< April 5	April 7 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Interferon type I#IFN-α per consensus (non-admin close). PeterSymonds | talk 19:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intrferon alpha[edit]

Information already exists at Interferon. asenine ^t/_c 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Interferon as a plausible typo. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above by TPH. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk"
Speedy Redirect to Interferon type I#IFN-α --Alvestrand (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interferon type I#IFN-α per Alvestrand.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable independent sources and fails WP:N. Dreadstar † 16:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David O'Kane[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/David O'Kane

Non-notable student artist who violated WP:COI and WP:AUTO by writing this article about himself. Weird enormous photograph in the middle of the text. This is mostly a run-down of his schooling and non-notable exhibitions. Qworty (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few of the references offered seem to meet WP:RS and don't manage between the lot of them to establish notability, at least not as I see it. I admit that the COI issue has somewhat soured my view, but I still don't see anything that sets this artist apart from many thousands of others. I just don't see the notability here. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above users.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 04:17, 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. Dreadstar † 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy's Big Picture Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy's Big Picture Show

Possible WP:CRYSTAL violation. Article says that the plot is currently unknown, so basically no information has been released regarding the film. On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per Nomination Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 23:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Red Phoenix (Talk) 22:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dreadstar † 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Tettner[edit]

Violates WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:BOOK. Vanity page created by vanity-press author. The "publisher" of her "book" is a Spanish-language vanity press that charges writers for "publication." [1] Qworty (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to support notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. krimpet ✽ 07:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AntiPatterns[edit]

The article is promotional and has no good independent sources. We have a separate article on the topic Anti-pattern Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it really spawned the concept of anti-patterns doesn't that make it significant? But that image has got to go. WillOakland (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it's marginally useful information. If it's kept it needs to be completely rewritten. It's both promotional and defensive currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.23.39 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anti-pattern. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:35, 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, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable book in the development of an important concept in software development. 248 citations in Google scholar. Reviews: [2][3][4][5]. It's used in courses. And it won an notable award. Jfire (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. Article written by Skip McCormick, one of the authors of the books which present the subject of the article. "AntiPatterns" seems to be a neologism that makes one of its first appearances in these books. Author of article in question has edited only this article and topics in his userspace. There are no independent citations here at all, except for an uncited mention of an award in Jolt magazine. B.Wind (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've cleaned up the article and cited the Jolt award and several reviews. It wasn't a G11 candidate to begin with, but now it's actually a decent article. And by the way, "anti-pattern" is a term that's some 15 years old now and well established in this field. Jfire (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am Computer Scientist and I learn about Design Patterns and also AntiPatterns in Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. I read this book: it is main guide about anti-patterns. Another universities in my country uses this book also (in English!). Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the reviews constitute significant independent coverage, and winning the Jolt award is also distinctive. As a side note, I'm familiar with the term "anti-pattern", as are others I know, so the book must have had some influence =] Gracenotes^T § 05:05, 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 and Expand, so tagged. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mill Garden[edit]

Delete nn public garden = city park? or privately owned like public houses, whichever this one isn't notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a rubbish article, haven't got anymore info on it so delete if you want. Cls14 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. - Is the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject [6][7][8], the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY. It is listed by the Gateway Gardens Trust as a "Historic Park and Garden" --Oakshade (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted due to multiple sources added by User:Oakshade. Black Kite 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Historic Park and Garden" title imparts notability. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of WP:RS coverage available to establish notability and expand the article. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Peterson[edit]

Non notable. The claim to fame appears to be untrue [9] [10]Ha! (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Ha! (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Ha! (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also searched for sources. I am inclined to long for deletion if no sources are forthcoming, as per WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC, and WP:COI. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the song for which he is supposedly best known is completely unknown to Google. No reiable sources and fails verifiabilty -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin close). PeterSymonds | talk 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exobasidiomycetes[edit]

This article only refers to another article and does not provide any information or context. Billscottbob (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the article is better now. In any event, a biological class or order is automatically notable. --Eastmain (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The taxon exists and the article appears to be a valid stub now. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Biological classifications are obviously encyclopedic. The article has been expanded into a functional stub with references. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination. The article is much better now. Billscottbob (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marvaless[edit]

Problems with WP:RS, WP:MUSIC. Searchs in g and gnews do not appear to show info which would allow assertion that the artist has released albums under a label which qualifies under Criteria for musicians and ensembles#5. Taroaldo (talk) 20:44, 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, - Philippe 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't assert notability per WP:MUSIC and appears to be largely copyvio (not enough for G12 though). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC, and definately WP:COPYVIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as copyvio per Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 March 30/Articles addtionaly may want to close this AFD as delete, there is a history of recreation of this deleted article. Jeepday (talk) 13:43, 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 Delete all ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Marvaless[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. The album's artist may not even meet WP:N. Search reveals generally commercial sources. Taroaldo (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more equally non-notable albums by the same artist. With that in mind, Delete all for failing WP:MUSIC guidelines for albums -- no reviews, and the artist's own notability is in question. ~~(Should I bundle the artist into this too?)~~ Never mind, there's now an AfD on the artist too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the album adds. I thought the artist should have a separate discussion because of the slightly different issue with Awol Records. Hope that doesn't complicate the discussion. :) --- Taroaldo (talk) 21:01, 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, Black Kite 22:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, can someone close this off now the artist's AfD has been closed as a delete. Cheers. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:59, 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 delete. Wizardman 02:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of passengers forced to leave an air flight due to behaviour[edit]

This article has been put on CSD twice which both have been removed, I am nominating this for the reason that this article will never be completed as people do get thrown out of air flight due to any behaviour anyway, not to mention that to list every one will take forever Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, it doesn't matter that the list will never be completed, since nothing on Wikipedia is ever complete. Isn't working toward a deadline. Just like the List of Countries will never be complete, the numerous List of Films will never be complete, and the List of Youtube Celebrities will never be complete, this will never be complete. Secondly, while this should probably be a category with an accompanying list, this is fine, sourcable and verifiable as long as only notable people are included. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to point out that getting thrown off a plane is a common occurrence and plus none of these listed do have their articles. Therefore I am nominating this for the reason of common occurrence, also I have seen people who have being thrown off a plane due to behaviour and do most of these get in the news, many of them don't. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? please, back "getting thrown off a plane is a common occurrence" with a ((fact)) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually pretty common in the United States, mostly post-9/11. Myself, I was refused from being allowed to board because I had a multimeter in my carry-on. I don't know if that counts as being thrown off, but it's not as far-fetched as you might think, especially in the Big Brother state that the US is becoming. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying that because it happened to you (for a dumb reason), its "pretty common", no. How many persons flew in an airplane in that year, in all countries combined (or if you prefer, the US alone). Now, if you can find a statistic for removed passengers that makes it into the "pretty common" range (10-20%) then I might believe your statement. We cannot allow our own personal experiences, to cloud the real picture. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting in the news doesn't make them notable or worthy of inclusion. Already being notable, and this happening to them does. For an example, read up on the Flying Imams controversy. Omar Shahin is notable, has an article, and was thrown off an air flight 'due to behavior'. Also, why does what you, personally, have seen matter? It happens all the time; the people involved aren't necessarily notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the threshold for inclusion is very low, bordering on indiscriminate. It can't be a category because an overwhelming majority of the list will not be notable. --Haemo (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify - these people would be the equal of any person trespassed from any properety. If they rate an Article (that survives the WP:BLP1E horizon) then add them to a a more manageable Category, rather than a List. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Barring airline passengers from flights, a complementary article to Air rage. It's a notable enough topic. Just listing otherwise non-notable passengers violates WP:ONEEVENT, and the current article doesn't even list any anyway. There's an article in there somewhere, screaming to be allowed on board Wikipedia Flight 101. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A person qualifies for inclusion on this list for being the subject of a very minor news event. This doesn't work as a category either, per Haemo. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be a list of non-notable people who got mentioned in the media after they were alleged to have missbehaved. As such, it clearly violates WP:BLP. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really a BLP problem since the list keeps the names anonymous, but I agree with Ice Cold Beer, these events are generally minor news stories. Significant cases with landmark legal consequences, such as the case of an Arabic-looking man being denied passage without any cause in the wake of 9/11, are covered in other articles, but this does not justify a list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like it would essentially be a press review on news items connected to the topic, but WP:NOT#NEWS. Also the title would be wrong as it would not list passengers but incidents. --Minimaki (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People who might be included would almost universally be not-notable and non-encyclopedic. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, better, merge to Air rage - notable subjects and reffed incidents add to latter article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wikipedia:Lists (it is a discrminate and referenced list) and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance (the article is only a couple of weeks old and has improved since then). Moreover, the nominator has been confirmed to be operating socks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as news by other means. Eusebeus (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Combining multiple sources from newspapers does not automatically make this article news. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lists of WP:BLP1E violations are not encyclopaedic. Notable cases are few enough that there's no justification for a list or category. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As an alternative, what if we merged and redirected without deleting to Air rage? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current content doesn't match the title, but if it did it would be a list of WP:BLP1E violations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then in the worst case scenario, we would merge and redirect without deleting to Air rage in order to keep the contribution history public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete the nominated article. I would expect consensus to hold the same on the similar articles, but am holding off until such a time as they are put into the deletion process themselves. Pastordavid (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 100 web sites in the United Kingdom[edit]

This article is just a list of the top 100 websites in the UK taking directly from Alexa, with very little extra information. Any information that could be placed in this article to make it useful could be just as easily placed in Internet in the United Kingdom. Kip Kip 22:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also the following similar articles List of top 100 web sites in Israel, List of top 100 web sites in Japan, List of top 100 web sites in Germany, List of top 100 web sites in Italy and List of top 100 web sites in Malaysia, all created by the same user, who created this article aswell. The outcome of this discussion will almost certainly affect these articles aswell. Kip Kip 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not an Alexa mirror. erc ^{talk/contribs} 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This quarterly list should not be deleted as it provides the market structure of the Internet commerce in the UK. The next update of this list is likely to be on 1st July 2008. Also, please note that only rankings are controversial, not the visitor distribution stats per domain. Infact, it needs to be expanded to include data about market value of each domain, local market share, specialisation, et al. Hopefully, this article would become a locus of reference for other new media related articles on Wiki. This list is a composite of both horizontal and vertical market shares. It shows the significance of each web site to the UK online market as well as the significance of the UK online market to each web site.

I believe lists are better than long narratives in explaining the complex market structures that are still evolving in the online economy. For instance, each domain listed above used to be a specialist in atleast one segment viz advertising, search engine, etc. Google can no longer be called merely as a search engine company as they control almost 70 per cent of the online advertising market now. This list would be expanded, given time, to include UK-specific revenues, employees, market shares, specialisation, etc... It is a work in progress.

Perceived bias towards Alexa is because others like comscore.com, compete.com, netcraft.com, nielsen.com, hitwise.com, etc. seem to focus more on tools and time dimension but do not provide space dimension i.e. geographical distribution statistics of visitors for each domain. And they are not always free.

Permission from Alexa. Because Alexa Internet understands that we are an information resource, we are happy to have people refer to our data in their own work. As long as you credit us appropriately as the source, do not mis-represent the data or attribute Alexa Internet with your subsequent analysis thereof, please feel free to cite Alexa's information, including our charts and graphs, in your publications.

Also, the list is now sortable with additional data from Compete.com. So, it is no longer a wholesale reproduction of Alexa ranks only.

No hyperlink possible - Data on visitors from UK is not available online. So, no duplication or plagiarism of work is involved. The list collates data from two sources - compete.com and alexa.com - via permalinks to give the UK snapshot.Anwar (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not original research. It is better referred as data mining. The information about visitors was already wellknown within the industry. But it was not available for public consumption until now (for free). The list is as good as the lists for GDP. Easily maintenable as visitor trend tends to peak or stabilise when the product reaches critical mass with the public. So ranks are unlikely to change dramatically in a short timespan unless somegame-changing event or technology arrives next season.Anwar (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think data mining is allowed on Wikipedia. Although the policy doesn't mention data mining by name, the process of data mining is virtually identical to what would result as original research. As I've explained earlier, Wikipedia is meant to cite information that has already been data mined elsewhere. Remember - you cannot take A and B, and come up with C within Wikipedia. C must be produced elsewhere, and then Wikipedia can reference C as a source. Groink (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind C in this case is not a new derivative product of A and B. Instead, C is a matter of fact concurrently existing in the real world but not as wel known or obvious as A and B.Anwar (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user is the article's creator and primary contributor. Also... what? Can you explain your comment again? erc ^{talk/contribs} 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think it's an encyclopedic topic and I don't think this list is a mirror or directory, although this data would change every month. There are other references for this kind of thing like Compete, ComScore, Hitwise, Nielsen//NetRatings, Netcraft, Ranking, WebpageFingerprint, and Quantcast — although I don't know how much of that data is freely viewable. I don't know if Alexa has a copyright on the information in this list, but the Alexa terms of use has a section called "Intellectual Property and Copyright Infringement Notice" that may apply to this article (the "arrangement" part in particular). I am not a laywer however. --Pixelface (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's an encyclopedic topic and after looking at the Alexa FAQ, I don't think there's any problem here. Alexa says "As long as you credit us appropriately as the source, do not mis-represent the data or attribute Alexa Internet with your subsequent analysis thereof, please feel free to cite Alexa's information." --Pixelface (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as copyright violations. As Pixelface points out, Alexa makes a rather compelling copyright claim:
Material from the Service and from any other Service owned, operated, controlled, or licensed by Alexa may not be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way. Use or modification of Alexa's intellectual property in any form, including but not limited to use on any other website or networked computer environment, without express written authorization is a violation of Alexa's copyrights and other proprietary rights and is strictly prohibited.
While there is some argument for fair use in citing the Alexa rankings of individual web sites in their articles, we certainly don't have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to reproducing Alexa rankings en bloc like this. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As was pointed out on my talk page, Alexa allows their data to be cited. However, this doesn't appear to extend to the wholesale reproduction of their data. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Alexa FAQ appears to say that citing Alexa is fine, as long as you don't attribute your own analysis to Alexa as well. --Pixelface (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think it would be fine if each of these websites' articles cited Alexa, but presenting the information in a list is not allowed? --Pixelface (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is the interpretation I'm seeing here. This probably sounds strange, but it's not all that uncommon. We don't list all 500 of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, for instance, even though we mention membership on the list in articles on various songs (for instance, Let It Be (song), which is #20). Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem with static lists copied from other Internet-based sources isn't anything to do with copyrights and such. It is more the way in which they're being used on Wikipedia. The Internet is all about hyperlinking, which is why HTTP was nicknamed the World Wide Web (WWW). I haven't heard the WWW term being used in over ten years, so quite possibly newbies do not quite understand the concept and purpose of hyperlinking and why it is vital to Wikipedia. In short, hyperlinking allows different sites to link to each other in virtually an identical fashion to footnoting. Hyperlinking works virtually identical to an electronic spreadsheet, where each object is completely dynamic. Complete duplication of data from one site to another, such as Wikipedia, is seen by most of us as a waste of resources. Even worse, copying dynamic data to Wikipedia turns it into a series of static data. And, the original owner of the data loses control of the data. What if he made a mistake in the data released? Once Wikipedia makes a copy of the erroneous data, and a correction is made to the original source, Wikipedia then becomes out-of-date. Wikipedia uses footnoting more than any other web site. Again, the purpose of footnoting is to allow for the web of Wikipedia articles and its hyperlink sources to stay dynamic. As I indicated in my comment earlier, Wikipedia articles should be about cited interpretations of the data, and not just copying the data verbatim. Groink (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - One other thing I wanted to add... There is absolutely no problem in having a reader jump to another web site in order to validate information he reads on Wikipedia. If the intent here is to keep the readers within Wikipedia instead of moving to other web sites like Alexa, then that ideology MUST change. We seek outside sources to validate information all the time in real-life. I don't want to hear excuses of copying data to Wikipedia for the sake of convenience. Again, stick to the hyperlinking/WWW concepts. Groink (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia has all kinds of articles where the information is dynamic. One solution is to rename the article to a more specific title, such as List of most visited websites in the United Kingdom in April 2008, or just update the list when the data changes. And if you don't think Alexa is a reliable source for webtraffic information, I think there would be many people who would disagree with you. What's to interpret with this data? How it changed from last month? I don't know of anyone here arguing to keep this list on Wikipedia for the sake of convenience. Every article on Wikipedia should cite previously published information. This list is no different. --Pixelface (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - unmanageable and unmaintainable. Ranking could change hourly. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true in the case of this article; the list claims to be the top sites on a quarterly basis, which I'm assuming means the top sites over a 3 month period. Daily fluctuations in site popularity would get averaged out. I would ask; is there something about this particular quarter that makes it article-worthy? Are we going to have a series of "Top 100 UK Sites" for each quarter? That seems more like the function of an almanac, not an encyclopedia. --Bridgecross (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like you argument also. What would make this Quarter any more WP:Notable than any other. It still ends up as a delete vote from me. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are many better approaches. For example, one should write an article about the Internet trends for a given market, and then include an external link to the Alexa report as a cited source. The problem I have with these static lists is that it represents just one month. What makes April 2008 special? Sure, someone can come out and say he'll maintain the list by updating it every month. But Wikipedia editing is not about keeping a list up-to-date. Encyclopedias are about gathering data from different sources, and then turn it into information - linking to reliable sources that can prove these interpretations. It can also serve as bias data - as Alexa's data has been challenged many times, such as when Major League Baseball claims that they receive many more hits than what Alexa's data mentions. There's many other problems with this static list concept and I don't want to get into it here. Groink (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While an article on the top websites per country in a certain year may make sense, this specific article is not manageable and cannot be subject to sufficient scrutiny and control. --Abrech (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The original editor is starting to pull data from multiple sources and putting it together into one table. IMHO, this is heading towards one of Wikipedia's taboos - no original research. By gathering unlike data from multiple resources and combining the data within the Wikipedia article, the resulting table becomes unique, i.e. original research. If someone did the combining work outside of Wikipedia and Wikipedia references it as a source, then that would be okay. But it does not look like the progression of this article is heading in that direction. Wikipedia should not be used for conducting research on a subject that hasn't been explored elsewhere. Groink (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Citing multiple sources is not synthesis. The article List of countries by GDP (PPP) cites the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the CIA World Factbook. That is not synthesis. It's only synthesis "when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position." This research has already been published elsewhere, and in my opinion, it's not even necessary to cite Compete.com. --Pixelface (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a fan of lists, and support their inclusion on encyclopediac grounds, but this as a topic is too transitory. Top 100 by whose standards? What is Alexa says one thing but compete.com or Google or Wired or someone else reliable says something else? List of notable United Kingdom websites would be a far better and workable solution, as a thought. Lawrence § t/e 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I share the concerns of everyone above, and I think it would be best if we just got rid of this article. Red Phoenix (Talk) 23:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The arguments above have convinced that such an list cannot be created without personal analysis, ie. Original research. Gizza^Discuss ^© 02:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have also found similar lists for other countries:

List of top 100 web sites in Japan
List of top 100 web sites in Germany
List of top 100 web sites in Italy
List of top 100 web sites in Malaysia
List of top 100 web sites in Saudi Arabia
List of top 100 web sites in Iran
List of top 100 web sites in Turkey
List of top 100 web sites in France
List of top 100 web sites in Russia

All of these should be deleted on similar grounds. Gizza^Discuss ^© 02:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:OR says "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." What unsourced analysis does this list provide? --Pixelface (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article's name is misleading. As commercially generated information, this is far from being an objective listing. If it were made clear that this is "Alexa's top 100 UK websites" perhaps the debate would be simplified. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:14, 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 Withdrawn by Nom (non admin close). Dusti^{talk to me} 18:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of African American Greek & Fraternal Organizations[edit]

