made the inmates collectively notable, but I doubt one in ten thousand could name a handful, if that many, let alone give any pertinent facts about them. Neither does this article; it's full of legal minutiae, much of it not specifically about the subject. I wouldn't call this a WP:BLP issue -- there isn't a thing here not on legal record -- but as it stands, the sources are not really about the subject (as opposed to being about Guantanamo detainees generally) and I question whether any exist. RGTraynor 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are perfectly free to find the material uninteresting. But I don't understand how you can say the sources aren't about Al Juhani. We have several pages of allegation memos, drafted independently, from first principles, that is about nothing but Al Juhani. And, of course, we have his testimony, which I think you will agree, is about him? Geo Swan (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge or delete because the only coverage of him is part of lists of those in guantanamo, probably there's already a list of them, on which he is placed. He's not notable in and of himself because sources have not been articles about him alone in-depth. [53] special, random, Merkinsmum 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, I hope, if I question whether you may have a misconception I have encountered before. WP:BIO says nothing about requiring media sources. I believe this article fully complies with this and other policies and guidelines. If there is a specific passage in a policy or guideline which you think the article does not comply with I would be very grateful if you would return here, and quote it. I am going to paste in the lead sentence:

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."

Please note, he is accused of having been one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards, something that lead to other captives facing war crimes charges.

Please note, the DoD seems to have completely lost track of him for two years, failing to schedule a review in 2005, and then scheduling a review of his detention -- after he had already been released from detention. You do not regard this as significant? It would be really helpful to me, and I would really appreciate it, if you would try to explain why you do not regard this allegation, his disappearance from the record, as significant.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, how many prisoners do you think the United States "loses" a day? What about that is a prima facie declaration of "significance?" If (allegedly) being bin Laden's bodyguard makes the fellow notable, how can his name have only twenty unique Google hits [54], a total dwarved by insignificant Myspace wannabees we AfD in carload lots? Answer: he ain't notable. RGTraynor 19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many prisoners in the US criminal justice system might get temporarily lost for a day. But Al Juhani wasn't lost for a day. He was lost for two years. Not only was he lost. He was released without the OARDEC, the agency with the responsibility to authorize released, realizing he had been released.

Let me suggest that the losing track of Al Juhani the record reflects has more in common to the release of Willie Horton. How commonly are murderers or suspected terrorists accidentally released by the US Criminal Justice System? Are you trying to suggest that if it became known that if a suspected terrorist was accidentally released from the US Criminal Justice System it would not merit coverage here? Geo Swan (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User GeoSwan- you made the quote for me- every wikipedia article needs to have been the subject itself of reliable sources, otherwise it is non-notable. Ok it's not unverifiable, but no journalist etc has considered him personally someone to write an article about. We're not a secondary source- we're a tertiary source that is wikipedia summarizes what has been written about the subject. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse me. Every fact that should be referenced is referenced. Every reference in this article is verifiable. Several people have told me that the policies state articles require media coverage. But, no offense, when I checked the policies they cited, for myself, I could not find the passages that required media coverage. I'd be very grateful if you can find the places in the policy that state this.

Other challengers seem to be saying that even if the policy doesn't state that articles require media coverage we should treat the policies as if they said what "everyone" thinks they say. Well, if it were really true that everyone really did think the policies both required media coverage, and agreed that the policies should say require media coverage, then the policy should be rewritten, so it says what everyone thinks it says. If simply everyone agreed the that the policy should say the articles should require media coverage, then I would agree with deleting this article, until the policies were rewritten. I'd nominate similar articles for deletion myself.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, even ignoring my hatred for "second attempts" to have something deleted....we have articles on Hitler's chauffeur, Hitler's valet, Hitler's nurse, Hitler's electrician, Hitler's doctor, Hitler's pilot, Hitler's bodyguard, Hitler's medical aide, Hitler's secretary and Hitler's chef. We have over 1000 articles on Quarterbackers in the NFL, we have every single Pokemon character...and you're arguing that an alleged terrorist "isn't notable enough" to merit a neutral article collecting the details about them?

In addition, how many unique Google hits will you find for somebody like Raymond Lee Harvey or Thomas Bernard Brigham? Does that mean they "fail notability"? No, it means that "internet culture" is not a sufficient litmus test for notability. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 60 and 90 respectively, which aren't awful for folks whose fifteen minutes of fame (if they can be said to have had that many) were before the Internet era. That being said, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a compelling argument, and that being said, this article in fact contains no verifiable details about the subject beyond the legal proceedings against him. No details of his life are reported beyond the unsourced claim by counter-terrorist units of his date and place of birth. Even on nothing more than biographical grounds, it's terribly deficient. Is this really anything more than WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK violations? RGTraynor 22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of which are Wikipedia mirrors and conspiracy theorist forums, I don't see a single "Reputable source" for either of them. I'm sure with digging, one could be found - same as ones could be found for al-Juhani if we spoke Arabic. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Agree, wikipedia conventionally does not put stock in "other stuff". But, I'd really appreciate learning why you don't consider the info in the allegations memos to be verifiable? Similarly, concerning "the details of his life" -- we know a lot more about a lot of people we have articles about. Marraiges, children, where they went to school, etc. But we do know quite a bit about Al Juhani. The Summary of Evidence memo from his CSR Tribunal lists seven allegations. I would be very grateful to read your explanation as to why these should not be considered "details of his life". Is it possible that the authors of the OARDEC memos got it wrong? Sure. But, since the wikipedia's policy on verifiability says we should aim for "verifiability, not truth", I suggest it doesn't matter if you or I have private doubts about the truth of the allegations in the memo. In particular, I suggest, being accused of being one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards alone should be meaningful enough to merit coverage here. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started an article on Frederick G. Creed in 2005. It is still pretty sparse, sparser than Al Juhani's. And, like the article on Al Juhani, it is useful nonetheless. Let me suggest that lacking a complete set of the details of someone's life should not be grounds to delete an article on an inventor, or an alleged Osama bin Laden bodyguard. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plain and simple - doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:BIO. For a person to be notable s/he must recieve significant coverage in independant and/or secondary sources. This person hasn't recieved coverage in independant and/or secondary coverage. A fortiori, he hasn't recieved significant coverage.

Agreed that the Guantanomo Bay prison and how it functions are notable, but that doesn't mean that each of the 800 prisoners that have spent time there automatically become notable.

Besides for the failure to meet the notability standard of WP:BIO, the article has a number of other problems. The article is primarly about his stay at Guantanomo Bay, it therefore violates WP:UNDUE. The article's single-minded focus on his stay at Guantanomo Bay also point to a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL problem. In addition, as the article seems to be focused on Guantanomo Bay, it is also violating WP:COATRACK.

The reasons proffered for his notability aren't legitamite reasons. WP:NOT#ORIGINALRESEARCH (he might have been bin Laden's bodyguard) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (there's a lot of articles about quaterbacks) are not valid bases for inclusion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His "claim to fame" seems to be mostly that he is a prisoner in Guantanomo, and he's hardly the only person to accomplish that. I question his worldwide and long term notability. After you remove the legal-speak and blatant POV, you would have a two line stub about a prisoner that was eventually repatriated to his country. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to "claim to fame" WP:BIO explicitly clarifies, in the first paragraph, that notability is not the same as "fame".

The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary.

I've asked this participant to be specific about which passage(s) triggered their concern over a "blatant POV". Geo Swan (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article reads like an essay about how unlawful/unfair it is for prisoners to be in GB, and it has more to do with the Tribunal process than Al Juhani. Significant sections of the lede and other paragraphs are dedicated to the questionable legal status/ethical status of GB, which isn't explicitly relevant to this person in this article. I actually had to read the article twice to figure out what "crime" he is accused of land himself there, because it is mentioned once in the lede, and then further relevant details about the case are buried near the bottom. In short, it looks like a GB coatrack, propped around a non-notable prisoner that has since been released from the American jail in which he was serving. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 12:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for your reply. I am interested in your comments about finding the article hard to read. I'd like to take them into account when improving the article. But I think the deletion policies are pretty clear that perceptions that articles are hard to read are not normally grounds for deletion.

And thanks for your comment about WP:COATRACK. I've re-read the COATRACK essay just a week or so ago. It is a good essay. But I am surprised by suggestions that this article matches any of its descriptions. I would be very grateful if you would return to the COATRACK essay, and state which specific passages of that essay you think apply. I'll thank you in advance for doing that. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep on the basis there will probably be sources there as well. The article is about what he did before GB, and what happened after. I don't myself see what the number of quarterbacks have to do with it, but I dont see how the number of GB prisoners has anything to do with it either. We can accommodate whatever we need to. If something should make a large number of individuals notable, we can deal with it as long as we have verifiable information about each of them. In this case we do. DGG (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Guantanamo prisoners hailing from western countries, for example the Tipton Three, couldn't be more notable and have received media coverage ad nauseam. I'm sure there's a fair deal of sources about him in Arabic too: [55]. Controversies in international politics and diplomacy about US anti-terrorists imprisonment policies are of such an order of magnitude that, all individuals incarcerated in Guatanamao are ipso facto notable, contra NickPenguin. Also, what DGG says.--victor falk 06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If all GB prisoners are ipso facto notable, then does that mean that all the names on List of Guantánamo Bay detainees should be redlinked? That's a lot of stub articles for people that may only be notable for a prison sentence. EDIT And this guy isn't even on that list! Tell me again how he is notable? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes.
  - Just like there's a lot of stub and red-linked articles for olympic gold medalists, WP:PAPER; if you will, Gitmo is like winning gold in the global carceral system.
  - Perhaps he should be added, then? About half are blue-linked, it seems in this list as a matter of copy-editing style, it has been chosen to have all the others black, which is very reasonable, as a lot of red links is distracting to the reader. ¨victor falk 04:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, just because you believe Guantanamo is the gold medal of the carceral system doesn't mean it's true, and that isn't really a perfect analogy. But without drawing into question the notability of the prison itself, is this a case where the individual is notable outside this single prison sentence, or is he only notable for this single event? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nick, sometimes people agree on the facts, and disagree in the conclusions they draw. But, no offense, you have repeated a couple of misconceptions. The only Guantanamo captive to receive a sentence was David Hicks, for the final couple of months or so he spent there. Please don't confuse the captives with convicted felons. Geo Swan (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, minor wording issues aside, my general criticism still applies: is he notable for anything other than this event? If not, then the event article needs more attention, and this article can be deleted. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article fails the basic requirements of WP:BIO. Though there is coverage of Gitmo trials in general, there is not significant coverage of this individual himself. There is only one independent secondary source reference (the Huffington Post article) that says anything more about him than simply his name, but he's not the focus of the article. The majority of references listed for him are military documents that do not constitute independent secondary sources. This article clearly violates WP:BIO basic criteria. BWH76 (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read assertions that these kinds of sources fail WP:BIO before. And I have asked for the specific passages my correspondents think they do not fulfill. But, to be very frank, my correspondents have left me sadly disappointed, by not being able to cite those passages. Perhaps you would be so kind as to make the effort to cite those passages where others have not? Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I can't speak for others but the passage that I would cite would be: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted... Cover the event, not the person." Since all the information comes from the Gitmo context, I think WP:BLP1E applies. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So I take it you'll be cleaning out Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors next? --Pixelface (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see how WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS trumps WP:BLP. (Not to say that I think all articles in that category necessarily pose a problem -- only if they have the WP:BLP1E problem of not including biographical information and only focusing on one event in the person's life.) --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the individuals in that category have done nothing notable outside of surviving the holocaust, then those articles should be deleted, clearly. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the information in the article looks verifiable, neutral, and does not appear to be original research — conforming to WP:BLP. This doesn't appear like a "faux biography" to me. I think this individual is significant enough to be recorded. --Pixelface (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same BLP concerns that have stricken the rest of the Gitmo entries. At the heart of it all, these articles are not fundamentally biographies of people, as we have no real biographical information (aside from information about (or related to) their incarceration)). While their treatment may be well covered and documented, that makes the treatment notable, not the individuals. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Xdenizen (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per DGG, Pixelface and others. Also claims there are somehow BLP issues are unconvincing; these are notable people and we have no reason to believe that any of them have a problem with having an article. Indeed, if one takes one POV more publicity makes it more likely that these people will be released, so the notion that there is a harm in having articles about this individual is hard to understand. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bfigura. Articles on arbitrary Gitmo detainees are generally going to fall due to non-notability. I'm seriously concerned that many of these articles are being used as coatracks to bring up anti-GB sentiments. Which sentiments I tend to share, but grossly violate WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out a passage that could be interpreted as npov and rousing anti-GB sentiments in this particular article (cf. wp:otherstuff)?victor falk 14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if Muhamad wasn't notable for being an alleged body-guard to Osama Bin Laden, articles on individual detainees is motivated by Wikipedia:Summary style, if longer than a couple of lines as it otherwise would make the List of Guantánamo Bay detainees completely unmanageable.14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A3. Stifle (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MSIT[edit]

Topic is inherently non-notable. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Article has been redirected, rewritten, and tags have been removed multiple times. A merge to IIIT was suggested, but it was removed by the author. Article was created by User:Msit iiit, which seems to indicate a WP:COI. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete if I am reading the history correctly. The article's current contents consist solely of an infobox, which seems to me to be a "very brief article without context," and depending on the identity of some IP-address editors, may constitute removal of the substantive content by the original author. The history contains a stub about a Master of Science in Information Technology degree programme, apparently offered by a college in India. The degree may well be worthy of an article, but that article would belong under its full title, not this less than obvious abbreviation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - No useful contains, no ((notability)), but not 1 day old yet. ChessCreator (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I tried adding the tag here, but the author removed it. I readded it a second time, but again it was removed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin D. Weiss[edit]

Written like an advertisement and no sourced Notability claims. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par being the nominator, and par believing that there is not enough salvageable content in the current article to leave it around for improvement. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article looks much, MUCH better now. I have no reason to oppose the current article. Changing vote to KEEP. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did a Google news search. Referenced as an expert: New York Sun, Wall street Journal (subscription only) and Washington Post. I stopped there on page 2 of the hits. --Dweller (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very likely notable then, but the article needs some (major) work to get the remaining advertising out, and the notability in. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Please note "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enforce WP:BLP and delete or reduce to stub. Yes, Martin Weiss is notable for his models to estimate the reliability of banks and insurance companies. But the article reads like it was written by his agent (the article was in fact created by an SPA), and as it stands is a puff-piece and has little biographical merit. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, looks ok now. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Further to my comments above I've returned the article and added sources and removed what seemed to be left of POV, advertising and spam. With notability demonstrated there seems no reason to delete. --Dweller (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks OK now after edits since nomination ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Looks better now than it was earlier. I see no reason to delete the article.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 03:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, or at least, no consensus to delete. However, there is a strong inclination here to merge these three subarticles into one list. I support that as well. To the talkpages! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westlife songlist[edit]

Many bands have recorded a lot of songs, but i'm not sure there is a need for a list of them for any band. Creator removed ((notability)) tags without comment or alteration. tomasz. 13:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason.

Keep - This is a List, lists are encouraged with WP:LIST. ((notability)) does not apply as each article listed has to meet it's own notability criteria, which they all will because Westlife is very notable and meets WP:MUSIC. ChessCreator (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't inherited, and not all lists are encouraged: what use does this list serve? tomasz. 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you link to assertion that 'Notability isn't inherited'? In the mean while I'll try and hunt down some info on this as presently WP:List is void of notability. Purpose of list, all three as of WP:LIST. Information, Navigation and Development. ChessCreator (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems most appropriate (?). None of these are particularly large yet, and look fairly well fleshed-out (complete). Merging to a single location would be best. Also, Westlife songlist needs an intro paragraph. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly reasonable supplementary material to the Westlife article which is too large to merge into that article. I can see no compelling reason why we should slice away parts of our coverage of this notable topic. However, a merge of the three songlist articles into a single songlist article with more annotation is worth considering.--Father Goose (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No compelling reason to delete. The one sentence article is a stub. It is sourceable by outside sources. It needs massive expansion, or course, but that's not a deletion rationale. Seems to be a keep and expand. No prejudice against a re-nomination in 2 months if the article remains in WP:1S condition. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Quench[edit]

Totally unsourced page about a books series. No indication that the books are at all notable, and the author is non-notable to the point where there is no page on the project on her. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - notability is not determined by whether wikipedia has a page or not.

~~Delete~~ Neutral - Article has almost no contains. ChessCreator (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amended to Neutral, 55 characters is hardly an article but as this is most likely notable and others feel it's worth keeping that I'm not going to object. ChessCreator (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a series of children's books published by Puffin Books and which sell reasonably well in the UK, according to Amazon's UK website. The UK Google returns 13,000 hits, while Prior returns 11,500 hits. All this took me about three minutes of research. RGTraynor 16:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does have many many links but can you find any third-party reliable sources among them? I couldn't. ChessCreator (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per policy, being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Also, there are such great and gapping holes in Wikipedia's coverage that a redlink is not a valid assumption of non-notability -- it still means that someone hasn't gotten to writing that article yet. Per the guidelines for deletion, what matters is not whether the article indicates the subject is notable, but whether coverage exists elsewhere that the subject is notable, and encourages nominators to check for themselves first. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One sentence does not an article make. No content or context. B.Wind (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's a reason to expand, not to delete ... quite aside from that WP:1S is neither a policy nor a guideline, and does not supply appropriate deletion grounds. RGTraynor 09:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to userspace until a reasonable stub can be developed. This is not useful encyclopedic information as is. I don't even think it meets the basic minimum standard as a stub (a single unsourced line?).Renee (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per RGTraynor. RG could you add a bit if possible? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Glaysher[edit]

Two reasons. Either one is fatal. 1. Not notable according to wikipedia:biographies. There's been a non-notable notice on it from its beginning. There's no awards and no "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". If the information is right he's written a couple vanity press poetry books, and it seems he runs the vanity press. 2. No reliable sources for main text according to wikipedia:biographies of living people. All the information appears to be picked up from his personal website. All the external links are questionable sources. Ignore these are there isn't a reliable source in the article. This is dodging the policy. Wishtoremainanon (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I note the persistent attacks on this article either by IP's or by new editors. The attacks imho are religion-based as this person is a vocal critic of certain Baha'i institutions. There is no evidence that his works are vanity-press publications. The article is fairly new and deserves new eyes to expand it, instead of this pressure by a vested group or a few individuals to suppress it. Wjhonson (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment While I disagree with some of Jeff3000's edits (removing self-published material) I agree with the assertion (made elsewhere) that such material is insufficient to validate the notability of the whole article itself. If you want to rescue the article, please provide more verifiable and independent references so that the notability of the subject can be asserted. Also, IPs seem to varyingly attack and reinforce the article, if I understand this history logs correctly. Regardless of the perceived motivation of edits, they either stand up to wiki policy or they don't. That's (hopefully) what this process is supposed to be a part of. --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no reliable sources stating why this person is notable. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found providing non-trivial discussion of the subject; these would both establish notability and provide verifiable content for the article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From experience, I know that finding sources establishing the notability of a poet can be fiendishly hard to find, now matter how great it may be in the concerned literary circles. A cursory check seems to me as he has enough sourceable claims, both for his work and as a person, to meet the criterions; as I am not familiar with the subject matter, I'll refrain from voting.--victor falk 20:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails these:

WP:NN: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." An editor of someone else's work is not themselves notable.
WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Other than bibliographic notes, there are no sources that don't themselves seem to rely on his own webpage.
WP:V: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." This article seems to have stale ((fact)) tags all over it.
WP:BLPSTYLE: "While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted". Applies to all the above.

