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

The result was delete —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 21:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Barrie[edit]

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

Violation of WP:COI and WP:AUTO. A jack of many trades who has failed to achieve notability in any one of them. He says he is a wedding DJ, but he has not achieved notability in that field. He says he is a "safety consultant," whatever that is, but he has not achieved notability in that field. He says he is a diving instructor, but he has not achieved notability in that field. He says that he has done a lot of work in motorsports, but he has not achieved notability in that field. He says he is a yachtsman, but he has not achieved notability in that field. We may have to create a new guideline for cases like these: "WP:Walter Mitty". Qworty (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many claims. No proof. One's own sites aren't acceptable. DarkAudit (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:AUTO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin close) —BradV 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kong (dog toy)[edit]

Kong (dog toy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless a lot of other info can be added. For example...what is it made of? Who makes it? Who designed it? Does it have any special sponsors? Nearly useless as it is. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was created 7 minutes ago. —BradV 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but I'm a firm believer that a stub should have a lot more basic information than this does. I'm all for a keep vote if notability can be established. That's up to the original user to start off with a good stub based on some good research. I get the impression that this is a good faith effort based on the fact that this individual just purchased one of these toys and decided to write an article. Done that sort of thing myself, in fact. BUT...I added the requisite links, references and history. In short, this needs some due diligence. Off the soapbox I go.  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Kong is a fairly popular dog toy. This article seems like it would be useful, and the toy is also discussed in plenty of books, one of which calls it "possibly the best known dog toy in the world. I'll try adding some refs and stuff sometime later this weekend (although others are welcome to help out). Zagalejo^^^ 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand per Zagalejo's sources, seems to be notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand per Zagalejo. Luksuh 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination per the sources provided. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mitchell[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:N. Article proclaims he played for the Buffalo Bills in 1924. The Buffalo Bills team didn't exist until 1960. He played for the multinamed 1920-1929 NFL franchise when they were called The Bisons. for - according to the source given in the article - a grand total of six games. Yeah, that's totally NN Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Doc Strange's arguments. If he played six times in the NFL then he is notable six times over according to the criteria for athletes in WP:BIO. Factual errors are fixed by editing, not by deleting. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, agreed, I missed this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As did I, good work Phil Bridger. Had no clue that even playing one game in NFL made even an obscure player notable. The more you know. My vote's now Keep. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination per the above argument. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a grammar textbook. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense conjugations of ser[edit]

Present tense conjugations of ser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Not encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a grammar textbook. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suprimir Wikipedia no es un diccionario de español. (Delete Wikipedia is not a Spanish dictionary.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a grammar textbook -- it is a linguistics encyclopedia, which is not the same thing. Besides, if you're going to conjugate, be exhaustively encyclopedic about it: all the tenses in both indicative and subjunctive modes. Sheesh. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Quasirandom. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I delete, you delete, (s)he deletes, we delete, you delete, they delete per everybody. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Que sera, sera! Whatever will be, will be! Looks like this was a test run that really won't make it as an independent article. No need for me to add my delete opinion. I suggest mentioning this info in the article about irregular verbs (in English "to be" is the classic example, and this is the Spanish counterpart). Or place it in Spanish grammar for illustration between regular and irregular conjugates. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Actually, this could've been speedied per A7. A group of 4 high school sprinters? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Limit Sprinters[edit]

No Limit Sprinters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has appropriate and verifiable sources and was worthy of notice as proven by several references to publication in the Kansas City Star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmckay10 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ugh. Unwikified, orphaned, and demonstrating no significant notability beyond local activity. Orphaned articles are usually orphaned for a reason, and if this is to be kept, it's in dire need of a major rewrite.Delete. B.Wind (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, though anyone who wants to merge the content is welcome to do so, the content can be found in the deletion logs. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Life & Freaky Times[edit]

My Life & Freaky Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Singer seems to be semi notable but there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this album -- no reviews, no third party sources, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for now. I don't know enough about music to properly dig for sources, so I'll wait for someone else skilled in that area to give it a try. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is an All Music Guide review but otherwise I'm turning up next to nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Registers 3,390 ghits, so it is semi-notable. Luksuh 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GOOGLEHITS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apart from the All Music Guide thing, I can't find anything that looks like reviews or coverage that would suggest notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Luther Campbell, the artist who recorded the CD. It's independently released; so it is unlikely to stand up on its own, but Luther Campbell (a.k.a. Luke) most certainly meets WP:MUSIC. B.Wind (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with Luther Campbell. Non-notable, doesn't deserve to have an article. Reverend X (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete.  —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fpsbanana[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Someone must've deleted the page in mid nom. The only edit is the tagging for AfD. :) DarkAudit (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G6 as housekeeping, since page got nuked just as AfD tag was placed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

UKWDA[edit]

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

contested prod: "Glorified webring instead of prof standards org--despite their claims of 9000+ members, and the text below saying member have to link to it, Alexa only finds 1100 incoming links. Ghits indicate membership shrinking"; fails WP:ORG - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails to meet the WP:CORP criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The main failing of the article is the lack of coverage by independent sources. I didn't turn any with a Google search. If they've been written up in, say, the Guardian, then I'll reconsider. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It's been mentioned, though not "written up" by the more common UK Web Design Association in the Guardian [8]. A weak case could be made under WP:CORP#Non-commercial organizations, based on a few mentions in secondary media which all seem to connote some authority to UKWDA: [9] and [10] – Zedla (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to UK Web Design Association. Appears notable enough to me. See [11] (page 16 - as mentioned by Zedla) [12] [13]. --Edcolins (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the sources are all of the most tangential, mentioning this organization only in passing. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Hockey Junior C League teams[edit]