Unsourced information. Possibly a page made by banned user. A check user case is underway to see if second theory is true. However, the page should be deleted due to 1.) A lack of reliable sources. 2.) Original research. miranda 22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this request, since the page will be deleted via CSD 5. miranda 05:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I was certain that there was a category for historically black fraternities and sororities, and was surprised that there isn't. Wikipedia doesn't even have a category for "fraternities" or "sororities", perhaps out of some misplaced sense of political correctness. Thus, if one one looks at Kappa Alpha Psi or Alpha Phi Alpha, the categories are limited to "United States student societies" (the PC term, apparently). If the problem is a lack of reliable sources, there are lots and lots of sources to look at. It's a valid subject, it's irrelevant whether it was created by a (shudder!) "banned user". Mandsford (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one. It is called NPHC. Oh and by the way, banned users aren't allowed to edit here. miranda 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omigod! Shoes. Let's get some shoes. Mandsford (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The banned user comment is totally irrelevant; just because they can't edit anymore doesn't mean that everything they did has to be rooted out. Anyway, that aside, the content of the article seems to be able to be sourced, so there shouldn't be any problem. matt91486 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should be easily sourceable, and a list seems the ideal way to present the information. The issue of whether a banned user started it is a red herring. Aleta ^Sing 04:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Actually, the banned user issue is not a red herring. Per Wikipedia:Banning policy, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion...Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users." Additionally, "It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to. Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a ((db-banned)) to mark such a page." If the author is a banned user, the article meets the criteria for deletion.-RoBoTam^ice 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be completely unconstructive if other editors have worked on a page and it meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand the point about the policy, but surely it is more important whether it is a useful article. If it is useful, it is counter-productive to delete it just because the originator was not supposed to be editing here any more. I think this is a useful article, and think the discussion about the creator is less relevant than that. Aleta ^Sing 23:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The checkuser case Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000 showed that the creator of the article was not related to any banned user. [11] 150.210.176.106 (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the entire nomination was premised on a CSD 5 that proved not to be the case, I think the discussion needs to be closed. I suggest that the nominator attempt to maintain a more civil attitude in the future. Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:A checkuser can't "prove" or "show" that someone is not a sock, although it can prove "All the accounts are editing from different locations and ISPs in the same large city. (Even GomabWork; although whois says "S......", the name of the server via RDNS gives a clue to a different location.) That's as far as the technical evidence goes." Was miranda somehow uncivil to one of you by requesting to delete what she believes to be edits from a sockpuppet?-RoBoTam^ice 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me. I just happened upon this AfD in the list, and have no connection (positive or negative) with the article or any of the editors in question beyond giving my opinion here. (Of course, this question probably wasn't directed at me, but just to clarify...) Aleta ^Sing 14:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is useful, the information should be easy to source, and the checkuser showed that the creator of the article had no connection to a banned user. I see no reason why the article should be deleted. —Mears man (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Then the article could be deleted and redone with sourced material that complies with wiki standards and policy. If GomabWork is proved a sock (which is likely--sorry MKF, you know I have nothing personal against you), the article created by a banned user gets deleted anyway, even if some of us think it is a great article. Wiki is pretty clear on this, and that situation is different than the situation where someone creates an article and is THEN banned.-RoBoTam^ice 13:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the technical evidence isn't supporting, I'm not sure why you're keeping with pushing the fact that you think he is. It's all well and good that you think he is, but it doesn't seem as though it's going to be proved. matt91486 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your response. It is not a matter of pushing anything. you stated that "the banned user comment is totally irrelevant; just because they can't edit anymore doesn't mean that everything they did has to be rooted out." Others agreed with you. I simply pointed out that that was incorrect, and explained why (per Wikipolicy, not my own opinion). I also suggested that if the article is worth saving, it should be re-done with proper sources. I welcome you to do so (as you believe the article should be kept).-RoBoTam^ice 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough; when I first posted the comment, I assumed that it was written by a user who was now banned and read the initial nomination differently. You are correct in pointing out the policy, but I believe the key here would be any edits may be deleted or removed. Not automatically. Generally speaking, I think I disagree with the policy, but that's obviously a separate issue.\ matt91486 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Beanland[edit]

Speedy deletion declined as indeed there are some assertions of notability. Though whether this person is notable is debatable. Google news archive gives one hit [12], so here it is for your deliberation. Polly (Parrot) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw my nomination, I really can't bring myself to give a damn anymore. Polly (Parrot) 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue valley recreation[edit]

The only assertion of notability is that the recreation commission is used by about 500,000 people. Is that a big number? Prod removed by creator, but reliable sources not added. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The website has info, including pictures and event schedules - it looks like a regular local park with baseball fields, etc. Certainly not notable. - Special-T (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From their own website: "Over 90% of the individuals participating in BVRC programs are residents of the Blue Valley School District". This is an area which (on its wikipedia page at least) seems to have a population of around 85,000. Those numbers simply don't add up. I think I also found the source for the 500,000 number. I think thats total vists in the year, not unique visitors - at which point the sums start to add up, but 500,000 doesn't look like such a big number anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a local organization and it lacks that reliable source coverage required per WP:ORG to demonstrate notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per lack of established or demonstrated notability. The local aspect is irrelevant, really. It's just not notable as presented. Lawrence § t/e 21:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choose Now: A One Act Musical[edit]

No notability stated in article beyond the local college environment MightyWarrior (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A search for "'Caitlin Neiman' Choose Now" turned up 3 results: one was the Wikipedia article, one was a description of the play at a local theater, and the other was a MySpace page. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails general notability guidelines. Nick Graves (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From its own description, not (yet) notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Nothing says "nerd" like having to look for a drinking game on the internet. Mandsford (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The most important article on Wikipedia. 81.149.250.228 (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My heart says because the sort of people who follow such "rules" are guaranteed to ruin the atmosphere of any pub that they go in, so we shouldn't do anything to encourage them. My head says because this article fails all sorts of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as verifiability, original research and notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and indeed WP:BEANS. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Are you actually hoping for a New York Times article on a drinking game? Thousands of hits on blogs etc (ie, widespread recognition of these "rules") is the best indication of notability you're going to get for a non-newsworthy subject like this (which is very different from non-notable). Of course the sites mirror content - they're rules, and are therefore largely the same. Sure, it needs serious work and a lot of culling, but that's no reason to delete the entire article.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It doesn't have to be covered in the NYT. Any reliable source reporting on the game would be a step in the right direction. Did you find any? Without any such coverage, it's not notable. Nick Graves (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not the kind of thing that some journalist is going to write an article on, however it is demonstrably a widespread game. I remind you that WP:Notability is a guideline only - this is an incidence where it should be ignored.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR. BigDunc (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete N, OR, V ukexpat (talk) 14:25, 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 ... It has been explained below why a merge or redirect would be inappropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Nature Fund[edit]

Non-notable organization created by User:Tnf, which indicates conflict of interest. Google gives back 259 hits, none of which seem to be usable as reliable sources. GlassCobra 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its parent organization, TerraNature. The parent seems to be a notable org in New Zealand (I could be wrong here). Blueboy 96 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to TerraNature. Significant initatives of notable organizations should be covered in the the main org article unless excessive length merits separation. Such is not the case here. Nick Graves (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include as an article. Terra Nature Fund and TerraNature are separate entities, each founded at different times, under separate laws of incorporation, in separate countries, with different tax requirements, and with separate and uncommitted governance. Terra Nature Fund (TNF) is a nonprofit public benefit corporation incorporated with the California Secretary of State, and is a notable organization in its own right. TerraNature is a charitable trust incorporated under the New Zealand Charitable Trusts Act, that is not subject to the laws of the United States, and is also notable in its own right. TerraNature is not the parent organization. TNF was founded before TerraNature. TNF has obtained the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status that is essential to its operations, by meeting the requirements of the US Internal Revenue Service that would not have allowed TerraNature the same designation. There is no parent organization because there is no legal means of connecting the two organizations, and it is not possible for either organization to have any form of ownership in, or control of the other. While the two organizations currently respect an affiliation, and share a website, there is no agreement or legal instrument that binds the two organizations. TerraNature Trustees can at will act with disregard to the wishes of Terra Nature Fund if they so determine, and this has occurred. While TNF presently has a policy of only funding TerraNature, TNF directors may decide to support any organization if they wish to. Tnf (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC) — Tnf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - given the explanation from tnf, then merge is inappropriate, and the lack of reliable sources indicate deletion as the cource of action. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is not a fruitful approach, but an awkwardly composed list with unclear and controversial inclusion criteria, and an unneeded potential battleground. Sandstein (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of nationalities and cultures in Eastern Europe[edit]

This article is quite problematic. First, we already have Category:Ethnic groups in Europe, though I understand categories and lists can coexist, so let me move on. It imposes a rather arbitrary definition for "Eastern Europe" - the Czech Republic and Austria can be considered part of Central Europe, Greece part of Eastern Europe, etc. Third, it ignores some rather important groups like the Turks of Bulgaria (almost 10% of that country's population). And even if we do list those, there are always the Lipovans, the Vietnamese Czechs, the Chinese of Romania, etc, etc. Fourth, it perpetuates controversy: recognition of the Bosnians, the Moldovans, the Macedonians (absent here) isn't a given, and we don't need yet another battleground for those disputes. Fifth, the content is nothing new: it merely copies a couple of paragraphs from the lead article on each language and ethnicity. Such text duplication isn't very helpful. Finally, the whole "who's who"/"more about..." format isn't very professional or standard. As it's not really needed and we can do without, then I suggest we delete. Biruitorul (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Incompleteness is not a criterion for deletion. The possibility of controversy is not a criterion for deletion. Yes, the article could be improved, but there is some substantial information here (more than can be covered in a category), and several references for the information. Sure, the list repeats information found elsewhere, but the value of a list is in gathering together similar bits of information in a useful, quickly-surveyable format, to ease information finding, comparisons, and so forth. I can see how it could use some tightening up (more concise descriptions of the ethnicities), but none of the concerns raised by the nomination necessitate deletion. Nick Graves (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I personally don't like the format of the article (like the nominator, I find the "who's who" and "more about" headings to be unencyclopedic), the article does bring a good deal of information into one space. I don't like a lot of it, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT would apply to the reasons that I dislike the article. Mandsford (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator seems to misunderstand what we use lists for, with his argument that "It copies information from elsewhere". We use them to do exactly that. Also, he makes IDONTLIKEIT and "It's incomplete", which aren't valid arguments for deletion. After eliminating these, there's really nothing left to suggest deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Joschka Fischer, "Excuse me, I am not convinced". Could you please point to, let's say, a Featured List that dumps text like that from other articles? Inevitably, there will be some overlap between, say, President of the United States and List of Presidents of the United States. In no way does that imply we should accept a list that simply reduplicates page after page of text. Biruitorul (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't expect there to be any cross-content between a list and the articles linked to the list. Although the state of the article can be improved by other methods by deletion and thus doesn't fly as an argument in favor of the radical solution of deletion, I'll go along with your request for the sake of achieving consensus. List of Countries, List of Archbishops of Canterbury, List of Oz books, List of Popes, and FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives are all great examples of articles that coalesce information in a manner like this. Granted, they do it in a better way than this article, but again, that's a "improve this" argument, not a "delete this" argument. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you meant "...there not to be any cross-content..." and that's correct, I do expect some overlap. But I also expect, and more importantly WP:L does, that "Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. "republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. "List of republics")." This is precisely what is happening here: a random cut-and-paste job where the articles themselves do just fine.

Most of the lists you showed have one or two sentences of prose description. Some of the Oz items have a little more, which is understandable given many of the articles they point to are redlinks. The FBI list has more text, but not from the lead, but rather regarding the specific juncture between these guys and the FBI (ie, they're wanted).

A fundamental problem is that "Eastern Europe" remains undefined. Going by the UN's "wonderful" definition, the Baltics, the former Yugoslavia, Greece and Albania are excluded while much of Austria-Hungary (arguably "Central Europe") is included, etc, etc. As long as no stable definition of the term exists (and keep in mind that Wikipedia offers around 6), creating a stable version of this list is a fool's job.

For the record, many of the other articles that use "Eastern Europe" in the title (and only a handful exist) are also junk, and have the same definitional problem: Gender roles in Eastern Europe after Communism, GPA in Central and Eastern Europe, Eastern European cuisine, Music of Eastern Europe, HIV/AIDS in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and possibly Renaissance architecture in Eastern Europe. Biruitorul (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the reasons I indicate below myself, Biruitorul has made a full argument in which one of the points was that the list merely replicates info from other articles. While I personally feel that lists with more than the minimal info are a waste of space (if you cannot keep the list laconic, you don't really need it is what I say), and would thus agree with deleting the list just on this rationale, it does not strike me as constructive to obstinately pretend that there were no other reasons why this list may not be needed here. Dahn (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying this list isn't without issues; far from it. I think the article is in terrible shape and needs extensive trimming and table-ization. But I also realize that per our deletion policies, if it can be fixed by other methods than deletion (such as actually improving the article), then it isn't a good candidate for deletion. Other than the state of the article, the only other problem is a relatively trivial one with ample precedent; WikiProject Geography has encountered the issue of defining regions of Europe before, and they resolved it by using the UN definition by consensus. I don't understand what the issue is with that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what does WPGEO use the supposed UN definitions for? If it is for its clerical assignments: why does it matter here? (Wikipedia is not a source.) If it is for settling the matter in articles, then I'm afraid I cannot believe it actually suppresses other sources (I couldn't count the policies it would break if it were to do that). Either way, there is a large gap between using a definition as a guideline and imposing it, one which you do not take into consideration: when and if I create a list around a definition, I impose that definition and marginalize all other arguments, because it would be impossible to create an alternative without it being a POV fork (whereas, when I, say, use the UN as the main source in an article on a geographical concept, I merely serve info to the reader). In any case, the one we are discussing seems to be the only list so far to use Eastern Europe as its domain of reference, so it doesn't even happen elsewhere. Dahn (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely pointless list. The info it supposedly structures could never actually be summarized within a list, and, from the very start, it introduces three subjective variables. One has to do with the definition of nationalities and especially cultures (which, especially in Europe, is not textbook - or, if it is, it is so very many textbooks saying different things). Another is about the definition of Eastern Europe, and any claim to know the exact borders of a geo-cultural entity strikes me as amusingly overconfident. As for the third: who decided that there actually is a connection between nationalities (whatever they are) and cultures (whatever they are)? Why not "nationalities and juggling clowns" or "elephants and culture"? The least we have of these willy-nilly "let me show you it can be done" lists the better. Oh, and: did anyway suggest we need articles that group ethnicities per place? Because, let me tell you, we already have such articles. here, here, here etc etc. If the national level is not enough, then surely we are opening the flood gates. There is then "no reason not to create" an article such as Nationalities and cultures of Albania, Ukraine and China or Demographics of North-Central Southwestern Europe... And to my esteemed colleague above I say: no, we don't keep lists to duplicate info, we keep lists to reduce clutter. The article we are discussing is nothing other than clutter. Dahn (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping ethnicities by nation is fine and good, but what about by region? The act of removing that makes a fairly obvious hole in the project, if you ask me; you then have a bunch of articles but no way to group them together. If anything, this would encourage the development of similar articles such as List of nationalities and cultures in Western Europe, which is a good thing, not a bad thing. Your main issue seems to be that "Eastern Europe" isn't defined by anybody; however, the UN has a wonderful definition of Western Europe and Eastern Europe. The straw man arguments of "Nationalities and Cultures of North-Central Southwestern Europe" and "Nationatlities and cultures of Albania, Ukraine and China" do not enjoy such definition. And if you think that deleting a list simply because it has information that is available elsewhere is valid, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, as that is simply ridiculous.Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about region? I do believe I already answered to the main point: if you have them by nations (and in so many ways that even this gets redundant), why also have them by region? Especially when the definitions of regions are vague (see below), and since the reader is presumably able to click from one areas of his concerns to the next. Since we do not edit here to ensure that any combination of concepts results in a bluelink, and since we don't start with the presumption that our readers are idiots, we really don't need to state the exact same thing on several pages. The only result of that would in fact be self-contradictory, tiresome or completely isolated, "autistic" articles. As for the content that is already present and its duplication, deleting it is so ridiculous in fact that we have been doing it for ages on pages like this one and through policies.

Why not have them by region? It's perfectly encyclopedic to do something by region as well as some other level (the lists of State forests, the lists of state forests by region, List of Wars#Wars by Region, et cetera. If you think that we can't include anything other than names of articles in lists, well, then, we might as well scrap our entire navigational system, because that is exactly what lists are designed to do (See List of Popes, a featured list); provide brief summaries of linked topics in one article to help you find what you're looking for. This makes them more useful than categories for such things. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Why not"? Because you would be replicating info one click away, and creating lists/articles that are all but identical. If why not, then why not also by sub-sub-region, by time zone, by climate zone etc.? If we can do it, there is no reason not to do it, right? The one actual example you can cite so far refers to wars by continents (and two lists of wars by sub-continental region), which is not quite the same thing, is it? Also note that there are yet no articles on "wars by country", which means that there is actually little or no duplication there.

And, as I think I told you before, nobody here seems to be objecting to the list just because it repeats the articles, so you're flogging a dead horse with the "List of Popes thing". Here's why: if you remove the more substantial bits of text from the popes list (and I don't ultimately care if that happens or not), and even if you were to strip it down to only the names of the popes in chronological order, you would have a useful instrument providing substantial info that is not readily available in one article or another. If you take the "nationalities and cultures" list and strip it down to its essentials, you have something that can already be reached through several channels (articles, other lists, categories) and is not "frozen" at an artificial and arbitrary level. See what I mean? Dahn (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to claim I use fallacies, you'd better start with exploring your argument above. In it, you basically tell me that a thing could not have several equally valid definitions because you know of one valid definition [supposing that "wonderful" definition does exist]. How about comparing the definitions that are out there, and seeing how much they vary? Or, if not, I suggest renaming the list to List of nationalities and cultures in "Eastern Europe" as once defined by the UN (Eastern Europe, not the nationalities and cultures). Dahn (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in any one individual academic or even one individual country's definition, as they are inherently biased beyond usefulness when there are better, more objective ones available. I am suggesting that we go by the standard definition that is agreed upon by a body composed of the countries themselves, as well as other geography and international studies-related experts, like WikiProject Geography does. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are basically saying is "I have one criterion I like and use, so you'd better discard the notion that acceptable sources may disagree." Let me shed more light on my argument: there is no "standard definition", and the definition supposedly used by the UN would still not be (and most likely not aim to be in this case) a standard for anything other than the UN. The notion is subjective, and it will have subjective definitions. And, finally, this subjectivity and the many definitions it created have themselves been the subject of an entire scientific literature (from historiography to the study of mentalities). So you have no point. Dahn (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eastern Europe is a region which can be easily defined, and the list of its several nationalities and cultures adds to the understanding to this region. This is, in my opinion, enough to constitute encyclopedic relevance. Further work on the article may be necessary, but that is no argument for its deletion. --Abrech (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I shouldn't quote your former Foreign Minister twice in one discussion, but again, "Excuse me, I am not convinced". You say Eastern Europe is "easily" defined: as the maps at Eastern Europe suggest, that is far from being the case. Greece, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Croatia, the Baltics... The region has quite a few contested members. Biruitorul (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "easily defined" is not a correct statement. It is probably correct that the article should spend some scrutiny on defining the term "Eastern Europe". As to the relevance: Think of the causes of WW I, think of the time of the iron curtain etc. Throughout the 20th century, Eastern Europe and its national and ethnic diversity had a dramatic impact on overall history. Czecheslovakia, Slovakia, Czeck Republic, development of Yugoslavia etc. You can't understand this without a look at the nationalites and cultures of Eastern Europe, and this is not fully reflected by an article on the ethnic diversity. --Abrech (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree one needs to know about Eastern Europe's ethnic complexity in order to understand her modern history. That's why we have individual articles on each of those groups (which this list just dumps into one place), this, this, this, this, etc, etc. Biruitorul (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.The region "Eastern Europe" is not and cannot be a definite number of regions.In one glance i didn't see Romaniotes and they are distinct from other jewish populations.But thats because Greece is not in it even though its in the eastern part of Europe.This eastern definition seems to be something like "eastern post-communist block" Europe and seems biased in the countries it includes.Only Finland was not communist from those in the list.Also i saw [[[Gorani]] and Albanians and Bulgaria as well.A great number of peoples are not listed and what regions and peoples make the "criteria" vary.Too confusing and generic in a misleading sense.And the "nationalities" found in Europe means the ones that were there up to a specific date? Vague and relative.Megistias (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrarily defines "Eastern Europe" and equates ethnic groups with nation-states. Duplicates verbatim (wtf?) the text of the respective articles. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above the definition of Eastern Europe is arbitrary and does not even conform internally with that used in other WP articles. The content too is duplicated in the Ethnic Groups in Europe article. Pointless.Xenovatis (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, I don’t see the point of this list, too. Putting aside that the definition of Eastern Europe is arbitrary, it also stands out as unique since there are no other relevant lists as "List of nationalities and cultures of Western Europe" , or “Northern Europe” (within the Arctic circle?), just Europe , Eurasia maybe? It is a slippery slope and the respective categories (and various nationalities, peoples and cultures articles) can cover these. LapisExCoelis (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – This list was originally developed to help me understand Twentieth Century East European history. For the last one hundred years there have been many wars, massacres and killings all based on the aspirations of one country or culture clashing with others. The body count is HUGE! This has also affected Wikipedia since many Wikipedia editors are openly hostile and rude to other editors whose family history is rooted in the “other” culture or country. Eastern European history is not just the clash of two countries – but by a chaotic series of hostilities between many different peoples. By getting down to the basics, distinguishing between Sorbs and Serbs; Romanians and Romani; Moldavians and Macedonians; Ruslyn and Belarus help understand what happened. The look and feel of this list was patterned after the results of “Google” search but restricted to Wikipedia. I listed most of the countries of Eastern Europe and included “cultures” for those groups of people that had or have aspiration of becoming countries. Hyperlinks are restricted to articles about the people and their languages. Built for HISTORIANS not GEOGRAPHERS. Bobanni (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why dump text like that? And what does your desire to understand history have to do with us, or with Wikipedia policy? Can't one understand these differences by simply typing Sorbs and Serbs? Who would confuse Macedonians and Moldovans - remember: we assume our readers are not idiots. What third-party sources (do check WP:V, an official policy) consider these and only these to be "cultures" of "Eastern Europe" (both of which are highly contestable notions)? Biruitorul (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laudable as your aim to educate yourself is I can't help remarking that WP is not your personall Spark's Notes. It is an encyclopedia and hence should be geared towards the remaining 99.999999% of the internet's readership as well. Do however feel free to move the page to your user sandbox if you feel you neet it as a crib. This should take care of both your educational needs as well as help de-clutter WP.Xenovatis (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - moreover, the creator already has this in his userspace. Biruitorul (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:POV WP:SYNthesized list of awkward duplicated content. Who defines Eastern Europe? Who can provide a citation of an academic reliable source that has compiled such a list for us? Why doesn't any other list of the sort exist, like its mother (List of nationalities and cultures in Europe), or like its sister (List of nationalities and cultures in Western Europe), or like any of its cousins (e.g. List of nationalities and cultures in South America)? NikoSilver 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this could be a very important list. Yahel Guhan 04:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly? And isn't such a list a WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SYN violation? Biruitorul (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per default - no one for deletion has scored even one valid point to warrant such a move. For example: Vietnamese Chechs are the ethnic group and shouldn't be included into this list, or you have to change the title. And where to draw a line between Eastern and Western culture? It's a simple subject to settle. Try language groups: Slavic, Finno-Ugric, Greek, Oriental. We're losing Romania but it can be fixed by establishing which culture was more influential there - Oriental or Roman? The same problem would be with Iran in the Middle East. Still Iran is more Oriental than Germany. greg park avenue (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"More Oriental"? That smacks of Orientalism and if someone were uncharitable, prejudice. May I suggest that one should be more carefull when using such formulations in the future or would that be too Oriental of me?Xenovatis (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a moment - how do you know the Vietnamese Czechs have no culture of their own? Or the Turkish Austrians, the Syrian Romanians, or for that matter the American Czechs (of whom there are many thousands and I'm sure a few at least have citizenship)? Second, please review WP:OR. If it's such a "simple" and "settled" matter, would you care to adduce some third-party sources to back up your claim? By your definition, Finland and Estonia are Eastern European but not Latvia and Lithuania - do you stand by that? And what are "Oriental" languages?