MARussellPESE (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Almost all of the biographical data is from the author's websites, or base on them. This fails the BLP policy: "the article is not based primarily on such sources". MARussellPESE (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Professor published by U of Michigan Press meets WP:Bio, the only actual policy cited as a reason to delete. Fact tags are not grounds for deletion, neither is notability. That leaves only BLPStyle, which also is not grounds for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's not a professor. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a cause for deletion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May we presume that Cuñado meant "non-notability" is a cause for deletion? :) --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When BLPStyle says badly written articles should be deleted, how can that not mean deleting the article? MARussellPESE (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not meeting the notability requirements. Being a critic of the Baha'i Faith is not notable. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete for non-notability and too many un-cited sources. As mentioned, being an editor of someone else's work isn't really a notable achievement, per-se. For the record, though (Cuñado), the article doesn't even mention his being a critic of the Bahá'í Faith, so we should only judge the article based on what's there. If there are proper WP:V and WP:NN resolutions, then I would reconsider, but the absence of such kills the article's usefulness, I think. --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Please feel free to cross-reference the above editors with Baha'i articles to prove for yourself that this is an attack based on religious issues, and has almost nothing to do with notability. As has been pointed out. Wjhonson (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, I only count four Baha'i editors, and that has nothing to do with whether or not it deserves deletion. I could likewise say that your interest here lies primarily in promoting criticism of the Baha'i Faith, but that doesn't negate your comments. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's bullshit. His article doesn't mention that he's Baha'i. It implies that he's a notable poet or author or something. Do the Baha'is know something you don't, or does guilt by association fly on wikipedia? Wishtoremainanon (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update So now it does? And all of it was added by a "new user". Should that be removed Wjhonson because its an unreliable new user with an axe to grind? Does guilt by association swing both ways? Beyond the Fulbright thing, there still isn't a single reliable source cited in the article backing up his biography. Most of his presence is online. Most of these "sources" are online. Online reviews of an online persona are reliable? And have we read his "Mission of Earthrise Press"? It's as paranoid a ramble as his anti-Baha'i stuff. Wishtoremainanon (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the notability policy. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but tag for wikifying and expand some.Kitty53 (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the aforementioned bio on the poetry foudation website. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I should lrn2read. Haven't done enough research to vote yet then. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That link is about Robert Hayden, does not say why Frederick Glaysher is notable. There are still no reliable sources documenting why this person is notbale. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk)

Comment - Cunado I am not a critic of the Baha'i faith. I am a critic of Bahai revisionists who refuse to even read their own history and fight tooth-and-nail over any minutiae they perceive to come from an opposition camp. Secondly, this deletion was entered by a Single-Purpose-Account. Look at the contributions of this SPA. Their only purpose is to attack Glaysher. This del entry should be voided on that basis solely. We do not cow-tow to SPA's. Wjhonson (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would have brought this up to AFD either way; there are still no sources documenting why he is notable. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When did this become a forum for Wjhonson? And since when does an editor's affiliation impeach their point? (Asserting that it does is a Personal Attack by the way, and you've been doing it to the Baha'is almost every time you go there. Please stop. It's not an assumption of good faith.)

No, we don't kowtow to SPAs, but we do enforce policy, don't we? The article had a NN tag before you started editing it, Wjhonson, and it still has it afterwards. You're probably the most prolific editor at digging out obscure data (Whether or not it's relevant or reliable is a standing disagreement we often share.) — but if even after your best efforts, it still can't sustain a notability assertion, I'm quite confident stating that it isn't, no matter what anybody says. If you can't find it, the odds of anyone else doing so are are quite small. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established by sources Wiki-uk (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Editing a known work is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Neither Cheryl Klein or Arthur Levin have articles, neither should they. Even though they edited some of the most widely read books ever published they are not notable in themselves. Self-publishing is also not notable. Neither is doing a fullbright. In the rare instance that a self-published work sells millions of copies it's the sales that establish notability. This is not the case here. Unless something compelling gets added, which I doubt because if it's that compelling it would've already been there, there is no reasonable argument for inclusion. -LambaJan (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mile-High Tower[edit]

This is a building which has not been built. It's not even started being built. In fact, contracts for its construction do not appear to have been drawn up. All we know about it, is that it is a project which some people hope will happen. We've had to delete the article several times due to copyright violation (at The Mile High Tower and Mile High Tower). This is just crystal-ballery at this stage for something that might never happen. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contracts for construction will go out in July, and financing is in place which, as anyone familiar with real estate development knows, is the major hurdle. Once overcome, it is unlikely that a project will be abandoned. Contracts have already been established with Bechtel, one of the world's major project engineering companies. The Atlantic Yards, which has an extensive article, has no financing in place and is far less likely to be completed than this tower. The fact that past articles on this subject (none created by me) have been deleted for copyright violation has no bearing on this discussion. Sylvain1972 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

- ((fact)). Guy (Help!) 14:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be substantiated with sources, and this would be a fairly obviously notable building if it is ever completed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. I'm personally not convinced that a proposed skyscraper is inclusion-worthy but there are sources to at least substantiate that someone intends to build it. My real preference for this sort of thing would be to merge it in to a list of "Proposed skyscrapers" or something until something more substantial than a stub can be written, but that's just me - it seems to pass minimal inclusion criteria. Arkyan 14:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the project is more than proposed, it is in the works. And it is not just a skyscraper, but will in fact be by far the tallest structure ever built. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's more to be said about this than what the article says, then please indicate that in the article and add sources to verify the information. Neither the article nor its sources indicate that it is anything more than a rich man's dream on paper. Whether it is/would be/will be the tallest structure built is irrelevant without sourcing to indicate it's something more than a pipe dream. Arkyan 17:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do indicate that contacts have been drawn up and joint ventures formed with the world's leading engineering and consulting firms. That's not the stuff of pipe dreams. The Times of London reported that it "will be constructed" and that it "means the Middle East has opened a strong gap over east Asia in the race for the world’s tallest building." Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has received coverage from multiple sources and suggest that it is certain to occur, thus failing to be crystal material. Apart from that, it's notable as an engineering project within civil engineering circles, not just as a building. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CRYSTAL is an argument to be used against articles with dubious sources discussing uncertain and dubious predicted events or information. The tower may be in the planning stages and not yet built, but the article includes three very non-trivial, third-party sources. That establishes notability. Even if the project were to be cancelled, notability would still be assured via these sources (I believe there are articles on similar planned projects of the past; I think Frank Lloyd Wright had one on the books and there might be an article on it here.) 23skidoo (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There will always be an opportunity to delete it if the project doesn't get off the ground. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is definitely encyclopedic even if it is only a stub.--Burzum (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps it is just a dream, but it's a dream backed by the Kingdom Holding Company, i.e. the House of Saud (billionaires who actually run a country), and Bechtel is just some chump off the street, but one of the largest engineering firms in the world, with long experience building megaprojects, including numerous supertall skyscrapers. I really don't think this can be dismissed so easily. It also isn't a brand new project this last weekend but received press beginning last year, although little of that remains online. In other words, it's sourced crystal-ballery. Proposing to build not only the world's tallest skyscraper but the tallest human structure ever built is certainly a strong claim of notability vs. just any old skyscraper project. --Dhartung | Talk 04:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. A M M A R 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per, inter al., Ed and Dhartung, who advance an understanding of CBALL that is, at least IMHO, consistent with that of the community, and, certainly, IMHO, with that by which we ought to be guided. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 02:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strongly sourced by MEED, as just added into the entry. Seems very likely that it will go ahead, as tenders are expected within months. (talk) 12:00, 8 April (UTC) —Preceding comment was added at 12:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Not notable and no reliable sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Gardiner (golfer)[edit]

I have nominated this article for deletion because this guy is not notable, and the guy who wrote the article works for rob. 79.77.146.48 (talk · contribs). Text copied from talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 12:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I know nothing about golf so I won't comment on notability, but several parts of the biography appear to have been copied from Sergio García. Although this is still within the rules perhaps someone could address it to avoid golfing articles becoming clones of each other. Also, the IP claims to know the player and asserts that he is notable, it would be ideal if this could be expanded on. 124.183.117.173 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He may be a professional golfer, but the cited tours are not on the upper levels. No independent sources. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Loewenstein[edit]

Have removed line "he is prominent within the Jewish community" as Antony simply is not. Although his views have received criticism within the Australian Jewish News and newsletters of various other organisations, it would be wrong to assume any fame or notoriety extends beyond a small, interested group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.50.52 (talk • contribs)

I tagged this after reading an angry op-ed by Lowenstein that was filled with bad facts and half-truths, I looked him up. This appears to be largely a piece of self-promotion. He writes for places like "Green Left Weekly" and "Palestine Chronicle" but also gets op-eds into "The Australian" and "The Age." I will attempt to imrove the article a litte. Perhaps there is an Australian out there who can tell us if this guy is notable? Morningside Clio (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Monringside Clio

above copied from discussion pageMorningside Clio (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Morningside Clio[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having a book reviewed in a reliable source sounds like a demonstration of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was an article about Lowenstein and IAJV in a recent issue of New Internationalist, a global magazine with paid circulation of 75,000. I think there was also an article in Jewish Socialist, the magazine of the Jewish Socialists' Group in Britain. Morningside Clio's assertion that Loewenstein is obscure is without foundation in fact. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Morningside Clio neglects to mention that Loewenstein is a columnist at ZNet [56] and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website[57] and has contributed to Haaretz[58] and The Nation[59]. Hardly fringe publications. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —— Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published author of My Israel Question and reasonably frequent op-ed writer in the Fairfax press. Arguments about content have no bearing on whether the subject is notable or not. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sorry, Lowenstein is notable enough for the nominator, who appears to be a non-Australian, to have read his writing and then actively sought information on him. That they mention "half-truths" and "bad facts" and an anonymous comment in the nomination makes me suspect this is a content and neutrality issue, not one of notability. As an Australian, I would agree that Lowenstein is a notable journalist and commentator, who is certainly controversial in Australia and internationally for his anti-Zionist stance. --Canley (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those advocating same. Regardless of the nominator's apparent objection to the man's views, Loewenstein writes in newspapers with a wide circulation and has written a book which created an impressive amount of controversy in a very short space of time. That, rather than the accuracy or otherwise of his views, is what says that he should have an article here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even per the nom: "Although his views have received criticism within the Australian Jewish News and newsletters of various other organisations, it would be wrong to assume any fame or notoriety extends beyond a small, interested group" If an interested group writes about his work in published sources, he';s notable.DGG (talk)
Keep, frequent contributor of op-ed material to the Fairfax press, so definitely not "obscure". As above, also the author of a controversial book that gained him a lot of attention. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. While the nominator may not like what the subject has said and how he has said it, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good enough reason if the subject qualifies as being WP:N based on WP:RS widely quoted and active in the media. The correct thing to do would have been to ask that the article comply with WP:NPOV but that in itself is also not a full justification for deletion. IZAK (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was userfy to User:Tting/Art History - Renaissance. Sandstein (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art History - Renaissance[edit]

Lack of references, in-line citations, unwikified,poor English, salvageable content merged into Renaissance allready. Obviously the person who wrote this was very knowledgeable on the subject but unfortunately not experienced in WP or English. If there is someone who knows a lot about this period it could be salvaged but the content is there already in the respective articles, e.g. Renaissance, Italian Renaissance, etc. Maybe it could survive as Renaissance Art but it would need a lot of work Xenovatis (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy at User:Tting. As it stands, this material would belong in several articles, including Renaissance or Renaissance architecture. The user should receive every encouragement to edit further; but as it stands, this is a content fork. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Merging is unnecessary, IMO, as the Ashford Connecticut article already states as much as this article. I will be redirecting the title to the appropriate section however, which could use some expansion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashford School (Connecticut)[edit]

not notable school no refs Pla$ticbag (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find any documentation that satisfies the requirements of WP:SCHOOL for notability. Gwguffey (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If that is the case, that proposed guideline recomends merging. In this case to the towns article. WP:SCHOOL#Failure_to_establish_notability--Cube lurker (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ashford, Connecticut#Eduction. Ashford School is the only school in Ashford, Conn. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ashford, Connecticut#Eduction. TerriersFan (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TerriersFan. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator has been banned as a sockpuppet. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3APla%24ticbag --Eastmain (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. No district to merge it to, therefore a merge is not recommended. Wizardman 18:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blockhead (series)[edit]

This article has been deleted at least a dozen times. Non-notable internet flash cartoon series. --Imgdmprep (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE THIS ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki443556 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that asserts the notability of this flash series over any of the other thousands hosted at newgrounds. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fash cartoon. There isn't any coverage of this in reliable sources. --Cyrus Andiron 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the ultimate showdown page that's an internet cartoon with it's own wiki.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki443556 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is something to be avoided. However, that particular flash is notable and has received significant coverage from secondary sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation of deleted material. B.Wind (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirected to The Young and the Restless, no need for an AfD for this. Black Kite 23:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Mitchell[edit]

DELETE. Minor recurring character who will probably not be on the show much longer. A mention in the Lily Winters article would suffice. Kogsquinge (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darktide[edit]

In-universe details about a role-playing game (in fact a specific server of the role-playing game). Clearly fails WP:N in my point of view; but deletion seems to be controversial, cf. the talk page. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no ((notability)) since June 2007. ChessCreator (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a realm-specific history of Asheron's Call. There's nothing in the article that I could find that distinguished this realm as being notable. --Gazimoff (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Day of Defeat. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 11:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Defeat maps[edit]

Fails WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a game guide. SkyWalker (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written article, not at all written as a game guide, but rather exemplary for an article about game maps. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry adding list of maps is like adding list of units. It is clearly a game guide. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proof? Source? Policy? No. It's not a game guide just because you say it is one. We go by the context of the text. Is it telling people how to be better at DoD? No it's not. Not a game guide. Is it outlining the relative strengths and weaknesses of the maps? No. It's not. Not a game guide. You might want to go review exactly what a game guide is, before asserting that well written articles are one. Also, check out other articles on lists. Lists are perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia. We even have categories for "featured lists".⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the list of maps. From what i see the article. It has list of maps and huge repository of links. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article about DoD maps. Of course it has a list of maps. It's a very well organized and informative list. And the repository of links is not that huge, compared to some, and if you think it's too big, then pare it down instead of deleting the entire article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOT. A list of game maps, custom game maps, links to develop game maps, links to download game maps, source code information for game maps and a list of game map objectives ... and this isn't a game guide? Err, no; it doesn't stop being a game guide, in like fashion, just because it is well written. Ravenswing 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It stops being a game guide, because it's not a guide to the game. It's a descriptive article about maps for one of the most popular online FPS games out there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are not part of the game? This article does not, in fact, give you information on where to find, where to learn to create, and some details about doing so, elements of this game? I'm happy to hear it has been edited down to remove those elements. Ravenswing 18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, how is this article a "game guide" and the article Day of Defeat: Source *not* a game guide? --Pixelface (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is not a walkthrough or strategy guide ("The best sniping position on Donner is blah blah blah", "The best machine gunner position on Avalanche is so and so") and thus not a game guide. This is not an instruction manual and does not contain advice. This is a sub-article of the articles Day of Defeat and Day of Defeat: Source. The policy that the nominator refers to is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook." and this article is none of those things. The nominator gives an invalid reason for deletion. I would definitely appreciate it if this article was userfied if an admin ever deletes it.

--Pixelface (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, No i did not. I gave a valid reason why this article has to be deleted. It is you who have failed to read WP:NOT and Video games guidelines. Here is what i see:

. The map objectives is already found on this article Day of Defeat.
. The map structure can be moved too the main article it does not need a separate article. It can be transwikied.
. The big list of maps and external links MUST be removed. Wikipedia is not the place for this.

Now the recall. The map objective is found in DOD. The map structure can be transwiki to wikia or strategy wiki. Now that this two is removed. The map list violates wikipedia rules. Now the article is empty and it can be removed :). Have i made myself clear?. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a number of reasons. It's a well written article, but I don't think it's appropriate content for a number of reasons:
- The article does not use any independent third-party sources to assert notability of the subject.
- Map Structure section is far too detailed - it does read like a technical specification or manual.
- List of maps - there's nothing to indicate why each map is notable. Are they used in competition? Are they particularly popular? See Defense of the Ancients.
- Custom Maps - why are these maps notable? What makes them important?
- Source Maps - again, what makes these notable? Why are they important?
- External Links - this is rapidly becoming a linkfarm and adds to the overall manual or guide feel. Why are they all needed?

It may be possible to transwikify this article, or merge the key points into Day of Defeat, but without sourcing to demonstrate why each map here is important, I can't see it standing as a standalone article. --Gazimoff (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a sub-article of Day of Defeat and Day of Defeat: Source, articles for two notable videogames, this list doesn't have to assert notability. And each item does not have to be notable — notability does not apply to article content. Also, many of these maps are fairly popular, as can be seen on the official website and its archives. --Pixelface (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, could you help me locate the policy on inhereted notability? I've seen the exact opposite of this argument used elsewhere and would like to get this one cleared up. I still think it's going into technical guide or manual territory (WP:NOT#MANUAL) in places, as well as placing undue weight (WP:WEIGHT) on the subject. Even if notability can be inhereted, there's still an issue of verifiability (WP:V) (no sources are cited), as policy indicates that articles should not rely primarily on self-published sources (WP:SELFPUB). I agree that Day of Defeat is a notable videogame in it's own right, but I think this article is going into too much detail.--Gazimoff (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Day of Defeat. A (surprisingly) very well written article, I don't think that it violates WP:NOT, but it just doesn't assert any sort of real-world notability. faithless (^speak) 10:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent notability (WP:N), unreferenced (WP:V), indiscriminate listing (WP:LISTCRUFT) and linkfarming to boot (WP:NOT#LINK). Marasmusine (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to Day of Defeat if possible some infos from this article may be merged to Day of Defeat , i would have done it but in not into this game world so a experienced person may do it . yup this article is well written --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. per WP:SNOW; clearly notable, and sources have been added Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gang run printing[edit]

Looks made up Pla$ticbag (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely not made up. The article needs sources, and it's difficult to find noncommercial ones online. Someone ought to investigate print sources—manuals of printing procedures, specialized glossaries, and the like. One can tell that not much work went into this nomination, the nominator's fifth edit on WP. Deor (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources available. I've added a couple. ascidian | talk-to-me 13:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly valid article about a printing technology. Has been improved by Ascidian, would have been a keeper in any case. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a fixed terminus technicus and the only information available in a free enzyclopedia. --Symposiarch (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-documented practice in the printing industry. --Eastmain (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only thing "made up" here is this nom. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not made up, a Google search for it reveals plenty of results. Lots of sources are available. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not made up. Maxa megalon 2000 05:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with everyone else Broooooooce (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus to delete. Rather strange nom - a lot of the article clearly isn't WP:CRYSTAL (though some is unsourced). Needs a tidy up, but appears to be a viable article. Black Kite 23:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ground improvements at English football Stadia[edit]