(View AfD) I am nominating for deletion the articles linked from this infobox. Not one of them contains any assertion of notability beyond being a team which plays in the Junior C league of the Ontario Hockey Association. When I reviewed them, I found that not one of them cited a single non-trivial independent source. Speedy deletion was overturned by an admin in the Hockey project, which claims to WP:OWN these articles, and a member asserts that there is consensus that teams at this level are notable. Really? These are local youth teams, and the articles are sourced solely from the team websites. In fact, Wikipedia appears to be leading the world in documenting the history of these teams and their competitions. I think this belongs on a Wikia somewhere, I do not believe there is consensus that low-league youth teams are inherently notable or that self-soureced articles are acceptable anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You have a strange way of doing things, Guy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes, yes. Unorthodox is my middle name. Actually, no, my middle name is André after my famous forbear, but nearly :-) Guy (Help!) 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Feeder system for National Hockey League and has provided hundreds of alumnus to the pro-ranks worldwide. The assertion that this is youth athletics is false, players are up to the age of 21 years old. The "C" stands for the third tier of hockey, not of skill or notability, but of size of centre played in. If the nominator could get off his soapbox for a minute, he may realize that we have templates that are good for putting on articles that require more sources. DMighton (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Not youth hockey as the nominator seems to think. Youth hockey is below the junior level and is called Midget. All these articles can meet WP:N quite easily as they are in articles in various cities news papers. If they are not referenced strongly now they certainly can be cleaned up. Not a reason for deletion. THey should be tagged and improved. Smells very strongly of WP:POINT. I don't see where anyone in the project claimed they own them. I think someone just mentioned to you that you should discuss before speedying and deleting your own speedies. -Djsasso (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, bordering on speedy. While I always assume good faith, this does seem a little suspicious, especially since there haven't been any cite or notability tags placed on any of the articles that I looked at from the templates. That should always, always be done before nominating something for deletion due to lack of citations or notability concerns, speedy or otherwise. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You want me to tag every single one with "no sources" because, what, the entire Hockey Wikiproject has forgotten about WP:RS and WP:N? Come on. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes. That's exactly what I advocate. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least the main one. And a lack of article cites isn't generally a reason for deletion, let alone mass deletion. It's the topic. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment: Regarding concerns on the talk page of the nominator, who seems to think everyone showed up to !vote based on liking the subject, I know nothing about hockey other than that it happens a lot in Canada and involves ice, sticks and a small rubber ball/cylinder/thing. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - per others. Speedy was wrongful, especially since they were tagged and deleted by the same admin. Grsz11 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can someone link to the discussion where the speedy was overturned? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - per others. Speedy was improper and shows poor judgment and abuse of power by admin.Flibirigit (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep as per pretty much everyone above. Plenty of sources available in the form of newspapers. Definitely notable enough. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 22:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Unilateral mass speedy deletion of these articles was wrong, wrong, wrong. Why was it too hard for the nominator to add "no sources" tags to the articles that require them, but not a problem to add AfD tags to all of them? Come on! --Canley (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:CSD#A7 - an assertion of notability is required. An unsourced article whose claim to notability is being a regional junior C league club has no assertion of notability. Where is the assertion of notability? Why are they all unsourced? Let's look at a randomly chosen example, Simcoe Storm. 124 unique Google hits, zero on Google News, zero on Google Scholar, zero in Google Books, zero on my Factiva subscription. And this is "obviously notable" in what way, please? Or how about Glanbrook Rangers: 114 unique Googles, including one scraped from test wiki, passing mention in some sports results pages. No sign of any non-trivial independent sources about the team. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Maybe keep the leagues. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep If these articles do a poor job of demonstrating notability, they should be tagged as such and the community given a chance to improve them before they're deleted - this is particularly so since the articles are within the mandate of a Wikiproject. I'm not a member of that project, but I can do a Google search too, and I don't have any question that notability can be demonstrated in most, if not all, of these cases.

In addition, I think there are some serious process problems here. I can't see any evidence in the history of the articles or the template that they were tagged for speedy deletion, which I assume means that the nominator performed the deletion without a tag. Lack of demonstrated notability is not a valid criteria for using WP:CSD#A7 - in fact, the description of WP:CSD#A7 is explicit that it is distinct from questions of notability. Importance and significance are the criteria for WP:CSD#A7. The length of time some of these teams and leagues have been around, the fact that they've graduated players to the pro ranks - these are considerations that contribute to importance and significance, so the speedy was inappropriate. As I've also said, I believe that the Afd nomination is not the best approach either but, if it's going to be put through the process, it should be done properly. The articles are not currently tagged as having been nominated for deletion, and there is also no evidence in the history of the articles that they've ever been tagged as such, which is a crucial component of the Afd process. The template was tagged as having been nominated, but that tag was removed by the nominator, so it too is currently lacking this critical component. How is the community expected to weigh in on the discussion without proper notice being provided? Mlaffs (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hey, I'm nominating all articles that begin with the letter Q. Sorry, but most people would describe this as a lazy way to do a nomination for deletion. I'm willing to consider the nomination of the Clarence Schmalz Cup, made elsewhere on this page, but one has to do a little bit of work before tearing down someone else's house. Mandsford (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment None of the articles appear to have been marked for deletion. Resolute 15:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the nominator seems to have skipped that critical step of notifying those working on the articles outside of the hockey wikiproject (no one owns articles, not even wikiprojects) that these articles are up for deletion. An administrator should know better. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And not to pile on after my earlier comments about the laziness of this particular nomination, but let's took at the original note from the nominator, which is the only guide we have to go on regarding what articles this nomination covers - "I am nominating for deletion the articles linked from this infobox.". That means that they're also asserting that the articles for the Ontario Hockey Association, Ontario Hockey Federation, and Hockey Canada don't demonstrate notability. Hockey Canada? Really? Obviously, I know that's not what's meant, but without proper tags ... Mlaffs (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would call for a WP:SNOW on this at this point. Especially since he hasn't gone through and tagged the articles with the afd tag. -Djsasso (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Possible Keep. All the articles are notable. If the nominator is actually nominating articles like Hockey Canada and the Ontario Hockey Federation, then they are oversteping their bounds as an Admin by a huge margin. Patken4 (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep due to improper process, fallacious reasoning. These are not "youth" teams. They are junior teams. Not just junior teams, they all fall under the governance of the OHA. This is the equivalent of deleting single-A minor league baseball teams as "youth" teams. More importantly, however, is the fact that this AfD is almost to the halfway point and these articles have not been tagged. Any deletion would be almost certainly overturned at DRV merely for that. --Smashville^BONK! 19:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non admin closure). Consensus formed around the sources; that they satisfy notability, and also referenced a detrimental edit to the article previously made by the nominator. WilliamH (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Mousawi[edit]