Also, your claim that Romania is more Oriental than Roman, aside from being OR, is rather dubious OR. Transylvania - 43% of Romania's territory - was under Ottoman control for just 140 years (less time than the Romans controlled it) and their influence there was minimal. Her Austrian and Hungarian elites strove to demonstrate close ties to the West by using Latin and promoting Catholicism, as did many Romanians by uniting with the Roman Church in 1700. Moldavia and Wallachia, where Turkish influence was stronger, were no less Romance-speaking.

And where do these people fit? You see, this "simple" and "settled" matter is neither. Biruitorul (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This way we should exclude Poland from Eastern Europe too, because 90% of its population is Roman-Catholic? Come on, Biruitorul, you can do better than that. greg park avenue (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue: the issue is that your claim of Romania, and Transylvania in particular (parts of which, let us not forget, were uniformly German for about 800 years) being more "Oriental" than "Roman" are not only OR, but demonstrably false OR. And, well, yes, Poland's (and Croatia's) Catholicism (and her participation in the Enlightenment) make her less "Eastern" than, say, Belarus. I'm not arguing Poland (or for that matter Romania) isn't Eastern European - just that the term is not "simple" and "settled", and that your attempts to settle the question have thus far relied purely on OR, which cannot (NOR being an official policy) be the basis for an article. Biruitorul (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this, American way, maybe less OR(?): draw straight line from sea to shining sea betweeen Szczecin and Udine. In the south, Balkan Peninsula, Aegean and points beyond would be Eastern Europe. In the north, Finnland and points southeast including Baltic states would belong too. So what we got in between? All Romania and Eastern Austria, which was also included in this article, would be Eastern too. Including Vienna and Bucharest, that's where Orient Express was heading from Paris via Zurich, some compromise, hah?. And Transylvania ain't even on no map any more. Don't recommend to cut Balkans neither along nor across in half just like those geniuses from the Leage of Nations once tried long ago and see what they come up with after. I don't wanna another Balkan War, my son is in drafting age. Cheers. greg park avenue (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I don't mean to sound like a maniac, or like Jacques Derrida. Of course Eastern Europe exists. It's just that, per WP:OR, we need definitions. Yours is not a bad one, but your or I can't make up our own definitions - we need outside sources to do that. Biruitorul (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Biruitorul. My best bet is this article goes to the recreational area for now meaning closing without consensus. Cheer up! greg park avenue (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vary vague title and content. Who will draw the line and define cultures of Eastern Europe in general? Just imagine the duplication of content when one culture may have multiple sub cultures/ groups. It is very WP:POV. Meander^₪ 16:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this HUGE can of worms post-haste! It's FAR more trouble than it's worth! K. Lásztocska^talk 04:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A laudable intention behind the page (going on what the article's creator has said here), but it just doesn't work. There are too many issues of OR and general vagueness of terms to warrant this list. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and K. Lastochka - well-intentioned, but the scopes of neither the list as a whole nor any one of its members may be accurately set without inviting the chronic nosebleed arguing over defining nationalities, ethnicities, languages, cultures and religions. Moreover this master list is somewhat presumptuous - why not include all European groups as well and make it simply "European"? This, as it stands, is a Greatest-Hits album of contentious points from an entire continent. István (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a valuable list - if somebody has something good to add, please do. It says so right near the top. The possibility of a future problem is no reason to delete an article. If people think it's incomplete, they can improve it. AGF baby, AGF. Horlo (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential for conflict is but one of the objections to this list, but not the only one (if that were the case, we wouldn't have articles like Transnistria or Holodomor). However, the other issues: no sources, no definition of "nationality", "culture" and "Eastern Europe", simple text dumping where in this case the linked articles and categories amply suffice, duplication of national-level articles (plus European ethnic groups) all remain unaddressed. Biruitorul (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator and Dahn. Too vague title and unclear criteria as fas as what is included in that list.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The categories are better for this, they can nicely overlap and such. Are we sure this article isn't copyvio? It seems unwiki yet very cohesive, and the first edit was surprisingly complete. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty sure it's not a copyio. What the original author seems to have done is copied text from the articles on the relevant groups which are already here on Wikipedia (which is itself a problem, as other contributors have pointed out). Exactly where that stands in relation to the GFDL I couldn't tell you right at the moment, but my educated guess is that it's clean. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Hexagon, I'd have to say that categories just work better for this kind of a thing. This is impossible to maintain, maybe if it was just "List of nationalities in Eastern Europe" but even that would pose a problem with redundancy . The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:00, 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 keep. John254 02:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy diplomacy[edit]

Hmmmm. This is said to be an old term, but looks more like a neologism. Perhaps it's justa very bad article on a good topic, mixing fiction and fact. Or perhaps it should be merged somewhere else, since it sounds similar to gunboat diplomacy in some respects. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely not a neologism. Old terms definitely should not be deleted, but even this is moot since it's still used today. SteveSims (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in Time and the Washington Post. Not exactly my definition of a neologism. Blueboy 96 21:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A widely used term and concept, here to stay. Some of the Star Trek stuff crosses over into original research, but there is an encyclopedic core here. Nick Graves (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable term that has been used to describe presidents for decades. And to note, a Google Books Search does prove secondary source coverage of the Star Trek stuff. Joshdboz (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the nominator, the author of the article doesn't appear to be aware of the history of this term. It's a surprise that this topic hasn't been written about before now. More recently, it's been applied to George W. Bush, but the term was used to describe Ronald Reagan (which is where ST:TNG got it), and Teddy Roosevelt, among others. It's a worthwhile topic, but a lousy article, written by someone more interested in photon torpedoes than in foreign policy. I'm sure someone will invoke the self-righteous "We rewrite shit instead of deleting it" commandment, although I don't think anyone will volunteer for that task. Mandsford (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, uh, what, your role here is an editor is to advocate the deletion of content rather than improve it? We'll eventually be left with nothing with that attitude as standards for deletion ramp up higher and higher until you're left with one article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is there content here? Musta missed it. I'm flattered at the possibility that I would have the power to ramp up standards, but my opinion will have no effect on the overall quality of Wikipedia. I hope that someone does rewrite this particular article to make it more about diplomacy and not as much about cowboys. Mandsford (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Notable term that has been used long before TNG ever thought about it. I think it's fine as it is, but I'll see if I can improve it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Goes back at least to Japan in the '60s and Iran in the 70s so not a neologism. I think it can be explained without being a dicdef, but I'll admit this is not one I have the interest or tine to tackle right now. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable and widely-used term, not a neologism. Remove the Star Trek focus though, or make it very brief... or how about a "Cowboy diplomacy in popular culture" article? (I'm joking!) Also, we should rewrite shit instead of deleting it.--Canley (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and keep - Valid topic, but a terrible article - being a Brit, I don't expect Guy to be particularly familiar with a relatively recent and pretty-much-American political coinage. FCYTravis (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a relatively recent coinage, quite old. Keep and rewrite. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be quite notable. Yahel Guhan 04:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn (non-admin) --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Calvo[edit]

~~Little content, vague assertion that she may be notable, but no explanation or context.~~ GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not many Google hits, but some look like the may be useful: [13] [14] [15] [16], etc. I'll toss these onto the article myself. I guess I'd go with a weak keep, but I could be persuaded otherwise. GlassCobra 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a bit more research and adding sources, I'd say this demonstrates very strong notability. I'll change my vote to keep. GlassCobra 21:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her cookbook, awards, TV appearances and production company seem sufficient to establish notability. WWGB (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. My concerns were over the lack of content and context to establish notability. These have now been met. I would request that more information about television appearences and how notable her books are be added, but I can no longer see any real reason to delete. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music Of A Gangsta[edit]

No sources, the album the song was supposed to be on was deleted from Wikipedia. I looked up the song on youtube and myspace video sites and neither had the song. Y5nthon5a (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merging with Jazze Pha would be a possibility, but with no sources, there's no sense in keeping. Unverified information, and certainly no proof of independent notability for the song. Nick Graves (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that there are essentially no Google hits I doubt this has even been released, despite what the article claims. If and when it's released as a single and actually hits the charts we can have an article, but not now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Article protected against recreation. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin DeBower[edit]

Recreation of article speedily deleted within the last 12 hours (nn G7). Fails WP:ATHLETE completely. Problems with WP:RS - claims made cannot be verified (eg Rivals.com); the "official profile" in the infobox links to a non-existent NBA subpage. Appears to be promotional fluff. Taroaldo (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, suspicious astroturfing for a kid who is likely to be recruited (but at what level who knows). The "NEIC Honorable Mention" appears to be his high school conference. Fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:BIO, specific claims fail WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Tyreke Evans and Brandon Jennings, fellow basketball recruits, have their own Wikipedia page. The same should apply for the Junkyard Dog. 12.207.131.167 (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is worth noting that Evans has nearly 70,000 ghits and Jennings has over 90,000 compared to 73 for DeBower. More important, though, is Google news which produces 99 articles for Evans and 96 for Jennings, but zero for DeBower. It is true that Wikipedia is not a numbers game and that ghits alone do not make an article notable nor does a lack of ghits make for a non-notable topic, but, since WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was invoked, I thought it was worth pointing out that this stuff is not quite the same as the other stuff at least in terms of notability in the media. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of coverage, WP:ATHLETE doesn't make accommodation for high school athletes. --- Taroaldo (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, the last thing I want is more articles on high school athletes, however, with sufficient media coverage that meets WP:RS, a person can be notable per WP:N and WP:BIO under general notability criteria even if their athletic career does not meet WP:ATHLETE standards. (Not the case with this article, however.) OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LeBron James certainly would have merited an article while he was still in high school. There are always a handful of high school basketball players who achieve national recognition before playing in college or the pros. (DeBower isn't on that level, though.) Zagalejo^^^ 01:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Justin DeBower is a well-known commodity in the basketball community. He should be kept on Wikipedia. John
Keep, Wikipedia is about knowledge and information. The article about this particular basketball player, though unknown to me, must be kept to further Wikipedia's mission. Rob
Keep, Justin DeBower isn't just some random basketball player. He is being recruited major Division 1 colleges and is ranked 9th in his class by Rivals.com. That is a major player in basketball terms. Dr.J

Note: I've struck out the !votes above, which were added, with crudely forged sigs, by 12.207.131.167 (talk · contribs), who has already expressed his opinion above. Deor (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreation of deleted material. erc ^{talk/contribs} 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. For a moment I thought this might be a hoax, but there are some ghits to back up that this person does play bball in Charles City, Iowa, but that is all. The link in the infobox to a supposed player profile at nba.com is bogus. There are no Google news hits. In other words, no notability to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N in general. The crude attempt at sockpuppetry noted above is rather offputting as well and backs up my strong suspicion that a COI is at work here. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too obscure for Wikipedia. I didn't find him listed anywhere at Rivals.com. Zagalejo^^^ 01:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. Wikipedia should expand their horizons so that all stories are covered, big or small. If it isn't an important story now, no big deal. When JD becomes more popular, though, people will want to see his page on Wikipedia...BlackMustang40 — BlackMustang40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nom and salt. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Too much article re-creation, sockpuppetry, and AfD-tag blanking surrounding this nonnotable high-schooler. Deor (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is full of lies and half-truths. This should be deleted immediately, and I am one of the creators. RickyVando (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC) — RickyVando (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This editor vandalized the article by replacing with a copy of Earl Seibert changed to use the name Justin DeBower. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:34, 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. Unless sources are forthcoming, the nominator is correct that this fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Black Kite 22:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iñigo Ximenes Arista, Count de Bigore[edit]

Subject is a historical nonentity as described. Built upon the otherwise unknown father of the historical king Íñigo Arista of Pamplona, yet made grandfather and identified with a Gascony leader of a different name. Details are either extrapolated from what is known or claimed of king Íñigo (e.g. king Íñigo was supposedly Count of Bigorre, so his father must have been; death date is actually that of king Iñigo's step-father), or are completely invented (e.g. named in Song of Roland). Only cites are to web pages and on-line genealogies. Historical individual, if one can even be said to have existed as such, was historically insignificant, and is not named in any surviving historical document. Violates WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR Agricolae (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a duplicate entry relating to the same confused historical cipher as Iñigo Ximenes Arista, Count de Bigore:

*Keep since they are named in a very major work of (semi)fiction, it is reasonable that people would want information on who they are. That's one of the prime purposes of an encyclopedia. If there's not much to say, then it's a short article. If there's doubt about the actual historical status, that goes in t he article, where people can see it. DGG (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you've misread the nomination, DGG. Agricolae is saying that, despite the statement in the article, this fellow is not mentioned in The Song of Roland (which indeed seems to be the case). Deor (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, this is what I am saying - I don't find either there, in spite of the claim in the article. Historically, there is no doubt - these people never existed historically, but were created through confusion of details relating to distinct individuals and some wishful thinking forced into a genealogical framework, then further confusion. I realize that reality is not the sole basis for deciding the issue, but if these individuals deserve a position it is only as fictional characters, and then their coverage should be consistent with their role in the work, which has yet to be demonstrated, currently is uncited, and if it is insignificant enough to escape a second search, just now, hardly deserves more than the briefest of mention on the Song of Roland page, and not a page of their own.Agricolae (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't see it either, by a search, but I want to check alternate names. There's a problem how to handle the semi-legendary. DGG (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Song of Roland. The articles are stubs with no possibility of expansion, because nothing is known of them. They should therefore be redirected to the article where they are mentioned. In that article, the names should of course be de-linked. I know nothing in particualr of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, where are you seeing this guy mentioned (linked or otherwise) in The Song of Roland? Deor (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just add something with regard to this "he is in Roland, so redirect it" argument. Were I to create a page entitled "Sir Excrement of the Irritable Bowel", make him brother of Cassius, founder of the Banu Qasi, and say that he is in the Song of Roland, well, if you look at the Song of Roland you find a character named Escremiz, clearly the character I had in mind when I made the statement. However, that there is such a character in no way makes my page any more legitimate, nor should Sir Excrement redirect to The Song of Roland: the unreferenced claim that Escremiz is the same as my guy is not justification for a Sir Excrement entry, even if it is only a redirect. A redirect just adds seeming validity to an unverifiable invention. Agricolae (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as result of pure confusion and misinformation. Srnec (talk) 19:14, 12 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. — Scientizzle 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhon Mizrachi[edit]

A long biography, but not based on sufficient independent sources. It seems to promote the subject as a martial arts trainer. Except for his homepage, one source is given [17], but that one also seems quite promotional. B. Wolterding (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see notability in this biographical article. SWik78 (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficiently notable. JJL (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the article is a copyvio of his site. Rami R 14:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All time Motagua's scorers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/All time Motagua's scorers

Contested prod. Original concern was "per WP:IINFO. Other than being limited to a single club, this article seems to have no strict inclusion criteria." The prod was removed with no explanation by anonymous editor. Furthermore, the author's use of English is quite poor (as shown by the title of the article alone), and he/she doesn't seem to care for any particular manual of style. – Pee Jay 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poor English can be fixed, as can style considerations. However, this is a blatant bunch of statistics of dubious notability. The club is notable, but the overwhelming majority of players included in the stats aren't, as evidenced by the non-linking of names (if you did link them, they would no doubt come up red, with no prospect of a justified article for each). The "bare bones 1 to 10" are already included in the main article. This is an ill-considered offshoot. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ref's comment above. AR TYOM 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The club is certainly notable, and anyone who has played for it is also notable per WP:BIO for athletes. There is no reason to arbitrarily limit the amount of information in an article for a notable subject, and, as the club article is already long, this is a perfectly valid summary style sub-article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article could be converted into a comprehensive list of every player who has ever played for the club, then I would have no objection to its being kept. However, this is a list of every player who has ever scored a goal for the club (not including own goals, I might note). No other club has a similar article, as far as I am aware, and nor should they. – Pee Jay 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm the creator of this topic and my objective was to maintain these information alive and updated every single match of the club, I know my English is not good, but that can be fixed by other users, anyway I hope the topic survives, thanks Phil Bridger for your support71.57.137.130 (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does Wikipedia need an indefinitely long list of players who have scored for Motagua? Wikipedia is not your own personal webspace. – Pee Jay 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for superfluous information and there is no need to list every single goalscorer. It would be better to simply list the all-time top scorers either on the club's main article (as you have already done) or as part of a specific 'Records and Statistics' page (such as Manchester United F.C. records and statistics). Bettia ^(talk) 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overly broad and database-y. Punkmorten (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article, there is no real need to list every player who scored goals. The top scorers of all time is already in the main article in which I suggest to redirect. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this article amounts to listcruft.--JForget 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would recommend against a redirect, as this article's title would not be a common search term. – Pee Jay 05:56, 15 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 (kept by default). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents - Nabla (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Given the extremely controversial nature of the subject matter, one would expect a list of this nature to be very well referenced and closely monitored for bias or personal opinion. What we actually have is a list of things which somebody thinks might perhaps be about sexual attraction but actually might not be. In many cases a google search for song + sexual turns up zero hits. Many of these songs don't have articles, so there is nowhere that the claim is referenced. The net result is to give a strong appearance of inappropriate advocacy by legitimising an extremely controversial topic through the mechanism of pretending that it is widely discussed in song. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Keep' This is not 'a controversial nature'. It is simply a list of songs where the lyrics explicitly portray sexual attraction to children or adolescents. By the nature of song lyrics, there are few reputable third party references. The lyrics themselves can be quoted, but references to lyrics sites have been rejected in the past because of copyright problems. Jzg's insinuation of 'inappropriate advocacy' is offensive. The songs have been contributed by dozens of different editors. I edit out those where the lyrics are ambiguous. Tony (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