Delete - Article is entirely crystal ballery. Also violates WP:NOT#NEWS as well. I'm requesting deletion of this article on those grounds. -- F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distribute into the article about each club - if not already there. Absolutely not crystal ballery - every entry is referenced. But I see no virtue in collating the information. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page concerns an important part of English football. The projects involved will see billions of pounds spent on them, and they use footnotes stringently. This is not crystal ballery. Nor is it news, as these are long term developments. The articles is providing a linear way of looking at them. If they are in the individual pages, it is harder to do so. When I was looking through the club articles, it was quite frustrating. These area all on one page, and surely they are notable enough to have their own article. Hundreds of thousands of people go to these stadiums on a weekly basis. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article is OK. I don' think they're are grounds for deletion. Might want to change the title, and add in all the championship grounds it is missing. I can think of several clubs in the division who have ongoing plans for their stadiums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.29.141 (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Struck as user voted keep again below. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:DIRECTORY. Each of these items would be better off in the article about the stadium in question rather than being grouped together in a separate specific article. They're too loosely associated for a stand alone article. SWik78 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article OK like idea of all being in one article and not each clubs article Palmiped (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Distribute. I don't see grounds for this article to be deleted, it's notable and well-referenced. However, this info might be better off if placed on individual stadia/club articles. AR TYOM 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but put info in club/stadium articles first. I really don't see the need for this information to be grouped together in one place like this. – Pee Jay 22:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - where the news is actually concrete rather than just speculation, it is already on the club's page which is where it should be. No encyclopaedic need for spin-off article like this. - fchd (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom BanRay 10:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per fchd, inclusions such as the expansion to the Kassam Stadium may never happen. Eddie6705 (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't really think the case for deletion has been made. This is notable subject, and it is well referenced. Where stadiums are unlikely to happen, but a possibility exists, this is mentioned and noted. It clearly isn't crystal ball stuff. As for its notabillity, it is surely more relevant and interesting than some other football related lists on Wikipedia such as List of foreign Premier League players or even List of foreign football players in A PFG. This list is about ongoing projects at existing grounds used by large numbers of spectators. I do think it would be better to try and improve this article, by making it more about the phenomena of ground improvments that have taken place since 1992. It should include new stadiums and rebuildings that have occured in the last few years, as well as those currently underway. It is better to have this info on one page, instead of trawling through each individual clubs article. 86.140.29.141 (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but convert to bare list of club article links) - the nom makes a very rude and ill judged case (and should be told so), this is clearly not crystal ballery, and not news as in forgotten tomorrow cruft sense. As already said, these projects can go on for months or years (see Liverpool FC), and are massive. However, I oppose outright keeping as I severely doubt the article can be maintained as is, and is essentially duplication of club article content, BUT, it is highly usefull to keep the name of all clubs with plans or ongoing projects in one place (any delete voter is free to suggest how else this info can be found on WP without looking at all 92 club pages and beyond). If it was stripped to a bare list of club article wikilinks per division with verified plans/ongoing projects, and no text, it would be a highly valuable addition to the pedia. I would have suggested a category instead, but I know from experience it would never survive the purists at Cfd. MickMacNee (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is value in this information being collated on one page, as well as on each stadiums page. This enables people who are interested in football stadium construction and expansion to see the situation in England as a whole. I fail to see how each clubs plans are only "loosely associated", when they are all english (and welsh) stadiums. Even if there are a few proposals that may never happen, it is not crystal-balling to mention them if there are references to official club statements saying they have plans. There are a great many people around the world interested in new stadiums, stadium expansions, and proposals - see the sports arenas section at skyscrapercity.com for example. Willy turner (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly encyclopedic knowledge. Just because a page can be created doesn't mean it should. The article acts as more of a construction update or forum rather than an encyclopedia article. If the article is kept however, it needs to be renamed to "Ground improvements at British football Stadia", considering the new Cardiff stadium is featured. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ....there's also no reason for a capital letter on "Stadia" ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...you're right, hadn't noticed that either. Rename should be "Ground improvements at British football stadia" ! Nouse4aname (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I read this vote right, what you are actually arguing for is the removal of any article content mentioning construction plans, not just against a list consolidating this information. I note no-one has answered how else this information can be found out without reading 92 or more articles. MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of English football stadia by capacity, which already contains much of this information. However, before doing so the listings based on mere pie in the sky speculation (e.g. Oxford, Rotherham) should be removed. Only those with concrete construction plans (no pun intended) should be included. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is mostly cool. It needs improvements. It feels like each entry could be expanded a bit, and it should mention the existing capacity of the stadiums. Mostly it doesnt at the moment. Plus, isnt manchester united planning on expanding old trafford to 96,000? That should be mentioned. 86.140.29.141 (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An article cannot be kept simply because it is "cool". If Man U are planning on expanding Old Trafford, then a source will be required before its inclusion anywhere. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given it's on a club by club basis, should be on club pages. It's crufty, speculative reading like a pithy gossip column. Stadium changes etc into club pages... Minkythecat (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends if you are the one interested in the information or not, in this case obviously not, but like it or not, if you read in one club article that by 2009 they will have a capacity of 90000, many editors want to know who else has similar plans. And again, in the club articles this is all written with sources, and need not be 'gossip' as you seem to suggest. But as I said, it only needs to be a list of club links, making it not cruft, but a usefull index for those who want to easily cross reference the information. Or can none of the deleters honestly put their mind into a position where they can see this information is related at all? I seriously don't get it, why should we not index it? What do we actually gain by denying the indexing of related information? MickMacNee (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This isn't an appropriate article for an encyclopaedia, being simply a progressing series of news titbits. The place for this lies in the individual articles and perhaps in the article Oldelpaso suggests. Seeing as the article's author has spent a lot of time on this, and clearly has a passion for it, perhaps it could be put in their userspace, as a resource for other editors? HornetMike (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:NOT. This isn't an appropriate encyclopedic entry. Peanut4 (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A little vague to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article that is mostly about possible future developments is surely not appropriate, and the article name itself is misleading: the History section, despite being short and lacking citations, is the type of thing I expected to see when I opened this article. Therefore I would salvage any individual club sections to the various club/stadium articles and then delete the article. However I think we do need an article called something like History of English football grounds (if there isn't one already), which would deal with all aspects of the grounds, not just 'improvements' and would take a more holistic view, going back to the 19th Century, not just 1988 onwards. --Jameboy (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I see it, it should as a basic list of clubs with planned developments. There should be no 'possible' about it, and there probably isn't if as I suspect this list was constructed by copy pasting or cribbing from the club articles. So if this list contains 'possibles', then so do the club articles. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - as utter listcruft. Discussion of expansion for each stadium can be included on the respective stadium's article, as appropriately cited, but there is no point in collecting them all in one big list. What's next, a comparison of catering facilities or car parks? Qwghlm (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No point? Have you ever discussed football with anyone before? And FYI the list of UEFA 4/5 star stadia is effectively a comparison of catering facilities etc. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Actually, for an Arsenal fan I absolutely don't believe you aren't aware of how often planned expansions between clubs are compared re. the Emirates. But then again maybe that's where this not needed idea comes from, football fans probably know all the plans from memory, and wouldn't see any value in an index. MickMacNee (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact, actually reading the cruft essay, and related Mfd, I am surprised to see an admin even using the term utter listcruft in an Afd. It's a while since I read that essay, and realised I'd almost sleepwalked into thinking it was a valid guideline, much as it is misused. On reflection, the cruft description has nothing to do with this article at all in my opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For all of you criticising this page why don't you try and improve it? I know there is a lot of dissent to the article in its current format, but why not try and turn it into a more wikipedified article? I created it in this form as much to start the ball rolling as anything else, but I think there should be something on the recent and future construction/expansion of stadiums. I honestly think this is notable topic, more so than many that are currently included on wikipedia. Even it it is deleted in its current format, it should be recreated in some form on wikipeidia if anything as a history of ground improvments at English/British football stadiums. Before you start slagging it off, you should acknowledge I took quite a lot of time creating this page, and it is not all copied from the individual club pages. This is a genuine article for those interested in English footballLord Cornwallis (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've done a good job, and it's notable, but the duplication of content is not necessary, and the paragraphs of sourced info here should be in the club articles. A simple brief list of clubs would be a usefull list, but in my experience Afd is a waste of time when trying to convince people to your frame of mind that sees the seeds of a usefull article, when all they see is 'cruft', whatever that might actually mean, you rarely get any meaningful description of this term at Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is well referenced, and is of interest to football fans. The references on this article seem to undercut the allegation that this is mere speculation. While the page could be improved, and should, deleting it is a bad idea. And when I said it was a 'cool' page earlier, that meant it was OK by wikipedia standards, not that it was hip. Some of the pro-delete comments on this page seem a little petty and mean spirited. There should be some article on wikipedia on the billions of pounds of work on british football stadiums. Might I also suggest including some of the major projects on welsh, irish and scottish UK grounds and moving the page to "Stadiium Improvments in Britain" it seems to take on a broader perspective. Overall, I cannot see why this article should not remain in some form, even in a bare list index, and once again I would point out that this is surely of more relevance than List of foreign football players in A PFG 86.140.29.141 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FHCD. This information should be either in the stadium articles themselves or in the notes section of List of English football stadia by capacity. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes there's a danger of crystal-ballery but that's true of a huge proportion of our articles. The key is that the contents are generally well referenced and where inappropriate material creeps in it can be fixed. See no reason why the information shouldn't be collected in one place as well as in individual ground articles, as we're hardly likely to run out of paper. Question is, as always, is this a notable topic? Verifiability says it is. I'm therefore unconvinced by the delete arguments. --Dweller (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ron and Fez Show characters[edit]

Unreferenced list of fans and radio show contributors. Fails to establish notability. Zero reliable sources. Resembles a bad fansite. Not even worth merging to to parent Ron and Fez article. Rtphokie (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, but I would comment that I broke this list out of the Ron and Fez article some years ago because the material therein, which has in the past been much more substantial, was taking up the bulk of the article. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing the BLP discussion, delete. No one was going to do the work of sourcing this. Cheers again! bd2412 T 01:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not sourced, not notable, and not encyclopedic. - Dravecky (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Not a source of unnotable 'wacky' morning zoo characters. Only three names have blue links outside the hosts, and most can be described 'cast of thousands'-style in a paragraph within the R&F article. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Last year I asked about sources for this article[60] and none were found.[61] I cut out a large amount of unsourced material about living people, some highly derogatory.[62][63] I doubt that this material could ever be sourced properly. A description of the show and bios of the main hosts are fine, but this article has no hope for growing into something that is verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus (kept by default). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents - Nabla (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents[edit]

wikipedia is not a directory PetraSchelm (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Wikipedia has thousands of 'List' articles Portal:Contents/Lists_of_topics so I cannot understand the rationale for wanting to delete this article. The talk page demonstrates a strong consensus that this article, under its new title, is an important contribution to Wikipedia knowledge.Tony (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Nominator fails to give a good reason for deletion; this is a perfectly discriminate list in accordance with policy. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Firstly, from "What Wikipedia is Not": "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories." Second, the title of this list is blaringly biased agenda-pushing. If you read through the list, most of the films depict child sexual abuse, not "sexual attraction to children or adolescents." The weak caveat that some of the films may depict child sexual abuse does not match the contents of the list. The one-sided agenda of title of the article begs the reason for this list at all--it's just a wank list for pedophiles; it is not a culturally significant phenomenon. Where is the source which claims that child sexual abuse depicted in films which are not quite child porn but still of interest to pedophiles is a culturally significant phenomenon? This list is "original research," and exists as a directory for pedophiles. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this is a cross-categorisation so much as it is a subset of a larger group, i.e. portrayals of sexual attraction in culture, which is surely a valid subject for an article (whether that be a list or otherwise). Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment ...you're ignoring that the "category" itself is being challenged: this is not a list portraying sexual attraction, it's a list of films in which children are sexually abused. There's a huge POV problem with the title/category itself. Imagine if someone took all of the documentaries which have addressed sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo etc, and then claimed they fit into the category "Films which depict sexual attraction to torture victims." The main category would be documentaries that address torture. Is there any encyclopedic need for a subset list whatsoever? And if there was, it would be called "List of films that depict sexual abuse of torture victims," not "List of Films that portray sexual attarction to torture victims." See the POV problem? The POV problem also points to the lack of encyclopedic need for any such list. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your statements, you seem to misunderstand how lists work on Wikipedia. Cross-categorizations are those with unnecessarily complicated criteria; this isn't one, as only one (maybe two, if you include the 'to children' part; however, a list of movies that portray sexual attraction is itself unnecessarily complex and can be broken up into smaller, more useful articles, such as this one) including factor exists (i.e, "list of films that portray x", where in this case, x is sexual attraction to children) a good example would be "List of films made my Miramax that portray x", which is unnecessarily complicated. It clearly doesn't apply to this specific list. Regarding this being a culturally significant phenomenon, it does not have to be. It is a list. It simply takes information available in other articles and coalesces them for easy browsing by humans. It isn't anything that isn't available anywhere else on Wikipedia (if it is, it needs to be removed from the list). Regarding your second series of points, which seems to be "It's only of interest to pedophiles, so we should delete it", Wikipedia does not work that way, as we have editors from all walks of life who edit articles that are of interest to them. Our only thresholds are verifiability and reliabile sources, and this article fulfills both of those on the pages of the movies mentioned. You should have a look at the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions page. Regarding the pedophilia reference itself, Wikipedia is not censored, so per policy, objectionable content is not a valid reason for deletion, just as much as "It's only of interest to a specific group of people". I hope I've helped to clear up some confusion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This AfD is just another attempt to flog a witch-hunting agenda using the revolting language of those busy kicking scapegoats. "Wank list for pedophiles"? Shame on you! The flimsy rationalization given for deletion is just that. I am glad you mentioned at the other AfD that you were going after this article as well, otherwise I would never have known. Haiduc (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not see anywhere else on Wikipedia any such category as "List of Films portraying sexual attraction" in general, of which there could therefore be any de facto subset categories. Again, if there were such a major category, with any need for subset categories, this list would still not fit into it, because it is not a list portraying sexual attraction, it is a list of films portraying sexual abuse. (Read the film summaries.) Regarding "wank list for pedophiles," read WP:SPADE. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with the title, and you feel it is too indiscriminate, then you should propose a List of Films portraying sexual abuse to children on the talk page of this list and leave this with its own content; the solution is not to delete everything. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the talk page of the article--it appears that List of Films Featuring Pedophila was already deleted:[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents#Merger_proposal]. The POV-pushing title/categorization is the point of having the list, it seems. (If it has an unbiased title, they don't even want the list.) Wikipedia is not the public relations arm of NAMBLA, people. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 21:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Attempts to have such lists as "List of Films portraying sexual attraction" were only rejected because they were over-inclusive. And now this, being a more definable & limited topic, is proposed as overcategorization. I do think we are seeing attempts at violation of NOT CENSORED. DGG (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though this article should be retitled, it's not an indiscriminate list, cross-categorization, "wank list for pedophiles," or any of the other straws Petra is grasping at. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list is very very poorly defined and organized. First of all, it has films such as Bertolucci's 1900. In no way is 1900 about child sexual abuse--someone has included it on the basis of a single instance, which is trivial in the context of a nine hour film. It would be like including 1900 in a list of films about Italian food. (Actually, since there is more Italian food than child sexual abuse in 1900, that would be more apropos.) Inclusion of films like 1900 is POV-pushing original research. Then the list includes films in which child sexual abuse actually is the main subject of the film or driving plot twist of the film, like Mystic River and L.I.E. The problem with including those films is the title of the list--"sexual attraction" is not what is depicted. In Mystic River for example, a boy is abducted and killed. The additonal absurdity of including this film on the list is that this happens as backstory, before the film begins, so no character is ever depicted onscreen being "sexually attracted" to a child. The film is about the aftermath of the abduction and killing of a little boy, and who did it or why is not known, although characters in the film believe the boy was abducted and killed by a pedophile. The title of the list itself "Sexual attraction to..." is hugely problemmatical POV-wise. It should clearly be "sexual abuse," per Wikipedia's policy on NPOV, as that is the mainstream view. If a child is sexually abused on film, the fact that a pedophile was sexually attracted to the child is an extreme fringe definition of what the film is about. If the title of the list were changed to "Child Sexual Abuse in Films," or :Films Featuring Pedophilia" that might be appropriate--and half this list and all its little taglines would have to go, as many of the films included do not feature pedophilia at all. The list has been written from the POV that child sexual abuse is "sexual attraction to children," i.e., the pedophile point of view on child sexual abuse, which is the extreme fringe view of child sexual abuse, and then made it easier for pedophiles to track down any titillating reference, however small, to child sexual abuse in a lot of films which are not about child sexual abuse at all. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then a title change is in order, not a deletion of the relevant content. You don't need an AfD to do that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained, there are many more problems with this list than the name--the name points to the POV problem, from which other problems stem, namely original research. This entire section of the list is complete original research. There are no sources to be cited which claim that Kill Bill, The Big Lebowski etc. are in any way remotely *about* child sexual abuse, let alone have it as even a "minor theme." It's just the opinion of the list writer(s), who are really, really stretching:

Strong keep nom in bad faith, nom not familiar with policies, no valid reason for deletion, etc. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is this list simply a way to replace the deleted Films portraying Pedophilia? Would we be having this discussion if this was the title of the article as arguably it should be? As I understand Wikipedia, it is not for "lists". I see nothing encyclopedic or notable about this article and feel that Google could easily replace it for those who are interested in the gathering of such information. Further: There is also absence of WP:V, WP:RS and some original research. Shouldn't there be references supporting each film's inclusion and the exact reason for that inclusion.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No it isn't. The list of Films portraying Pedophilia was a duplicate I created in error. You say, "As I understand Wikipedia, it is not for "lists"." It is actually, there are hundreds of lists.Tony (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Comment Then why isn't the list called List of films portraying pedophilia. That's what it is after all. Pedophilia is defined as an attraction to minors. Isn't calling it "sexual attraction to children or adolescents" just being euphemistic?Mysteryquest (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Films where the sexual attraction to girls is a minor theme[edit]

The Aristocrats, 2005, directed by Paul Provenza
The Big Lebowski, 1998 directed by Joel and Ethan Coen

Jesus Quintana (John Turturro) went to prison for exposing himself to an 8-year-old girl

The Cider House Rules, 1999, directed by Lasse Hallström.
Donnie Darko, 2001 directed by Richard Kelly

A motivational speaker (Patrick Swayze), is discovered to be a pedophile when his collection of child pornography is found.

Forrest Gump, 1994, directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Tom Hanks
Kill Bill Vol. 1, 2003, directed by Quentin Tarantino - during Chapter 3: the Origin of O-Ren Ishii
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, 2005, directed by Shane Black
My Father the Hero, (My father, ce héros), 1994, directed by Steve Miner

A 14-year-old girl pretends to be her father's lover in order to impress a boy.

National Lampoon's Animal House 1978 directed by John Landis

Thomas Hulce's character discovers the girl he's just lost his virginity to is only thirteen.

Osama, 2003, directed by Siddiq Barmak
Silent Hill, 2006, directed by Christophe Gans
Strange Circus
Volver, 2006, directed by Pedro Almodóvar
You Are Mine Forever aka In Quiet Night, 1996, directed by H. Anne Riley.

-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to put it succinctly, this list should be deleted because the criteria for inclusion isn't based on category, it's based on point of view. If the authors want to revive "List of Films Feauturing Pedophilia," which they deleted, that wouldn't be this list with another name, it would be a completely different article. (Based on categorization that holds some validity, and that would include *some* of the material in this list.) But merely changing the name of this list doesn't solve the problem that this list isn't organized on any categorical principles, it's a huge mess held together by a point of view.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that there are no sources for putting together such a list is false. I spent a couple of minutes this morning researching just that, and came up right away with almost half a dozen sources for the other article this gentleman is trying to sink, Pederastic filmography. These sources will have to go into the respective articles for each movie, and then that will satisfy the requirement. But the very fact that the material can be sourced, and the sources are out there and in copious quantity, demolished the argument that this is "original research". Haiduc (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources which claim, for example, that child sexual abuse is a culturally significant in Kill Bill, The Big Lebowski, Animal House, 1900 etc--that's just pure OR. It doesn't matter if one claims the films themselves as references, because there is no reference making the association. Also, I am not a gentleman; I am female, thank you very much. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the references for the Pederastic filmography article, since some of those movies also happen to be in this list, and since quite obviously you cannot have pederastic desire without having sexual attraction. While I agree with you that you are no gentleman, I am not persuaded that you are a female. Haiduc (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to subjective criteria. While there are films that have pedophilia as a theme, there is clearly no way to determine whether or not an instance of "sexual attraction to children or adolescents" is substantial enough to list the respective film. As indicated in the list of films above, such instances can be irrelevant to the film as a whole. It seems like having this list would be akin to listing every incident in a film -- listing every film that portrays a murder, every film that portrays a car accident, every film that portrays cooking. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep nom in bad faith, nom not familiar with policies, no valid reason for deletion, etc. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't have any encyclopedic value and fails notability. I fail to see why we would want such a list. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Bad faith nom. Valid encyclopedic subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP with MAJOR changes The list is interesting, but I agree that it seems to point out every film with any, however remote or implied, reference to child sexuality. Since there is obviously some demand for keeping some sort of list, some options for solutions other than changing the title would be helpful. My opinion would be to generate a much narrower list where childhood sexuality is the main focus of the film, not just an isolated incident such as a brief flash of nudity. This could also be broken down into a list of films featuring childhood sexual abuse (Boys of St. Vincent), one of non-coercive childhood sexual affairs (For a Lost Soldier, Lolita), or possibly one for pedophile features (The Woodsman). Whichever way, there needs to be significant cleanup. Other suggestions welcome. Thanks, Ikzing (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale here. Note that these three related AfDs really should have been bundled. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:V/WP:RS not improved by end of AfD. Pigman☿ 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mebuy.pl[edit]

Non-notable new website with Alexa traffic rank only 6,502,031. Also lack of reliable and verifiable sources. Visor (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator removed AfD note ([64]), restored.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Delete i really dont understand why it should be deleted. its only informational about mebuy.pl and what it is. if this is not good enough then how should i do it.. exacly what part is not accepeble please tell me so i remove that part. thanks for your support. Tintin72 (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:ORG 'An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources'. This part is currently missing from the article. ChessCreator (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article only 3 days old. Give it time to establish ((notability)) ChessCreator (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Account does not exist? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - if there was kind of auction like Ebay, why there is no link to Polish Wiki site? greg park avenue (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish ebay is allegro.pl.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete but redirect to one-upmanship. Sandstein (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One-upper[edit]

Delete One-upper is a stubby neologism. Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quote from article: "He/She will devote whatever time and/or resources necessary to barely surpass your ability in the aforementioned skill or talent. If the "One-upper" tries to surpass your newfound skill or talent and fails your skill or talent then becomes instantly [Gay]"

Delete. WP:NEO, might have a place in Wiktionary, but not in WP. (EhJJ)^TALK 21:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has potential please keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinnurr (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but redirect to one-upmanship, the established term from which this slang derives. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as noted above. Renee (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, although the other article is only a little more solid.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one-upmanship. No encyclopedic content to preserve. — Athaenara ✉ 07:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. --Angelo (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Ferris (Footballer)[edit]

Unreferenced sub-stub on a non-notable footballer, fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Was PRODded, but PROD was removed without comment and without any improvement to the article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just noticed the removal and was about to nom it myself. As the prod tag stated "Non-notable footballer that has not been subject to multiple reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V". EJF (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn BanRay 10:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom. Falis WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Weak consensus but discussion indicates a significant effort was made to bolster the article sources with minimal results. Pigman☿ 04:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Organ Review of Arts[edit]