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

biography of a non notable personage, weasel terms, propaganda for terrorist organization's member Elie plus (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — notability should be asserted better in the article; if this is not done, then it should be deleted. Being the spokesman for a notable organization may, as is, qualify for notability. If there's been some parliamentary debate about him specifically, then he might be notable. If Wikipedia had existed in 1928, would Joseph Goebbels been considered notable then? --Vuo (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The references in the article are more than enough to establish notability, and I can't see where this is propaganda - the article is remarkably neutral in tone for such a controversial subject. Also please note that the nominator has previously vandalised this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Moussawi`s visa has been questioned in both the House of Commons (David Cameron, Mr. Amess) and the House of Lords (Lord Strathclyde) (and in a Freedom of Information request, unsuccessfully). I will include that in the article. Additionally, I read that Mousawi was banned from France and the US too, but the sources did not seem reliable enough to me, it could be a confusion with the ban on Al Manar. Still, if Mousawi ever applied for a US visa, he probably would be denied, since he is a former senior editor of Al Manar, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity on the Terrorist Exclusion List. I think Mousawi qualifies for notability (and notoriety). The accusation of propaganda and weasel words is really surprising to me, could somebody point that out? --Shengyi (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources are sufficient. (and, FWIW, a/c the Goebbels article, by '28 he'd become the leader of the Nazi party in Berlin. And elected to the Reichstag, which is automatic notability at WP.)DGG (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. John254 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talal El Khoury[edit]

Talal El Khoury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

autobiography written by a non notable personage, full on POV and it cites absolutely not one single reference. in short: not encyclopedia material Elie plus (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you mean full of POV, not full of NPOV. If it were full of NPOV it'd be neutral. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All this article says is that he got some diplomas, joined a professional association and had a couple of jobs with governments. Very worthy, I'm sure, but I can't see anything approaching notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability that I can see. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has been renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talal El Khoury (2nd nomination) before this discussion has closed--Nsevs • Talk 21:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Seriously this looks like this guy put his own biography up here. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awe (emotion)[edit]

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

A dictionary definition. Already exists at Wiktionary. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you to everyone for their input. The consensus is clearly that this is a legitimate encyclopedic topic and that there is an article waiting to be written here. Accordingly, I withdraw my nomination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Definitely has expansion potential for psychology, neurology, etc, per sources such as this and this that deal with awe as an emotion and not merely as a word. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Article is notable but requires sourcing. Luksuh 21:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Could certainly be expanded, but it needs a lot of work. As it stands right now, it's not even a good stub article. --clpo13_(talk) 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as dicdef. Granted, it could potentially be turned into an encyclopedic treatment of the subject, but this article, as it stands now, has no encyclopedic content. No prejudice against someone recreating it later as encyclopedic content or to anyone who would care to add such material now to make the article suitable for inclusion.OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger makes a good point below. After further review of WP:DICDEF I am changing my opinion to neutral. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. This article needs be expanded. Wrath is an example of good article about emotions. Zero Kitsune (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:DICDEF gives a very clear explanation of the difference between a dictionary definition and an enclopedic stub. This is clearly the latter. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Can be expanded. ChessCreator (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spinnerball[edit]

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

This is a disguised advertisement. The link takes you to www.spinnerball.com, where Fun Outdoor Games LLC would like to sell you the Spinnerball^TM game for $49.95, or 12 for $299.40 etc. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of notability. No reliable, verifiable, or independent sources. DarkAudit (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe not that blatant, but still pretty obvious that it's advertising. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not quite a G11, but it's definitely spammy. Author is SPA whose only other contribution has been to put this article as a "see also" on Lawn game which suggests a posible COI though this is by no means proven. Oh, and did I mention that there are no independent sources, or suggestions of notability? No? Well, there aren't. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some of this (including the "elusive" list) is copied from Ladder ball, which is probably in serious danger of being nominated next, unless it can clean up its own spammy nature. I'm afraid that the author of the Spinnerball article may have inadvertently betrayed that article as well. Mandsford (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes they have. DarkAudit (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Non-notable and advertisement. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it's a advertisement. (What's a scoring bar,anyway?) 99.230.152.143 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. As entioned above, this is just basically a (partial) repeat of Ladder ball. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise: Temporal Cold War[edit]

Enterprise: Temporal Cold War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A yet-unreleased video game mod. References given point largely to blogs or the manufacturer's homepage. Removal seems to be controversial per the talk page. B. Wolterding (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Subject has been covered by Freeplay, a major gaming magazine. Other than that, though, there isn't much in the way of available sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 11:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Half-Life 2. Enough independent coverage for a mention there, but not for its own article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The free play article along with the various interviews seem to be well over the bar for notability (multiple reliable references). The Freeplay article, while short, looks significant. Hobit (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep However, JFire, the citations you've provided here need to be added to the article. I expect some cleanup, or I'll renominate myself...---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Sealth[edit]

I actually work there, its real we have mashed potoates —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.100.186 (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nn summer camp, no reliable sources for the notabilty of this summer camp, Delete Secret 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of notability. No sources provided to show independent coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a Camp Fire USA-affiliated camp, this one has some notability. There seems to be enough sources available to support a verifiable article. This writeup in The Young Woman's Journal of 1929 looks promising for historical coverage, and there's more recent news coverage: [14] [15] [16] [17]. Jfire (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:50, 6 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) 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; well-known in the Seattle area as a local landmark; a search of a newspaper database turned up 100+ stories mentioning it. Notable for having been around so long, as well -- it must be one of the first Campfire camps. Article could use a bit of cleanup, though. -- phoebe / (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Seven Party Alliance, editors are encouraged to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Party Alliance[edit]

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

This page doesn't seem to have a purpose beyond attacking the parties involved, and in any case, the term Eight Party Alliance is very rarely used - the term Seven Party Alliance is used even when including the Maoists BovineBeast (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I'm wary about deleting a page like this which isn't vanity... but the only Eight Party Alliance references I'm finding are in relation to Bangladesh. gren グレン`