((fact)). I Googled several song titles + sexual and got zero hits. None of them had reliable sources. In a very few cases there was a link to a copyright-violating reproduction of the lyrics, but that just fails WP:OR. I failed to find reliable secondary sources for more than one of these. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fact? Just an editor who cannot use google and the same editor who has removed all the songs without giving other editors the opportunity to provide sources. Here is the first hit I got, many of the songs are listed here [[18]].Tony (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Comment: I do not believe that that source is a reliable one per Wikipedia.Mysteryquest (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Tony's problem is that he has confused sexual attraction with sexual abuse. There are indeed a number of songs that portray sexual abuse of minors, but very few that discuss sexual attraction. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The issues you name are reason for stronger oversight and better sourcing, not deletion. -Toptomcat (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reason for careful editing, but not for deletion. We should not be ridding WP of articles because they are controversial. DGG (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIRECTORY (point 5). --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added an entry with a citation. Just needs more work to add sources like most articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Tomcat and DGG say. Yes, it needs to be carefully monitored and every entry must have a reference to back up its inclusion. So tag each one with ((fact)) and let the editors get cracking. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. These are "we should improve this" arguments, not "we should delete this" arguments. There seems to be a massive move against pedastry-related articles this last week. Subject is notable, verifiable and probably sourceable in most cases. No reason to delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not where possible paedophile advocacy is concerned, by long-established precedent. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to this precedent? It seems to be in violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See for example the debates surrounding the deletion of Adult-child sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and various userspace forks thereof. Paedophile activism is one of the very few things that has Jimbo's direct eye. Inappropriate paedophile activism is an immediate ban these days. It is not handled like innocuous uncited material, uncited or poorly sourced material in respect of paedophilia must be removed because of the impact it has on Wikipedia's reputation. I think this predates even the much more rigorous approach to WP:BLPs we now have. Consider: if you are in a band, and somebody writes an unsourced article which includes the assertion that you wrote a song about sexual attraction to children, would that not cause you some anxiety? Guy (Help!) 11:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more bothered by the source that they cite, as Wikipedia is simply coalescing information from the sources. As for the debates, I'm not an admin, and I don't have access to the logs so I can't find the AfD. But if consensus is that Wikipedia should be somehow censored, then I guess I just don't agree with consensus, especially if the exceptions aren't laid out in WP:NOTCENSORED. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's another problem. None of them had reliable independent secondary sources. Once those were pruned, only one entry is left. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the AfD, and I'm sorry, but I don't see any "we should censor pedaristic content" consensus there. All I saw was "this is a POV fork" consensus, which it probably was, and seems to have been deleted as such. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check "what links here" for the deleted article. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Controversial as it is, you can see from the list that it is a quite common theme, needs work for sources, but it's encyclopedic and verifiable. The Dominator (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have removed the ones which were unsourced. I then reviewed the sourcing of the balance per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and indeed WP:C. Feel free to reinsert any others which are either credibly sourced within the article on the song or credibly identified as "portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents" by reliable independent secondary sources. No blogs, no fansites, no lyrics, no personal opinions, only those where there is a reliable independent secondary sources which identifies the song as being in large part (i.e. portraying, not mentioning in passing) sexual attraction to children or adolescents. Don't Stand So Close To Me is a valid one to include, it has been widely discussed as a Lolita story. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you move them to the talk page like is sometimes done with unsourced trivia? Also, you should insert a hidden comment into the page, in all caps saying that only sourced additions are accepted. Furthermore, some songs should be able to be sourced by the song itself if it explicitly states in the lyrics that it's about "sexual attraction to children" as that is generally considered an acceptable approach, sort of like the "no need to source a straightforward plot summary" rationale. The Dominator (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content that was removed was unverifiable or unsourced and agree with its removal. In its current state, nothing else on the article is referenced, which due to the controversial nature of these kinds of article, must have verifiability. Unless references are added by the end of this nomination I won't consider keeping this article. — Κaiba 10:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference and the nominator removed it. His edits seem intended to pre-empt this discussion rather than letting us study the material and see what might be made of it. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific song are refering? If it passes has reliable sources and is not original research, then it could meet specifications to be added. — Κaiba 09:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article now stands, it attempts to build a topic around one song. Very, very weak premise. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the reason why only one song is left is because the nominator of this AfD deleted the rest. Bikasuishin (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to AfD guidelines, this comment should be completely discounted as a valid reason is not given. The Dominator (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, there is still one song left on the article and the edit was made in good faith, thus no disqualification is applicable. — Κaiba 00:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote, the comment says "it attempts to build a topic around one song. Very, very weak premise" as its rationale, this is not a reason as obviously the article isn't trying to build a topic on one song. Yours is a valid reason because you recognize that the content removed was done so rightfully and it is difficult to source, this is arguable but it is a valid reason. The Dominator (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits that are made in good faith are not discounted because the argument is weak, only when there is a policy or guideline that is not being followed i.e. sockpuppetry, incivility, etc. If the argument is weak, then it will be refuted and mostly ignored in the closure, but 'disqualification' is only supposed to be for those who did not make statements in good faith. Not only that, but this particular user is an oppostion to your view point, disqualification of a comment on your part presents a WP:COI. — Κaiba 03:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any argument based on the current state of the article, IMO, is inherently invalid as the state of the article can be solved by methods other than deletion (such as actually editing it). That's why I don't look at the articles for AfDs that I'm participating in unless I'm going to edit it; the subject, not the article--since the article is dynamic and can change--is what is being discussed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An argument being weak does not mean it gets disqualified though, as Dominik92 is trying to push. The difference between the two is that a invalid argument is one is a comment made in good faith but the point of the argument is not a satisfactory one. A comment that should be disqualified is one that was made in bad faith or has violated a Wikipedia policy or guideline. This editor has not violated any policy or guideline and the comment seems like it was not made in malice, so disqualification is not applicable. — Κaiba 03:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it should be disqualified; I'm just saying its an extremely weak argument due to its being logical fallacy. !votes like this are among the reason that !votes are discussion with !votes rather than discussion with votes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I didn't mean it being disqualified in the sense of "we'll strike it out and not respond" but more in the sense of "doesn't bring anything into this debate and should not hold any weight for the closing admin." So my comment was made more for the closing admin to discount it unless the user comes back and provides a more valid rationale. The Dominator (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. — Κaiba 03:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As should be entirely obvious, you are free to add any additional entries for which you can find unequivocal reliable independent secondary sources. I removed those which were unsourced, those where the source was personal interpretation of the lyrics, and those where the source was unreliable. It is not actually my fault that this included virtually the entire list; it is, however, reasonable to suggest that absent credible evidence that more than one entry can be sourced with the required level of rigor, a list is unnecessary. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. WTF. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THAT, on the other hand, is a great example of something to be disregarded. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing your tone and throughly explaining yourself is wanted, Zenwhat. — Κaiba 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under which CSD does it fall? The Dominator (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DIRECTORY #5, and largely amounts to original research. The cited ref (which uses copyvio YouTube videos and lyrics) is of course not a reliable source because it's just a wiki. Spellcast (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:DIRECTORY #5 is the only basis on which to contest this article's existence at this point. Most of the original entries were based on primary sources: the songs themselves. It seems reasonable enough to demand secondary sources in this case, since some editors view every entry as contentious (why?). Therefore this is a work in progress.

I am confused by the linking of this article to advocacy. I don't see how that can be so. It is akin to linking the authors of the songs to advocacy. I'm sure songs in this category are either serious attempts at expression or crude shock efforts. If children are sexually molested, that is because the molester was sexually attracted to them. Some artists may attempt to portray that attraction in song as part of an attempt to deal with the issue. Likewise if the attraction is one of an adult to an adolescent. Note that portraying sexual attraction is quite specific: it may prove that there aren't enough works to sustain the article under this title in any case. 86.44.26.69 (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is this a joke? Yahel Guhan 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your rationale for deletion? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents - Honestly, who comes up with this kind of stuff? Somebody actually made a list of songs that portray sexual attraction to children! Forget about the fact that there isn't a single source for the list and that it is completely original research. Am I actually supposed to believe this really is a serious list, and this isn't somebody's idea of a joke? That this isn't somebody's attempt at comedy? I don't see what possible use the existence of this page could possibly serve other than to create sheer shock value that this list actually exists. Yahel Guhan 04:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a reasonable list per WP:LIST. Tons of precedent, I recall several "Songs about ____" that made far more sense as lists still being deleted because there's just nothing there, not in terms of what we make. The keep rationales are not really in line with WP:LIST, and are misrepresenting WP:V. It's also vague, poorly defined, and there's not much of a reason to have the list, which is kind of necessary. I have no time to respond to nitpicking, so I will remind the other contributors here that if you vote keep, your rationale will stand on its own merits, and so too will mine. There is no need to nitpick others' rationales, the closing admin is certainly capable of basic reading comprehension. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no WP:V, WP:RS, the interpretation that causes many of these songs to be included are based on original research. The proposition that the lyrics of the song are enough to determine that the song belongs in this list is weak as songs and lyrics are open to widely differing interpretation. Also, the inclusion of some songs in this list could be a violation of WP:LIVING WP:BLP. The controversial nature of the subject matter makes it even more important to hew tightly to Wikipedia policies. Even if the article was to be kept, much of the songs would have to be deleted for failing to adhere to those same policies. This article is just a directory, and a subjective one at that. It belongs on somebody's website or blog, not in an encyclopedia.Mysteryquest (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is not a valid speedy deletion criteria, perhaps people should stop throwing around "speedy" so carelessly, your reason is valid for deletion, but not speedy deletion. It obviously doesn't meet any of the WP:CSD. The Dominator (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I have changed my vote accordingly.Mysteryquest (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator and because of fundamental original research issues. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:06, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One cheek sneak[edit]

Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary or a "how-to" manual. PROD removed by page author who must've figured I objected to the link to Urban Dictionary itself. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not an encyclopedic subject; dicdef meets how-to meets silent-but-deadly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No reliable third-party sources and no hint of notability are the top 2 problems. I checked several search engines (LexisNexis, Factiva, Google News, etc.), but I couldn't find a single article on this subject. As it stands, it reads like the original research of a rather unencyclopedic subject. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. J Readings (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism with no evidence of notability or sources. ~ mazca ^talk 22:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads more like an Urban Dictionary entry then a Wikipedia article. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Airlines Flight 957[edit]

PROD removed. I don't believe that this incident is a notable incident. It's only source is the NTSB (which is obligated to investigate and report on all incidents), and it hasn't been the subject of comprehensive, long term coverage, and doesn't appear to have had any impact upon the industry, not like ValuJet Flight 592 (a most-notable dangerous goods and in-flight fire accident). Россавиа ^Диалог 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unusual incident that happened on an airplane in 1998, involving the spillage of couple of gallons of hydrogen peroxide; some baggage handlers required medical treatment. There are many niches that this story could be merged to, such as a section about hazards in the article Baggage handler. It's your basic Skittles story, not worthy of its own article. Mandsford (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial incident. DGG (talk)
Delete. Wikipedia is not the FAA incident database, or even any personal data-mining of that database for stfuf an editor finds interesting. There are literally thousands of such ultimately minor incidents just in the history of U.S. aviation. --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see notability. SWik78 (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable incident as per WP:AIRCRASH. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an article along the lines of List of incidents involving baggage handlers. This could give an explaination of incidents, with larger, more notable incidents being supported by links to their articles, and have smaller incidents that may not warrant their own article like this one be sufficiently explained by a paragraph or two. I found one source, but nothing obviously quite as elaborate as flight 592. WilliamH (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the incident didn't cause any major injuries or deaths, and since it didn't lead to updated safety guidelines or any other such consequences. On a related note, I wonder how the authorities identified the passenger involved. I bet she was described as, "blonde-haired with dark roots." --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete \Redirect Maybe list under the H2O2 article, or maybe for baggage handlers? swat671 (talk) 01:25, 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. — Scientizzle 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killa-mo 187[edit]

I proposed this page be deleted but it was contested without reason given so I'm listing it here. Non-notable musician who fails wp:music, original research and/or conflict of interest, yadda yadda yadda. ~EdGl 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though "after being rejected by a girl named Nicole in middle school. Joseph Resorted to Poetry", as an artist Joseph has Failed to Meet WP:MUSIC sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:16, 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 no consensus for deletion. There was no consensus that the list was OR, and no consensus that the nature of the information was indiscriminate. The keep arguments specifically addressed those allegations and, while its likely that they did not to so to everybody's satisfaction, it's enough to keep the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of academic computer science departments[edit]

Wikipedia is not for listing everything under the sun. I think this page is a problem when on the talk page itself, it has to establish a methodology, violating WP:OR. erc ^{talk/contribs} 18:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Vantelimus, allow me to expand on my reasoning. First, let me address the WP:OR concerns. "Please use the discussion tab to see the methodology used to compile this list and what additions should and should not be made to it." This is clearly not encyclopedic and reeks of original research. Yes, the links are all verifiable, they all link to a computer science department, but wikipedia is not JUST about verifiable information. Currently, the list is only about United States institutions. It has been expressed that it should be expanded to an international scope but how does one exactly compare international institutions? It seems pretty hard to do without original research--not to mention the current list uses some arbitrary methodology set forth by the creator. The scope of this page is also dubious. Most universities have a computer science department; at this point, you would just have a duplicate list of major universities. I see this article of dubious value, as the main contributer stated that he made this for his own personal use--granted, this is not a reason in and of itself, but wikipedia is not a blog or personal hosting space. This article, like any list, does not contain any sort of comprehensive discussion or history. However, what makes some lists useful is that they present information that is otherwise located in disparate locations or hard to locate at all. This is not the case in this instance. Keep in mind, this is not a list of notable departments either, theoretically any and all departments could be listed, in addition to setting precedent for every other academic subject to have such a page. "Indiscriminate" list of information, I contend, is also subject to debate - I would say that this list has the potential to, and already is, an indiscriminate list. Are we going to hunt for every college in the world to add it on here? As I see it, this is a not very-well organized list that doesn't further wiki's goals. erc ^{talk/contribs} 00:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - First, to address the OR complaint. The "methodology" established on the talk page is a description of what "'source-based' research" he has done so far. It does not purport to be a comprehensive and complete list; his "methodology" is for the benefit of anyone else who wants to expand the list and is not a description of what criteria something must meet in order to be on the list. As far as the argument that it should be deleted per WP:NOT, I would say that this list meets BOTH of the criteria described there (the entries on the list are famous because of their association with the list topic, and it is a good list for quick reference). I see no reason to delete this article. Coanda-1910 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revised: I think some good points have been made about the size of the potential list. A list of graduate schools would perhaps be manageable, but that is not this article topic. Delete or rename. Coanda-1910 (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This user started editing on April 1, 2008, and has made few edits outside of AfDs. erc^{talk/contribs} 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a new account and one of my interests is in watching AfD discussions. I also have made few edits INSIDE AfDs. What does all this have to do with the points I just made? Coanda-1910 (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with your comments. It is rhetoric, an example of argumentum ad hominem, a well-known fallacy. The Comment can be safely ignored as it adds nothing to the discussion. Vantelimus (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has never been a democracy. An account that does nothing but !vote on AfDs should be noted as votestacking. erc ^{talk/contribs} 00:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of Wikipedia being a democracy has no bearing on the situation at hand. Neither Coanda nor Vantelimus has claimed it was a democracy, and judging their votes based on the merits of their arguments (which you have not done in either comment I will point out) doesn't mean we suddenly have to accept the vote of every single account that finds its way to this page. As for the claim that Coanda is vote stacking, this is polemical and another example of ad hominem coming from erc. I was looking at the guy's contributions (which is how I found this sorry little dispute), and he has been contributing heavily to a number of video game discussions as of recent. Just because it is a new account doesn't mean you should go around calling it a sockpuppet. The guy disagrees with your AFD and it should have been left at that. As for the topic at hand, I am hardly qualified to weigh in, so no opinion.FareedMcLure (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies all, Fareed is one of my roommates who is entertained by following my wikipedia edits and making tongue-in-cheek replies. Coanda-1910 (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Malachi Johnson: "if I see any meatpuppets on our land, after tomorrow, I'm gonna start carving 'em into steaks." I mean, look at"the profoundly stupid form in which [these meatpuppets] left the page." WilliamPitts (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dubious Here are the problems about articles like this:. The list would be very much longer if it matched the title--this is actually just a list of (mostly) US depts offering doctoral degrees and some with masters'. The methodology hasnt reached BA level yet. If it did, there would probably be a few hundred more to add. If we had this, we could appropriately then have articles for every academic major. In the case of , say, English, it would be a list of every university and college in the world. even if limited to doctoral degrees, it would be a list of essentially every doctoral-granting university. In some subjects, like this, there's a basic list to go on. In others, there won't be. It is not really OR, because its just the compilation of available information from reliable sources. But on the other hand, in most subjects, there is no convenient list of this sort available elsewhere, at least on the web, and this could be a real service. It would be hard to argue that the information itself is not encyclopedic, when such information is included in every university article we have. I think we need to decide this not on narrow considerations of this particular article, but about what we really want to do. I suggest keeping this for now and starting a discussion somewhere appropriate. DGG (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The reason for proposing the deletion is weak. First, not may be applicable, but the proposer of the deletion has not made a case. Merely stating it is applicable is not a justification. Before I could agree, I would have to know why he thinks this particular list is not appropriate. In other words, he has not made his case. Second, I don't think the case for deletion under WP:OR has been made. The information is from reliable sources (though the sources could be better documented), it doesn't promote a point of view, etc. So, on either grounds, the proposer has failed his obligation to make his case. Vantelimus (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Expanded reasoning up top. erc ^{talk/contribs} 00:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This qualifies under WP:LIST. It's not indiscriminate given the content so WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE does not apply, nor does WP:NOR or WP:SYNTHESIS as the links are reliable. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm interested in how this AfD works out either way. In terms of OR, I can see why the methodology could be interpreted as being problematic. However, I rather like it. First, it seems more like a methodology of how the editor approached finding the institutions. This is valuable, as it means that others tackling the same issue won't accidentally follow the same approach and find nothing new to add. Second, I found the bit explaining what the boundaries of the list are to be excellent, and in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines. It prevents this from becoming an indiscriminate list, as the requirements are clearly spelled out. (Must offer a post grad qualifications, must be verifiable, etc). And third, all lists that aren't a verbatim copy of a pre-existing list (and therefore hitting copyright issues) must, in some sense, be OR, as the list needs to be compiled based on some criteria. This list seems to have less of a problem than many others, because the criteria is not based on interpretation, but on clearly established non-controversial rules. The other main plus for me was that this is a genuinely useful list that can't be found elsewhere: if I was interested in doing post-grad Comp Sci work this would be the perfect place to start. I had three concerns, though: a) length, especially if it stops being US-centric, as it isn't as if CompSci is a rare discipline. b) the article name ("academic" is a poor choice of words, "universities offering research degrees ...", or "universities offering post graduate degrees ...", might be better), and c) what would happen if, as DGG pointed out, this was extended to be a list of undergraduate degrees for the discipline, but a list of universities offering CompSci would be nothing more than a list of universities. I can see a stronger case for less common discipline. Nevertheless, in balance I see it as useful enough to warrant keeping, and within Wikipedia's guidelines, but I agree with DGG that a more general discussion elsewhere may be warranted. - Bilby (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (however, I wouldn't object to keeping it for now if a more general discussion is started as suggested by DGG.) If this is not a perfect example of the type of directory specifically excluded by WP:NOT#DIR, I don't know what is. If kept, I suggest renaming it to something like List of computer science departments in the United States offering doctoral degrees, in order to be describe the contents more precisely. The list is already huge and I don't think it can be expanded to become truly international as it is, because several of the columns only make sense in the U.S. --Itub (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a useful list and a lot of work went into it. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is supposed to consist of articles which people can read to learn about a topic, not lists and directories. There must be other places on the Internet for them. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-name to Graduate programs in computer science. This is really where this lost list is heading anyway. I'm less dubious than DGG. It appears to be a discriminate list. 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. This seems to me to be largely directory information - which, while useful, is not necessarily encyclopedic. DGG, as usual, has raised some excellent points, and this could use a more general discussion as well. Pastordavid (talk) 21:19, 16 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, withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank McCoubrey[edit]

~~Unreferenced stub on a local councillor in Northern Ireland, fails WP:N and WP:BIO#Politicians~~ BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability now established through addition of further references, so nomination withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not making an actual !vote as I know little of Ireland politics; I would think the combined impact of a Belfast councilman and his notoriety from his Loyalist ties would assert some notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe he makes the grade under WP:BIO#Politicians as it includes 'members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city' whilst the notoriety of the incident involving the UDA 'show of strength' and the resulting news coverage also help. However, point taken about the lack of sources which I will now endeavour to fix. Keresaspa (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have now sourced and expanded the article and will hopefully be able to dig some more stuff up from book I have at home. If there are still concerns, however, raise them and I will try to address them. Keresaspa (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N (thanks to Keresaspa's sources, I think the necessary coverage is established), bolstered by the (non-policy, non-guideline) portion of WP:OUTCOMES that says "precedent has tended to favour keeping members of the main citywide government of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have checked all the references added by Keresaspa, and I find only one article which is substantially about McCoubrey: this BBC story. This story from the Newsletter is not about MCoubrey, it is about The Shankill, though half of it is quotes from McCoubrey (he's the only person quoted). WP:BIO#Politicians lists "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." (emphasis added by me). A footnote adds:
  Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
  I don't see any evidence yet that McCoubrey "has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article now appears to be extensively referenced, both to published books and to web articles. The article itself does attempt to indicate why the person should be notable. However, I do not have an particular knowledge of the subject in question. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - status as councillor doesn't really make him notable alone, but coupled the "Loyalist Day of Culture" incident and his general role in loyalism it is good enough for me. It looks like this may be a reference for his early life. Warofdreams talk 01:11, 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. I'll leave a redirect to Women and children first (saying) — Scientizzle 15:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women and children[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Appears to be original research or synthesis. Of course there are many organizations, etc. in the world that have "women and children" in their name, or are restricted to women and children. But that's about it: the term refers to women and children. There's no article needed for describing Women and children as a "unified" concept. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Odd collection of bits & bobs, not enough to justify an article. Jvhertum (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Women and children first (saying). Zagalejo^^^ 18:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think a redirect will save this page; the page suggested for redirection isn't that great either. erc ^{talk/contribs} 18:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with it? It's a solid stub, and it's expandable, using sources like this. There's lot to say about it within the context of men's rights, for example. Zagalejo^^^ 19:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete "Citation needed" crawls all over this like bugs in a cheap hotel room. The point of the article appears to be that, on our planet, women and children are given priority over men in a wide variety of situations, not limited to "Women and children first" in emergency situations. Although a "citation added" article about the development of this concept as part of the march of civilization would be worthwhile, this truly is the "odd collection of bits & bobs" as one editor put it. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Women and children first (saying), where we have cited material on the subject. This article reads as synthesis and original research. Jfire (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:OR. The term is very loosely defined and can mean many things. Wikipedia should not be coming up with new definitions of old sayings. SWik78 (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yahel Guhan 04:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we take the title at face value this is an article about the majority of humans who have ever lived. Better start a new one about "prefences for women and children" or "explotation of women and children" or whatever the topic is that you want to discuss.Steve Dufour (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be Persecuted[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Only one record released on a notable label, and no/very limited third party coverage. I don't know if I should count the bad review as a third party, but, it's a bad review nonetheless. They have done no international tours or recieved any online attention other than a few fan sites and a myspace page. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient releases or coverage to pass WP:MUSIC. I'm not convinced their one release is on a notable label either - seems more controversial than notable for it's releases.--Michig (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The band pass two criteria of Wikipedia:MUSIC:

C5—They released one full-length album under more important indie label (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). No Colours Records has been founded in 1993 and released many notable albums mainly in black metal, National Socialist black metal, extreme metal genres (including Graveland, Nargaroth, Dimmu Borgir, Rob Darken's Lord Wind and Infernum, Nocturnal Nortum—see Discogs and WP article for more).