This publication was (according to the stub) pretty short-lived. Notability was never established, no citations were ever provided. I don't exactly doubt that it existed, but I also don't know that it did. I PRODded it, and an editor "saved" it, but only gave the explanation that it appeared that famous people had contributed. I think we can safely get rid of this stub; if it is in fact notable, it won't be hard for someone to recreate. Pete (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep short lived obviously has nothing to do about it; for a small experimental literary magazine, the large number of famous contributors is very much relevant for notability. But I must admit I have been unable to find any references myself. DGG (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Triumph. There is at least one reference, and I added it. Best results are found by Googling for "organ review of arts" (220 hits altogether) or "camela raymond" with double quotes. Since the paper was offered as a free quarterly consisting (originally) of four pages 12" x 24", and since Google finds little trace of any continuing influence or even any publication later than 2004, I think this doesn't make the grade on notability. No Worldcat libraries carry it. Though we have articles on some of the contributors to the Organ, I doubt that their WP articles make any mention of this paper. In fact, we have no sources for the set of named contributors currently in the article, and under BLP, maybe we shouldn't list them without a source. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, Ed. I had tried Googling myself, now I wonder if I made a typo? Because I didn't find anything. But I agree, the source you turned up establishes that it existed, sold some ads...but not a whole lot more. (As a side note, founder Raymond wrote an excellent piece on Maya Lin's Confluence Project last fall in a different pub.) -Pete (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of references and I don't believe it's notable on its own merits. Enigma ^msg Review 07:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Note to Pete: I don't know if you noticed I moved the article or saw the talk page (where I posted my efforts at Googling), but it was at the wrong title before. I didn't get any hits either until I searched the right title. General comment: Is it possible that Camela Raymond is notable and that we could create an article on her redirect this article there? Katr67 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well...some quick googling does little to persuade me that she's sufficiently notable, but Google is not the be-all-end-all. Looks like she's written a lot, and I certainly like what I've read. But I don't see much of anything written about her. If you or anyone wants to prove me wrong, go to it -- I certainly don't oppose such an article on principle, and don't consider myself any kind of expert on the arts scene, local or otherwise. -Pete (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion I did find this though. It's not a hoax is about all I can say. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EM Client[edit]

Delete Self-promoting article is written by someone involved in developing the software. Article was already deleted under previous name Comind. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11. If its the same article as Comind, its also a G4 -- Fullstop (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is an expanded version of the same article. But it's not eligible for G4, because Comind didn't go through AfD, it was speedy deleted under G11. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Not encyclopedic; written by someone with a conflict of interest. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Medical Center[edit]

The result was speedy keep per bad faith nomination. seicer | talk | contribs 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

not notable bull ILike2BeAnonymous-talk 11:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have preferred a substantially better rationale from the proposer for deletion. Even so this centre is not notable. The article has had substantial problems or a very long time and no substantive effort has been made to correct those. It is just another medical centre. Medical centres are not inherently notable. The Rosie the Rivetyer stuff does have a historic interest, but, and this is key, that is already in the relevant article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the nominator is User:IL!ke2BAn0nym0us, possibly a sockpuppet of a banned user, and not User:ILike2BeAnonymous. 66.92.14.198 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madelaine Neumann[edit]

Delete. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing here beyond poor/misguided parenting. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A minor story, subject notable for one minor event. Royalbroil 13:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable for breadth of coverage in multiple major publications and ongoing reaction - if we're going to play alphabet soup WWGB I can play that game too. How about there are WP:RS? It can beWP:VERIFYied and what about Wikipedia:NOTABILITY#Notability_is_not_temporary? Currently 121 Google News reports - hardly a minor story.Exxolon (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google count is more like 58 news hits, of which about 37 are Wisconsin-based. This is Wikinews, not an encyclopedia article. WWGB (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were 121 when I checked. Exxolon (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - While I'm at at, thanks for notifying me you'd AFD'd the article, not. Exxolon (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor, not famous, if we incluede everything of this fame level, we'd crash the system. Star Garnet (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no we wouldn't "crash" the system. Wikipedia is not paper, we have effectively unlimited space to expand. As for "minor" and "not famous", a subject does not have to be major and famous to justify an article. Exxolon (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case of the girl is an internationally known, illustrative example of American Christian fundamentalism and its attitude towards science. Definitely important. 81.197.44.124 (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC) — 81.197.44.124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . WWGB (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Faith healing. There were other similar cases; I see no particular importance here. GregorB (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She received local news coverage due to the circumstances of her death (Florida has had two similar cases in the past year-plus). So she doesn't satisfy WP:BIO and the article should not stand. GregorB has an excellent idea: Merge into Faith healing. B.Wind (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as several people have been covered in one news story, only to not be mentioned again. (That's a sad story). –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Faith healing as per GregorB and redirect the article there .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into a list of cases of death by faith healing. The parent article is pretty long now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning towards delete. I was going to close this debate, instead I offer a couple of opinions. My observations: Faith Healing is not an appropriate merge location/redirect location, as it is not the same concept (at least according to our article) as what these parents were doing with their own child. Spiritual Healing redirects to Faith Healing. Prayer healing redirects to Prayer. Prayer healing is what these parents were doing. I also don't believe this would be an adequate place for a merge. This particular biography, while yes, getting news coverage, falls squarely under our one event guideline. I don't believe this particular (and rather tragic) case merits a standalone article, and I also don't believe either merge/redirect proposal is appropriate. I therefore recommend deletion. The most promising suggestion is by Casliber: create a new list of articles, with citations, about deaths that happened whilst involved in faith or prayer healing, although that would be tough to maintain as POV. (By the way, I specifically am not saying Death by Faith Healing for POV reasons; diabetes killed this girl, not faith healing, any more than it would be appropriate to have a title called "Death by Dialysis". Faith Healing is an illfounded, but also in some circles well meaning, attempt at recovery or repair, it is not the cause of death.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this does fall into the one event guidelines as described above and therefore should be deleted. I was impressed by the reasoning and way forward outlined by Keeper76 above, and would support this view. There is a need for an general article in this area that is not covered by existing pages. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. I've withdrawn this AfD after better sources were given. Spellcast (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drop bear[edit]

~~No reliable sources verifying this fictional animal is notable. Spellcast (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Undersourced, but this definitely appears to be a notable bit of silliness. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable part of Australian folklore. Plenty of sources in the article already without even needing go to google or the library. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable Aussie fictional marsupial. "Only known deterrant is a generous smearing of vegemite behind the ears. It saved me once and I'd do it again in a heartbeat!" That last bit from urban dictionary. Also famous in the Bundy rum ad. You probably need to be an Aussie to appreciate this.--Sting au Buzz Me... 12:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It probably is on the verge of what you'd expect from an encyclopaedia, but this Briton found it endearing. Brequinda (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is this? Another attack by the fun police? This is an article about a well known piece of Aussie folklore. The article makes it clear what it is and although more references might be desirable, there is enough to show that whilst the animal itself may be fictional, that the fiction exists is not in debate. If we delete this then logically we should delete every article that is about fictional things - is that what we want? I think not.Nick Thorne ^talk 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm well aware of this fictional Aussie animal. I tried searching for reliable sources before this AfD, but I couldn't find any. One ref is a YouTube video of the Bundy ad and the other two are self-published sites. If anyone can prove there's reliable sources, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination, but I couldn't find any. Spellcast (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you don't want us to find "reliable sources" that state that drop bears are real, rather I assume you will be satisfied with sources that demonstrate that the fiction (or folklore) is real, if you get the difference. Certainly a search on google will provide many links to article about drop bears all saying much the same sort of thing, but if you want an "official" page, what about ones like this: [65] Nick Thorne ^talk 14:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not fiction, but folklore: there's a difference, folks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I managed to find a couple newspaper references through Google News, which I added. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sixteen popular culture references, which can all be easily verified, demonstrate the subject's notability which is the basis for the nomination. You're right though, I can't find any reliable sources that confirm that smearing Vegemite behind one's ears can protect you from drop bears... but it's true, mate! --Canley (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aussie folklore. Requires reliable source, so ((notability)) tag required, not an Afd. ChessCreator (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources to establish notability. PubliusFL (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per bad faith nomination. seicer | talk | contribs 14:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Acorn, Oakland, California[edit]

Projects are not notable. This is not a neighborhood. Not enough RS or content. ILike2BeAnonymous-talk 10:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article should be expanded, but that'll never happen if its deleted. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 12:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the nominator is User:IL!ke2BAn0nym0us, possibly a sockpuppet of a banned user, and not User:ILike2BeAnonymous.66.92.14.198 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as this passed AFD with a keep decision only a month ago. Articles must not be renominated until a desired outcome occurs. 23skidoo (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as mandated by WP:BLP. Controversial content about living persons with only one source; that will not do. I'll userfy it on request if someone wants to improve it. Sandstein (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shady/Aftermath vs. Murder Inc. feud[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shady/Aftermath vs. Murder Inc. feud

Unsourced article with lots of WP:BLP and WP:OR issues. The info can be appropriately mentioned in the artist articles. See also the precedence at Hip hop rivalry, G-Unit feuds, and Celebrity feud. Spellcast (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is without question one of the more well known feuds in hip-hop history. The relevant analogy is not the articles mentioned by nom, but rather Jay-Z vs. Nas feud which easily survived its own AfD. Hip-hop articles are often a huge mess, and any sections or full articles on feuds are particularly problematic for obvious reasons, but that has nothing to do with deletion. Lack of sources in the article, original research, and BLP concerns are not reasons to delete. The topic is unquestionably notable - it has been covered in literally hundreds of articles (for example, a google search on "50 Cent" "Ja Rule" and "beef" - the last being the common word for a hip-hop dispute - gives over 260,000 hits). The feud even received significant coverage in Ethan Brown's very well received, and well researched, book Queens Reigns Supreme. This article needs a ton of work in terms of sourcing, cleanup, possible BLP issues, etc., but it is not even close to falling outside of our notability guidelines which is all that matters here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say that OR and BLP concerns isn't a reason to delete is incorrect. Consider WP:CSD#G10, which says pages should be removed if it's "entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to... If the page is an article about a living person[s] it should not be restored or recreated by any editor until it meets biographical article standards". Even if sourced, the info is already mentioned (or can be mentioned) in the relevant biographies such as Eminem, 50 Cent, Ja Rule, and D12, thus making the page redundant. This is a WP:BLP and WP:OR disaster that it's better to start from scratch. Spellcast (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this qualified under CSD G10 you would have put it up for speedy deletion. It doesn't so you didn't. G10 refers to "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity [emphasis added]...These are sometimes called "attack pages"." This article is not even close to being an attack page - it contains unsourced assertions about living people but that does not remotely make it a a G10 speedy candidate. So, yes, it is true that OR and BLP issues are not valid reasons for deletion. Articles with OR and BLP concerns get cleaned up, not deleted, with some very rare exceptions for non-notable BLP's. Also it makes no sense to discuss this feud in the hip-hop artists' articles. In order to tell a coherent story we need one centralized article. This was an extremely notable event - you have not disputed that I notice, and notability is the issue at hand - and warrants a Wikipedia article. What I would recommend, and what I might do, is to strip this down to a basic stub if necessary, or at least remove any BLP or OR issues.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, reducing it to a stub seems appropriate considering there's no non-BLP violating version in the history (but I wouldn't be surprised if unsourced statements settle back in overtime). Spellcast (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep

The only thing I have to say is, this feud is important in hip hop, and although I couldn't find any references, i think someone else can. And, if there's article on Jay-Z vs. Nas and 50 Cent vs. The Game, this article shuld exist too. ZAPMUT (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE and WP:SEWAGE. If other articles have serious BLP and OR issues, feel free to nominate them too. Spellcast (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, cool, and what do you want to say, that we neep to delete this article? We need to repair it, not to delete it. This feud is important in hip hop, so many artists were included in it. You want to delete it only because it has no references. So let's find the references. :o- ZAPMUT (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding negative unsourced info and thinking someone could fix it isn't how things are meant to work. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP are non-negotiable and the article fails each of them. The info can be covered in the above biographies anyway. Spellcast (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay calm down man. I thought it's against Wikipedia's policy to delete notable articles, is it? ZAPMUT (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was never not calm. I'm just emphasising an important point. Notable articles should be kept, but if it's a BLP disaster, it's better to start from scratch. Spellcast (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean, to start the article agian? ZAPMUT (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, WP:BLP is very important. Spellcast (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much as I can understand from all this, we would re-write the article. I have no problem with that as long as article stays on Wikipedia, but ofcourse, cleaned up. ZAPMUT (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep basically, what the other people are saying is my opinion too. LukeTheSpook (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to Userspace until verifiable and reliable sources can be added. Right now I agree with the nominator that it suffers from WP:OR and WP:BLP issues and it has virtually no sourcing, how do we even know it's right? If someone's willing to take it on and get it up to Wikipedia standards, then I suggest moving the article to that person's userspace while the get proper sourcing. Renee (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 08:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Reformed Church of Wollongong[edit]

Contested prod. Most local congregations are non-notable, and this one is no exception. StAnselm (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. —BradV 15:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an unremarkable local church. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability and unlikely for there to be any Murtoa (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 10:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horologism[edit]

A society so secret that Google has never heard of it. I think the article is an hoax. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely hoax; no relevant ghits, no sources on the topic cited. JJL (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this smells like a hoax. Gobonobo ^T ^C 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not place for hoax and "secret" societys. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete -- Longhair\^talk 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlands Christian Reformed Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Like most local churches, this one is non-notable. StAnselm (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an unremarkable local church. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, as per nomination. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of note here Murtoa (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 03:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthill Magazine[edit]

Basically advertising of a non-notable magazine. No secondary sources. Creator has an obvious conflict of interest and his own self-created bio is also under discussion. —Moondyne click! 09:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ——Moondyne click! 09:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically per nom - I'm not seeing any real assertions of notability, and I couldn't find anything. Same applies for author. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia seems too tempting for public relations professionals to avoid. Self-promotion of own non-notable publication. Murtoa (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added a reference from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Is there an Australian counterpart of FOLIO:, the U.S. magazine about magazine publishing? It might have coverage of Anthill Magazine. --Eastmain (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One soft business profile isn't enough to meet WP:N and nothing better comes up on a google search. The COI and wording make it pretty clear that this article was created to promote the magazine. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my defence, this is a first draft and we’re still yet to tone down the 'fluffery' (or work out how to properly footnote). Anthill is one of Australia's highest circulating consumer business magazines (top five). In theory, I assume that should qualify it. We have 80,000 readers who care what we say each issue (when The Australian Newspaper has a readership of 120,000, as a point of comparison). Would Wikipedia accept the top five US business magazines as being wiki-worthy? I hope so. In short, delete away, if it does sound a bit 'self-promotional'. However, I'd be more than happy to pass this to an author who knows what he or she is doing --James Tuckerman 5:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestuckerman (talk • contribs)

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Tuckerman[edit]

Self promotional autobiography that is a mere whisker away from being blatant advertising. There is little in the way of reliable sources asserting the notability of the subject. Mattinbgn\^talk 08:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anthill Magazine. The only independent coverage I could find[66] was an interview with him, but was really about the magazine. -- Mark Chovain 08:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, how notable is Anthill Magazine? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - since I agree with the above, but any and all relevant information has already been included on that page. Maybe a redirect. Notability of Anthill can be discussed later.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, no secondary sources, WP:COI concerns. He's at least not a hoax, but there's no reason that this deserves encyclopaedic coverage. Ghits are basically advertising coverage only. —Moondyne click! 09:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need to merge: all this puffery is already in the Anthill Mag article (which could do with de-peacocking even if it is notable). JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthill Magazine. —Moondyne click! 09:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For similar reasons to his magazine's AfD - no real notability asserted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant self-promotion and no hint of notability. Murtoa (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable publisher, and extremely self-promotional as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment In my defence, this is a first draft and we’re still yet to tone down the 'fluffery' (or work out how to properly footnote). Anthill is one of Australia's highest circulating consumer business magazines (top five). In theory, I assume that should qualify it. We have 80,000 readers who care what we say each issue (when The Australian Newspaper has a readership of 120,000, as a point of comparison). Would Wikipedia accept the top five US business magazines as being wiki-worthy? I hope so. In short, delete away, if it does sound a bit 'self-promotional'. However, I'd be more than happy to pass this to an author who knows what he or she is doing --James Tuckerman 5:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestuckerman (talk •

The result was Delete — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krys Ivory[edit]

Notability not established Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 07:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete I've never heard of this singer, but apparently did have a single which had major radio airplay. If evidence of this can be brought into the article, via third-party sources or publications mentioning the artist, the article should stay.Helixweb (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Article as is fails WP:MUSIC and certainly fails WP:BLP.--Sting au Buzz Me... 11:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC ("Diamond Girl" has significant mentions as singles by Seals and Crofts and Ryan Leslie); a Google search of "Diamond Girl" "Krys Ivory" Billboard yields three matches: the article in question, Ryan Leslie's MySpace page, and a Japanese Sound-Finder page. B.Wind (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find any evidence of how the subject is notable. Nuttah (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Nixon Cox[edit]

Lack of notability, international travel listing countries visited is not sufficient(!). Probable self-bio, from the tone Egil (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that un-amicable behaviour from author in blanking this entry. -- Egil (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost certainly self-bio, not notable in the slightest.Helixweb (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This brings a new meaning to "Notability is not inherited". Subject doesn't seem notable. At all. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing justifying personal notability yet. --Dhartung | Talk 08:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about Tricia Nixon (Tricia Nixon Cox) or to Richard Nixon. He's the grandson of Richard Nixon, born after Nixon's resignation. Were it not for that, I don't think he would be any more notable than, Patrick Nugent, LBJ's grandson. Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Original author blanked the article and was thus speedy deleted per CSD G7.. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renante Beron[edit]

Tons of problems with this one. Our WP:COI bot identified this as WP:AUTO. Self-promoting author who has no works that meet WP:BK. Rings up a grand total of 11 Ghits [67], including WP and mirrors. Created by two WP:single-purpose accounts that are most likely socks: [68] [69]. And, of course, the article fails WP:RS big-time. Qworty (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ignoring the COI, AUTO, SPA, and sock stuff, which doesn't really bother me, searches on the subject garner mostly wikipedia and it's mirrors; I have been unable to find anything that indicates his notability as a writer. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability to come, if ever it shall. --Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aks (Akash Debut Album)[edit]

Not notable (WP:MUSIC), no third party references and not encyclopedic Bidgee (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - there was a clear consensus that this event does not meet notability standards. The problem with the Irish Times source is that it is an announcement of the event, of a type commonly prepared from an organisers' press release, and not a report on the event. TerriersFan (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Docklands Fun Run[edit]

Non-notable local non-competitive sports event. City marathons are usually highly notable, but the world hosts about 3 billion fun runs every day, and most are of nothing more than minor local significance. This one, referenced only to its organiser's website, looks no different. There are no references to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, so fails WP:N. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Five second Google search keep - An article in The Irish Times devoted entirely to this topic constitutes non-trivial coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject, thus satisfying WP:N, and more importantly, verifying the existence of and basic facts about this topic. I would strongly encourage the nominator to do a minimum of due diligence in nominating articles for deletion. Skomorokh 12:40, 12 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Keep~~ Delete ~~Although I agree with the nom that most short road races are usually non-notable, this one might be with some coverage.~~ Not enough coverage. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search on Google news[70] reveals just one solitary ghit[71] for this subject. A single report about an event or topic is not sufficient to establish notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, consensus says delete. --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blessor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Blessor

Not a notable term as far as I can tell. PeteJayhawk (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN protologism. Nothing found to confirm this use, only equivalents of God or minor references to various participants in rites. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep let's keep an eye on it. But I suspect it is notable.ILike2BeAnonymous-talk 10:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IL!ke2BAn0nym0us (talk • contribs) Note: stricken comment was by a persistent sockpuppet who has been trolling AfD. - Wikidemo (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, per consensus. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sho Dozono[edit]