The eight parties in question are the governing parties of Nepal, but the normal term is Seven Party Alliance, and the article prior to nomination was essentially simply an attack on the alliance BovineBeast (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the attack bit was easily fixed, then? It's still a decent stub. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since it's not the normal term, I doubt it can grow beyond that stub. Perhaps on reflection we should Merge it with Seven Party Alliance, since that page doesn't contain any note of the fact that it includes the Maoists these days. BovineBeast (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, "decent stub"—there's an oxymoron. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, less formal use than Seven Party Alliance but reliable sources do use the term. Economist The Hindu etc. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unlses somebody decides to source this article. Yahel Guhan 05:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect If this term has been used in some sources, then the obvious thing to do is a redirect with an explanation DGG (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Aqwis (talk – contributions) 07:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Anderson (radio)[edit]

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

This unreferenced article does not establish notability. Rtphokie (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article has been up for a long time and does establish notability. ~ Gmags2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmags2003 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neither rationale is sufficient. Longevity of an article means nothing in determining the validity of the article. With millions of articles, and only so many eyes, it just means that the article may not have been properly vetted yet. An assertion of notability only prevents an article from being speedily deleted. Beyond that, it is the responsibility of the author to provide reliable. verifiable, and independent sources. The radio station web site may be reliable and verifiable, but it is not independent. The blog is none of these. There are thousands of radio personalities on local stations throughout the US and the world. Little here puts him above and beyond the rest. DarkAudit (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and DarkAudit. Luksuh 21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No apparent notability, common name makes news searches difficult, perhaps article creator Gmags2003 can expand sourcing which would influence an inclusionist like me to change my view. - Dravecky (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Local broadcast personalities, even if they have the greatest audience within a local market, generally fall short on WP:BIO, and this is no exception.B.Wind (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to being a radio personality, he is an established animation movie creator/digital artist. ~ Gmags2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmags2003 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Settlers of Catan. Editors are encouraged to seek consensus as the the extent and appropriateness of merging this content to that page. Pastordavid (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Variations of Settlers of Catan[edit]

Variations of Settlers of Catan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page has been created as a home for fan-made unofficial non-notable variations. Wikipedia is not for things you made up; it's not a webhost and it's not a directory. Unofficial, non-notable variations on a game don't belong here, they belong on BoardGameGeek. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you didn't do your research. In America, games are not copyrighted by concept, but by name and artwork. So even if the a variation is not released by the copyright holder of the original game, doesn't mean that someone else cannot copyright and release their own variations. In fact, in the case of S3D Connector, that's exactly what they did. If being legally recognized doesn't make it notable, I don't know what does. Elliandr (talk) 01:54, April 1st 2008 (CST)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete variations on a game are not notable in themselves imho. merge if anything. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Settlers_of_Catan. Not enough merit to stand on it's own as a spinoff.Gazimoff (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what content do you think the article has, that should be merged? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not very much, essentially. The video game section of the main article needs some citations, which could be provided from this spinoff's inline links. There's one to an MS press release and another to a developer press release. That variants exist might be worth a sentence or two in the series section in the main article without really giving it undue weight, possibly with a single citation. I'm not going to advocate merging in the entire list as the individual variations themselves are not notable. I hope that clears it up. --Gazimoff (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that sounds sensible to me. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These are actual official variations, some of which you can buy in the store (I just did buy the fisherman one). There are some reviews. I only looked for the fishermen of catan one:
  • http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13257.phtml
  • http://www.criticalgamers.com/archives/board-games/now_shipping_settlers_the_fish.php

Between all the variations, I'm fairly certain notability is over the bar. Hobit (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment just to be clear, the nom is incorrect that (any?) of these are either fan-made or unofficial. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't say that - I said the article was created as a home for unofficial ones. See Talk:Settlers of Catan#Variations article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I missed the difference, sorry. But just for the record, those unofficial ones don't seem to be there. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Depends when you look - Elliandr keeps adding them back in. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, cleanup, and improve like the Chess variant article or List of poker variants article. The Settlers of Catan article looks fairly long already, as does List of Settlers of Catan products — although I suppose much of this information could be condensed and merged into a paragraph in the Settlers of Catan article. Many of these variants were created by Klaus Teuber himself. --Pixelface (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not opinions. Mayfair Games, on their own website, presents variations of this game that they do not support but clearly do not have a problem with. The purpose of writing this article is not to be a "link farm" as Percy Snoodle puts it, but to present information for all kinds of variations physical and digital. To deny information from existing on Wikipedia therefore is an act of censorship. Articles exist for many games on Wikipedia, and many variations of many games. If you consider unofficial variations of a game, physical or digital, to be of the same game, then I feel this information should be merged into Settlers of Catan. If you consider this to be not of the same game, then they should be allowed to be talked about as it's own article. However, no matter what you consider it, this article complies with the rules. (the only reason I created it as a separate page was because I got tired of reading about people deleting the history files and felt that if so many people wanted it to be treated as a separate game, then I could live with it being on a separate page.) I looked at the conditions under which an article can be deleted, and none of them apply here. The information complies with a neutral point of view (displaying information from all sources without bias) no original research done, all information is true and not under copyright. References are listed and verifiable. No advertisements are being made. External links are not excessive nor do they dwarf information. Content listed is not copyright information.... on the contrary, it seems to me that some people are going out of there way to delete this kind of information, both from the history pages of [Settlers of Catan] and by trying to delete new articles in general. I strongly suspect foul play here. Especially since many of the variants, although "unofficial" were also created by the original creator of the game. I mean, just because the original creator of Tetris doesn't own the copyrights to his own creation because of socialism doesn't make his contribution to his own game any less important. So why would the contributions made to this game be any different? One way or another, one form or another, I strongly disagree with censorship of the facts and I won't sit by while someone makes a mockery of the facts. --Elliandr 00:05, April 1st 2008 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliandr (talk • P.S. I know it would look like I am a new user, but the truth is I just lost my password as Elliander and although I had an e-mail tied to it for some reason it's not showing up in the system. I just wanted to make sure people didn't think I am a new user who hasn't used Wikipedia much before.contribs)
• Delete. Page seems an attempt to include so-called "Settlers" games in the list, which were removed by consensus from the Catan articles. Information on "Settlers of Catan" games can be merged into the Catan articles. Information on the unlicensed "settlers" games, if encyclopedic, should not mention "Catan" in the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article needs cleanup and improvement, but those can be solved by things other than deletion. Keep per the reviews that have been given higher in the discussion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Merge with Settlers of Catan. Luksuh 21:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep needs a cleanup but ought to be retained...--Cameron (t|p|c) 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would think that any variations for which secondary sources exist could be included in the main Settlers page. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't that a merge then?Hobit (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify... Delete and redirect to Settlers of Catan, merging any "official" variations, i.e. those designed by Mayfair, to the main article. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Hobit (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems unlikely that there will be any independent, reliable sources to cite: This is not a notable subject. Can be reduced to a single sentence on Settlers of Catan, linking to the offical mayfair games variants archive. Edit: Both Fishermen of Catan and the various video games have multiple independent references available but really need their own articles written from the ground up. Marasmusine (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't that an organizational problem and not a reason to delete?Hobit (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both. Love Line is now a redirect to Loveline. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Line[edit]