C7—By analazing Chinese metal bands at Encyclopaedia Metallum we can conclude that is the one of the first black metal group from China with studio album under notable label. Biography at the label website claims it is the first great black metal act from China, although, it is not a third-party source and cannot be used as reference.

Online attention should not be decisive in this case due to the nature of non-mainstream black metal scene. Bad review has been deleted. Visor (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:MUSIC requires 2 or more albums on significant labels, not 1, and Metal Archives isn't a reliable independent source, nor is their label's website. Either online or printed coverage would be fine. Sadly, both are lacking.--Michig (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. No Colours Records seems to be an indie label. Metal Archives as a reference in my argumentation for C7 above can be a good source for knowing how many Chinese black metal bands are, and how many of them released full-length albums. It has not been included in article as a source, but as an external link. Both label websites provides basic informations about years of group had been formed, names of band members and dates of albums. Since the band has neither published online biography, nor official website, these two label links should be acceptable for such basic infos. Visor (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming No Colours is sufficient as a label, the band would still need to have released 2 albums on the label to pass C5. The issue is notability, and without significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the band, that isn't satisfied yet. The label bios are ok for verifying basic information as long as they're not the sole sources for the article.--Michig (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I can see OR operator in C5. Isn't that "2 albums in major label or 1 album in indie label"? Visor (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's two or more albums on a major label OR one OF the more important indie labels, i.e. the label must be a major or an important indie, and there must be 2 or more albums.--Michig (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My translation mistake... All I can say about band's notability—undoubtedly, it is notable in Chinese black metal scene. The problem is to find a proper reference claiming its notability. Metal Archives clearly says that the band is one of the first black metal band in the country with notable label contract, but it cannot be used as a reference in the article. They also have coverage in printed media—extreme metal magazine Dragonland. But in this case, I have changed my vote from keep to Delete unless referenced. By referenced, I mean assertion of notability referenced by reliable source. Visor (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of secondary sources, chart rankings and awards. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:13, 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, Black Kite 18:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree with deletion due to lack of secondard references and no major chart listing or music industry awards to warrent notability. Maybe redo the article in a few years after they have had additional press and obtained a significant award. C. Williams (talk) 18:38, 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) 22:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Peacocke[edit]

Non-notable local councillor in Northern Ireland, fails WP:BIO#Politicians BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't really assert notability. Even if all that was said is true, still wouldn't be notable, per nom. erc ^{talk/contribs} 22:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO#Politicians. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no inherent notability under WP:BIO, and no evidence of non-trivial coverage by third party reliable sources. No prejudice against re-creation of such coverage is established. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient evidence of notability. Warofdreams talk 00:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete Has been Mayor of North Down, and a candidate for the NI Assembly not not much aside. Seems to have dropped off the political landscape of late for reasons I'm not sure of but nonetheless......best not gone into.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:41, 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.

Corpsefucking Art[edit]

The result was DELETE Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional text about a band of questionable notability. The article lists a seemingly impressive discography, but actually it seems that they have released two full-length albums on small indy labels. I do not think that this suffices for passing WP:MUSIC. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DELETE, does not make a valid assertion of notability, nothing even remotely satisfying WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Just a note, but notability and WP:MUSIC is set apart from WP:CSD#A7 criteria. It's an assertion of importance, even the slightest bit. These AfD discussions are what determine notability. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Agree with the A7 CSD. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The speedy tag is in place on the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I did agree with the A7 : )Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:23, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Connolly (Potsdam NY)[edit]

I stumbled across this page, and he seems to me to not be a notable person, since he was a losing candidate for mayor of Potsdam (village), New York. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Bio#Politicians, as he didn't actually hold the office. Also, the article was created by Timfrompotsdam, which seems to be COI. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since he never held the post of Mayor or any other major elected post, I feel that he fails the Wikipedia:Bio#Politicians criteria and should be deleted. There is also a serious lack of third party references in this article as well. C. Williams (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utterly NN local politician in a village of less than 10,000 people. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be non-notable, per above. I would, however, note that COI isn't a criteria for deletion, and recommend assuming good faith. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well outside any notability standard, including the primary one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:14, 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.

Moushefield[edit]

The result was delete. Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to verify that anything called "moushefield" has ever existed. Would nominate for speedy delete as patent nonsense, but giving it a fighting chance. Anturiaethwr (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax by WP:SPA. The reference to baby sacrifices is a giveaway -- if it were true it would be easily verifiable. Jfire (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The only links in google are to its wikipedia article and a mirror of that article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article creator has made only one other edit besides creating this. The other edit was putting part of the article in the sandbox. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:40, 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 --JForget 23:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war[edit]

I see no prospect of an article with such a title ever being written without political bias. At the moment it is little more than a rant. Deb (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ Copy of [19] with the first sentence not included. I've tagged it as such. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was changed; no longer a copyvio. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look at this section in the Iran-Iraq War article - there are already articles on the support of various nations in that war. Many appear to have been written predominantly by Hcberkowitz. I'm not saying any of these articles necessarily belong here (though some seem fairly well-referenced) but this particular debate goes beyond this particular nominated article. ~ mazca ^talk 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete copyvio per link provided by Jeremy McCracken. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep copyvio removed, valid topic, sourced. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not copyvio It seems to have been removed.
Keep As for the article, it seems incomplete and it's too early to delete it. "I see no prospect of an article with such a title ever being written without political bias." This is a matter not yet clear--let it be written first. Saying it can't be written without bias can be seen as an admission of your own. DGG (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mazca is right; this is part of a series of articles intended to defuse the continued controversy on the Iran-Iraq War page. The specific articles will be under the Military History Project; I'll ask for comment from MILHIST participants to help explain the situation. Every attempt is being made to avoid rants. See User:Hcberkowitz#Iran and Iraq for a broader view of the many articles to be written. These pages are constantly being discussed with editors, some POV and some not, on the Iran-Iraq page. To respond to DGG, of course some of these are incomplete. The intention is to get a framework into which multiple editors, with different areas of knowledge can contribute in a more NPOV format than in the main Iran-Iraq page. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard, I was supporting it, my meaning is that, since it is still incomplete, we need to give it time to develop, not delete it. DGG (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep, Howard is a serious editor, let's give him the chance to construct the article and prove it's not copyvio or biased. Imad marie (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Work in progress from an established and respected editor. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that the article is enormously improved since the introduction was taken out. I still have reservations - it depends whether other editors are prepared to take the same approach to the problem. (And since when is there such a thing as a speedy keep?) Deb (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Wikipedia:Speedy keep. But this AFD does not qualify. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You learn something every day! Deb (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is what happens when you put up a skeleton of an article instead of something substantive. Since there are suggestions that there will be even more "enormous improvements" and that Howard C. Berkowitz has more to say (and is "a serious editor"), I'm going to assume that this will get better. I'm not sure what the POV gripe is about; the U.S. supported Iraq during the same war over the control of a strategic location. As a precaution, it's probably best to avoid the phrase "dirty rotten Commies" Mandsford (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep, I also want to see what this becomes with some work. The Iran-Iraq war was definitely seen by some as a proxy war, with especially juicy ironies due to the switch of loyalties by Iran leading to a swap of superpowers. Iran also has historical ties as Persia with Tsarist Russia, which resonate today. There's definitely a topic here. A ((underconstruction)) tag until the skeleton is fleshed out is probably advisable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This appears to be a work in progress that meets notability and other guidelines. This article doesn't seem to be violating NPOV. — scetoaux (T|C) 21:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the Soviet Union supported one side and/or another in the Iran-Iraq war, then people need learn about that. U.S. support for Iraq is documented. And several other countries, too. smb (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused - In haste, I thought this page read Soviet support for > Iraq < during the Iran-Iraq war, not Soviet support for > Iran < during the Iran-Iraq war. smb (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The original Iran-Iraq War article cited only US support for Iraq. In fact there was also significant support from many other countries to Iraq and Iran, including some US support to Iran. Systematically documenting the support that all countries supplied to other party is the right way to achieve NPOV. Erxnmedia (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic seems to be notable and sourced, and article seems to be improving. Yahel Guhan 04:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confused Soviet support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq War? The USSR was the leading supplier of arms to Saddam Hussein, why would they be helping Khomeini? The Soviets had plenty of reasons to fear an Islamist Iran: the USSR had a huge Muslim population; the two countries also shared a border, splitting Azerbaijan between them; the Soviets were fighting a war in Afghanistan, Iran's neighbour and traditionally within the Iranian sphere of influence. The Iranians had a long history of fearing Russian/Soviet ambitions on their territory (see the Great Game and the Iran crisis of 1946 for details). All these things led the Soviets to give massive support to Iraq against Iran. This article has a lot of explaining to do. --Folantin (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, the same explanation should be given about U.S. support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Let me give an insight about what's going on here, it seems that some editors are pushing a POV view that the US fought the Iran-Iraq war alongside Iraq, other editors (like Howard) are trying to create a series of articles of foreign support to Iran and Iraq to balance the dispute in Iran-Iraq war. Imad marie (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was vaguely aware that some sort of POV edit war was going on over this subject. Look at the History of Iran article: 2,500+ years of a major civilisation to cover and there's a picture of Donald Rumsfeld [20]. Now that's what I call undue weight. --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete and replace~~ Give chance to develop then consider merging with an article on The Soviet Union and the Iran-Iraq War. ~~There is no compelling evidence that the subject of this article ever existed~~ (Not entirely convinced there ever was any actual Soviet support for Iran). See my comments above and my analysis of misinterpretation of the sources (at the bottom of the talk page here [21]). For a discussion of Soviet policy during the Iran-Iraq War, see The Iran-Iraq War: The Politics of Aggression Chapter 8: The USSR and the Iran-Iraq War: From Brezhnev to Gorbachev by Mohiaddin Mesbahi (University of Florida Press, 1993) available on Google books here [22]. It describes Soviet policy towards the war as falling into three periods: 1980-1982 "Strict neutrality" (obviously, supporting neither side); 1982-1986 "Active neutrality" in favour of Iraq; 1986-1988 "Active containment" of Iran, by supplying large amounts of arms to Iraq. --Folantin (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With our last exchange on talk pages, is it fair to say that there are different definitions of "support", and, on an interim basis, it is worth having both articles? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - notable topic, referenced Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query How is it a notable topic? There is no evidence there was any Soviet support for Iran during the war. The references do not support the claims made. --Folantin (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Folantin`s rational, and my own concerns expressed at Talk:Soviet support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war --CreazySuit. (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:N and WP:V and is well referenced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to "Soviet-Iranian relations", if there is such an article.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:18, 12 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. Regretfully since I have great affection for hardcore and Scottish bands. Without WP:V/WP:RS to validate claims (and some here seem to have looked for sources), there is little to recommend keeping the article. Pigman☿ 05:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Will of Fire[edit]

I've forgot to nominate that one, but the album is from a band whom their article has been deleted per AFD discussion. So, obviously with the band not notable, the album is even less. JForget 17:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ok well, this article is useless, but the original Afd decision was based on the previous azriel article, which was updated by myself and now deleted. The fact that just because YOU haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist. I believe this to be a censorship of something you know nothing about. your only scared of what you don't understand. And you are silencing my freedom of speech and information. You Are ruining wikipedia by not allowing independent articles be shown. I REALLY don't see what the problem is.Holdmyfinger (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable album by a clearly non-notable artist. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, the band is surely non-notable. I trust the judgment that was made. It was likely that I wouldn't find anything [23], [24] to make a case for WP:MUSIC, and I surely did not. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they definetly are notable and i completly agree with Holdmyfinger. they are the most well-known hardcore band in Scotland and just because hardcore is a fairly minor type of music does not mean they are not notable. And why is that other hardcore bands all seem to be notable on wikipedia but they have had little or no chart success.Andrew22k (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's already been a definitive decision that the band is not notable as understood in Wikipedia, so that's not an argument for keeping this article. The question is, does this album meet the criteria for notability? andy (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes this album does 9/10 in Rock Sound magazineshows notability.

Delete when the band is a red link why would anyone rush to write the article on an album? Plus, the entry about the album doesn't have any real content anyways. Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city. Azriel are the most popular hardcore band in Glasgow and have been on the radio, hardcore is still a style there are many articles on hardcore bands. this discussion is more about the actual band so lets make it that.Andrew22k (talk) 22:20, 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 keep as disambiguation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaan[edit]

Not a legitimate Dab, bcz there is no encyclopedic info on "Jaan" at any of the lk'd articles. Rather, the content makes the page a dictdef article, which should be transwickied to the wikt:jaan page at Wiktionary, where it has already been copied, and where part of it should be split from there into a new ~~wikt "Jaan" pg~~ wikt:Jaan. --Jerzy•t 17:20 & 17:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom & vote....
Del. I was surprised to realize this is not speediable!
--Jerzy•t 17:20 & 17:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted. I say there is a word in Urdu/Punjabi which is meant to describe power, or strength.
--Street Scholar (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your word is not being doubted, but neither the fact that it exists nor its identity is encyclopedic. Its identity is lexicographic, which is why it's on Wikt:talk:jaan, waiting for someone to format it for addition to the accompanying dict-entry page.
  --Jerzy•t 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nominated, there is no encyclopedic info that this points to. A soft redirect to the Wiktionary page might be acceptable but I'm not certain there's a point. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
change to a dab page This should be a dab page not deleted ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Crucial Comment: The above user has dramatically changed the content of the page, which is not per se improper. It certainly is confusing to this process, so all who subsequently take stands in this process need to take note of it in weighing previous arguments.
  --Jerzy•t 07:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be i don't have time to say all i'd like to about the flaws of that claim, but it's still not a Dab page, it's further from being a Dab page, and it is not in any sense an encyclopedic article or list, nor capable of becoming so.
  --Jerzy•t 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware that some supposed Dab pages exist, covering all the notable people with some particular given name in common. Until a well established consensus is presented that says such pages are encyclopedic, i consider it obvious that such pages are not Dabs, bcz they do not disambiguate: "Jaan" (as a pertinent example) would never be the title of a bio article on any of the people named "Jaan" who appear on the nominated page. IMO even lists of such people are unencyclopedic; the two consecutive sections Appropriate topics for lists and Lists of people both serve to at least suggest the logic for deleting such lists. (Another section, which i'll try to find again, focuses on criteria like Croatian atheist musicians, but has the same thrust, and may make the logic still clearer, in stating what it does not rule out.)
As to the three titles at the end, if there were a Dab for "Jaan", they would not belong on it bcz there is no reason to believe any of them would be sought under the title "Jaan".

That editor says
I've dabbed that page properly now. As it is I think it is valid
But their opinion on "dabbed ... properly" and "valid" should be disregarded, as they show every evidence of
having no idea how a Dab page is supposed to be structured or what Dabs are for and
in effect violating POINT, apparently trying to establish some principle about any old crap being able to pass AfD, and damaging WP, by
dumping lks into the page w/o attention to the fact that Jaan Anwelt, Jaan Jüris, Jaan Kiivit, Jaan Raats, Jaan Raeaets, and Jaan-e-Mann (2006 film) are Rdrs duplicating (or in one case triplicating) adjacent or mis-alphabetized entries

including in a list of 30 names of male Estonians (i.e. real people), the fictional character Tallinna narrid ja narrikesed#Jaan Tatikas, and

lk'g him with the defective Rdr Jaan Tatikas (which needs to be modified to include the section specification)

giving that task such shoddy attention as to neglect even such elementary matters as
when adding something to a defined list of predicate nominatives (declared with "... may be:") not simply throwing an attempt at a sentence in as the new first item on the list, and

replacing "Jaan, a common name ..." with "Jaan is a common name ..." (not with the word-hash "Jaan, is common name ...").
Besides being wrong, they have not even made a serious attempt at presenting a valid argument.

--Jerzy•t 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As Jaan is a "given name" (first name, Christian name) there are likely to be a large number of notable persons with this name. Therefore a page listing all such persons will become pretty unwieldy and not particularly useful. However this view may be at odds with the Manual of Style guidelines, especially on disambiguation pages which appears to say that it is fine to have a disambiguation page listing all the people with a particular given name. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. Looking at the two articles for my given names: John does not contain a list (it was deleted in 2004), and David does list articles for people with the given name "David". -- MightyWarrior (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. But in no way would I object to deletion: There is no consistant practice with given names as dab pages across Wikipedia, nor is there one clear practice established in the policy/guidelines. Personally, I would default to keep - but certainly understand the impulse that such lists are likely unmaintainable. A statement from the closing admin would probably be helpful in dealing with similar cases. Pastordavid (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Feldkamp[edit]

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claims to notability. Blueboy 96 15:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No other claim to notability other than failed run for office, which is not in itself sufficiently notable. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major-party candidate for state representative and a politician who has come under public media scrutiny for his campaign practices, he seems to have garnered enough coverage to pass WP:BIO quite easily. That his campaign failed is not relevant as long as he passes the primary notability criterion. Jfire (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jfire (edit conflicted actually) He's generated enough press through the campaign practice scandals to make him notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete okay, we have an ex-FBI agent, ex-college football player, who owns his own business and is an adjunct professor at a community college who ran for congress twice and lost. Now what did I miss? Triple3D (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some candidacies are notable, some are not; the mere fact that his candidacy is the main claim to fame is not enough to establish lack of notability. In this case, Feldkamp and his candidacy have been the subject of numerous articles in The Register-Guard (2nd largest paper in Oregon), and also covered in the Albany Democrat-Herald for his business activities (not just his candidacy.) Also, fundraising issues were covered in the East Oregonian, a publication that is located far outside the district he ran in. These stories span 2004–2008. Extensive coverage in independent sources on multiple events establishes notability. Article can and should be improved, though. -Pete (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see what makes this particular candidate more notable than anyone else. Lots of people run against incumbents, lots lose. They all get press coverage during that time, but outside of that campaign season they won't ever be covered again. erc ^{talk/contribs} 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians, bullet 3 and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. He appears to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject." According to the notability guideline, such an article is "presumed to be notable." --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's notable [25]. He meets the multiple reliabe sources providing non-trivial coverage. Never heard of him myself, but that doesn't matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to volume of coverage, although I think there are several portions of the article that aren't compliant with WP:BLP. I'll give cleaning it up a shot right smartly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good job catching and fixing that! Much better now. -Pete (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right back at you - good job yourself on the category. That was pretty flagrant and I'm embarrassed at having missed it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major party nominees for US Congress meet notability criteria, whether they win or lose. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:47, 12 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, nomination withdrawn; sole delete comment was per nom and before article improvement

Nomophobia[edit]

~~WP:NEO.~~ Skomorokh 15:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per The Heymann Standard. Skomorokh 16:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs expansion, but the term is referenced to a reliable source and has 36k ghits. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 15:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO per nominator plus WP:NOT#DICT. Ros0709 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep. Term itself has received significant coverage:

Nomophobia, the latest in the stress list. (2008, April 2). The Statesman.)

Of all the things that you can be stressed of... (2008, April 1). The Statesman,

Nomophobia, the plague of our 24/7 age. (2008, March 31). Daily Mail,5.