This is an article about a mayoral candidate of Portland, Oregon. Unless he wins the election, he doesn't meet the guidelines set at WP:BIO. If he wins, the article can be re-created. howcheng {chat} 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets BIO's significant coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not meet BIO's significant coverage. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heres 88 (at the current time) articles about him. [72] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem to be local, and to be about the same couple of events, repeated many times. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does local have to do with it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage is typical of mayoral candidates, but the guideline says delete them anyway: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Clarke (politician). Blast Ulna (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says delete them if they don't receive significant third party coverage. It's basically saying that if third party coverage is not found, then they have to be a winner. That's not this situation. The example AfD is of someone who didn't receive third party coverage. Still not seeing the parallel. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is Dozono known for? Running for mayor, and being denied some public funding? And the reason I linked Mark Clarke (politician)'s AfD was because of the sentiment expressed there that Wikipedia should not become a PR outlet for every political candidate in the world. Politicians are held to a post-election standard for that reason. If he had 88 Google news hits for being an artist I would not be arguing. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just agree to disagree then, I guess. Playing devil's advocate, the only policy/guideline based reason I can see for deletion is that he's part of a transient news story (I forget what guideline deals with that). I think that the coverage has spanned a sufficient amount of time for his inclusion though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - notable if 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' Seems notable to me, but only just. ChessCreator (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep, per WP:N and the presence of significant coverage by third party sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that User:Sarcasticidealist changed ~~WP:N~~ WP:BIO for politicians with little input a few days ago, possibly without understanding the consequences of opening the floodgates to politicians and their PR machines. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I changed WP:BIO, not WP:N, and all I did was clarified that local politicians and unelected candidates are still notable if they meet WP:N, which I can't imagine that anybody would dispute (Rudy Guliani being the most extreme example). And I did so after soliciting feedback on the talk page. In any event, discussion is ongoing at WT:BIO. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rudy Guilani was a notable DA before he was a mayoral candidate. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you going to seriously claim that if he hadn't been, he wouldn't belong in Wikipedia? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In the Guiliani article it says, "In 1983, Giuliani was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It was in this position that he first gained national prominence by prosecuting numerous high-profile cases, resulting in the convictions of Wall Street figures Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken for insider trading." Therefore he became notable then, and if Wikipedia had existed then, he would have been kept at AfD. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure. But if he hadn't ever held that position, are you saying he'd be deleted at AFD? If his only claims to notability were being the mayor of New York City and being a major candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, would you favour deleting him? Of course not: that's why the ultimate barometer of notability is coverage received by reliable sources, and not some one size fits all criteria of what titles you've held. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is covered multiple times in verifiable, reliable sources and notability is asserted. It doesn't matter whether he's a politician or an artist, the information within can be sourced and thus this article should be kept. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ While its true that there has been significant coverage in the Portland area regarding this mayoral candidate, this really is a WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E if I've ever seen one. The article is very clear that he has absolutely no political experience and appeared out of nowhere. Given this, it's clear that almost anyone in Portland can run for its mayor and that would immediately garner that person several articles about them from the local media. However, that does not automatically make them notable enough for Wikipedia in my view. If this person doesn't win the election, he won't even be notable in Portland a year from now, let alone 100 years from now. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 08:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair argument; in light of it, I'd be quite satisfied with a merge of the relevant information into a Portland municipal election, 2008 article or something similar, in keeping with the spirit of "cover the event, not the person". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a fair argument. Dozono is also the owner of the official governmental travel agency (Azumano Travel) for the city of Portland and the state of Oregon, and would be notable as a prominent businessman otherwise. It's not dependent on whether he wins the race or not. VanTucky 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that owning a local travel agency, even if one of its customers is the city, makes one notable for Wikipedia. If the travel agency doesn't meet the WP:CORP notability requirements (and it doesn't), then its owner by sheer virtue of being its owner isn't notable either. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You show your ignorance of the subject by calling Azumano a "local" agency. Azumano has offices and agents in many states, and operates heavily in Asia, especially Japan. It's at least a regional business, contracted officially by the state of Oregon and the city of Portland. It's not your local travel agency. VanTucky 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... You're arguing that he is only notable for one event. Would that be this event or this event or this series of multiple events? Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my !vote in light of the new expanded article with citations. But let me just say for the record that I strongly object to the tone of this debate. I personally feel that certain individuals here are attempting to browbeat others into submission and that's something that is just not constructive for this encyclopedia. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 01:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I'm reluctant to extend ourselves into local political races, this is a large city whose mayors are, I think, notable. As a candidate that still does not include the subject, but there has been a court case involving campaign funding law. Shinmawa argues that "anyone" could run, but the current mayor has endorsed this candidate, meaning he isn't a nobody. I think that combines with the case to achieve notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added some information about his "Flight for Freedom" and "Flight for Friendship" activities to boost the tourist industries after 9/11, the tsunami, and Katrina. These include significant non-local (to Oregon) coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 11:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., WP:BIO#Politicians and ShinmaWa. JohnCD (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a silly debate. I can't edit the article without violating WP:COI or appearing conflicted, but the idea that Dozono is not sufficiently notable is just plain wrong. I think it must come of people thinking that his notability results from running for mayor. It doesn't. It comes from 20-30 years of being one of the most prominent businessmen in one of the larger cities in North America. here is some coverage from one of the local papers; here is coverage from another. This debate is a waste of time; Dozono is clearly notable. The only problem is that his notability is not clearly articulated in the present version of the article. -Pete (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your COI? I would think you could edit this without any COI. It's not because you edit Oregon articles is it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- I'm on the Citizen Campaign Commission. The recommendations we make to City Council impact city elections, so I'm not editing articles on candidates in those races. -Pete (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Strong keep Clearly meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, there are plenty of sources, and they are spread out over time covering different aspects of the subject. So not a one-time event. If he meets WP:N then WP:BIO doesn't matter. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It doesn't get more notable for a local, city politician: he and Sam Adams are unequivocally the front runners in the race, and there is scads of reliable press coverage. As owner of the official state travel agency, Dozono would be notable even if he loses the election. Again, what about scads and scads of reliable new coverage from multiple sources doesn't meet WP:BIO? VanTucky 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of those "scads and scads" of sources, the vast majority are all tied to his mayoral campaign. Ergo, WP:BLP1E. If he wins, then he should probably have an article. howcheng {chat} 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to have missed one of my main points. Whether or not he is a candidate, he is one of the most prominent Portland businessmen and the owner of the official state/city travel agency, as well as being heavily involved in notabl civic and charity endeavors. He's notable whether or not he wins. VanTucky 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Portland isn't New York City. Running for office is not inherently notable. Races get covered by local media. Candidates are a dime a dozen. even if he were elected, Portland is on the fringes of notability as far as mayors are concerned. DarkAudit (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have missed one of my main points. Whether or not he is a candidate, he is one of the most prominent Portland businessmen and the owner of the official state/city travel agency, as well as being heavily involved in notabl civic and charity endeavors. He's notable whether or not he wins. VanTucky 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fringes of notability? You have got to be kidding. Portland has 570,000 residents, about the size of Boston. The metro is 2.3 million, about the size of Denver. You really need to take a look at Lists of mayors by country#United States.Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because this article comes during the mayoral election and casts Dozono in such a favorable light, it strikes me an effort to generate a positive web presence for Dozono as a candidate. Were this a balanced article, it would explore Dozono's more sinister fiscal history and connections to Japanese interests, as shown in this article in the Willamette Week. Gobonobo ^T ^C 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then edit the article.... Balance is rarely an issue for an AfD as it can be fixed. Hobit (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have some of the content from Willamette Week translated in to suitable article content. Dozono certainly is a controversial candidate in some circles, but I didn't know best how to handle it. Please feel free to add it. That said, concerns about POV are not a valid deletion argument. VanTucky 02:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP notability standards for politicians. If he not only wins the election, but also takes office, then he will merit the article. The argument that he should have an article just because he's a "big businessman" in Portland is also fallacious. "Big" and "small" are relative terms and it could just as easily be argued that he is a "big businessman" in a "small town" or a "small businessman" in a "small town" or a "small businessman" in a "big town." None of this would make him notable by WP standards. As for his being the owner of a "government travel agency," that strikes me more as weird than notable. What kind of local politics allows one man to profit from all of a city's official travel? What do the citizens of Portland think about this arrangement? Is there any evidence out there that this arrangement has ever caused controversy? If so, then I would say he is notable for that and that alone. Qworty (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your last question: if he is elected mayor he has to give up being ceo/owner. VanTucky 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question. I want to know if there has ever been any public controversy/scandal associated with the fact that one private citizen--who now wants to be mayor--has profited from all official government travel. Has it ever been alleged that financial/political improriety has led to this highly unusual arrangement? If he has ever been the focus of controversy/scandal involving this matter, then he may be notable on that basis, and I may be persuaded to change my vote (on the AfD--not for mayor!). Qworty (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His ownership of Azumano is controversial in some of its business dealings, especially in Japan. But it's not controversial that he owns a state and city-contracted company. It's basically an assumed fact that he must give up his position in the company if elected. It's not really that controversial. But, as you can read in the article, he is hardly without controversy in other areas. VanTucky 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People, seriously -- the first few paragraphs of this 2002 article (which, of course, has nothing to do with a 2008 candidacy) are easily enough to establish notability. The article mentions two awards, which are specifically cited in the notability guideline at WP:BIO. It mentions three of his specific actions, as early as 1996, that drew widespread notice. It mentions that another publication referred to him as "Mr. Portland." It also questions his abilities as a businessman, suggesting that his apparent successes have resulted from bailouts. It also makes the case that he made a "serious breaches of his fiduciary duty" to a young child. The combination of positive and negative points form a good foundation for writing a neutral article. But there's more. The two links I provided before show two publications that have covered him multiple times for multiple years and on multiple issues -- within and outside the context of his current run. The Oregonian, the regional paper of record, has covered him many more times going back to 1987, though its archives are not available online without a fee. The Columbian, across the border in Washington, as covered him a number of times, and even the Seattle Times, in a city a couple hours away has covered him. So has the Boston Globe. Here is another link, showing news coverage in multiple publications from 1999-2000, 2001, 2002, 2004-05, and 2007. Co-founder of the Portland Schools Foundation. Sponsor of charitable efforts reaching New York City, New Orleans, and Thailand. Influential figure in international business, in bringing international flight back to Portland "International" Airport.

It's fine if people who don't know about the guy aren't interested, but really, if you're going to go to the trouble of !voting "delete," you should look at the evidence presented, and you should look at the relevant policies and guidelines. I'll repeat: the present article can use more work to more clearly establish the guy's notability. It won't take much work, and I hope it gets done soon. But the fact that the article is a bit weighted toward recent events is not a valid reason for deletion. -Pete (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry to much about it. We're looking at a "no consensus" at the worst. I will say that I wish you would edit the article though. If you do, leave a note on the talk page about your COI (conflict of interest) so I (and everyone) can look at your edits and make sure they're from a neutral point of view. I've seen your work before Pete and I think you can edit it impartially. If not, I (and other Oregonions) will whip your contribs into shape. Well summarized references always speak louder than hypothetical refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine, I appreciate the vote of confidence very much. Unfortunately I have to consider more than just Wikipedia's policies, I need to avoid any appearance of COI outside of WP as well. However I'm confident that you're right, and at some point somebody will pick up on a couple of the points raised here, add a sentence or two to the lead and another citation or two, and even the most adamant proponents of deletion will have nothing left to base their argument on. Until some of this stuff goes from this discussion into the article, people will continue to make the mistaken assumption that since the notability isn't spelled out in the article itself, it doesn't exist. -Pete (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have looked at the evidence presented, much of which isn't in the article, and I'm still not persuaded. It's all just local stuff. So a local reporter at a small paper said six years ago that someone should consider calling this guy "Mr. Portland." I'm sorry, but notability requires a lot more than that. There are hundreds of thousands of local businessmen profiled in small papers. And many of them have "awards" that are little better than plaques from the local Kiwanis Club or whatever. We're not going to have articles about all of these people, and this one should go too. Qworty (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand notability and multiple coverage in reliable sources? It sounds like you've found a way to judge these sources beyond what's stated in WP:RS. Apparently "local" is a missing criteria from NOTE? Please elaborate on each source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of notability is not on me. The burden is on the "keep" side to provide each source and explain how each source supposedly contributes to notability. Qworty (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No? If he's the subject of multiple articles from reliable sources he's notable. This guy seems to be well over that bar as a matter of fact, not opinion. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not quite true. He's notable if he's worthy of note - WP:RS does not determine notablity as Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS. It is possible for someone to be the subject of multiple articles from reliable sources and still not be notable. Whether or not Mr. Dozono falls into this category is a matter of some debate. However, your criteria for inclusion is not correct. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Longstanding notability that goes beyond the mayoral race. First, he's notable as a businessman. We don't need to argue about the prominence of his business. He was the chairman of the chamber of commerce in Portland, a prominent business institution in a large American city. He appeared frequently in news reports in that capacity, and in fact he was quoted as such in the New York Times: NYT 10/04/01. That's not exactly your neighborhood newspaper. And it's not trivial coverage; the article is about an idea he came up with. It's pretty clear that he was a leading member of the Portland business community. Second, he's notable as a mayoral candidate. The endorsement of the current and former mayor clearly identify him as a major contender for the office, not just some guy who "came out of nowhere" as stated above. The editors above who are discounting "local" coverage are forgetting a basic ground rule of Wikipedia: We have no borders here. If a subject is notable anywhere in the world, it's notable everywhere. I have no COI--this is the first time I've heard of the guy. But the evidence clearly shows that the article meets all the criteria at WP:NOTE. And according to the criteria at WP:BIO, it qualifies on this one Willamette Week article alone. Quoting from WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The Willamette Week is a well-respected reliable, intellectually independent secondary source. Now, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability." But the depth of coverage in this article is substantial. It's the cover story and it's all about him. It's by Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Nigel Jaquiss. It appeared in Oregon's largest newsweekly, with a circulation of 90,000. It qualifies as substantial coverage. Thus, this one article alone is enough to qualify for keep. Never mind the dozens of other news stories. Never mind the mayoral campaign.Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wow, there sure is a lot of extremely narrow wikilawyering going on regarding this issue. OK, I'll play. The New York Times reference above doesn't mean anything because Dozono is just a passing reference in a very short article. As for the Willamette piece, it would establish a precedent that I'm sure the majority of editors here would never stand for. I went to the current issue of Willamette Week and found this article about a man named Jordan Case: [73]. If I were to try to use this source as justification for an article about Jordan Case, not only would it receive very little support on WP, but it would probably even qualify as a speedy. And yet the Willamette paper runs hundreds of similar articles every year. And yet, it could even be argued that Jordan Case is more notable than Sho Dozono, because Dozono has never had anything as dramatically notable happen to him as being shot dead by police.

The burden for notability is on those who are voting to keep, and the most they seem to be able to come up with is the Willamette Week article. That is mighty thin evidence for notability. To argue that being head of the chamber of commerce in Portland is enough in itself to establish notability, or even that it is a contributing factor to notability, is absurd, because obviously we're not going to start accepting articles about every human being who's ever been head of a chamber of commerce in every town or city in the world. It isn't going to happen.

WP:BIO is being very narrowly and selectively applied here. One can't just quote the parts that support one's position and ignore everything else. The guideline says this about itself: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense." And common sense dictates that the tens of thousands of people who have been "prominent" businessmen in hundreds of cities throughout time and who have made a run for mayor are not notable for our purposes here.

Notability is not established through the wikilawyering of policy. It is established through consensus. And anyone who looks through this AfD will be able to tell--even at a glance--that a consensus for keep has not been achieved here.

It should also be noted that the guideline states "a person is presumed to be notable if..." A presumption is not a fact, just an indication, which is why WP has guidelines rather than laws, and editors rather than wikilawyers.

Some might argue (I am not one of them) that this is a borderline case of notability, but usually what happens with borderline cases that are going to be determined by future events is that we wait for the future event to transpire, and then if notability has finally been established at that point (e.g., he is elected mayor), then we accept the article at that later date.

Since this is our practice, I have to wonder why certain people consider it not important to be patient in this particular case, but to jump up and down arguing for this article to make sure it is included in WP before the election. Why not just sit back and wait till we have undisputable notability on this one? If he's elected mayor, then we will certainly have consensus. That's what WP editing is all about, consensus. Qworty (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive if me if I sound like I'm wikilawyering. I'm trying to defend an article I have no particular attachment to by referencing guidelines that have been established by consensus and showing how they apply to this article. That seems to how this business should proceed. Let me quote one more time: "objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors." Subject is notable under WP:NOTE. Subject is notable under WP:BIO. Subject is not limited by WP:BLP1E. Ergo, subject is a keep. The comparison article you reference at Willamette Week is about one event (and thus is limited by WP:BLP1E). The article about Dozono in Willamette Week covers the man's entire career. It's backed up by 88 current google news hits about the mayoral campaign (6 years later). The coverage about the mayoral campaign is not just limited to his campaign announcement but is significant coverage that follows campaign events over a period of months. You have repeatedly made statements shown to be false or irrelevant. ("It's all just local stuff," "profile in a small paper.") I'm not really sure who's doing the "jumping up and down" here.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't argue both sides of the fence at the same time. You can't argue that he's notable apart from being a politician, and then argue that he's notable because he's a politican (i.e., "backed up by 88 current google news hits about the mayoral campaign"). Those 88 hits equal exactly zero notability because he indisputably fails the WP guidelines for politicans [74]. Thus, his notability as a politican is completely discounted and off the table (unless he is elected mayor). That means that in every source you're providing, you have to eliminate all mention of any of his political activities and see what's left. That leaves you with nothing but his "notability" as a businessman in Portland, Oregon. Well, there are a lot of businessmen in Portland, Oregon, and a lot of them have won minor awards and gotten written up in the local press. There are undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of such people from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean and from 1620 to the present day. According to your criteria, they would all merit Wikipedia articles. I have been involved in a lot of deletion debates, and in terms of the practical application of policy, I can tell you right now that WP notability is never going to be interpreted in a way that establishes a notability bar that is that incredibly low. Qworty (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, he does not fail the politician test: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage."[75] Being an unelected candidate does not guarantee him notability, but if his candidacy receives "significant coverage" he is notable. That guideline appears designed to exclude people who file to run for mayor but never raise money, are never regarded as serious candidates by the political press, and thus never receive any significant coverage. Dozono is one of two frontrunners for the office and has received significant coverage for his candidacy--demonstrated by multiple newspapers, respected journalists, multiple articles, substantial depth, over a period of time--and nothing in the guidelines precludes that. Second, ~~you're being silly~~ you're misrepresenting my argument about the businessman thing. No one is saying that every ~~businessman~~ person who wins minor awards and gets written up in the local press is notable. We're saying that a ~~businessman~~ person whose career is summed up in a cover story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a reliable major local newspaper and who also has been mentioned in large regional and national newspapers is notable. Third, I'm not arguing both sides of the fence. I'm arguing that he's notable on the basis of X (businessman), and then above and beyond that fact, he's notable on the basis of X+Y (businessman + politician). That seems to me a clear-cut case. One could just as easily argue that he's notable as a politician alone (Y).Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline for politicians is clear: mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. He's not a mayor, he's not a member of city government. He is, in fact, "an unelected candidate for political office," therefore we have to look outside the realm of politics for his supposed notability. The criterion you have created, "a businessman whose career is summed up in a cover story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a reliable major local newspaper" does not constitute a policy or guideline that appears anywhere in Wikipedia. There is a prejudice here toward the word "businessman"--in fact, nobody would be arguing to keep if we changed that one word thus: "a janitor whose career is summed up in a cover story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a reliable major local newspaper." Being a local businessman is just a job, like being a local janitor, streetcar conductor, massage therapist, insurance agent,etc. He doesn't get any extra notability points for being a local businessman--it's not like being an astronaut, after all. Finally, with all due respect, please refrain from WP:NPA by calling other editors names, though I'm sure you didn't mean it personally. Qworty (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read: "Does not guarantee' notability." Nothing about the guideline says you have to "look outside the realm of politics." It just means that IF he is notable within the realm of politics, he must be notable based on significant coverage, not simply on the basis of filing for office. He has met this threshold. Here are the [17 candidates] who filed for mayor. The politicans guideline is designed to say that not all of them are notable. But some of them may be. And in this case, two of them are. I think further argument on this point distracts from this AfD. This will be my last comment. If you'd like to take it up further, please use my talk page. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indent) Thank you for providing the full list of 17 (!) candidates. I've started researching them and it appears that many of them do indeed have local press coverage, which is to be expected in a local race such as one for mayor, and you have already conceded that at least 15 of them are non-notable, despite this local press coverage. The "notability" of Dozono certainly begins to lose even more of its supposed luster when viewed within the wider context you've provided. Clearly, we are not going to write 17 articles each and every time some town or city anywhere around the world holds a mayoral election. That's not how notability works. Instead, we have a very useful guideline for political notability, which I've quoted above, and the section that reads members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city applies not to Dozono, but to one of his opponents, Sam Adams, who, lo and behold, already has an article at Sam Adams (Oregon politician). It's one thing to debate policy abstractly; it's quite another to see how policy is applied every day on Wikipedia, and the Sam Adams example is quite instructive on this point. Donozo meets none of the policy guidelines for politicians, but Sam Adams, being a member "of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city," certainly does meet the requirements of the guideline, and that is why there is no dispute or even the merest question about his having an article. Qworty (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you want to work on changing our notability guidelines. Multiple reliable sources have duscussed him in detail over an extended period of time (years). That makes him notable, there isn't any more to it. You may think this is too low a threshhold for politicians and businessmen, but it is the current threshold. You may not like the sources, but unless you can show they aren't reliable they meet the criteria. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if there are a hundred verifiable sources that contain his name. That is not the threshold of WP notability. If it were, then anybody who's ever been mentioned more than a few times in newspapers would be ipso facto notable, and that's not how Wikipedia works. Hundreds of thousands of people have been mentioned more than once in newspapers, but only a tiny percentage of these people are notable according to our notability standards. Be aware of what Wikipedia Is Not: [76]. The guideline clearly states merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is not a question of verifiable sources; it is a question of "What is Dozono notable for?" He fails the guidelines for notability as a politician, and the only thing left is that he's a businessman from Portland, Oregon. Well, you can find thousands of people who've been businessmen in one city or another and who've been mentioned in newspapers over the years. That's not what notability is about. Qworty (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's hard to see, not being from the Northwest, but it's not just about the lots of news sources about Dozono. This guy is in the forefront of Portland city politics right now, and has always been a powerful influence in a major city's business community. He's not just some yokel or puffed up travel agency owner. WikiProject Oregon wrote this bio because it was in fact requested on the project's talk, and if you asked any Oregonian if Dozono was a notable figure, the answer would be an unquestionable yes. In fact, suggesting Dozono isn't notable would probably get you laughed at. This isn't just some single user's pet project about a nobody political candidate, there is a pressing need for it in Wikipedia's coverage. I have basically never began a living bio personally, to avoid this particular debate. I jumped at this one because I thought, what with the dozens of reliable sources about him, that it wouldn't be controversial. The fact that anyone would waste the project's time fighting so vociferously to delete this astounds me truly. There are a lot of actually poor, unverified political bios out there. This isn't one of them. VanTucky 22:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last question: How often does a major newspaper like the Portland Oregonian assign three reporters to do a 6-page investigative report on a non-notable person?Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> Qworty, WP:BIO states this:

“

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

”

Thus, any one of the many articles in the Oregonian, Portland Tribune, Willamette Week, Portland Mercury,, or the Portland Business Journal that treat Dozono as their central subject -- whether considering his majoral campaign, his business, his charitable efforts, or the ethics of his business dealings -- is enough to establish his notability. Any one. If there were only one, we would have a borderline case, and it would be necessary to exercise careful judgment in assessing whether or not to delete the article. But in fact, we have many such articles -- dozens, I'd estimate. So it's not borderline. He is notable as a business owner. He is also, separately, notable as a promoter of charitable causes. He is also, separately, notable as a major candidate for a major U.S. city. He is also, separately, notable as someone whose candidacy prompted unprecedented questions about how in-kind contributions affect a fairly new public financing law. If there was some legitimate concern that his notability was borderline -- and there is not -- the fact that he's mentioned in multiple publications outside the region (Seattle Times, Boston Globe, New York Times, Puget Sound Business Journal) for multiple events would settle that doubt decisively.