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

Also in nomination:

The B Sides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am nominating these two pages because they are both non-notable shows limited to a college radio station. I also recommend redirecting Love Line to Loveline after deletion since Loveline is a well-known national radio program. Danski14))^(talk) 20:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -Drdisque (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was considering these for deletion as well: there's nothing notable about either subject. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom--Rtphokie (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both Unsourced, insufficiently notable for separate articles, merge to parent WRPI article. - Dravecky (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Love Line to Loveline as there's nothing worthwhile to move into the targe; delete The B Sides. No target here. B.Wind (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winner Productions[edit]

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

Not notable. Probable hoax. Reads like a ripoff of Survivor (TV series). No relevant ghits. No hits at all on Google news. No evidence provided of any coverage whatsoever, so fails WP:N and WP:CORP. DarkAudit (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This appears to be some sort of fantasy version of Survivor that people "play" by interacting on the Internet. No sources to establish notability, of course—this may qualify for a speedy per criterion A7, since I'm not seeing any indication of "why its subject is important or significant." Deor (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 20:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reasons given to keep are very weak. Popularity is not necessarily notability. WP:V not met and no evidence provided to suggest it could be. Neıl ☎ 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tater tot hotdish[edit]

Tater tot hotdish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, one external link, no assertion of notability or popularity. No real context or potential of getting beyond a stub. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable, more than a dicdef. -Drdisque (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep. Topic is semi-semi-notable and somewhat interesting. Luksuh 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I always wondered what that stuff was called, it seems to show up at every potluck I go to... Anyway, all I'm finding is recipes, so I'd say delete for lack of coverage in reliable sources (and because I hate cream of anything soup). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Damn. Now I'm hungry. As for notability: has this been discussed in newspapers, books or magazines? Edison (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook - no notability, only reference is a recipe on a website that describes itself as a weblog. Maybe mention it as an aside in another article, but doesn't deserve its own article AFAICT. Also, it sounds like it's the sort of thing that has all sorts of "unofficial", local names, so it's going to be a job just working out what name it gets transwikied under. FlagSteward (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It says it's "popular", so that's an assertation of notability. I google-searched it and came up with quite a number of hits, including an article on wikiHow "How to Make Tater Tot Hotdish". Notability enough. Herunar (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's not actually an assertion of notability. Popularity != notability. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of recipes. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with hotdish page Whitebox (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo J. Meyer[edit]

Leo J. Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Conflict of interest, subject of this biographical article is not of encyclopedic interest