It has coverage in several outlets. Things that are this obviously notable should not be deleted. Neologisms are fine articles if they have received this much coverage as terms. Those of you favoring the deletion of articles like this should do a few basic searches before rendering such opinions. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Notability is not an issue here, nor are sources. The issue is that "articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate". Those of you favouring the keeping of articles like this should read the six-character long nomination before rendering such opinions. In good humour, Skomorokh 15:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is to determine whether or not the topic is notable enough to have it's own article. Arguments dependent on the current state of the article are irrelevant, as those can be solved by methods other than deletion, such as editing the article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've expanded the article and added just a few of the innumerable sources that cover the topic. Nominator may want to take a second look and consider withdrawal. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, the relevant sections of WP:NEO regarding acceptable articles should be reviewed:

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Jun (businessman)[edit]

The company might be notable (but see below), but there doesn't seem to be enough to make this person himself notable. Moderate delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related company article for deletion for the sake of considering them consistently, but I am taking no position on the company:

Poly Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep both. According to the current references in Wang Jun, he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore he is notable. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep company article, company seems to be a significant defense contractor for the PRC. No position regarding businessman article. --Voidvector (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, called a "key player" in the White House coffees scandal by the WaPo, more recent coverage calls him a ChiCom "princeling"[26] whose interest in a nearly-defunct HK company made its stock soar. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody Wang Jun tonight! Keep per above. Mandsford (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No reason to salt it just yet. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maths Short Cuts[edit]

contested prod, reason for deletion: WP:NOT#MANUAL, also the subject is unclear and doesn't assert notability. I add that, mathematically, this is very confusing and is certainly not in wide usage. I recomend a salt, only in case of repeated recreation though, see also Wikipedia_talk:WPM#Maths_Short_Cuts. Cenarium^Talk 15:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with reasons given by Cenarium. Un-encyclopedic content. Not fixable. Salt. Sunray (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.as per norms---Ganitha (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic math trivia. --Salih (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Analogous to "short cuts" that guys are prone to take while driving, and that take just as long, or longer than the regular route. Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as above Nothing 444^{Go Irish!} 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic, incoherent jumble. Unsourced. Not notable. Unfixable. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic badly presented random collection of non-notable original research. Unsalvageable. Please salt so it doesn't get recreated again. --Lambiam 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 17:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be a how-to. Looking like WP:SNOW. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete + salt = 360^0ⁿ⁺¹. Unsalvageable, incoherent, no chance of notability/verifiability, apparently a re-creation. Speedy per WP:SNOW. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason to salt this one? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not justified at this time. So only in case of repeated recreation. Cenarium^Talk 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-creation and no conceivable use (esp. due to capitalization). It's just my opinion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but don't salt True it's hard to imagine that an encyclopedic article could appear under the title Maths Short Cuts, barring someone writing a book by that name or something, and I have difficulty seeing it even as a worthwhile redirect. But salting seems overly aggressive/authoritarian at this time -- no need to rub it in. --Trovatore (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Cenarium^Talk 22:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic; also, WP:NOT a how-to. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopaedic. linas (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is possible to imagine an article titled short-cuts in mathematics or something like that that could be a worthwile article, but it would not resemble this article, which is an ineptly written mess. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IntraHealth International[edit]

IntraHealth International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An article about a non-notable organization with no references. Nothing 444^{Go Irish!} 15:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References now added. Also, a lack of references is not a reason to rush to AFD George The Dragon (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep looks notable, article is a bit on the spammy side though. Mr.Z-man 17:50, 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 Keep --JForget 23:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket clemency[edit]

catchphrase used in media discussion of a single event, not a recognized or standard legal/political term. Not much more than an (inaccurate, mostly) attempt at a dictionary definition. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete doesn't even belong in a dictionary, let alone an encyclopedia. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid deletion reason. Please provide some policy based criteria for your deletion reason, perhaps one that's actually factually accurate this time. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much more than a media catchphrase, the term is used in several books on the death penalty, and has been used in contexts other than the Ryan's clemency, e.g. [27] [28] [29]. A merge to Clemency would be possible, except it redirects to Pardon, which is a different concept. Jfire (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is barely mention of it outside the Illinois governor thing, but there is a little. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable legal term. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A Google search shows fewer than 2500 hits on this term, nearly 90% of which refer to Ryan's mass commutation of death sentences in Illinois, and are mostly from news accounts. Of the remaining 300 or so, virtually none of which are from legal sources (and show no consistent meaning). Could you provide some citations from legal sources for this rather strange assertion? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC) April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. According to Westlaw:

Simpson v. Battaglia, 458 F.3d 585, (Ill.), August 11, 2006
Henderson v. Briley, 54 F.3d 907, C.A.7, January 16, 2004
Ballard v. Pierce, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1980195, N.D.Ill., July 11, 2006 (NO. 06 C 711)
Ballard v. Pierce, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1519580, N.D.Ill., May 30, 2006 (NO. 06 C 711)

⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also 56 Stan. L. Rev. 1307 ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workity[edit]

Currently not a notable product. 99 ghits, mostly blogs and forums. Suggest deletion on grounds of WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as CSD G11. Also, the creator is an SPA that admits to being the CEO and founder of Simprove, who makes this program (see Talk:Workity). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author admits that the article was created for advertising/linking and he is not particular interested in the article content. 83.254.215.235 (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't admit that the article was created for advertising/linking. Again, I just created the article to complete the List of collaborative software. As a provider of collaborative software, I believe in the concept of social and mass collaboration. So if the Wikipedia community doesn't share my opinion that Workity needs to be added to this list, I'm fine with that. I've learned a lot about Wikipedia in the last two days and as a newby I have to admit that I should have read the guidelines for contribution first. But I also learned, that it was a big mistake to use my real name. When I created my Wikipedia account, I just thought "Hey everybody can know who made this contributions." According to the comments based on my profession, that was wrong. In conclusion, I think Wikipedia is not yet ready for real social collaboration and just works with anonymous contributions posted by IP addresses. So please please (with sugar on top) somebody delete this article that I can face myself again in the mirror. HolgerRath (talk) 13:29, 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 IAR speedy delete as a gross invasion of privacy. Blueboy 96 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eglish Close[edit]

Contested prod. I accept that settlements are notable. However, this is not a settlement, it is not really an estate as described, it is just a street and not a long one at that - see here. I have not been able to trace any secondary sources that would grant notability. Delete. TerriersFan (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Speedy Delete - Not only is it completely not notable, it being just a residential street, it is a gross invasion of people's privacy by informing the world who lives in what houses and how long they've loved there. Both delete it and remove the history to protect people's privacy. Canterbury Tail talk 15:39, 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 all. No consensus to salt (yet). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yolanda Johnson[edit]

Non-notable artist with little or no media attention, no charting songs. Articles are full of untruths (e.g. artist is not signed to GOOD Music). Artist seems to exist but all records appear to be on a teeny indie (or possibly self-released). Fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing verifiable from reliable sources, either—all info from her website or MySpace page. Does not show up on Billboard.com, minimal entry for one album on Allmusic.com—Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect Per nom, the artist isn't notable enough to warrant an article. These articles are a magnet for puppetmaster User:Soccermeko. If we simply delete them, they will be recreated in a matter of days.Kww (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but don't salt yet I did a search for coverage myself, came up with zippo. However, calling for a salt is premature--wait until it's recreated two more times, then salt it. Blueboy 96 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand why you might call it premature, but Soccermeko has proven to be an extremely tenacious puppetmaster. I revert and report multiple times daily, and am in favor of anything that heads him off at the pass. Is there a way to salt with a time limit? If we could, say, salt for 90 days, I'd be happy enough.Kww (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that WP:SALT is WP:PROTECT, any time limit can be used.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Had a quick search and surprised (given the above comments) how easy sources where to find. So meets Wikipedia:MUSIC with multiple sources of secondary information. [30], [31], [32], [33] Yolanda Johnson at Yahoo music etc ChessCreator (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see someone who has gotten their name around on the internet but nothing that indicates notability per WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the albums and singles for failing WP:MUSIC, but Weak Keep the main Yolanda Johnson article. There seems to be enough sources out there for her to pass WP:MUSIC#C7, just. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure how "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" applies. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Albums are all non-notable by any measure I can see. Yes, some minor coverage from non-reliable sources, but nothing substantial from reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, yeah, and I favor the salt as well.

Keep: It doesn't matter who it was who contributed, You think that its aways a sockpuppet on everyt page, and I wish you would shut up about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.129.69.13 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I had originally deleted this, as a contribution by a blocked user, but decided to leave it intact for the closing admin to see in relation to my request for salting. User:4.129.69.13 is User:Soccermeko again, just as User:4.154.56.1, User:4.129.68.118, User:4.154.5.153, User:Editor126, User:Fan196, and myriad others were. Please, after deleting these articles, salt them, even if only with a time limit, or he will rise again to recreate them.Kww (talk) 02:52, 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. Pigman☿ 05:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder ball[edit]

Extremely spammy article about a game of dubious notability. Nearly every reference provided is for a company that sells equipment for the game. Only reference that comes anywhere near meeting WP:RS is a newspaper article about a local man who makes sets for resale. DarkAudit (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As written, almost G11-able in my book. If there is an article to be written on this, I don't see it--a Yahoo search turned up no reliable sources or coverage. Blueboy 96 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google searches suggest that there are people who play this less-chance-of-a-skull-fracture alternative to horseshoes, although I've never heard of it. I agree that it needs to be seriously de-spammed, since there are several manufacturers who out this toy/game. Mandsford (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The article content is just a game guide, but the references are a blatant attempt to cash in on a load of public-domain games by cybersquatting on the domains and using Wikipedia to promote them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Percy and Blueboy. This is thinly disguised spam as the "references" are almost all websites that point to sellers of the game. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applino[edit]

Doesn't seem particularly notable, and the author's username is the same as the name of the developer, which makes me suspect COI. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 14:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The same editor is also the developer. I think it is a Conflict of Interest too. Nothing 444^{Go Irish!} 14:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. WP:COI isn't a reason to delete. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable, COI and spammy. Canterbury Tail talk 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:29, 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 keep--obviously notable, plus deletion rationale is invalid. Blueboy 96 16:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Kids[edit]

I am nominating Yahoo! Kids for deletion again because it is bad content. It has opinions on it (e.g. kids tend to look up games) and it reads too much like a spam because there is so much external links to the site. Nothing 444^{Go Irish!} 14:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting a speedy keep since the last AfD was closed four days ago and not many of the issues raised here are worthy of deletion. Article also lacks an AfD tag, so fix't. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable subsite on Yahoo, but definitely needs a cleanup and sourcing. Canterbury Tail talk 15:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. Consensus doesn't change in 4 days. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:43, 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) 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Road (Radio Play)[edit]

King of the Road (Radio Play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article on a non-notable radio show. Theres no references either. Nothing 444^{Go Irish!} 14:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear notable besides the lack of references; the information there doesn't seem to indicate importance. Kinda' coatracking for the Hull Blokes as well, but that's not a reason to delete. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Rtphokie (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article is abysmal but sources are available (here [34]) albeit all from the Hull Daily Mail. These should be used to strengthen the weak Hull Blokes article instead of propping up this footnote of an article. - Dravecky (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby McKee[edit]

A stub article on a long-serving local councillor (and former mayor) in Larne, Northern Ireland, who would normally fail WP:BIO#Politicians. Mayors in N. Ireland serve only for one year and the job is purely ceremonial, so that doesn't confer automatic presumption of notability, but this man may just about make the grade because of his unusual career from UVF commander to disabled charity activist, for which he received an MBE and got some press coverage. This seems to me to be a borderline case, which is why I bring it to AFD rather than PRODding it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this person is notable enough. The Mayorship alone maybe not, but considering his New Years Honour (needs a reference) and his injury in terrorist explosion plus his public work all combine in my eyes to make him a notable individual. Canterbury Tail talk 15:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I am unable to locate substantial third party coverage by this man, and I don't see anything in the article on which I'd be prepared to presume notability. Very willing to re-examine in the event that additional sources are located. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - entirely agree with Sarcasticidealist. Lots of mentions in passing on the web, but pretty much nothing of substance. Some comments on Slugger O'Toole (not suitable as references) suggest that his brother may be notable, but even there they can't find much on Bobby McKee. Warofdreams talk 01:42, 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. — Scientizzle 15:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hetam-Garh er Guptodhon[edit]

This article, originally written in Bengali, is about a book with no assertion of notability other than a few peacock words. One editor at WP:PNT expressed concern that this article might be spam. ~~The book's author is a redlink.~~ Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Delete. - Agree with Blanchardb (talk · contribs), all above articles are WP:OR, unsourced, do not assert notability or significant discussion in secondary sources, and are poorly formatted and with portions of the articles that read like advertising. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The article about the author Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay claims some awards which may be enough for notability, but these fail Notability (books), are mainly plot summary, and could be sufficiently covered by a mention in the author's article. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 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 no consensus to delete (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 13:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Himan[edit]

Non-notable artist, no assertion of artist notability. asenine ^t/_c 13:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. A quick proquest search returns 27 news articles about the subject. Polevaults over WP:MUSIC. Article needs serious cleanup and insertion of those references, not deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article as it now stands is about an album, not the artist. If the album is notable (not sure if it is), the page needs to be moved to reflect the album name. If the article is about the artist, it needs to be rewritten.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Normally, when I see this kind of thing, I fix it myself, but I don't know enough about the music industry to know how to go about writing an article for a musician. He seems notable enough, but the article needs to be about him and not the album. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eric Himan's own website reveals some sources of third party reviews [35], and the NME has this, though I'm not sure if it counts for anything. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 17:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup/expansion. Google news has tons of articles about this fellow. Chubbles (talk) 20:59, 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 per unanimity among respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 13:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lobo (The King of Currumpaw)[edit]

Seems just to be documenting a plot storyline. If it should be included at all, then it should be included in the main article. asenine ^t/_c 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added some more context. Is it OK now? (Msrasnw (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My original notice still stands in my eyes. asenine ^t/_c 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entry seems basically fine - a bit badly written (I wrote it) but a notable subject with references. Perhaps more of interest to older readers.(Is it OK to write here to keep entries one has written?). Would more links to other sources that refer to the story or more about the wolfs paw signature help? (Msrasnw (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Notable author and reasonably well-known story. Henry Merrivale (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment It would certainly be a pity to lose the information altogether, although it could perhaps be included under the entry for Ernest Thompson Seton. Lobo's death had an observable social impact: for example, the BBC broadcast a detailed David Attenborough documentary("Lobo - The wolf that changed America", part of the BBC's Natural World documentary series. Broadcast on April 2nd, 2008. See the BBC Website Entry.) on April 2nd 2008, explaining how the circumstances surrounding Lobo's capture and subsequent death prompted Seton to change his own attitude towards the significance and killing of wolves, and the knock-on effects this had for America at large. As a result, Lobo has both cultural and historical significance in his own right. More tenuously, it might perhaps be argued that Lobo's significance arises only because of the profound effect his death had on motivating Seton's subsequent behaviour; and that therefore Lobo's relevance is purely secondary, and no separate article should be included. However, if Lobo were a person, I'm not sure this argument would hold water. For example, Guy Fawkes is also (arguably) a secondary character, whose relevance lies in the knock-on effects of his capture and subsequent death, but he still merits his own entry. So why not Lobo? (Incidentally, the Seton article has the book "Wild Animals I Have Known" listed as 1898, not 1899.) Mike.stannett (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). AfD is not a forum for discussing proposed merges; that posiblity is left open to editors fo the article and its talkpage. Skomorokh 13:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technocratic views of the Price system[edit]

A self-sourced and essentially unreferenced discussion of the views of the Technocracy movement on the price system. No evidence that this is significant outside of said movement, or that their views on the "Price system" (itself a neologism for economic policy) is considered significant in isolation. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Technocracy movement, which is where this content belongs; primary sources are fine for these sorts of statements and articles. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Celarnor. This information would be more useful and better explained as part of the larger article rather than on its own. ~ mazca ^talk 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Celarnor to the article suggested, or to the Technical Alliance or Technocracy Incorporated articles. Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This information may already be covered in the Technocracy Incorporated article pretty much now. skip sievert (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't really defend this particular article as it was only really created as a split from Price system, when there were arguments there about content. However "Guy" if you are intending to just go around deleting or merging all of the Technocracy related articles, then you obviously aren't taking into account length. If this is merged into Technocracy movement (which I suppose it can be), that article is going to get really big, really fast, and then people will be talking about splitting sections off into separate articles and so on, till we end up here again. I think you've got to understand that if something is relevant in an article, but there is no room in that article for the large amount of content that there is to write about it, then it needs it's own article. BTW who exactly is going to be doing the merging? Shall I assume that job falls to me? --Hibernian (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. be bold. I don't know enough about to subject matter to properly merge such things; I'm just here to keep things from getting deleted that don't deserve it. :) Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking merge.. but after looking at Technocracy Incorporated article and Technocracy movement article... it seems to me that pertinent information is probably already covered in those articles and associated wikipedia pages concerning this subject. skip sievert (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Good WP:CSD#A7 candidate. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Hull[edit]

I believe this does not satisfy WP:BIO - and it is written as if it is some sort of dating profile, not an encyclopaedia entry (esp that last sentence). asenine ^t/_c 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 2 trivial mentions in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ("Germantown's Hull goes from practice player to star", 23 Nov 1998, p. 5) and the Wisconsin State Journal ("QUICK START GIVES GERMANTOWN TITLE", 21 Nov 1998 p 6D), but those are potential NOT#NEWS material as they cover the same subject, namely a "Division 2" game, whatever that means. Nothing to suggest he satisfies the athletic criteria for inclusion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:29, 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 per WP:CSD#A7 as failing to assert notability nancy ^(talk) 13:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dare 2 Ask[edit]

Seems not to satisfy inclusion guidelines. asenine ^t/_c 13:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (tagged as such): Newly formed company with no website and operating out of MySpace. Unreferenced. No real assertion of notability. Author shares a name with the subject and has not edited anything else. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not asserted. -- Alexf⁴² 13:37, 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, discounting Isenhand's comment as unfounded in policy. Sandstein (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technate[edit]

This is a neologism coined by the technocracy movement and lacks any references from outside that movement. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neologism. asenine ^t/_c 13:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches yield nothing to indicate that the term has been the subject of any discourse or used outside of the movement. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While this term is well known within its own context.. which is people knowledgeable about the Technate design for North America .. it is already referenced well in the Technocracy Incorporated article on wikipedia. skip sievert (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Firstly, it seems the nominator does not have a very good understanding of what the word "neologism" means, it means a newly created word, now if he had taken the time to check, he would find out this word has been in use since at least 1933 (that's 75 years), now I don't see how a 75 year old term can possibly be called a neologism (or "neo" anything). The concept is ridiculous! On that alone, this AFD must be closed and the article kept. But to the wider issue, again think of the length of the parent article if this all has to be squashed in there. It is also BTW, not true to say that it has never been the "subject of any discourse", when Technocracy was first created it sparked significant attention in the American media of the day, and Technocracy did have hundreds of thousands of members in the 1930s, the idea of a Technate was well discussed. Just because you may not be able to find references to this on the Internet does not mean it didn't happen, which just shows the poorness in using Google searches to try to make an argument about it. No, there is simply insufficient justification to delete it, and those who seek its deletion have not even attempted to properly research it. --Hibernian (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pretty good grasp of the English language, thanks. This term does not appear to be in use distinct from the technocracy movement. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh course it's not in use outside the Technocracy movement, what does that matter? The article is in reference to that movement. The term "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is not in use outside the Communist movement, should that term also be deleted? This is simply not a real reason for deletion. --Hibernian (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is an old word still in use. Isenhand (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been another day, any responses? I think I've proved that this term is not a Neologism, it is not something that was just recently made up, or anything like that. And I've shown that it is not just some irrelevance, it's the core proposal of a movement which is deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia and it thus deserves inclusion. I mean, even if the nominator does not believe it to be relevant today, it is at the very least of historical scholarly interest to Wikipedia (In the same way as something like Atlantropa is). So, for these reasons and those stated above, I would again ask that when the decision is made, it is keep. --Hibernian (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technocracy Study Course[edit]

An article which lacks independent reliable sources, the subject is a single document published by the Technocracy movement, not in itself a particularly significant movement. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I couldn't disagree with you any more strongly about the Technocracy movement being insignificant, this particular document doesn't seem notable. Zero hits on ProQuest, web hits are mostly archives, pdfs, and "what is Technocracy" pages. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly merge into another Technocracy article if some of the information is worthwhile. There doesn't seem to be much assertion of notability of this document. ~ mazca ^talk 13:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The information is available elsewhere. There is no such thing as a Technocracy movement. However Technocracy Incorporated and its program.. is perhaps the most important social movement of the 20th. century in my opinion... it influenced and continues to influence many... and was the fastest growing social movement of the early to mid 1930's. skip sievert (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Technocracy Study Course was not published by the Technocracy movement. That phrasing is in my opinion a misnomer in context of this topic. That adds to the confusion here of what is what. Technocracy Incorporated put out the Technocracy Study Course. For decades (and presently also) it served as the primary explanation of the program developed by the Technical Alliance a group from Columbia University that is considered by some to be the first think tank in America.

I would hope that these Technate related articles are not being put up for deletion because they are thought to be unimportant. Only a person that is unfamiliar with a large aspect of American history would claim that. There were 17 Technocrats in F.D.R.'s administration. This is suggested reading for any that would like a larger view of Technocracy Incorporated and its role then and now. http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm History and Purpose of Technocracy - Howard Scott.