Please note Northwesterner's recent, significant expansion of the article to reflect much of what's been discussed here.

I think Peregrine Fisher's suggestion is pretty apt: clearly, you have a very different view of notability from the current consensus at Wikipedia, and the appropriate action would be to seek changes of WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. -Pete (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "significant coverage" is one or more major newspapers, and we have that (Seattle Times, Boston Globe, New York Times, Puget Sound Business Journal), so there are no grounds to delete here, even if they are passing references. Obviously above we have a strong consensus to keep so there is not much worth reiterating at this juncture. Also, this "Burden of notability" claim, there is no burden of notability for people stating keep, or delete, because notability is not an eligible claim for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, serious contender for one of the U.S.'s major cities. —EncMstr 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable to me. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep Per Stifle.Kitty53 (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides being a candide for office, he also notable for his business activities. Plus its verifiable. Editor of the wiki 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 03:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lennon (Gaelic footballer)[edit]

Unreferenced stub on a non-notable Gaelic football player (no references, so fails WP:BIO). He has not played at senior level for his county, so there should be no presumption of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Qworty (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GAA notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are those GAA notability guidelines, and how and why do they differ from WP:N and WP:BIO? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't anywhere more of unwritten set of guidelines(i can write em down if you wish) and don't differ from WP:N and WP:BIO, just define WP:N of GAA players. Basically, unless other factors come into play GAA players are only notable if they have played a Senior Intercounty championship game Gnevin (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, an unwritten convention, and it seems to fit with other sports conventions. I'd much prefer if we simply applied WP:N, but sadly there does seem to be a convention of deeming sportspeople notable if they played at a particular level, even if they don't otherwise come with a million miles of passing WP:BIO. That's why wikipedia has so many permatsubs on sportspeople :( ... but I won't argue for the GAA to be an exception to that bad convention! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be non-notable Tameamseo (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per consensus , fails notability other than this [77] . no reference is found elsewhere . need to do a lot if this article needs to survive . the article creator may rewrite with more reference if he has . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Walk Through Salem[edit]

The result was Speedy delete blatant ad. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Article is a direct violation of WP:PLOT and has no reliable sources. Article with the same name was earlier deleted per CSD#G11, but this criteria does not apply to the current article. Same editor was creator of both articles. Taemyr (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. To quote the first AfD: "this seems to be purely a vanity article with no hope of notability: it appears to be about an art project for whose existence there is no evidence except on its author's own website, which refers to this very article as "our new Wikipedia Ad!" Needless to say, Wikipedia is not a place for would-be artists to advertise their own local vanity projects. "A Walk Through Salem" does not appear to be mentioned on the web sites cited in the article as external references, or on the web sites of institutions described as being involved with the project.". This is someones school assignment turned into an ad. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From [[78] "If you would like you shop incorporated into A walk through Salem in a fantastical sense of whimsy to drive patrons to your door from around the world. Donate today!". This is just drek. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NokiaTietoEnator[edit]

Essay about a specific outsourcing agreement. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the intro sentence states, it's a case study. It's not encyclopedic. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this is about something, it's not obvious from the article what it is. Not encyclopedic. Most likely not notable, but can't understand in order to check. ChessCreator (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jeremy McCracken. This is not an encyclopedia article and I don't see how it could become one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a business case study, not an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manic Expression: A Collection[edit]

(delete) – (View AfD) Contested prod. Unsourced article about a book that has not yet been released, and is written by an apparently non-notable author. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 04:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all A crystal ball prediction about a forthcoming book from a non-notable author (along with a non-notable self-published book from the same person). As stated by the nom, there seems to be a conflict of interest issue here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same user has also created another article: Bloodshot (novel), a book by the same author, which was released in 2006. Both books are published by Xlibris, which is described as a "self-publishing and on-demand printing services provider" I have added this to the discussion as it also appears to be non-notable. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 04:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. ChessCreator (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A vanity article written by a vanity author who's paid to have the books "published" by a vanity press, which, btw, is also up for deletion: [79]. Qworty (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was MOVE to Murder of Sally Anne Bowman. There seems to be a clear consensus to merge this into an article about the murder, however such a article does not currently exist. Also there seems to be consensus to merge the Mark Dixie article into the same article on the murder, however the article was not nominated so not all comments reference it. I have therefore moved Sally Anne Bowman article to Murder of Sally Anne Bowman, but I left the Mark Dixie article untouched. I don't disagree with merging the Dixie article, but I suggest that it needs a new discussion where it is explicitly nominated at the start. TigerShark (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Anne Bowman[edit]

Unnotable and precedent was set for this type of deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlett Keeling case. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a memorial, and we've long established that people known only for their deaths (see what happened to most of the articles about victims from the Virginia Tech shooting) aren't generally notable. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This is not the same like Scarlett Keeling. Sally was already known in the fashion industry before her killing, not like Scarlett who wasn't known before her death. The Sally Anne article is written about her life and not just about her death/killing. Mca2001 (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have any refs that indicate she was notable that pre-date this crime as she does not fit our level of notability before her death. The truth is Sally wasn't known either. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.:::If you read the article and check the references, you will see that she was signed on at a modeling agency back in January before her death and she was popular and was thought to be going far. Mca2001 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be assured I am very familiar with the case and signing onto a model agency and being considered to have talent clearly is not notable by our wikipedia standards. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Dixie. In one way it is tragic that a murderer gets an article here without question whilst his victim's status is dubious. If someone had submitted an article here about Sally Ann a week before her death, it would undoubtedly have been rejected as ((nn-bio)). Being murdered does not make her notable. (And I live in South Croydon!) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or ...... I understand both points everybody is making here on both sides. Good points too. But if we delete Sally's article, why are we keeping the article on the Mark Dixie person? It seems the murderer is more important to have on Wikipedia than the victim (that's the way this world is). Unfortunately, this isn't the first murder like this and won't be the last. So why don't we delete both. Rivertown (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't oppose that idea. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I am more inclusionist on crime articles than some, this imbalance has always bothered me. When you have someone disappear or get found dead, they become the focus of the case, but once the murderer is found, the focus shifts. In the end the coverage ends up being about the investigation or trial. In the case of serial criminals, it definitely makes more sense to cover the multiple crimes in the perp's article. But if no murderer is found, the victim keeps their place. Being a victim, though, isn't about being more deserving of an article, otherwise we'd fill up with WP:MEMORIALs right quick. So I think being a murderer/criminal does have rationale for having an article that being a victim does not. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sad, yes, notable, no. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? It seems to me that although the murder case is notable, the people behind the event (the murderer Mark Dixie and the victim Sally Anne Bowman) are not. Therefor, shouldn't both articles be merged to, lets say, Sally Anne Bowman murder case? Rami R 08:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? Having read all the above I have to say I like the last idea of Rami's, if it could be made to work. That way the "news item" becomes the focus, rather than the people: we have good arguments on both sides: It seems distasteful to give a murderer the oxygen of publicity, when, to quote Linda Smith most of us would happily deprive them of the oxygen of oxygen. It seems odd to give someone the appearance of having been notable simply by dint of the fact they were murdered. But the murder case clearly was worthy of note, otherwise it wouldn't have been on the news. We already allow news into Wikipedia; after all, today's news is tomorrow's history. People could still (I guess) retrieve information on the people involved using the Wikipedia search function, couldn't they? Brequinda (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the appropriate article regarding her murder case and create it if it doesn't already exist. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes this sounds good to me and I'll do it depending on how the afd goes, copying the text now. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and Mark Dixie into a new article about the murder case. It seems to be quite a notable case, with media coverage extending over time - it was three years ago almost that she was murdered and it's still getting press coverage. Not just a local case as it's in nationwide news.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree. The DNA aspects and the sentence make the case notable. Problem is what title? I was surprised to find that Blenheim Crescent murder scores almost exactly the same number of Google hits as "Sally Anne Bowman" - I thought many media references omitted the location. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I like Rami's idea. Makes sense to put both together. Let's not forget to include some info about the victim including the image of Sally that is on the current separate article about her. Msw1002 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Opinion changed! The best thing is to merge both together. Mca2001 (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.Don't merge. How can you put the poor girl on the same page as that evil nutcase. How are her family going to feel about it? Delete both pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.101.26 (talk • contribs)
Merge Mark Dixie and Sally Anne Bowman into Murder of Sally Anne Bowman. The murder case is a notable crime, but the principals are not notable as people. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Sam Blacketer's suggestion, the murder case itself was headline news not in just a day, it was for weeks. Willirennen (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grassnews[edit]

Contested prod, removed by author. This article is essentially a WP:COATRACK for Jason Vander Weele. Article was created by Weele and he is the only contributor. Cites no secondary resources. Only 359 ghits, 0 books, no news articles. Article fails WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anthony Rupert (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. ChessCreator (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, unable to verify with reliable sources. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 04:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 05:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, notability not yet established.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per consensus. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dj yoshi[edit]

This Australian DJ seems to fail WP:MUSIC. The only listed sources are his official site and his myspace, and Google web and news searches don't turn up anything more substantial or reliable. He doesn't even appear to be the most notable of several questionably notable DJ Yoshis. Jfire (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are some trivial press mentions, but nothing that would make DJ Yoshi notable.

Delete not notable to WP:MUSIC since May 2007. ChessCreator (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Maybe I'm wrong because it's part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian music ChessCreator (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, your original comment was fine. Being tagged as part of a WikiProject doesn't mean anything notability-wise either way. Lots of articles of questionable notability are tagged as part of various WikiProjects. In fact there's a long list of them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability/Listing by project. Sometimes someone from the project can help establish notability; sometimes they can confirm that the subject is non-notable. Jfire (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chances are that it's likely to be notable if someone with related knowledge has already decided to included it in a wikiproject. ChessCreator (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Anyone can add a project tag to an article. I do it all the time for ((notability))-tagged articles. It doesn't mean the subject is necessarily notable. It's just another method of categorization and organization. Jfire (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not seem to meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Has released multiple albums, but not on a notable record label as far as I can see, hence fails MUSIC, as far as I can see. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of independent references, cannot establish notability. WWGB (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as WP:OR. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of Functional Disorders[edit]

Admitted to be a student assignment. Is it original research? We don't even recognise the term functional disorder. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A student assignment can also be to research a subject. I don't see any original research in the article, it's got plenty of references. ChessCreator (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per [80]. Give the article some time. If there is no improvement, then bring it back for AfD. DigitalC (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly Redirect(Move) to Functional disorders as that would be suitable name. Sub-heading, 'Evolution of Functional disorders' ChessCreator (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move to Functional disorder. This reads like a term paper rather than an encyclopedic article, but it seems that the topic is a worthy one, we don't have an article on it, and what this needs chiefly is to have its text re-worked. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the author going with this? Heck if I can tell. WillOakland (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete the article at present has not yet gotten around to talking about the claimed subject. We probably could use an article on "functional disorder" but this would not be a significant start to it. DGG (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Give the article some time . If there is no improvement, then bring it back for AfD. --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
regretfully - Pretty Strong Delete - the article is OR. Yes there are such things as functional disorders. Yes there is a fight/flight response. But AFAIK the two are brought together under an unusual heading which strongly suggests an original synthesis of the two ideas into something like what the heading is. Unfortunately, this needs some source encapsulating the whole idea. I am tempted to speedy the whole article as OR but will place a note on the talk page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can you say an article is original research when it's so well referenced, in fact it appears only three sentence don't have a specific reference. If those three sentences are a problem remove them. Otherwise make it clear why this is original research because right now it's not as all clear to me. SunCreator (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King's Family of Churches[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Notability has still not been extrablished, though the notability tag was removed. All the websites and publications referred to are connected to the churches themselves. StAnselm (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems this is a non-commercial international organisation. So it meets WP:ORG, problem is no verifiable reference to say that. So mark it ((notability)). ChessCreator (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was marked with a noability tag on 5 March, but notability has not been established. Hence, the AfD. StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I noticed, no doubt the remover of the notability tag thought that the reference where enough to fulfill notability. Some don't realise that sources have to be third-party reliable sources. Could explain on the articles talk page and contact whoever removed the notability tag. ChessCreator (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ChessCreator. DigitalC (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like it could do well to have some NPOV cleanup, but it fits notability. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment plus this article is only just over 1 month old. Give it time. ChessCreator (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the one who wrote the article. I am so new to Wikipedia that I had done the best I could after reading the articles about how I should write an article in Wikipedia. I decide to write about the King's Family after meeting one of their bishop in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and realize that they were doing a well-done job. When I saw that the article was so badly done, even though I try to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia and other articles, I contact a friend of mine from Rio de Janeiro. She wrote a book about churches in Brazil as part of her doctorate. Anyway, I couldn't agree with StAnselm when he said that it likes notability, because there are quiet few references(a spanish newspaper, an english newspaper, a brazilian encyclopedia for Christians, etc.). There are only two sources who belongs to the King's Family of Churches, directly. Nevertheless, if it is not good, I am asking for your help. Also, I have asked some british friend for help, because my english is not so good and this could be the cause. Thank you so much to all of you for any help. (Aramcara (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The result was speedy delete as a hoax/cut-and-paste per WP:CSD#G3. --jonny-m t 04:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park Operation Genesis 2[edit]

Probable Hoax. The text of the article is copied from Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis. The game is not mentioned on the developer's site and I couldn't find any reliable sources that mentioned the game. The original version of the page stated that game had already been released. Until a few days ago, the Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis article contained a section about a sequel that was sourced to a youtube account. BlueAzure (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Appears to be a hoax/blatant misinformation given that it's copied and pasted from Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis with minor tweaks. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a hoax. ChessCreator (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Josh Rampart (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability whatsoever. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. DigitalC (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge and redirect. Consensus is split between delete and merge. I don't see any good argument here for not merging and redirecting. I'm taking Moonriddengirl up on her offer to take care of the details of the merge and redirect. Thanks. Pigman☿ 04:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solusi University Faculty of Science & Technology[edit]

Non-notable faculty at a university based on a lack of reliable, third-party references. No reason to believe this article will ever be notable nor any reason to merge it, as it contains no useful information. Noetic Sage 02:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 02:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, isn't independently notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn on its own. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. JJL (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to wikiversity maybe --Emesee (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Solusi University. There isn't much that isn't already there, but at least the redirect would remain for this aspect of a Zimbabwean institution article. B.Wind (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Solusi University. The university is notable, its faculties, no, without good evidence. Delete the content on the departments (mere direcotry information) and the content on student organisations until sources are found. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Solusi University. There's no assertion or verification of independent notability, but the parent article is notable and this information can be easily enough incorporated without overwhelming it. Should this close as merge, I'll be happy to do the legwork on it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Americanos Poll[edit]

Although the results of these polls have been the subject of third-party sources, the subject of the article has not. As such, there are no third-party, reliable sources to assert the notability of the subject Fritzpoll (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This opinion poll does not appear to have sources that assert its importance. --Stormbay (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations since May 2007 + Orphaned article= Delete. ChessCreator (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Orphaned, yes, and also a poll that has not gotten play in outside media. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Pigman☿ 04:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thetis Lake monster[edit]

This particular cryptid does not appear to be notable. It was reported in 1972 and not since then. There is no chance for this to become encyclopedic. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC) ScienceApologist (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Live close enough to subject and can say without a doubt that this non-notable. This is a thirty-year old silly season newspaper article written in the doldrums of August. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one source that's over 30 years old isn't enough to establish notability. Possibly made up one day by whoever wrote the newspaper article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Still borders on original research but could indeed be notable per Haemo. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A not notable, unencyclopedic entry, with what appears like original research. Mark t young (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain why you are saying it "not notable, unencyclopedic entry". A simple comment like this is doing nothing help to build an encyclopedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — 30-year old silly season article it may be, but it's got a number of publications behind it — it's not original research, but it's definitely not "famous" outside of monster-hunter circles. The Epoch Times gives it a whole paragraph here. Ross Cockford, a Victorian historian, mentions that it's cited in W. Haden Blackman's 1998 Field Guide to North American Monsters (not to mention in Cockford's own Unknown Victoria). I think this article captures how it is usually explained in cryptozoology circles (Notice the line "located in the wilds of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada", which will make anyone even remotely familiar with Thetis Lake role their eyes. The only thing "wild" there are the teenagers during July.) Loren Coleman's Mothman and Other Curious Encounters (availible via Google Books) gives it a full page — an unsurprisingly leaves off with a tantalizing "the RCMP are investigating", rather than the boring "it was an escaped lizard". You might be able to find more sources with the term "Gill man", since the 1972 monster bears a striking similarity to the 1954 Creature from the Black Lagoon. --Haemo (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It also has an independent entry in Coleman's Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Around the World, which I actually own. In truth, most cryptids are confined to short flaps; only a handful, like Bigfoot or Nessie, have any real staying power. It's unlikely that this thing really existed, but we can verify that people claimed to see it, which is good enough. Zagalejo^^^ 02:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable as post above. Poorly written article is no reason for Afd. Mark it ((unencyclopedic)) ((original research)) etc ChessCreator (talk)
Weak keep per Haemo. JJL (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haemo and per Zagalejo. The article could use some work, but I don't think there is a justifiable reason to delete. I have actually been linked to this article twice in the last year. DigitalC (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability and verifiability demonstrated by numerous sources in previous !votes. The subject of the article and the age of the references don't matter in the least. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed - plenty of references to this event, and to be honest it shouldn't matter if the sources originate from Web 2.0 or some 40-year-old local newspaper. 23skidoo (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You think a two paragraph article in a 40-year-old local newspaper establishes enough notability for a subject? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do; I don't support discrimination on news sources based on their readership or size. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. You might want to see if this flies at WP:RSN, however. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it wouldn't; RS guidelines don't include an age cutoff for good reason. If we did that, then a lot of historical material would suffer. As to scope of the publication, 'mainstream' news sources are encouraged but only necessary in highly controversial areas (i.e, politics). If they were required everywhere, Wikipedia would become a much smaller and less useful project. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age really isn't the issue, except that we tend to be a bit more biased toward present-day (but that's another story). The issue is that parochial stories may not have received enough notice in reliable sources for us to be able to write a decent encyclopedia article on the subject. Lacking sources, we are stuck either with an incomplete article or we have to make stuff up (see WP:OR). This is why notability guidelines exist in the first place. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But other sources have been provided. Obviously, if this were the only source, the article wouldn't work at all, but the subject has received attention elsewhere; see comments higher up. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bad faith nomination and disruptive nomination. Any underdeveloped article needs sourcing, clean up and expansion, not deletion. There are several sources available on the topic.
- Mothman and Other Curious Encounters by Loren Coleman, 2002, ISBN 1931044341. Page 90, 91.
- The Beast of Bray Road: Tailing Wisconsin's Werewolf by Linda S. Godfrey, 2003, ISBN 1879483912.
- [81]
- Dragons in the Water