• meyerj is an SPA who created this article to memorialize his father. The subject is not encyclopedic (a routine military career), not widely noted, the article amounts to original research and its creation raises many COI worries. This article went to AfD in January and the result was delete. This was overturned at a deletion review. The closing admin recommended the article be stubbed. meyerj has also installed a copy of it (an older, much larger version with photographs and a detailed award list) as his user page. I trimmed the article down in an attempt to save it but after reading the previous AfD discussion and looking at the sources can find no reason to keep it in the article space. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGF Comment. After re-reading this nom, I am not convinced the nominator is truly familiar with the military if he considers Meyer's case to be a routine military career. MrPrada (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Man is one of only 303 people to ever earn 3 combat infantry badges, a decorated military officer. The limited number of that category combined with "not a paper encyclopedia" leads me to say we should keep this. Furthermore, the deletion review debate overturned the deletion. There's obviously already community opinion against deletion, even in the article's current state. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this mean 303 more articles could/should be created, one for each of these people? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, would that overload the servers and make us have to delete 303 of the 490 articles about Pokemons? Edison (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I think it may be significant in the context of notability that you have brought up Pokemans twice in a conversation about Leo J. Meyer? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is implying that they should be deleted on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as you are to Leo J. Meyer. MrPrada (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Per SwatJester. Subject is at least semi-notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion. Luksuh 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment note: Refs indicate he has been honored by the US Infantry Museum for his 3 CIBs, as well as being noted in stars and stripes, the Green Berets Magazine, and Veritas. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not significant coverage under WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. Stars and Stripes is a major newspaper. Multiple independent sources confirm this guy's notability. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a single mention in a military, government owned newspaper is significant coverage (only clarifying my thought here though, I understand your take on the source). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As was noted in the DRV, the Army has had many ceremonies, etc., to honor the recipients of the 3d award of the CIB, which have received significant coverage. Just because Meyer's name isn't mentioned in a specific by-name list does not make the 3d CIB insignificant. Also, calling Stars and Stripes (along with the other PAO sources) insigificant is a Style over substance fallacy, these are obviously verified, notable, independent sources within the military. MrPrada (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, well below the military biography inclusion standard. Certainly an impressive achievement, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Really? That link includes: In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. This article would appear to pass that, though I can't see the paper articles in question. Hobit (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All due respect, but the only source given that is independent of the subject (i.e. not published by the military) is the Army Times. --Dhartung | Talk 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ????? The subject of the article is Leo Meyer, not the military.Hobit (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does in fact, meet the military biography inclusion standard, as I have demonstrated elsewhere. The only other argument here then, is WP:MEMORIAL. However, the article as it stands, does not read as a memorial, nor is its purpose to memorialize the subject, so there is no actual argument for deletion presented here. MrPrada (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you haven't demonstrated that he meets the military history inclusion standard at all. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as recreation of article deleted via AFD 2 months ago. If there is dispute over this decision, I recommend interested parties follow the Deletion Review process.Withdrawn - no opinion. At the time I placed my vote there was no indication by the nominator -- via the "previous nominations box" that any DRV had occurred. As this has been corrected and a DRV is indicated, I withdraw my delete "vote" and choose instead to abstain as I lack sufficient knowledge of the article itself to determine whether it is viable or not. 23skidoo (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The previous AFD was overturned at deletion review, as Swatjester notes above, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Scog (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:N if the paper cites are accurate. Hobit (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the three badges are not enough to confer notability, there is no way to verify that the cited sources contain significant coverage, and even if they did, you could say it's akin to a locally-prominent but non-notable person having obituaries in multiple papers.--Michael White^T·C 02:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability has been established by the U.S. infantry museum and several published articles for a very rare hero of three consecutive wars. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Many garage bands have articles, and many hundreds of Pokemons. We can do no less for a genuine hero, or even potentially 303 such heroes. Edison (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things to ponder: What establishes this individual as a hero or genuine hero? What definition, what sources? Are 303 individuals "very rare"? Does a military museum and some published articles (all but one of which are in military publications) establish significant coverage under WP:BIO? Wikipedia is not paper notes that notability requirements still apply to articles. The same project page notes Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Lastly, the notion Many garage bands have articles, and many hundreds of Pokemons does not apply. Some of those articles may cover notable topics, others may not, but we're discussing Leo J. Meyer here. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've just established that he has notability: A museum and multiple published articles from both military and non military articles. Are you opposing this just because he's dead? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for military bios. Also, the non-military-controlled coverage is scant. I don't know where your question about his being dead comes from, I haven't thought about that as having any sway on notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dhartung. He doesn't satisfy the military notability guidelines. Many soldiers with much much higher awards are excluded, so I don't see how this can be justified. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Dhartung's assessment is disputed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dhartung's assessment is also WP:NOT#Policy. MrPrada (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dhartung. -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Dhartung's assessment is disputed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be clear: Dhartung's assessment is disputed by you. And of course you have a perfect right to dispute it, as anyone has. He was a Colonel (an above averagely high rank, but not an outstandingly high one), and he clearly was mentioned in various places. He wasn't a nobody. His descendants may reasonably be proud of his accomplishments. But this doesn't make them, or him, encyclopedic. -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, we should be clear. Dhartung's assessment is overwhelmingly disputed by the last DRV, and a clear majority of contributors (20+) dispute, and agree that the 3d award of the CIB is notable. The view that is is not encyclopedic is a minority opinion, and seems more to me like piling on then researching the award and evaluating its notability. MrPrada (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Following the military notability guidelines cited by Dhartung and the sources provided by the article, Meyer was not a recipient of a country's highest military decoration, did not command a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one) in combat, never held a top-level command position (such as Chief of the General Staff) and has not been the primary topic of one or more published secondary works. Hence, notability cannot be established under Wikipedia policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was a special forces full-bird Colonel. By definition that is a command of a substantial body of troops. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a military expert but my understanding is that "special forces" commands are smaller. I haven't seen anything to indicate he commanded "an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one" (as outlined by the military bio guidelines). Gwen Gale (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information on User:meyerj's userpage about Meyer's promotion to colonel is not consistent. The table says he was promoted in March 1969 but the text says he was promoted to colonel in October 1969 and also transferred to Washington DC in 1969. If he was commanding battlefield troops as a colonel, it wasn't for long (if ever). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dhartung. Xdenizen (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Dhartung's assessment is disputed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been transcluded to the List of people-related deletion discussions. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the basic award is for being present in the field during a war. Being present during three does not seem to add all that much; its doing something noteworthy once you're there that makes people notable.DGG (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The award is for being under direct fire in an infantry capacity. Since the scope of time for receiving the award is limited (i.e. if you received one in Iraq, you can't receive one in afghanistan), it severely limits how many of the awards a person can get, something that IS highly notable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being under direct fire in an infantry capacity (or getting an award for this thrice) is not one of the military notability guidelines. This said, getting three of these was clearly unusual but I can't see how it crosses the threshold of any notability guideline on Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line four of the MILHIST guideline: "People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works." IE, Leo J. Meyer. Not sure how you couldn't see that. MrPrada (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Swatjester. No, we don't have to create 303 other articles, that's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, as is the argument that other people with more awards don't currently have articles. Notability is established by multiple reliable sources, which we have. Verifiability is also established by reliable sources. The article needs work, but deleting it would fly in the face of core policy. It was undeleted at DRV, now let's improve it.Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that the sources are reliable and show the subject isn't encyclopedic under core policy. I do understand that those who want to keep the article tend to interpret that policy more freely than others, which is ok with me and is why we're having this discussion. Hopefully the outcome will be unambiguous either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by multiple "significant" or "substantial" coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure we have that. To be honest, there seems to be enough to include this gentleman on a list of three-time CIB medal recipients but not for his own article. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm the sad sack who started this whole kerfluffle with my AFD nomination in January. In my nom statement, I tried to address the article's problems without disparaging Meyer's honorable service, and it's tough to do that while at the same time arguing that the CIB does not alone make one notable. I don't think I was successful. When I nominated it, it wasn't so much an article as a glowing hagiography, complete with retirement vacation destinations, at least one family photo, and his hobbies. The 'Notes' section contained only wikilinks. The ELs to museums, with the exception of the National Infantry Museum, take publicly-submitted material – in Meyer's case, material submitted by his own well-intentioned family – and publish it, which is not exactly what WP:V has in mind. In the current version of the article, one of the seven refs is to the number of American military personnel, and five are for one fact: he earned his parachuting wings. Is that what we mean when we say an article should be 'well-referenced'? In addition to those problems, it seems the only unit he directed was a drum & bugle corps, and I don't think that counts as a 'substantial body of troops'. We have article upon article on military officers of equivalent or lesser rank who have met our standards for notability during their service and/or after their retirement. Some of their articles are well-written and some are not, but their subjects are notable. Yes, Meyer served with fidelity and integrity, but he does not meet the MILHIST notability standards. - KrakatoaKatie 06:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the assessment of the MILHIST notability guideline by KrakotoaKatie and Gwen Gale are misleading, and it is being misapplied.

• Guidelines for inclusion that always qualify include the highest military decoration, commanding a substantial body of troops, holders of a top level command (I'll leave the 4th one out for this moment)
• Conversely, any person who is only mentioned through OR or primary sources is probably not notable(not automatically).