A link to a copy of the Technocracy Study Course unabridged edition (currently not on wikipedia... but available) could be given in the Technocracy Incorporated wiki article page... with an explanation of its significance. A copy of the Technocracy Study Course is available through project Gutenberg.. Internet Archive. skip sievert (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maybe transwiki to Wikiversity. --Emesee (talk) 08:17, 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 (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katutura Community Radio[edit]

Looks to be a good radio station, but that is irrelevant to the fact that it appears to me that it doesn't satisfy inclusion guidelines. It does seem 'borderline'. asenine ^t/_c 12:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted. asenine ^t/_c 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added references and a few lines of text. The nominator may want to have another look. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a licensed radio station. Licensed radio stations are presumed notable for the communities they serve. Also, Google and Google News searches indicate substantial WP:RS coverage that can satisfy WP:ORG. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of references and links. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep references could be improved and article really needs some cleanup but it's notable. --Rtphokie (talk) 22:56, 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. — Scientizzle 15:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reece Crowther[edit]

Contested prod (by IP with no explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as has never played in a fully professional league.[36] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 12:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - a handful of appearances at a non-league club hardly qualifies. Bettia ^(talk) 09:18, 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 Speedy/Strong Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus asserts heavy keep, including comment over a recent AfD nomination. WilliamH (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTube celebrities[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I just think the term "YouTube celebrity" is down to nothing more than speculation. Buc (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability criteria are a definable line to help us understand what constitutes a 'YouTube celebrity.' It's true that this article sees a lot of non-notable self-insertions, but that is not a reason for deletion, and there seem to be plenty of people who have watchlisted this article and remove the non-notable additions. I don't agree that there is no such thing as a YouTube celebrity, since some people have achieved a measure of fame through their YouTube participation, and this can be verified by reliable sources, and is so verified in this list. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This will never be a featured list due to its nature which invites self-insertions, but we have a previous consensus to keep, to which this nomination changes nothing. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Youtube celebrities are notable. An index of them is perfectly encyclopedic, and the page requires that they have reliable sources to cite their 'celebrity-ship'. By the nominators argument, we should also delete List of celebrities, as 'celebrity' doesn't have a set, numerical criteria either. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notability guidelines allow us to determine what makes them a 'celebrity'. By your thinking, should we not also delete List of celebrities also, as it seems you believe it cannot be determined what makes someone applicable to that standard? asenine ^t/_c 13:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nothing has changed since the consensus in the second AfD and I don't think your new concern is particularly valid - all the performers listed have sources to assert notability or they are removed. All 'speculation' is done by the 'reliable sources' referred to. ~ mazca ^talk 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as this article survived AFD with a keep decision only a couple of months ago. Articles must not be re-nominated repeatedly in such a short period of time. And I agree with Mazca that I don't think anything has changed in terms of consensus since the thing was kept the last time. 23skidoo (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Worthy subject, but still not a terribly informative list, even with the "a.k.a." thrown in to give a hint as to the nature of their celebrity status. Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Notable, but it's a poor article. ChessCreator (talk) 16:45, 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. Keep arguments did not refute the arguments raise in favour of deletion, and a couple of them came perilously close to WP:ILIKEIT. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of naval commanders[edit]

Overly broad list with no clear criteria for inclusion. Potentially anyone who has commanded anything at anytime in any navy - ship, unit, base, fleet, flotilla, three man work detail - qualifies for inclusion. Categories already exist for admirals and naval officers. As with List of World War II veterans, the scope of this list is much too great to be succinct or encyclopedic. Listcruft and indiscriminate collection of information Nobunaga24 (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This sort of item is best handed via categories. Canterbury Tail talk 15:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CLS, "incomplete list", "redundant to category", are not reasons for deleting a list. MrPrada (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say "incomplete"? I see nobody saying that. The scope is much too broad is what I am saying. With the current criteria, I could cut and paste the entire U.S. Navy Admirals category and satisfy the conditions of this list.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all admirals commanded ships, some (believe it or not) have been staff officers their entire careers, unless you are making a semantics argument. I noted that it was incomplete because you stated that there are a lot of people who could be included that currently are not, hence, incomplete list... MrPrada (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list isn't about commanding ships - it says naval commanders. And command at some point in some capacity (i.e. a section, department, command ashore) is a requirement for flag rank.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename List of naval leaders or List of admirals and specify criterion is commanding a fleet. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No clarity around what the list is intended to achieve, no inclusion criteria (what is meant by Command in this context), purpose could more reasonably be supported using categories.ALR (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep- this page is exactly fine the way it is i mean if we deleted it we would have to go find the comander or person on such and such ship instead we have a list you can think of it as a gigantic disgmburation page that is very clean and organizedANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC) .[reply]
Delete - inclusion critieria too broad and what purpose would a complete list serve, leave it to catgories. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok lets comprimise lets make this a catogory.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A category for just naval commanders is just as vague and broad. Aside from deleting an open-ended list like this, the optimal solution would be to break it into lists based on more specific crtieria, such as time period or war or nationality, to name a few.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List served some purpose while searching for a 'Commodore Hopkins' I was able to determine that Esek Hopkins was the person I was looking for. Some other way to keep good cross-reference material from being deleted because it doesn't fit article guidelines must be found. Red links are minimal throughout this list. --Brad (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – overly broad category and, as the discussion above implies, somewhat ambiguous. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This can/should be/(is?) taken care of by categories. BWH76 (talk) 16:26, 16 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, with massive doses of fix it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splinters Theatre of Spectacle[edit]

Non-notable performance group. Speedy deleted following a PROD, but the PROD was appealed at WP:DRV, so it was recreated. No sources as to what makes this notable, and no claims of notability, just of longevity. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ as copyvio. So tagged. —BradV 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn speedy. Apparently that is an unauthorized Wikipedia mirror. —BradV 00:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable -Drdisque (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this poorly-written and poorly-formatted article which has many quality problems. It does seem notable, in that the Minister for Urban Services and Minister for the Arts said this about it and its founder at the Legislative Assembly for the ACT. That and the fact that several famous people list their various positions held in Splinters prominently in their resumes (Eg. Gavin Findlay, Lawrence Alloway, Rebecca Rutter). When searching for sources, one must also look for variant names, such as "Splinters Theatrical Company", "Splinters Theatre Company" or just "Splinters"; this is if course difficult, as splinters is a common term, but adding "Canberra" seems to narrow it down. Although this one is just a casual mention, it seems to refer to it as something everyone would inherantly know, which suggests at least local notability. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the content is dire and the formatting hopeless. There's nothing obvious here which would survive the necessary rewrite, and no sources provided from which to do it. Unless rewritten before the end of the AfD, it needs gone. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since when has the formatting of an article had anything to do with whether it should be kept or deleted? Haven't you noticed that there is an "edit this page" tab that can be used to fix that? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable for the number of performances and participants —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.184.34 (talk) 05:22, 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, Phoenix -wiki 11:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Jerry, and this Hansard mention. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs clean up tags but there seems to be plenty of third party sources supporting the notabilty of this topic.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:49, 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 keep (non-admin closure), per unanimous consensus. PeterSymonds | talk 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbour square[edit]

Contested PROD. No evidence of notability given. When DGG contested the PROD he/she commented "probably notable". Surely the emphasis on those contesting the PROD is to prove it? Roleplayer (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes deprod on the basis that it needs a more general discussion, by people who know more than I. Deprod doesnt necessarily mean keep--though it seems to here. . DGG (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep there is evidence of notability right there in the article - Grade 1 and 2 listed buildings, unchanged since 1830. Letting this in does not open any floodgates.Filceolaire (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - a well referenced article about a Grade II listed square - a Grade II listing officially means that the buildings are of "special architectural or historical interest", i.e. are notable. nancy ^(talk) 14:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just in its historical preservation interests indicates notability. Historic references exist and a couple are in the article. --Oakshade (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just added the IOE references to emphasis the listed building notability. The Police Station has notability too, although not yet mentioned in the article, apart from a citation, there was a squatting incident for which I found lots of references. MortimerCat (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grade II listed buildings are roughly equivalent to the National Register of Historic Places on this side of the pond, so these buildings and the square surely must be notable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:55, 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 no consensus for deletion. Unfortunately, the argument focused more around the nature of the company's business than around the availability and sufficiency of sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhong Hang Tai General Aviation Airlines[edit]

Speedy deletion for no assertion of notability was declined, it lacks context, lacks multiple reliable sources writing about this subject in detail (two referenced are more about the jet than the airline). In its current state, and for the last 9 months, it has failed WP:CORP Россавиа ^Диалог 10:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs references and expanding beyond the stub form it currently is in. I believe all airlines are notable. However this needs more information, the company has lots of news references that can be used but doesn't seem to have its own site. Canterbury Tail talk 15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 18:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is presently insufficient content, context or reliable sources to demonstrate notability. If this company was quoted on a public stock exchange, I would say keep, but without a listing or sales information is too early to assume that notability is to come. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a number of sources out there. The context and notability is that it's an airline. They recently ordered fifty jets (as covered in New York Times, Aviation.com, local papers in Colorado where the planes are manufactured, etc - see http://www.aviation.com/070607_adama7002.html) so it's real and no trivial endeavor. Wikidemo (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the contrary, there is no content to suggest they are going to act an an airline; they might lease the planes, or (if the article is correct), they are going to sell the planes on a flying time-share basis. There is no evidence that they meet the requirements of WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. The fact that it's called an airline is evidence enough. Herunar (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete General aviation means it's a charter or private air line, and has no scheduled service. Not enough sources to prove notability. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do not discriminate against a company based on whether it operates scheduled or charter flights, or whether it is an aircraft leasing company. A company capable of ordering 50 jets is likely to be notable. The article just needs to be worked on.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending more extensive coverage by reliable sources. THe issue is not whether it will be a private airflight company or a public airline, the issue is significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I would call the purchase story referenced above (the article's only current ref) trivial.Pastordavid (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (per consensus, and per withdrawn nomination). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Roddy[edit]

This one is borderline for me. Someone contested the prod. This drummer is regarded in the metal community here [37], however, most of it is just kinda fluff sources like blabbermouth or metalarchives, youtube, and myspace. Now, he does have an entry on Modern Drummer. However, I'm not sure this is enough to pass WP:MUSIC. He's played with various bands, but as stints on certain dates, not as a member. I wanted the community to take a look at this. Here is some google news on the drummer :[38] Again, none of these are really reliable. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'd suggest that separate entries in both Modern Drummer and Drummerworld are at least sufficient to establish general notability. As an aside, the picture in Drummerworld of a death metal drummer in an Izod shirt just makes me smile. DarkAudit (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Derek Roddy has definitely played as a member for several bands, most importantly the well-known bands Nile and Hate Eternal. I'd consider that, together with the fact he is listed on both Modern Drummer and Drummerworld, enough reason for him to have an article. For comparison, check Tony Laureano or many other metal musicians. Those articles aren't that extensive either. Joost de Kleine (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 10:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band. Derek Roddy has apparently demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band Hate Eternal by 1.) performing with other otherwise unrelated groups and 2.) being the subject of multiple non-trivial mention in independent and reliable publications not merely as a member of any of those group but as an individual musician in his own right. --Bardin (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As DarkAudit notes, independent coverage does suggest general notability. It isn't extensive, but in addition to the above he shows up in google news archives enough to help convince me. I have to note that the AfD notice was improperly removed from this article during this debate, on April 7. The evidence of the article's talk page suggests this mistake was made in good faith and that even though the contributor had been notified on his talk page that such notices should not be removed, he believed this was the proper thing to do. Nevertheless, its removal may have prevented some interested parties from participating in this discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note - After careful consideration, and the revelation that this drummer has made enough impact to warrant coverage by Drummerworld, in addition to Modern Drummer, I hereby withdraw this nomination for deletion. I don't have time to make a non-admin closure though. Cheers! Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Systematic element name, useful content already merged, no consensus for actual deletion but I think that does not really matter. Sandstein (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biunoctium[edit]

non-notable hypothetical chemical element (element 218), there are no other Wikipedia pages for elements with atomic number > 140 Warut (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While current science does predict that this element probably exists, it'll probably be quite some time before there are even any reasonable conjectures about its properties, to say nothing of actual data (which are probably at least a decade off, if not more). What information is given in the article can certainly be recreated when there's actually something to say here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In fact, it's very unlikely that there exist any elements with atomic numbers > 138 since the speed of a 1s electron would exceed the speed of light. See Untriseptium#Significance. Warut (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Systematic element name and Redirect. Since this is an official IUPAC name for a hypothetical element it should be mentioned in Wikipedia. Since it's hypothetical this mention should be fairly basic. Redirect to the page that describes this naming system.Filceolaire (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied accross the reference which was the only useful bit here. Ready to Redirect now. Filceolaire (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hope that this will not encourage people to create redirect pages for every IUPAC element name since there are infinitely many of them. Warut (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Filceolaire, but only because redirects are cheap. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a completely theoretical element far beyond the current capabilities of science to produce, with no useful information available about it. A very unlikely search term, so no need for a redirect in my opinion - unless we do want to produce redirects for every single IUPAC systematic name! ~ mazca ^talk 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Filceolaire. Being theoretical or hypothetical does not preclude an encyclopedic article, but this particular topic is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:41, 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 redirected to History of Tibet (plausible search term; non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet history[edit]

This seems to be an unsourced POV fork of History of Tibet. B. Wolterding (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced essay, redundant to the article History of Tibet. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to History of Tibet. - Darwinek (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Tibet. It doesn't look we would lose any content. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Tibet. Either an oversight or a POV fork. JJL (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect POV fork and an essay in violation of WP:NOT. The Dominator (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know if it's a POV fork, but it is certainly a duplicate. Redirect as a plausible search term. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted'. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klikkespillet[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable source. Google search shows only 8 ghits [39]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Written like spam, even though it is not likely that anyone is making a profit. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7: "web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. " Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So tagged.--Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Why are we wasting time and electrons on this? Obviously childish and NN. -- Alexf⁴² 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M komunikator[edit]

There are no sources and I don't really understand why this service would be notable. It should be explained or the article should be deleted. Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evident independent notability. Mazca (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - notability isn't even asserted. Article only says that it's a product that exists. Delete as NN. -- Mark Chovain 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:11, 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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jafat[edit]

This page seems to be an hoax.

Google entries referring to this are wikipedia mirrors or other wiki sites where user text can be entered.

Comic price guide never hear of this comic.

They can't find a fair use image of a cover? Filceolaire (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Filceolaire (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Either it's a hoax, it's original research, or it's an in-universe article about an extremely non-notable and obscure comic. In any case it's deletable. Mazca (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Definitely a hoax. —SlamDiego_←T 11:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. The 2005 edition of the Standard Catalog of Comic Books, doesn't know anything about this comic, which basically means it doesn't exist. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A comic that has been in continuous publication since 1946 would be one of the most successful comics of all time, and there would be actual information about it in print and web sources. Since no such information is available about Jafat, it is presumably a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Metropolitan. Edward321 (talk)

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

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

The result was deleted by User:RHaworth under CSD A3. Non-admin closure. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shkrimaickistan[edit]

This looks like a hoax, written completely in universe, i'm not that familiar with the Zelda games, so i'm not sure how much (if anything) is true. RT | Talk 07:30, 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. There was consensus that the available sources met WP:N. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Stark[edit]

Poor evidence of notability. Reads like an attempt to use Wikipedia to make the subject more notable. —SlamDiego_←T 07:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The medium of ASCII Art has a fairly large Wikipedia article and makes no metion of this "prolific" artist. Does not appear to meet the criteria set forth for creative professionals in WP:BIO. Movementarian (Talk) 08:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although being on Geocities after all these years might suggest otherwise, Stark has received coverage in multiple reliable sources including the two books cited. Satisfies WP:BIO. Using a Wikipedia article as proof one way or another is generally not encouraged. --Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: Could you quote all or part of the passages in those books? (Being mentioned in two “reliable sources” does not imply notability.) BTW, her opening Geocities page declares “site established 96'September / last updated 01'June”. —SlamDiego_←T 00:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The discussion in Cyberpl@y is four pages long, including reproductions of two ASCII artworks. The same scholar, Danet, discusses her (and other online artists) in half-a-dozen scholarly papers, but most of them I cannot access. --75.42.235.132 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've found the discussion therein amongst Google Books. Discussion of Stark is actually less than three pages (starting about half-way down page 228 and finishing about half-way down page 230). I recommend that editors skim or scan it to determine for themselves the extent to which they believe that it establishes notability. —SlamDiego_←T 02:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources have been provided to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources establish some notability, but it's borderline in terms of what should be in an encyclopedia or not. Still, the sources are reliable enough that it should stay. Xihr (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Glancing at a couple of the google scholar refs, I think it is safe to say that it is a more than trivial mention of Stark. However, as a BLP, it needs more sourcing all around. Pastordavid (talk) 20:36, 16 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. Ty 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Whiffen[edit]

The subject doesn't seem to be notable to me. The only (implied) assertion of importance is being the grandfather of Tim Cantor, who's notability I also think is suspect - see that article's tags (sorry, they've been removed now), it's talk page and it's creator's pages for my comments. The sources aren't reliable as they are written by Tim Cantor or his publisher. The only source I can find that isn't written by Tim cantor (or his web site or his publisher) is one at CALART, which looks like a site for selling the article's subject's art. Note, the creator of this article also created Ashby Galleries and Tim Cantor - I believe they're all suspect and possibly POV. Ha! (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Ha! (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Ha! (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've requested speedy deletion for Amy cantor which has just been created by the same editor that created Lloyd Whiffen, Tim Cantor, Ashby Galleries Ha! (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not notable (WP:N). Note that there is an artist Lloyd Dundas Whiffen whom I did see mentioned in my Art books, but this is not the artist of this article. Further, there is almost certainly conflict of interest (WP:COI). MortimerCat (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the same Lloyd Dundas Whiffen you're referring to. See the Calart page (on Google Cache [40] as the Calart one is currently broken) where his name is listed as Lloyd Dundas Whiffen and there is mention of India. Then the section on Tim Cantor's web site [41] where it talks about his grandfather (India) and the image is the same as the one on Lloyd Whiffen (also see more detail of the picture on Tim Cantor's site at [42]). The date of death listed on Calart is 1951 and on Lloyd Whiffen is 1959 but that's possibly just an error in one of them. Ha! (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have retracted my delete for now. If it is Lloyd Dundas Whiffen, then he has some notability. Work needs to be done. The birth and death date in the article disagree with my Lloyd Dundas Whiffen birth and death dates. It is still possible that Tim Cantor great -grandfather and Dundas are different people, and the other sources have mixed them up as well. MortimerCat (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say he was mentioned in your art books, do you mean an art book you have access to now, or one that you remember (I'm after a name of the book so I can try and add a reference). Ha! (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say Art Book? I meant the Artprice web site, which indicates his work occasionally come up for sale as a named item. MortimerCat (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That site says [43] it has a 371 character biography on him taken from Who Was Who in American Art. I think this means he's heading towards notability. Maybe I should have just tagged the article with improvement templates rather than submiting for AfD Ha! (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO even on the Calart info. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guys please re-read this article. I worked on it and am crossing my finges that it is getting closer to being accepted. Thanks. -Harry T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorHarrison (talk • contribs) 12:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no sign of it meeting WP:BIO, imo. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above, MorimerCat wrote that he found mention of Lloyd Dundas Whiffen in his art books. This absolutely is the same Lloyd Whiffen in this article. Thanx Mortimer, it helped find and gather more info and correct the date of birth and death. Can it remain on wikipedia now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.226.4 (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm tending towards a very weak keep rather than a delete now, even though I nominated it. The reason is the new info about a biography in "Who was who in American Art" (i.e. he's the subject of reliable secondary source material that's intellectually and subject independent). Although I can't read the biography, I do believe there is one on him in there. "Who was who in American Art" is a reliable enough source for me, it's cited enough by other books and there's a short summary here [44] that makes me think it's a reliable source. Ha! (talk) 23:02, 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) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War[edit]

This is unsourced, I am unable to find any thing online about it. A quick search of google brings up this exact article as its number one result. Google News doesn't have anything on it either RockerballAustralia (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and possible WP:HOAX, as it is unsourced speculation. A search engine test using keywords from the article reveals nothing about this film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL, fails WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is a W.I.T.C.H. article already on Wikipedia. Any useful info should be merged into it. The movie alone is not notable as it hasn't been released. AlbinoFerret (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that there is no such news about a film, so there is nothing verifiable to merge. Also, I think it's unrealistic to change this into any kind of redirect -- there is no clear basis for such a title to be typed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I was able to make some presentational improvements, I could not find any sources on dogpile.com, Academic Search Complete, or Amazon.com. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a hoax. GlassCobra 13:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of The Kingdom Hearts Series[edit]

This article is pure crystalballing based on fan sites. The sources given are not reliable and the article looks like it contains original research. Metros (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Even if the sites referenced weren't fan sites, I don't think there's a viable article here. Discussion of the future of the series can be covered by a couple of paragraphs in the main article. This type of topic is better suited for a Kingdom Hearts wiki. 23skidoo (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, contains with original research some speculation and POV ("shocking things", "This will be awesome on PS3." etc.) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 10:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing here that can't be covered in a related article. Besides that I see some obvious crystal issues.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - crystalballing. comment to article creator: video.google is not a good Cite source. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - WP:CRYSTAL and a heap o' WP:OR! --Orange Mike | Talk 03:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Note that merging was considered a valid option by a few editors, including the nominator. - Nabla (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhdev Singh Babbar[edit]

Doesn't satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Didn't have any reliable or neutral sources. Also is unknown outside of "Khalistan" circles. Google search only returns POV pro-Khalistan sites.vi5in^[talk] 04:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The India Tribune is a reliable and major newspaper of the area, and a human rights watchdog both seem to suggest notability for the person. -Parappathebagel (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked out IHRO. For being "International", the articles seem to be only focused on Punjab and India. --vi5in^[talk] 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since IHRO, a Human Rights Watchdog is a NPOV, hence it should be considered as a source confirming this person's notability.Singh6 (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a few sources backing up notability as can be found here. Added one. ascidian | talk-to-me 22:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink - Although I still believe this person is notable, until a NPOV version can be established a Merge/Redirect to Babbar Khalsa may be the best option.