The article also has some sources. Mothman and Other Curious Encounters is a very good source and covers the subject in quite detail. And I agree with User:Zagalejo that "most cryptids are confined to short flaps; only a handful, like Bigfoot or Nessie, have any real staying power. It's unlikely that this thing really existed, but we can verify that people claimed to see it, which is good enough". Less known cryptids like this has far less source or references which are available for well-known cryptids like Bigfoot, but there are enough sources to established notability. This kind of nomination is the best way to destroy the encyclopedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources are off-topic. The article is about the 'Thetis Lake monster'. Attempting to spin gold from nothing is not encyclopedic. One silly season article and that is it! Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day even if that day is thirty plus years ago. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources are not "off-topic", in writing the article 9/11 attack, do you use only the books titled "9/11 attack", do you? No. You are free to use any scholarly book on terrorism covering the subjects or any book titled "Inside Al Qaeda, Global Network of Terror" or something like this which describe all types of Al Qaeda operation, not only 9/11 attack. The book Mothman and Other Curious Encounters is not only for this cryptid, but that is not the reason for calling the source "off-topic", because the book describes this topic in quite detail. The comment that "sources are off-topic" is simply a fallacy. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate a bit on why the sources are off topic? They all mention the subject specifically. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK,

The Victoria Daily Times. 22 August 1972 ...mentions monster (link broken).
Thetis Lake Conservation Area ...link broken
The Gill Man of Thetis Lake ...blog ...references the August 22, 1972 article above.
The Province Newspaper. 26 August 1972. link broken ...repeat of 22 Aug 1972 story.
Carnivorous lizard in toilet, Aftenposten newspaper, Norway ... nothing to do with Thetis Lake monster...pure speculative connection.
Presch, W. (1973), A review of the tejus lizard genus Tupinambis (Sauria: Teiidae) from South America.; Copeia 1973 (4), pp. 740-746 ... nothing to do with Thetis Lake monster...pure speculative connection
Irschick, D.J.; Jayne, B.C.(1999), Comparative three-dimensional kinematics of the hindlimb for high-speed bipedal and quadrupedal locomotion of lizards, Journal of Experimental Biology, 202, pp. 1047-1065...nothing to do with Thetis Lake monster...pure speculative connection...no text ref
Irschick, D.J.; Jayne, B.C. (1999), A field study of effects of incline on the escape locomotion of a bipedal lizard, Callisaurus draconoides, Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 72, pp. 44-56...nothing to do with Thetis Lake monster...pure speculative connection... no text ref
The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide, Loren Coleman and Patrick Huyghe, Illust. Harry Trumbore, ISBN 0-380-80263-5...nothing to do with Thetis Lake monster...pure speculative connection...no text ref

So, no reference but one. Everything either is derivative or off -topic. This is WP:OR with one poor silly season newspaper article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is for the sources you pointed out, the sources I mentioned above covers the subject in quite detail. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the references brought up during the AfD process, not the ones in the article. Also, you're mistaken about the final reference, as it includes mention of the monster. I'm assuming, like many people who participate in the 5-day AfD process, you did not pick it up. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the last reference ...The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide is also derivative of the one and only original silly season newspaper article. The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide is available in the Vancouver Public Library. Note that it is an Avon trade paperback and hardly a reliable source ... might as well reference the News of the World Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be considered a reliable source for what cryptozoologists believe the Thetis Lake Monster is. Yes, most of these works are derivative of the silly season article — but that's how a lot of these "monster stories" get started. We're not arguing here about the validity of the Thetis Lake Monster — it's an asinine story with zero credibility primarily flogged by opportunist monster-peddlers. However, the question is whether or not it's a notable asinine story with zero credibility primarily flogged by opportunistic monster-peddlers — and I think the answer there is "yes". --Haemo (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I lived for three years close to Thetis Lake,and visited the park many times, and I never heard of the story until this article in Wikipedia. Since then I've gone to the library to check 'cause it is interesting but it is non-notable. Lots of things are interesting but are not encyclopedic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've never been to Thetis Lake, or British Columbia in general, but I have heard of the Thetis Lake monster. I doubt you're going to budge, but how about merging some of this information to Thetis Lake? That article has lots of room to spare. Zagalejo^^^ 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've lived next to Thetis Lake for 22 years too, and visited the park many times as well — and I completely agree with your sentiment. However, I think the amount of sourcing clearly shows that this is a relatively notable urban legend — at least in some circles. Just not those circles where "the wilds of Victoria, BC" will cause snickers. --Haemo (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously enough sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely borderline sources for the actual incident: two newspaper articles and a blog. But these are not independent newspapers but local editions of the same paper with different titles, as judging by their current home pages. The links provided are just for the newspapers, and their archives include the last 30 days only. There is no way of telling from the link how seriously the incident was taken, and I see nothing in the history here or the article talk to indicate this. Perhaps someone who does have access can inform us. The blog is essentially just a report of those articles. The conservation area link does not mention this, and wasn't working anyway till I just now fixed it. The other articles are not about this particular event, and although they support the discussion in the article, they don't speak to the notability of the actual subject of the article. People here having heard or not heard of something of it isn't considered good arguments at afd, either for keep or delete. DGG (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True of the ones in the article — but take a look at the ones presented in this discussion. Also, you are mistaken with respect to the two newspapers — The Province is a Vancouver-based publication, while the Times Colonist is based from victoria. They have similar homepages because they are both distributed by CanWest Global Communications, but they are definitely not local editions of the same paper — they both do take stories from the Global Newsbank, but in a similar way to the Associated Press. --Haemo (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree there is hardly any news coverage. However, the sightings have gained enough notability so the creature itself has been referenced in three books as shown here [82] and at least one scholarly work as shown here [83]. My personal opinion is that this fulfills the requirements of third – party sourcing and coverage to establish notability. ShoesssS ^Talk 09:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus is that this individual does not meet inclusion standards set out at the notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Comeau[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Andre Comeau

This person is not noteworthy. He only became publicly known as a result of his tenure on The Real World, for which in and of itself, people do not merit their own articles. None of the other aspects of his career gained him notability outside of fans of the original Real World, and all of it is unsourced anyway. The only sourced info is his year of birth, which I had to source myself. Nightscream (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate was been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions by Nightscream (talk)

Delete per nom. Nightscream (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:MUSIC; the band he's in doesn't appear to have a page (the link points to a dab, where the band isn't listed). Not quite an A7 but pretty close. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was largely written by a single-purpose account (see here). Completely unsourced biographies of living people should be deleted. Whether or not the subject is notable is secondary. —BradV 01:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Was going to delete and then noticed not small traffic to the article. Notabily is established from the TV show not from the Music. Added sources [84] [85] ChessCreator (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fame from a TV show or from a MySpace music sample is all the same: essentially this is ephemera and not encyclopedic. If people are looking for him in a year (on an encyclopedia), there may be a need for an article. At present, it's like super happy fun ball. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, not as as single topical article, but rather with any sourced content merged into more specific articles, and the term remaining as navigational aid, where the current disambiguation style page is being preferred over a redirect. Tikiwont (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living dinosaurs[edit]

This is simply an original research synthesis of disparate claims of living dinosaurs. There are three disparate ideas (birds, cryptids, and creationism) that are wholly unrelated except that authors cobbled them together. No reliable sources actually treat this as a topic in such a fashion. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research/synthesis hybrid, not really the subject of any reliable sources in this fashion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every sub-topic leads to another article, basically. Page really serves no purpose. crassic!^[talk] 01:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another unworthy encyclopedic "article" pertaining to cryptozoology. Original research, violation of wikipedia guidelines, and contributes nothing, or very little, on its own. I fail to see why this article, and others like it, are accepted. Mark t young (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article was speedied mid-discussion by Wassupwestcoast but restored after strong consensus from deletion review. The above discussion was before article got speedied; discussion below is after article restoration. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now listen, I know you Wikipedia nerds have absolutely nothing better to do with your lives then waste them away on this website, but the concept of living dinosaurs is a major one in cryptozoology and wether you believe it or not, wether you like it or not, cryptozoology is actually a study. Mokele Mbembe, Burrunjor, Emela Ntouka, Kasai Rex,even though I believe in NONE of them, there are hundreds of living dinosaur stories. If you delete this, why not delete EVERY cryptozoology related article? Its not worthy of YOUR WONDERFUL little encyclopedia you've got here now is it? Then proceed to delete articles about zoology, because theres already an entire wiki devoted to it, and its not really suitable for you WONDERUL little project you've got going on here now is it? And poliitcs, get rid of that, too dull. Anyhting Media related, its fictious so it doesn't contrribute to your BRILLIANT little project now does it? Current events are too recent to be properly recorded, delete them. Then you'll have what you want, the Title page saying WIKIPEDIA, and the diusscussion page where all you nerds discuss your sad sad pathetic little attempts at lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeesam (talk • contribs) 08:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete not sufficiently notable for an article, WP:OR whirlpool, cryptozoology can be much expanded with this sort of thing in a more helpful setting. Also, see Bird.~~ Gwen Gale (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC) The page, as a navigation tool and as now edited, is helpful and not misleading. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep this is not OR as there is no conclusion being drawn from the synthesis of the different fields using the term "living dinosaur". It would only be OR if there was point being made by bringing these fields together. There isn't, and the term "living dinosaur" is popularly used. This is also NOT the kidn of article that "notability' applies to. —Pengo 11:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N applies to every article, without exception. -- Kesh (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a conclusion being drawn, namely that the Loch Ness monster, birds, and creationist wonderlands have something in common. Unless there is a third party who indicates that this is the case, we have no business asserting this conclusion at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge parts of it are OR and a violation of WP:SYN as conclusions are drawn, i.e. Such reports are problematic, as no physical evidence has been brought forth, and without such evidence it is difficult (if not impossible) to identify the animals in such reports as dinosaurs. That said, sections are referenced and valid and could easily be covered in the respective main articles that are already linked: birds and creationist views. I don't think this is a standalone article. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info into Dinosaur and Cryptozoology. There's some valid sources in here, but it's mixed in with WP:OR and WP:SYN. -- Kesh (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. (EC) The article is improper synthesis, and there is adequate coverage of the subparts of the article in the linked main articles on birds and creationism. The remaining bits can be incorporated to Cryptozoology or List of Cryptids as appropriate. Title can become a redirect to the later article. Xymmax (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Merge/Redirect to Cryptozoology~~. The fact that there are books written on the subject and several scientists claim some dinosaurs still exists is notable enough, as their claims can be easily sourced (as demonstrating by all the references and external links). However, this article is quite redundant with cryptozoology, and usable parts should be salvaged and merged. —BradV 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to keep as article has been rewritten as a disambiguation page. —BradV 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We have disparate topics covered by a single term. Most references to "living dinosaurs" are to birds and the popularizing science literature that attempts to explain this once-surprising conclusion to amateurs. However, the cryptozoology folks loves them the idea of Nessie the dinosaur, etc., and they have taken the contents of the article. I.e. the article's name is most widely heard in the context of "birds," but the article's contents are about a fringe set of beliefs. Maintaining this as a redirect will frustrate the people who want background on the dinosaur-bird derivation thesis, and allowing it to stay as a cryptozoology fan page does even worse by giving WP:UNDUE presence to a theory that is already covered elsewhere. The best course of action is to delete, and possibly salt, to prevent more spill over and hijacking of search terms. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with cleanup as a notable topic. The reason it looks like three disparate topic is because there are three disparate concepts that get associated with living dinosaurs (birds, cryptids, and creationist stuff). I am all in favor of keeping it short and sweet, just an overview of the topic. It could probably be just the bird paragraph, paragraphs 1 and 3+4 of the cryptid section, and the creationism paragraph, and a healthy scrubbing of "See also" and "External links". It's not a non-notable topic, just an article that no one wants to touch. Let's just strip it down to the essentials of the three subtopics and keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't veer off into tangents. J. Spencer (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is still a synthesis unless you can point to a reliable source that connects these three ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm fine with that solution too. I'm really concerned that a delete (especially a delete and salt) would be an instance of systematic bias against minority scientific opinions, and a violation of neutral point of view. —BradV 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable source that indicates a peer reviewed article has appeared on this subject in the scientific community? If not, then the subject isn't a "minority scientific opinion": it's just hogwash. Not that we can't discuss hogwash on Wikipedia, but we need to establish the existence of the hogwash that is not original research. No one arguing for a keep has done that so far. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's coming off as a synthesis, it's not supposed to. There just are three ways that people have used "living dinosaurs": as birds, as cryptids, and in terms of creationism. There has been overlap in the second and third types, but otherwise I envision this page as a disambiguation page with bells and whistles. Dinosaur (disambiguation) is not a synthesis, but a collection of different terms associated with dinosaur. I see something similar for this page, that people have used "living dinosaur" for distinctly different topics. Nowhere in the article that I can see are the disparate concepts actually synthesized into anything. (by the way, I carried out my suggestion a couple of comments above, and reduced Cryptids to two paragraphs and stripped "see also" and "external links"). J. Spencer (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a disambiguation page. It's trying to pass itself off as an article. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's all I have. Regardless of my personal opinion of the cryptid part of the topic (see the talk page for lengthy discussions), I think that there is a decent article to be had that includes something about cryptids, and that this article wouldn't fit well in other articles. It doesn't have to be much, just a paragraph or two explaining that there have been claimed sightings but no physical evidence, and that the existence of nonavian living dinosaurs is not supported by science. J. Spencer (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salvagable portions to Cryptozoology or Cryptids (and Birds, if any), and ~~redirect to Cryptids~~ use Alunsalt's idea below. --Ali'i 14:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- redirecting this page to cryptids would be very problematic as the most academic treatment of "living dinosaurs" is birds. If you're going to make a redirect, you should at least do it to birds. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)*[reply]
Birds would be the most widely supported redirect. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would re-writing as a disambiguation page (with a bare bones may refer to Birds or Cryptzoology) be a reasonable compromise? Alun Salt (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we unduly weight the fantasies of Nessie fanatics? After all, paleontologists own the term "dinosaurs" and they are the ones who determines what is and is not a dinosaur. Find me a legitimate dispute amongst paleontologists who think that Nessie isn't a living dinosaur and those that think that Nessie is a living dinosaur and then we can entertain the notion of "compromise". By the way, I think that the later group may be an empty set. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Without something from a scientific journal to support the cryptzoological tales, a bare disambig would give them vastly undue WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I think so. ScienceApologist says that the "most academic treatment" is birds, which I won't disagree with. However, it would not be right to just redirect to birds as it implies that there are no alternate points of view. A disambiguation between birds and cryptozoology would be an adequate neutral position. —BradV 14:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we accommodate some lunatic's "alternative point of view"? After all we're supposed to write the most verifiable encyclopedia possible. Pandering to Nessie fanatics is just that, pandering. See WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask this: When someone searches Wikipedia for "Living dinosaurs", what are they looking for? This is not a matter of WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE, this is WP:NPOV. —BradV 14:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naively, I'd say that when someone searches Wikipedia for "Living dinosaurs" they are looking for living dinosaurs. Therefore they would probably be edified and educated to find out that birds are living dinosaurs. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... you're probably right, ScienceApologist. The only thing that I would mention is that when thinking about the term "Living dinosaurs", I would guess that most people (not academics) think of a T-Rex-type dino still roaming around somewhere (like Mokele-mbembe) or a plesiosaur swimming in a lake (like Nessie), rather than the term as a term describing what actually happened (became birds, to simplify). Maybe Alunsalt's idea above would be workable. --Ali'i 14:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Folks come here to learn stuff. The worry is, crypto-dinos are not in any way a scientifically supported alternative PoV. I think a link to Cryptzoology in the see also section of Dinosaur would be ok though. The only "living dinosaurs" supported by reliable sources are birds. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I know. Let me try and clarify what I meant. There is a difference between the term "living dinosaurs" (used to refer to birds), and the belief that there are dinosaurs (big, old-timey creatures) still living out there somewhere (the crypto view). You have to think about the reader. There will be a selection of our readers that will search on the term hoping to find information on cryptids. There will be a selection of our readers that will search on the term hoping to find info on birds. I won't venture a guess at how the population of our readers is split between the two. Hopefully I am making sense. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Bingo. The question is, how best to make it work. J. Spencer (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT Bingo. What we should think about are the schoolchildren who know nothing of anything and just want to find out about living dinosaurs. It would be a whole lot better for them to find themselves at birds than at cryptids. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, though, people will be looking for cryptid "living dinosaurs", otherwise we wouldn't have the article in the first place; it would be useful to at least inform them what happened to the cryptid part, perhaps per Xymmax below. J. Spencer (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodiles, tuataras, and komodo dragons have all been referred to as living dinosaurs. --Pixelface (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture maybe. This would have to be sourced. In scientific journals? I don't think this would be true but a source would cast aside all worries, WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources, as I noted in my comment below. This article doesn't have to cite scientific journals (although it would be fine if someone cited a scientific journal saying, no, a crocodile is not actually a living dinosaur). --Pixelface (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) Then they could be included in the disambiguation too? The term living dinosaur may refer to... If someone comes to Wikipedia after watching Godzilla, I'm not convinced that a plain redirect to Birds will leave them educated. If there's a problem with the cryptozoology pages then surely that's best tackled on those pages? I say if, but I've just read a few of them. If this is purely a question of Biology then I agree with ScienceApologist. If you think of Cryptids as Folklore then it's not so clear. Alun Salt (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)(!indent) When I suggested the redirect to List of Cryptids I was unaware that we might actually encounter it in the wild as a search term for birds. Since it seems that it really is plausible search term, just redirect to Birds, and throw one of those redirect/other uses templates there. (You know, the ones that produce text to the effect of "Living dinosaurs redirects here, for mythical creatures, see Cryptids" Should address everyone's concerns. Xymmax (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be feasible; I'd be willing to try it out and see what happens. J. Spencer (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Stubify to a DAB~~ I don't think there's any need for an article of this title, since other articles cover the material perfectly well. But, since the term can either be taken to mean mean birds or Nessie, make the page a stub/disambiguation page to link to Cryptozoology and birds, with a brief explanation of why/how each term is used. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since my post, edits have been made that more or less matched what I had in mind. On that basis, ~~I win~~ changing to Keep. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 05:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~ Neutral Other than Birds, which has a wonderful article, and Paleocene dinosaurs, which is under a lot of scientific dispute, there are no dinosaurs after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, so anything else is pseudoscience. Cryptozoology is not science, and this article does not need to survive, just to list out suspect cryptozoology claims, most of which have been long debunked. Moreover, articles on Birds and Paleocene dinosaurs suffice to cover any discussion of "living dinosaurs." Thanks to whomever nominated this article for deletion. About time. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to neutral, because the article is improved. However, there are no living dinosaurs except for birds, so we are giving weight to fringe theories. I don't like that. It has to be made clear that science knows that, save for our birds, dinosaurs went extinct at the K-T event. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how an article on supposed living dinosaurs is worse than an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. We can talk about fringe theories in an objective manner, and the belief in (non-avian) living dinosaurs has had a long-standing role in our culture. Ivan T. Sanderson wrote about living dinosaurs in the Saturday Evening Post in the 1940s. The University of Chicago's Roy Mackal searched for living dinosaurs in Africa and wrote a book about it [86]. There was a movie, Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend, which was inspired by legends of living dinosaurs. Within the last couple of decades, many creationists have tried to use accounts of living dinosaurs to discredit evolution. (Wrongly, but still...) There's a lot to work with here; this topic is way too broad to merit a merge to cryptozoology or dinosaur or a similar page. Zagalejo^^^ 16:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but abridge It seems pretty decent as a pseudo-disambiguation page, but it should be abridged to only briefly explain the three meanings and direct people elsewhere. Some caution, however, would need to be taken to prevent it getting bulked back up.. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken the liberty of doing this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I support this change. —BradV 17:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mmmm... ok. But I still think we should have a more detailed treatment of living dinosaurs within the context of cryptozoology. As I said, Fortean types have been writing about living dinosaurs since the 1940s, if not earlier. Wikipedia shouldn't imply that living dinosaurs exist, but we should try to objectively document some of the best-known claims/rumors/legends about them. We shouldn't ignore these stories entirely, as they have their place in folklore and popular culture. Zagalejo^^^ 19:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history for the article still exists, so you can merge useful content into cryptozoology or cryptid. —BradV 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to make a focused article on dinosaurs in cryptozoology, that's a seperate issue, and probably harmless: I mean, the only real problem would be if the number of people interested in cryptozoology were too few too support the number of cryptozoological articles, but even then it could always be upmerged to the main cryptozoology page later. However, having three completely different topics on one page is not going to allow any sort of focus, and without focus, improving an article is very difficult. The section in the history may not be the most scintillating and wonderful thing on Wikipedia, but, well, if people are interested, it'd make a good start to then improve from. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm confident there are plenty of sources[87][88][89][90][91][92] that could be used to write an article about the topic of "living dinosaurs". Cryptozoology may partly consist of a search for "living dinosaurs" but I wouldn't support a redirect to that article. --Pixelface (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but abridge - as is at the moment is good. A fairly notable concept in that folks ask about it alot, yet can refer to several disparate unconnected ideas - i.e. birds, or Paleocene dinosaurs or cryptozoology ideas all of which are unrelated to each other. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more or less in its present form as a disam page. The various google etc. hits are most metaphors; the only creationist use i saw was that there were living dinosaurs at the time of Noah, not that they are still alive today. I'd have no objection to an article on such speculations also.DGG (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the more extreme creationists argue that dinosaurs may still be living. Guys like Kent Hovind, Bill Gibbons, Dennis Swift, etc. Zagalejo^^^ 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary If I'll be indulged a moment: As I see it, the problem was that the article had no focus, covering three seperate topics. Almost all the delete votes comment on this. There are decent links for two of the three topics, so we don't need to worry about the content on Origin of birds or Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs. Noone, as far as I can see, objects to having cryptozoological content in the encyclopaedia, so long as it satifies Wikipedia policies on notability, NPOV, and so on. While not perfect, the section in question covers elements of cryptozoology not well-covered in the main articles, and (ignoring some minor issues of writing) could be usefully taken from the page history and included elsewhere on the wiki, perhaps in Cryptozoology or Cryptid, or, if enough people want to work on it, as the core of a new article (Though I wouldn't suggest this, as there don't seem to be a large number of cryptozoological editors, and it might spread the workforce a bit thin). Is this a fair summary of views? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both the objections to this article WP:OR and WP:N have been removed by Pengo and Pixelface. With no other objection this leaves the article as a keep. ChessCreator (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable term [93] [94], well suited for a WP:DAB page now that WP:N and WP:NOR issues have been addressed. From the sources found, looks like it may even make a good, full article at some point. Dreadstar † 02:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the sources might make a good Wikipedia article [I haven't reviewed them], but I'd suggest using a more specific article name for the article based off of them - it'd avoid problems like this (used to be) in the first place. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Living dinosaurs is a reasonable search term and so it should point to something like this. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; redirecting this to Bird would be WP:POV and actively annoying to just about everyone who would enter the term. As it is, this is an entirely suitable Wikipedia page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to say redirect to Origin of birds, but the current presentation seems to have taken care of the issues presented above, and the article seems perfectly legitimate as a disambiguator. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, doesn't seem appropriate to redirect to somewhere else. thezirk (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism; the term is not used except only rarely in metaphorical sense, where it is immediately explained. Where's the evidence that "living dinosaurs is a term sometimes used to denote birds"? Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; there's 53,000 hits on Google, of which Google will display 731 of them before saying "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 731 already displayed." A quick look through the list shows about three groups, cryptozoology, creationists (including dinosaurs running around England up to the 17th century) and birds or tuatara as living dinosaurs. This is in fact an extant phrase.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cryptozoology or Living fossil. As the page currently sits, it is a textbook example of WP:SYN. However, I agree that others may search for this term. Cryptozoology fits as a redirect target as it deals with the theory of dinosaurs that still live. Living fossil fits as a redirect as possible term confusion. Whichever one it goes on, that page should use ((redirect)) to point it to the other page. All other terms on that page are currently synthesized original research by ~~falsely~~ associating "living dinosaurs" with the origins of birds, creationism, etc. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is associating "living dinosaurs" with creationism (LivingDinos.com Cryptozoology, Living Dinosaurs, and Origins: Attacking the Evolutionary view of dinosaurs and supporting the Biblical view that man and dinosaurs have lived together and may still live. And there's more where that came from) or the origins of birds (HowStuffWorks "Living Dinosaurs" or Yale Bulletin and Calendar "Over the years, Yale researchers have played an instrumental role in advancing the idea that today's birds are "living dinosaurs."") false? If we have two or more targets for a redirect, we have a disambig page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "false" was a misleading term. What I meant was that redirections (via either a DAB or a REDIRECT) are statements, such as much as any sentence in any article. Therefore, when the purpose of such a redirect is not obvious, such as same/similar spellings, we have to be careful we aren't adding statements to our encyclopedia that don't fall under WP:V, WP:RS, etc. The association between the origins of birds and creationism to "living dinosaurs" is NOT obvious. However, the association to cryptozoology (one topic is wholly dealt by the other) and living fossil (similar/possibly confused terms) IS obvious. I did not mean "false" to mean "incorrect"; I meant "false" to mean "an unintended, unverifiable, and not-reliably-sourced advancement of a position". I've striken the offending word to avoid further misunderstandings. However, I disagree with your assessment that because a redirect can reasonably go to two different places, that this automatically means that a disambiguation page is needed. There are literally hundreds of examples of this NOT being true, which is one of the main reasons that the ((redirect)) template exists in the first place. I'm sure you've seen on many places phrasology like: Living dinosaurs redirects here. For the search of animals thought to be extinct, see cryptozoology. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 11:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is, the redirect template is not for cases where we might say redirect to Cryptozoology or [[Living fossil]; it's for cases where the correct redirect is obvious, but there are other possiblities. Like United States or Paris.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly! In fact, I said those exact words above. I believe that is EXACTLY the case we have here. The problem with the page as it exists is that we are not "disambiguating" anything. That DAB page makes assertions, statements, and definitions with a longish list of "see other"s. That's outside the scope of what a DAB is supposed to do. I still really think that a REDRIRECT to one with a ((redirect)) to the other is the proper course of action here. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said what words, the ones I disagreed with? Again, it always wrong to say that a redirect to one with a notice to the other; if you can't say definitively which article it should go to, then it should go to a dab page. Redirects are only for things that are unambiguous in pretty much all cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:REDIRECT disagrees with your assessment, which indicates one should use the "Principle of least astonishment". Since the term "living dinosaur" doesn't appear in any of the so-called "disambiguated article" titles, and "living dinosaur" is not (as WP:DAB puts it) the natural choice for any of the titles, its not really a proper DAB either. However, this conversation has outlived its usefulness. I'm clearly in the minority here and even though I think my course of action is perfectly valid and backed up by several guidelines, I have no consensus and obviously won't obtain it, so don't bother to browbeat me anymore, Prosfilanes. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 07:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced; it appears to be simply describing a theory. I would propose it be un-abridged however; there was a good deal of basic level information taken out, and some of that (namely the "cryptids" section) did a really good job of pointing out the flaws in the theory. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'well-sourced'? It doesn't even have a single source on it! Are we looking at the same article? -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 13:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the pre-gutted version: [95] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, either as pseudo-DAB or paragraphed. Has been improved sufficiently; the phrase is important enough to point somewhere; and it should not point to any of the subcategories without dab. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just made a couple of Google searches to test the water. "Loch Ness monster" produces 780000 hits, while "bird"+"dinosaur" produces 510000. This confirms my impression that the didacts here have their work cut out for them. But, so far as I am aware, Wikipedia does not have a didactic goal. One of the Nots even says that it is explicitly not a work of instruction. In other words, we are not here to tell people The Truth. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is not going to go very far with most of the Loch Ness monster hits. We aren't writing an encyclopedia for the ship of fools. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. One need not be a "fool" to be interested in the Loch Ness monster. It's still important folklore. If Wikipedia were just an encyclopedia of science, then it would be fair to eliminate all mentions of cryptozoology, but we're much more than that. Zagalejo^^^ 02:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, that ScienceApologist was pointing out that Ghits may not be the best metric for deciding this issue (... 5 days and going strong). I have not checked, but I would not be surprised if many more of the bird-related hits score higher on "reliability" than the body of cryptid-related links. As he points out, the whole point of having human editors is so we can use our common sense rather than blindly drifting with the web. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't doubt that the bird-related hits are generally more reliable. I guess my response was influenced by some of SA's earlier comments. ("Why should we accommodate some lunatic's 'alternative point of view'? After all we're supposed to write the most verifiable encyclopedia possible. Pandering to Nessie fanatics is just that, pandering.") Zagalejo^^^ 05:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for a removal of all cryptozoology content. I'm arguing that trying to put it on the same footing with more reliable scientific sources about "living dinosaurs" is asinine. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be treating this page as a science article, which it is not. It's a navigational tool, and as such, it must give attention to all possible senses of this term, whether in hard science or in pop pseudoscience. Listing those different meanings does not imply that everything has "equal footing". Zagalejo^^^ 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In its original form, the article did attempt to create a WP:SYN argument about what the term "living dinosaur" meant, mixing discussions of birds with crypto-concepts. During this AfD it was revised to be more like a disambiguation page. -- Kesh (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plausible search term, and seems acceptable as a disambiguation page. I'm not sure Paleocene dinosaurs (how are they 'living'?) or Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs should be included though, as they do not relate directly to the topic suggested by the title. Terraxos (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn, but a pretty solid keep (disclaimer: I took part in the discussion, but as the nominator indicated they wish to withdraw the deletion request, hopefully there's no problem with me closing this debate). Canley (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League 2008-09[edit]