Just because some are afforded automatic inclusion under the first guideline, does not mean others are automatically excluded under the second guideline. Also, there is a fourth sentence in the first guideline I left out: "People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works." Obviously, that includes Leo J. Meyer, so the argument that he does not meet the MILHIST inclusion standard is not only being misinterpreted, but is also patently incorrect. MrPrada (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your interpretation. "People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works" refers to people who are the subject of books. In any case, no one can seriously claim that Leo J. Meyer is the primary topic of for instance Stars & Stripes. Its primary topic is the various doings of the United States military. We also have yet to see what Stars & Stripes actually wrote though there has been a host of fanciful speculation. For the Stars & Stripes article to meet the criterion, it would need to be significant or substantial coverage of Meyer's life.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works may not be clear enough as a guideline. I don't think a smattering of mil articles qualify other than to note the non-notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABLE states clearly (in bold text): "There is no official policy on notability." There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest, Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability is established by the significant coverage that are independent of the subject of the article. (Stars and Stripes, btw, is funded by the DOD, but editorially independent.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that the coverage was significant? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong keep. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 3 for the DRV of this article, where there was overwhelming consensus that the 3d award of the Combat Infantryman's Badge is a notable achievement. There is an entire wing in the infantry museum, which is actually smaller then the Medal of Honor wing, since the 3d CIB is actually given out less frequently. Also, this nomination is flawed in that a COI/SPA are not grounds for deletion. Take the time to work with the author and improve it. MrPrada (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the military bio notability guidelines should be changed then. As it is, this article does not meet them. Something else to ponder in terms of article improvement: If all the remaining unsourced/original research were to be rm'd from the article, it would be a stub, only the 3 CIBs and parachute wings would remain. I don't think this would sway the notability question at all, since the 3 CIBs seem to be the only thing for which editors are truly claiming notability. As for SPA and COI, I put those in the nom only for context, as hints that a look at the sources and policy would show the article does not meet Wikipedia standards at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, since the 3 CIBs are notable, there is no need to remove the other information, as it is sourced, is there? I think you've just voted to keep in your own deletion discussion. Roger's argument that there has not been significant coverage of Meyer receiving the three awarrds and moving it to a list of three-time recipients is the only logical argument for deletion thus far. MrPrada (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather strongly support an article along the lines of what Roger suggests. Meyer's 3 CIBs are not notable under Wikipedia policy, but I think the 303 holders of CIBs are very likely notable as a group under current policy. Meanwhile, this article does not meet the guidelines for notability and most of the other information in this article is not sourced (though I glark some of it could be). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't get why people are so gung-ho to delete this article - perhaps because folks are offended that the primary author is a relative of the subject? Seriously, it has 9 references even after being stripped down and it is far better written and sourced than many, many articles that aren't being considered for deletion every few weeks. Take some of the time spent here and put it towards improving other articles, and in the mean time recall that WP:V doesn't require that every fact in an article be sourced - only that if its veracity is challenged, it should be removed until a source can be found to back it up. Avruch ^T 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Follow on: I really don't understand the fact that some folks here are actually campaigning for this articles deletion, particularly when that is against the conclusion of a very well attended and quite recent DRV. Although it isn't the current trend at AfD, articles that are of marginal notability aren't automatically candidates for deletion. Even if he barely meets the notability guidelines of MILHIST (note that I said guidelines, and posit that he met them only because others in WP:MILHIST have said he does) then that should be enough to disqualify notability requirements in a deletion discussion. I think that irrelevant factors should be excluded from this discussion, those being: A) that the original author, Meyerj, is a relative and that B) the original article was, as Katie states, a "glowing hagiography." That makes for interesting writing in a discussion, but is absolutely irrelevant to an article that is being discussed on its own merits as it is currently written. Avruch ^T 23:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article has been pruned, it is still very light on sources. What makes people notable is not what they did but what was written about it subsequently. The core principle of Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. The core principle of Wikipedia is NPOV. The phrase "verifiability, not truth" was added by a single editor, and its meaning is disputed. Does it mean we should include something that is verifiable, even if we don't think its true? Or do we say "verifiably true"? WP:N (and thus, WP:BIO) is a guideline and not a policy. Notability is debatable, and the lack of a large body of documentation about someone who has the sort of accomplishments that Meyer has should not lead directly to deletion. More importantly... Why does this particular article deserve multiple noms, despite the recent and well attended DRV that overturned the prior deletion? What is the basis for ignoring that consensus? Avruch ^T 01:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, articles should be built on what is verifiable rather than what I or you believe is true. Perceptions of truth are POV, whereas accurate neutral reporting of reliable sources isn't. To apply this to Col Meyer, very little information is attributable to reliable published sources. There has been vast speculation about what Stars & Stripes wrote but we have yet to see the actual article. I did ask their research department for a copy but was deterred by the cost ($100); the difficulties of paying (personal check); and the time-scale (two months).

I'm sceptical about the much-vaunted consensus at the DRV simply because of the weight placed there on 16 new references. On close examination, these turned out to be about another Col Leo J. Meyer, who is beyond all shred of doubt notable. People have talked here about improving the Leo J. Meyer article but the search for sources has been exhaustive and nothing has turned up. Without these, the article cannot be expanded and should probably be cut to reflect what actually is verifiable (which is not much). For example, Meyer is not actually listed on the National Infantry Museum CIB page as a three-time winner so that's not much use as a source.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, well said. With seven keeps and six delets at this point, it is unlikely that were will be true consensus either way. In my view the keep arguments outweight the delete arguments. MrPrada (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this quote from you, MrPrada, to be particularly enlightening from the previous debate:

The CIB is not a trivial badge. Ask any soldier, including my self. Aside from the CIB, you have Meyer with a Distinguished Service Medal, Soldiers Medal, 3 Bronze Stars, 2 Purple Hearts, 1 MSM, 1 Joint Commendation, 3 ARCOMS with V, four Presidential Unit Citations, and a Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Bronze Star, no easy feat. I still do not see how this fails notability for WP:MILHIST, per Edison, and Tyrenius. MrPrada (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It demonstrates that this wasn't just a colonel in charge of the kitchen (or even... marching band) in the Army. He is a decorated and notable soldier and commander. Avruch ^T 23:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Like the first AfD and the DRV this discussion is getting caught up with editors' personal views of this person's carreer. According to WP:BIO the relevant criteria for inclusion is that "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". This article does not demonstrate that this person recieved such coverage - and it seems pretty clear that every possible source has been consulted given that the article discusses his artistic hobbies. The references are unacceptably vauge (eg, to issues of newspapers and magazines rather than the actual articles) and the minor facts they're being used to prove suggests that none of them is anything like an in-depth profile of Meyer, which is needed for them to establish notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Swatjester and Edison. John254 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems notable to me. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First, I do not mean to cast aspersions on the memory of this gentleman. However, he simply is not notable. He fails to meet the basic notability guideline, because he either is not the primary focus of the source's coverage, or such mention as may be made is trivial. He fails to meet the additional guidelines set forth for WP:MILHIST because 1. He wasn't a top medal winner (although the Distinguished Service Medal certainly is an outstanding achievement), 2. He didn't hold a top tier command, or command an army/fleet 3. He hasn't been the primary topic of a secondary work. The opinions that have engaged the specific basis for the subject's notability seem to point mainly to the fact that he earned 3 Combat Infantryman Badges. This is not a notable (in WP terms) accomplishment, because it is awarded pro forma to members of infantry combat units who perform as expected. No heroic or meritorious (using those terms in the sense of military awards; any action under hostile file is heroic in general sense) action is required. The fact that the subject obtained three awards is mostly a testament to longevity, and a williness to stay in infantry units. In addition, I note that according to this link the rules permitting multiple awards of the CIB only took effect in 1952, greatly reducing the number of eligible awardees. Xymmax (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Winning three CIBs does not seem to satisfy the MILHIST notability requirements. Captain panda 00:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong keep - It looks notable to me.Kitty53 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please explain why? --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likely because his 3d CIB, litany of other awards (including a Distinguished Service Medal, which is normally only for General Officers), parachutist wings in his fifties, and scrimshaw artistry, are inherently notable. MrPrada (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question People keep referring to "non-military publications" being needed or otherwise saying that military publications aren't useful here. I'm not seeing many of these documents as primary sources. Sure, an official site for all awards is primary. But Stars and Stripes or the Army Times can't be. So where in policy is this argument coming from? The best I've seen here is a crossways reference to the essay WP:LOCAL and even reaching out to that essay seems like a huge stretch. Can anyone clarify here? Hobit (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think military publications are reliable or objective, since they can have a conflict of interest in terms of recruitment, thanking past folks who have served and self justifying military solutions. However, if other editors do think military publications are reliable sources, I'd be ok with such a consensus for this kind of article. I'd like to say though, if this winds up as a keep, involved editors might want to think about clarifying the military notability guidelines, which this biographical topic does not meet. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the argument about objective (though as far as I know that's not an issue for sourcing non-controversial facts), but could you explain why you doubt reliable? Are either the Army Times or Stars and Stripes known for getting things wrong or otherwise less reliable than a local paper? In any case, I think the argument with respect to the military notability guidelines is that WP:N is the first thing to check. If that fails to show notability then you go to the localized guidelines (things like professional players at the highest level of a sport are notable). At least that's my understanding, and I think WP:BIO supports that. In all cases, thanks for the response! Hobit (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the Army Times and Stars and Stripes are unreliable and biased is simply wrong and should be withdrawn. The Army Times is a private newspaper, owned by Gannett, and if anything is known for being rather critical of the military. Stars and Stripes is an independent publication written by independent civilians (many of whom are extremely notable and write for other publications, such as Andy Rooney) and edited (marginally) by the DOD. I think the person making the comment (who is also the AfD nominator) is a unfamiliar with the subject matter and may have confused them with Public Affairs (PAO), however in my view PAO is also a reliable objective source. MrPrada (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is a really nicely presented article with references and assertions of notability. I particularly convinced by Swatjester's points in the above discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted (G2, test page) by Jmlk17. Nonadmin close Xymmax (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Petree[edit]

Self-proclaimed "man of God" who was identified by the WP:COI bot as violating WP:AUTO by writing this vanity article about himself. Started a bible college that he named after himself, then wrote an article here about his college, which was immediately speedied. After his bible college was deleted, he replaced it with self-promotional spam [18]. Is the author of a self-published book on songwriting that fails WP:BK. No WP:RS whatsoever offered to establish WP:N. Google kicks up mostly self-generated promotional sites and fringe fundamentalist blogs that clearly fail WP:RS. Is a WP:single-purpose account that has shown up here with no apparent purpose other than to self-promote his self-named bible college and self-published songs and book. Qworty (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per conflict-of-interest. Larry needs a press agent. According to his autobiography, he's written 55 hit songs (but none of them are named) and he's won three "songwriter of the year" awards (but we don't know who bestowed them) and he's written a book (but we don't know who published it or when) and he earned a D.D. (but we don't know from where). The Bible college is online only. Mandsford (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Mandsford -Drdisque (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 20:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus has already been reached. Direct concerns to here. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Schmalz Cup[edit]

Clarence Schmalz Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is the challenge trophy for the Junior C league of a Canadian provincial hockey league. Sorry, but I fail to see how that qualifies as notable. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - "JzG/Guy", I find myself a little bewildered at your actions as of late. Why did you bother posting an AfD for this article if you felt you could get away with just flat out deleting the entire series of leagues and their teams without notice? The Clarence Schmalz Cup is an article that has been on wikipedia without contention for almost two years. It is the grand championship of the third tier of Ontario hockey. This level is a part of the feeder system of the National Hockey League. The "C" or "third tier" is only determined by the size of the towns and cities involved -- not skill level or notability. It has been a part of hockey tradition for ... i don't know... 70 years. DMighton (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Luksuh 20:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep please understand a sport before nominating its articles for deletion. -Drdisque (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is very much a notable trophy. -Djsasso (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep – very historic and notable trophy. Flibirigit (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per above. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, at least this one's tagged properly ... Keep Championship that has been competed for since the 1930s. Plus, if the teams and leagues are notable, then the trophy that's awarded to their champion certainly is as well. Clearly notable but, if the article doesn't demonstrate it, tag it so that the community knows it needs improvement. Mlaffs (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a trophy that has been awarded for 70 years now. Its history alone asserts and establishes notability. Resolute 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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