It seems a bit absurd to create an article about a league's future season while the current season has yet to end. I understand it will very likely be recreated, but it's not currently necessary. Some of the article seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL. crassic!^[talk] 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm pretty sure this won't be notable until the season starts, and it's currently crystal-balling. No prejudice against recreation. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy) meets WP:Crystal easily. What next, nominate United States presidential election, 2008, 2008 Summer Olympics? ChessCreator (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I actually wrote a substantial paragraph on my reasons why, but decided not to post it here since it would clutter up the debate. I have, however, made a user subpage here to store it where it won't get in the way, and I urge those who are voting for deletion to read it, as well as anyone else who is interested. Falastur2 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the article violates WP:CRYSTAL? Well, here's a barmy notion: remove those bits from the article instead of deleting it. I'm sure there's enough confirmed, verifiable content to sustain an article on the next Premier League season. --Canley (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this article violates WP:CRYSTAL, since my 3 lists give indications of whether a team is certain to compete in next season's premier league, or if there is a possibility of a team qualifying for the premier league. Notice that there are is no non-factual information in the article. A team's certainty of finishing top 7 in the premier league this season is a fact, not just a prediction. Likewise, notice that the other lists of possibilities, contain no predictions of who will or won't be relegated from the premiership/promoted from the championship, just a list of possibilities, all of which are entirely factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyduncan (talk • contribs) 12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Canley (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm glad to see the soccer fans out, but this is a violation of coatrack. When the season is a full entity -- past tense -- it can be discussed as a whole. Wikipedia is not a scoreboard, a news ticker, or a fan site. Consult your local paper for when games are on tele near you -- not Wikipedia. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not a coatrack, standard annual articles; see Premier_League_2007-08, Premier_League_2006-07, Premier_League_2005-06. PS I'm not a soccer fan either. ChessCreator (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that this is an upcoming season. Again, after the fact, it fits perfectly, but one wouldn't do 2009 in literature, I hope, just so it would be there? It's not like it takes someone special to create an article. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So you've changed your argument now that coatrack was shown to be incorrect. Fair enough. Now what do you find in WP:CRYSTAL. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.

So are you saying the event is not notable? Or that it's not almost certain to take place? ChessCreator (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My original WP:CRYSTAL concerns were removed by User:Wrightyboy. But to create an article about a future season while the current season is still well in progress is a bit crazy, imo. crassic!^[talk] 21:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ironic you should mention 2009 in literature, Utgard Loki. It amused me to note that the article 2008 in literature was created in April 2007 - virtually twelve months from this date. I can honestly say that I expect to see 2009 in literature formed within two months of this date. And I remind you, as I pointed out in my reasons for keeping this article, the season ahead (and I mean in general, not just the 08-09 season) is hugely important to European football and its fans. I would hardly believe it crazy to create this article so early, for the same reason that I believe the creation of 2008 in literature in 2007 quite logical and reasonable. Falastur2 (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep how's that crystal? BanRay 10:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its 99.999999....% happening. And soon. There are articles for events quite far away yet.--Him and a dog 20:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I withdraw? crassic!^[talk] 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11. Non-admin closure. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of church management software[edit]

Delete Advertising, plain and simple. None of these pieces of software has been found notable enough to warrant having its own article. And if you look at most of the edits to the article they are by editors whose only edits relate to whatever piece of software they want to add to the list (for example: Special:Contributions/Cahabacreek, Special:Contributions/Idefix7, Special:Contributions/Batdude2 and Special:Contributions/Schnieds). Blatant spamming. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:SPAM. archanamiya · talk 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising and probably WP:OR by synthesis. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. There is not clear consensus that this article should be deleted, but obvious consensus that the article as it is should not stand. Given that an effort to redirect has already been reverted, I am protecting this page for a time with a note explaining the reason at the article's talk page. In the event that proper sourcing can be provided to satisfy notability requirements at WP:MUSIC, the protection should be lifted to allow the article to be so improved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roll On/This Is How We Do It[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Roll On/This Is How We Do It

R&B single without references or claim of notability; fails WP:MUSIC. Tried redirecting it to the album (which also has no references), but that was reverted without explanation. Jfire (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. Might be searched for. Nom's spot on everwhere. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album, unless notability can be established. ChessCreator (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Rampart (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. There is nothing in the article in question to add. This is not an issue of notability - the article itself contains nothing except it was the last single release from the album. B.Wind (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Unanimous verdict - no delete preferences. The possibility of merging or redirecting is left up for editors of the article and its talkpage. Skomorokh 12:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Milberg[edit]

Seems to be unnotable, he should be mentioned in the Milberg Weiss article itself, and not be given a separate page as he seems not to satisfy inclusion standards. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 15:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added Afd tag to Melvyn I. Weiss to this AfD. Equally short article, related. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Melvyn I. Weiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Now properly added. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Travis ^talk 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that Melvyn Weiss redirects to Melvyn I. Weiss. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milberg Weiss, since I can't seem to find a single mention of the guy except in passing and about it. Seems plenty notable enough in that context, but not on his own. These three sources should help cite it better after merging. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge both to Milberg Weiss is best. The firm is notable, but that doesn't mean its principals are automatically individually notable. --Dhartung | Talk 01:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milberg Weiss as 'lifebaka' above. ChessCreator (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong and Speedy Keep of Melvyn Weiss. He is one of the most notable trial attornys in the country. Gets a "few" ghits. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Larry Milberg to Milberg Weiss. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the problem with listing people by their nicknames – you miss the coverage under their full names by reliable sources. The New York Times refers to him as Lawrence Milberg. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7D91139F93BA35751C1A96F948260 for an obituary. --Eastmain (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change to the right name, per Eastmain. An obit in the NYT has always been accepted as evidence of notability here, for they are very selective (I wouldnt extend that much beyond the NYT and the Times, but I think its an appropriate criterion. And aslo his partner. the key principals of a law firm like that are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:48, 5 April 2008
Keep and expand. Sufficient claim to notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. As Brewcrewer points out, this individual's verifiable claim to notability—at least as far as reliable source coverage is concerned—all relates to a single event. While he may meet the general notability guidelines for separate coverage, the biographical notability guidelines specify that individuals known for one event may not warrant a stand-alone article. He does not verify notability per the criteria for film professionals, set out here.

While not all arguments here for keep or delete are thoroughly grounded in policy and some have been accordingly disregarded, there remain some !votes for both outcomes from experienced editors and at least one single purpose account whose argument reveals an understanding of the concepts behind WP:BLP1E (specifically referenced by Brewcrewer, below). This article needs and will receive a thorough cleaning of unsourced or poorly sourced information, including all unpublished facts. The question of long-term notability may warrant revisiting thereafter.

As a final note, the creator of this article, who may in good faith have twice removed the AfD tags during the discussion (and once restored them personally), demonstrated what can only be interpreted as intentional disruption by removing an argument for deletion from this debate, after having been clearly warned against such behavior here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Baiano[edit]

This is a -well written- autobiography that does not seem to meet WP:BIO -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To emphasize more clearly what I meant (sorry, it was 2 AM): Despite being well written, this is just the story of a kid who met Pdt Clinton for 10 seconds (according to the sources) and made a 3 minutes video on youtube afterwards. The rest of the article does not assert any more notability: the 2005 (he was 14) entrepreneur of the year award is not substantiated (the source doesn't say he won), he worked for some NGO and a director, and hopes to be able to vote... I think what this guy does is great, but it doesn't make him notable in any way. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I find no reason to delete this article. archanamiya · talk 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like it needs citations and the removal of the internal links in the text rather than deletion. Could probably use some trimming too. But nothing that can't be handled with editing. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non of the references is an actual reference. There are out-links to the top pages for TV programs. There are attempts to link to an individual Google cache of certain archived news articles, but they don't work. Nothing in a Google News Archive or Google Books search confirms the claims in the article. I may be wrong, but the article will need extensive cleanup and proper sourcing to fully satisfy WP:V and WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The intro 'award winning Canadian/American political filmmaker' meets WP:BIO. If the award is disputed then tag it accordingly. ChessCreator (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does assert that, but if you look closer to the article, none of the assertions are substantiated. This article looks 100% fabricated. As I said it is well written, but I after the first impression, there is nothing in this article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I would rather hope it depends which award(s) we're talking about, and whether the claim can be sourced. So? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, unsubstantiated claims about award should be marked ((fact)) but it does not warrant an Afd at this stage. ChessCreator (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, your argument the article should be kept is based on an unsourced claim that he won an unspecified award? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak whatever. I'm unsure if he has moved beyond WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to vote "strong whatever"? Just curious. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for a strong neutral or a weak comment. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Awfully lavish praise to be heaped upon someone behind the camera who has done a few things. Lumiere Films is significant, but is a person working there significant? The films he has done are on the low end of things, does he pass? I.e. this is a really bad mash note to a guy who is not himself biographically significant yet and who does not substantially stand out from the crowd. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It won't surprise me a bit if this guy ends up notable enough for an article in time, but at the moment his notability is largely confined to the fact that he's been in the background here and there a bit. The lack of real substantiation for the claims being made in the article is a concern, too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is in my opinion/and a writer as my profession, I honestly must say this is a good BIO on the him, he also lists the national sources on his facts, and I know some of you said its "one story about him and politics" but that I think is just the one event that makes his BIO sustainable, without that than I would have to look over it again, but if your saying a producer working with the Clintons, and the facts behind it isn't worthy of a Keep, than I am lost.Spyrokid (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Spyrokid[reply]

— Spyrokid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Must disagree with a few of the comments, he is not in background news if you actually read a few of the articles, I can see how some may see this as a self-bio, but I just looked at a few of the articles, it has been in the media all over Canada and as well as the U.S. I work for a television station in Vancouver, Canada, and we were actually trying to get him on our morning show to speak on his success. I think some people got confused because a few of the links looks like they seem to expire after a week, so thats why a few did not work, (so I am guessing, looking at the ones that are now on). But I cannot see any reason for this article to not be on.Maggie231 (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)maggie[reply]

— Maagie231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete, fails wp:v and wp:bio. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-06t17:08z
Comment. Note that the article's creator has attempted to remove the above !vote. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Clearly unsupportable on its own, and there is no suitable merge target such as List of minor characters in Daredevil (though I suspect this character isn't even notable enough for that). Black Kite 23:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda (comics)[edit]

Non-notable comic book character that appeared in one issue of Daredevil in 1989. There doesn't appear to be anything to suggest the character will appear again. Stephen Day (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a little to an article about minor Daredevil characters, assuming one exists. Delete otherwise, and consider creating such an article. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. JJL (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/~~Redirect~~ ~~(although a non-searchable term, the redirect can be useful for the Amanda dab page)~~ to Daredevil (Marvel Comics)#Characters. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you're suggesting that this article be merged into Daredevil (Marvel Comics), then I respectfully disagree. Daredevil and his series have a 40+ year history. If every character that has ever appeared in that series were listed in that section, the result would be an unworkable mess. Stephen Day (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the list that I proposed merging it to isn't that big. And if it does get to big it can always be split into a seperate article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment True, its not that big now. What will happen if Amanda (comics) gets merged there? With 40+ years of history you're talking thousands of characters that have a similar place in the series' history as Amanda. Characters with only single issue appearances should have some tangible impact beyond that one issue before they're notable enough to be listed somewhere. The character Amanda appeared in that one issue and has no impact beyond that. I don't believe that the floodgates should be opened to every character that has ever appeared in an issue of a comic book getting mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. Stephen Day (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Stephen's comment above, this goes beyond the definition of a "minor" character. -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources indicating notabilility. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable subject, delete if there is no article that it would be reasonable to merge this with. ImperviusXR (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect as per Brewcrewer. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as outlined above for now; I'm busy at the moment on a similar project, but I intend on soon helping to create a page to merge minor Marvel characters to. BOZ (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BOZ, I respect and support your efforts along those lines, but this character is a different matter from the characters that will go onto a minor Marvel characters list. I don't believe this character is even major enough for that list. She wasn't even given a last name. Stephen Day (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]