Comment/Reply - Sir, I challenge you and the whole respected Wikipedia community to prove following sources as POV: The New York Times, Amnesty International, Amnesty International, The Hindu, The Tribune, The Vancouver Sun, United Nations, Asia times, CBC News Canada, Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict, Sify, India Today, The Indian Express, The daily Excelsior And If these are NPOV, then this person is surely a Notable personality.Singh6 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Three Thousand Nine Hundered (3900) Google hits backing up notability. Please check [45]. Also The New York Times, Amnesty International, Amnesty International, The Hindu, The Tribune, The Vancouver Sun are definitely reliable sources. Removing this article will be a great in-justice and will be considered as equivalent to murdering history. And several World level News/Reports backing up notability as well, including United Nations, Asia times, CBC News Canada Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict, Sify, India Today, The Indian Express, The daily Excelsior Singh6 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you tone down the rhetoric? I'm glad you came up with sources. No one here is trying "murder history". --vi5in^[talk] 03:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: "Regarding toning down my sentences"- I have personally seen various crimes/murders committed by Indian security forces in Punjab. The related news always appeared on The Tribune, one of north-Indian newspapers and Ajit, a regional newspaper of India etc. Since [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/forms/archive.htm “The Tribune (a 125 years old newspaper group) does not have online editions prior to 2001 and Ajit didn’t have any online editions untill very recently , hence I went through extreme desperation to prove some importance of these Historic personalities/and India’s Famous muder victims. Indian government always tried to suppress information about its murders by emposing various means. Now whenever I see someone suppressing/deleting information about these historic personalities even after their murders , then I feel that Indian agents are now murdering the history as well, and that results in my crying tone.Singh6 (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stating things like "I have personally seen varous crimes/murders committed by Indian security forces in Punjab" does very little to improve discussion on this topic. We're trying to see whether this article merits inclusion or not. We're not discussing your opinions, views, or personal experiences. So really, please tone down your rhetoric. I'm not trying to be too cynical, but I find it hard to believe that you could accidentally change someone's Comment to Keep. --vi5in^[talk] 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply: Respected Sir, I had given the reason of my crying tone (rhetoric per your directory) on seeing someone intentionally murdering history. I also find it hard to beleive that your Google search only showed POV (pro-Khalistan) sites, Should I consider that vi5in lied, or should I consider that it was just an accident. Singh6 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ok, I can understand your indignation regarding this AfD, but realize it's nothing personal. So please stop making it so. Saying things like "murdering history" is pointless hyperbole. As far as the Google search, this is what I saw. Note the preponderance of forums and POV sites like sikhlionz? I notice now a Tribune link there that I did not see before. On this basis, I guess there is sufficient notability to merge/redirect this article. But it really doesn't have enough information or notablity to be one in its own right. --vi5in^[talk] 17:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply: Dear vi5in, I have seen your contribution towards Wikipedia which I really respect. I have started editing Sukhdev Singh Babbar article now with all world level references, including information from The New York Times, Amnesty International, Amnesty International and United Nations etc. It will take few days for me to find/complete information about this historic personality. I am also against using POV references, but please note that sometimes it become impossible to find real NPOV references because of non-availability of their online editions in India which I have already mentioned and proved in my previous reply (I would like to get your kind assistance to face these issues in the future). Some of the Indian press-houses were not that advanced prior to 2001. I sincerely hope that because of [Sukhdev Singh babbar] being a notable person whose name figured in several newspapers in several countries, Amnesty International and even at the level of United Nations, Wikipedia will keep this article as it is.Singh6 (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Since the nominator vi5in has accepted sufficient Notability of the subject and advocated its merger (and Not Complete Deletion) by himself. See "here".Singh6 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Singh6 has changed the post from User:Parappathebagel from a "Comment" to a "Keep". see here. ascidian | talk-to-me 03:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:Mistaken change of ‘one’ word, i.e. “Comment” to “Keep” happened while I was editing my own entry. I am new to Wikipedia and I am still learning how to enter links and information in various codes. Un-intentional mistake has been corrected, i.e.User:Parappathebagel ‘s info. Please accept my sincere apologies.Singh6 (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be pov version. Only a few linesShalimer (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply “Only A few lines” does not mean that even “these few lines” should be deleted at all. Being an Indian, you might have hate for anti Indian Personalities. You edit/modify a lot of Sikhism/Sikh related articles/biographies without even a single discussion.Singh6 (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/Redirect~~ to Babbar Khalsa. There are some mentions in newspaper reports, so this person is somewhat notable. utcursch | talk 05:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep -- major expansion with good references. utcursch | talk 10:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge/Redirect seems like a good idea. There seem to be large number of stub-quality articles on Babbar Khalsa members. Perhaps they could all be merged/redirected. --vi5in^[talk] 15:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy seems to have been an notable militant separatist leader in the 80s. I had not heard of him until reading the newspaper on the new york times. Therefore, after reviewing the evidence and all the newspaper reports, he is definitely notable so my vote is keep. However, the article should be written neutrally written (non-pov) to keep it valuable.--Sikh khalsa (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable militant leader. I agree it should be NPOV.... but dont delete it!!!!!!!! Sunnybondsinghjalwehra (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was the leader of the largest of the Sikh militant groups of the 1980s and 1990s. That's pretty notable, in my book. We've got citations from news sources without a dog in this fight that say as much. Fixing the POV will be necessary, but is a separate issue from deletion. skoosh (háblame) 13:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The founder of the Babbar Khalsa, the largest militant/extremist/terrorist group in India for a decade is immediately notable. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: One of the founder of Babbar Khalsa International, obviously notable. NPOV disputes? That needs rewriting. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:38, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Daniella of Romania[edit]

Hoax page. I could find no evidence that this individual exists. None of the listed references, or any other source, makes any mention of her. Biruitorul (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:HOAX. No evidence this person exists. Refers to Michael I of Romania, but claims her father "Dorel" is the king. Someone with that name and her last name appears in a Glenview, Illinois police report, a suburb close enough to the Loyola University of Chicago to suggest some kind of joke. Michael I has no male children, and the Romanian government is unlikely to change the salic law for a deposed monarchy, so his heir apparent is actually Frederick William, Prince of Hohenzollern, a distant cousin. To forestall this Michael has taken actions, the description of which from his article matches text in this article with the names changed.--Dhartung | Talk 05:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator is an SPA. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, per nom. and Dhartung. JohnCD (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:HOAX. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Part of this article were apparently copied from Princess Margarita of Romania, which is about the actual oldest daughter of the actual deposed king of Romania. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 22:52, 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) 22:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirrus Airlines flight 1569[edit]

Plane overshoots runway, suffers some damage, no deaths or injuries = encyclopedic article? No; fails WP:N. Biruitorul (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. It also fails WP:N.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 07:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:AIRCRASH. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google finds nothing; Mannheim City Airport#Incidents lists it as having just happened; it simply didn't generate media coverage. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, doesn't even qualify as an incident never mind an accident. Canterbury Tail talk 15:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adequately covered under Cirrus Airlines article, fails WP:AIRCRASH notability guidelines. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When this is closed, the link at Mannheim City Airport#Incidents should be changed to link to Cirrus Airlines#Accidents. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus asserts the criteria are met by the involvement of 2 notable people. WilliamH (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Farnborough plane crash[edit]

Fails WP:N. Cessnas crash all the time. Only a handful of people were killed in this one, and for the two who have articles, it's quite sufficient to mention the manner of death in their respective biographies (which we already do). Biruitorul (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I specifically checked this out before creating the article. It is a notable crash that meets the WikiProject Aviation guidelines:-

General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft:
Accidents are generally not notable unless unusual circumstances are involved, notable people are involved (my bolding), or the incident/accident otherwise results in downstream changes to the industry or procedures. Note: momentary news coverage, which would not last beyond the immediate timeframe of the accident, does not confer notability.

In this case, there are two notable people involved - Richard Lloyd and David Leslie - so the article does meet the criteria above. The full text is available here Mjroots (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:AIRCRASH. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of those on board makes the crash notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, a plane crashing on a house in London is significant. Edward (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the prominent location and notability of the casualties make this more notable than the average Cessna crash. Mazca (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also in Italy this incident recived a media covarage due to the place where happened and the people involved.(User:Lucifero4)
Strong keep per WP:AIRCRASH. I see absolutely no way how a plane crashing into a house isn't notable and significant. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable incident. Planes don't very often crash into houses and injure people on the ground. Canterbury Tail talk 15:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy snowball keep - has more than minor notability factors: had notable people on board, crashed into a house in London, manner of crash etc. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:56, 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-English references are certainly allowed, and the folks who can actually read them seem adamant that they are substantial and reliable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mina-Jacqueline Au[edit]

The first reference is "Page Not Found", the second reference isn't even in English. Notability isn't really established at all. -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 03:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No identifiable or reliable secondary sources other than what appears to be subjects own blogs. No objectivity established as this appears to be a resume written by or for the subject herself.Bsradar (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)bsradar— Bsradar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment "the second reference isn't even in English" is not a deletion reason. We have no policy requiring references to be in English, and that reference is an article in a major newspaper (Sing Tao) which discusses the subject of the article non-trivially, so it is an obvious step towards proving that she meets WP:N. Will look for more later. cab (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I got a 404 error on the first one, but I'll try it again. References not being in English certainly doesn't constitute deletion, but I don't see how it could count as a reference here. We're on the English wikipedia. Does it work the other way around? Does that mean that we can make articles in Czech so long as the references are in English? Could someone translate the reference for me please? -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 21:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the first reference works, but it's a blog. JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears the article in the Chinese online column was a piece likely submitted by the subject herself. The fact that it is there does not prove in of itself that she meets the notability standard, and it certainly is not an "obvious step" by any means. The fact is that 90% of the material in this page are of no factual basis and no more than mere opinion. How does the author know that the subject is writing a book without citing any sources unless the author was told by the subject herself? Moreover, most of the article is of precise biographical content with no verifiable source. At least some of the more outlandish opinion statements were deleted since yesterday - "Creme de la Creme" comes to mind 24.199.110.63 (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Bsradar[reply]
Strong keep: Despite some unencyclopedic information, article asserts her notability - that she is the founder of luxury retailer Bon-Luxe.com. This is proved by the Sing Tao newspaper article (the second source) which is exclusively about the subject and her luxury retailer, and from which the Wikipedia article derived much of its content. The fact that it's in Chinese is and has never been reason to delete an article, especially when your primary concern is notability. I quote from Sing Tao (my translation): "The most expensive coffee beans in the world...is exclusively sold by Bon-Luxe.com...a website founded by Hong Kong woman Mina-Jacqueline Au. It sells only unique items - from March of this year when it began, it has rapidly became a favourite of American celebrities, and Mina-Jacqueline Au has been hailed as the symbol of luxury..." Herunar (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The reference that is in Chinese is actually one of the largest Chinese newspaper in the world. According to the article, this was in the New York edition of the paper. So I don't believe that it is an article that can be submitted by the subject herself. As for the blog, even though it is her own blog, but I feel that the source that posted the blog has prove the subject's nobility by stating in the introduction that she is the founder of Bon-Luxe.com as well as a style expert. This also shows her involvement in the fashion world as stated in the article. First Wives World doesn't seem to be a blog itself but a online news community, so it is a usable and verifiable source.PMCLuv (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC) — PMCLuv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --- also see account creation date. cab (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems to meet a minimum threshold for notability, although for a biography of a living person there is a lot that is unsourced, and should be gutted. Pastordavid (talk) 20:28, 16 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. — Scientizzle 15:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logjam[edit]

Music event with questionable notability. Dougie WII (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deplorable grammar, no notability, perhaps some verifiability...this doesn't need JUST deletion, it needs a...! Oh, wait, there're no CSDs that fit this. There SHOULD be, though! Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rather than just slagging it off I've tidied it up as best I can without knowing the first thing about the festival, it certainly seems to be a notable event in the area and from the website it would seem to get a considerable attendance. Paste (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's well-written and the notoriety of this festival may be lost on you but not to thousands of Minnesotans.65.41.193.45 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given time the people who have attended and worked for the LogJam org will be adding information, memories, and images. The grammar can be edited. Give it time. FeelingMinnesota (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC) — Feeling Minnesota (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: I have done a number of varied searches on Google and Google News without success. I've also visited about half of the sponsors listed at http://www.logjamfestival.com/logjam/default.asp?ID=17&PageData=223 and have not found one that mentions sponsorship of the Festival so far. I've also searched the archives of newspapers in the area (Duluth News Tribune, Duluth Budgeteer News, Business North). In the Budgeteer, there was an article from mid-2007 that mentioned three festivals in the free abstract: "WE Fest, Moondance Jam and 10,000 Lakes Festival highlight this year's busy festival season." I presume that the LogJam Festival would be mentioned in this article, but it would likely be a passing reference rather than a substantial news item. Duluth is the county seat of the county in which Winton sits, the site of the Festival; I have not found more local papers online as of yet. All in all, I recommend deletion without prejudice to re-creation should reliable sources be found to allow verifiability of the content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability from reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Eóin (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the bands are redlinks -- not a good sign. (Of course, even notable bands sometimes play at non-notable venues.) The article doesn't even mention attendance, which might be evidence for notability. If some good evidence can be found, I will change my recommendation, but right now there's nothing here to indicate it needs an article. Powers ^T 03:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Somehow this AFD has slipped through the cracks and is almost three months old. I can't find any mention of the festival in any of the major newspapers in Minnesota archives, i.e. Star Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press, St. Cloud Times, Duluth News Tribune, so delete. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely non-notable participants at a non-notable event of purely local interest. Biruitorul (talk) 04:04, 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. — Scientizzle 15:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Household consumption expenditures[edit]

This "article" consists solely of a data table, with absolutely no context whatsoever. It's been tagged as needing context for over nine months with no progress. If the topic is notable, someone can write an article on it, but this is just a bunch of numbers. Powers ^T 02:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOT STATS unless a context can be given for the material. At this point, it might be a candidate for WikiSource, though. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOT#STATS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to wikiversity. --Emesee (talk) 08:12, 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. John254 01:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Money: Challenge Show[edit]

The page lacks references and has for the past month and a half. Yankeesrj12 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's not an inordinately long time, especially for a show that hasn't yet been broadcast. I say give it at least until July. Powers ^T 02:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of references can easily be fixed, and most TV shows are notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the article lacks references/sources, then simply tag it as such. —DMWN (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any tags placed on the article during the past month and a half. Apart from that, a month and a half is hardly a long time. Generally, TV shows are notable anyway, and the lack of refs should be easy to fix. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slap on the tag and close the AfD. Five Years 11:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sites that I can find even mentioning this show. So I dont know why it should be saved. Plus this link ( http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20080306vh101 ) mentions no I Love Money. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:58, 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. — Scientizzle 15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Haughey[edit]

Non-notable local councillor, fails WP:BIO#Politicians (local councillors usually not notable) and WP:N (no refs at all let alone, substantial coverage in independent reliable sources) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She sent Bill Clinton a letter [46], welcomed him to Armagh [47], which he "remembered with great admiration and respect" (if I remember correctly Bill always admired pretty women) in his memoirs [48]and failed to regain a seat at some point [49]. Her councillors page is here [50]. 61 hits on Google News (the Clinton thing, a bombing involving her family and her statements in other news stories). Ha! (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything that offers a commentary on her directly, rather than as an aside or part of an article about something else. I can't find a source for the "youngest candidate" claim either. Ha! (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont see much in the above which helps the article pass WP:N. Five Years 11:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the entire district of Armagh City and District Council has 55,000 people, Haughey is one of 22 councillors that represents them. Let's see, 55,000 divided by 22 equals 2,500 people. Triple3D (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be some substantial coverage by reliable sources in there now, and I see a couple of different claims to notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although the contact with Bill Clinton is now referenced, writing to and later meeting the president does not make someone notable. Nor would anything else currently asserted in this article, even if it were referenced. Warofdreams talk 00:52, 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. Would also need complete rewrite to even become coherent prose. Sandstein (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text Banner[edit]

Verges closer to G11, even though the page content seems legitimate at first glance. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. I can't say it's G11 because there's no specific company mentioned, nor linked to. This might be a notable topic, though; if it was written with better grammar, I might be able to tell. Powers ^T 03:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment The way this is written it seems as if text banner IS some kind of a company. I'm wondering if this should be a mention in an article on text ads in general using the third party sources for google, yahoo and adbrite ads to easily establish notability for the "genre". As the article stands right now I think we should sink it. If it is deleted I'll consider helping to start it over in a more viable form.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with recreate option Per Above. Five Years 11:42, 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. — Scientizzle 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip John Cichanowicz[edit]

I found one local piece written about the subject of this article via Google, but I'm not sure if that's enough for notability (the rest of the related links seem to be from the user's Youtube submissions.) I'm also not sure how important a "Scholastic Golden Key" award is for anything. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Not notable at all. I'd also point out that Phil Cichanowicz was speedily deleted. User:Gordossvaa clearly created the two pages listed here to get around the speedy deletion. TheMile (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above user. Unknown User (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per TheMile. Five Years 11:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering that this is a duplicate, go ahead and delete it. Gordossvaa (talk) 16:40, 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 merge. Notable within its region, but does not establish sufficient notability for a stand-alone. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seacoast Shores[edit]

Contested prod, so here we are. Unremarkable housing development too small/minor to be known to GNIS, Mapquest, or USPS as a 'populated place'. Most Ghits are real estate listings and/or addresses on Seacoast Shores Blvd--nothing indicating it is commonly/generally considered a "neighborhood". Shawisland (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Michael White^T·C 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to East Falmouth, Massachusetts. Powers ^T 03:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Five Years 11:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only is it a neighborhood, the Cape Cod Times calls it "one of Falmouth's most densely populated neighborhoods" [51] and constantly refers to it as a "neighborhood" elsewhere [52][53], not a housing development.--Oakshade (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neighborhoods aren't generally notable, either, though. Powers ^T 18:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GNIS or Mapquest may not have it listed, but Realtor.com lists it as its own neighborhood, and the local Realtors association considers it its own neighborhood. I see that the argument here is neighborhoods should not be included on Wikipedia, but I believe that there is a Massachusetts expansion project going on, correct? So why delete it if it adds to the Massachusetts content on the site? Tgreve (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahh, here it is. Wikiproject Massachusetts Tgreve (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not clear on where in WikiProject Massachusetts they indicate that articles on individual neighborhoods within towns are desirable. It's my impression that the current practice on Wikipedia is to include information on neighborhoods and hamlets in the article for the surrounding municipality (town/city/village), unless the neighborhood has exceptional notability on its own or the municipality's article is too large (such as Brentwood, Los Angeles, California). Neither is the case here. Powers ^T 15:17, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diagonal intercept clipping[edit]

This article should be deleted as it is of no value in the context of line/segment clipping. The authors are trying to sell their proposed idea and their new technical paper, The article's source makes nonsensical claims of optimal efficiency over other well-known and mature algorithms, the authors obviously don't understand the concepts behind the complexity issues of line clipping and make dubious claims when comparing their method to other methods of line clipping.

This is essentially a viral marketing attempt of their paper - if their paper was of any value they wouldn't need to try so hard to sell it.

Also another blantant attempt of the source papers authors trying to sell their method can be found here:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.graphics.algorithms/browse_thread/thread/9323dee35d11086d

Note: this is a procedural nom. IP user attempted to start the AfD and didn't finish the process. I've copied their reasoning from the article's talk page, but (as of yet) I have no opinon on the deletion.Fabrictramp (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The authors are trying to sell their proposed idea" - We are not selling our idea. We want the entire world to know about this. Is there a better way of doing this than wikipedia? Isn't this the spirit of wikipedia? You didn't have to pay to access the paper . Its for everyone. Our desire to let everyone interested in line clipping know about this method, does not warrant a deletion.

"The article's source makes nonsensical claims of optimal efficiency over other well-known and mature algorithms" - This algorithm has been implemented and tested. Agreed, it will be difficult to get the exact same numbers when you execute it on different computers, but the difference between the cohen-sutherland and this algorithm should remain approximately the same.

"the authors obviously don't understand the concepts behind the complexity issues of line clipping" - Teach us.

"make dubious claims when comparing their method to other methods of line clipping" - As I said earlier, these claims are not dubious.

Again, as far as the google groups link is concerned, I wanted to clarify the person's doubts about this method, and HELP him for FREE. THIS IS NOT FOR SALE (which is why it is on wikipedia in the first place). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreyasjoshis (talk • contribs) 04:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quoting: "Isn't this the spirit of wikipedia?" In a word, no. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- it contains things that have already demonstrated notability, not to generate notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because "We want the entire world to know about this" does not mean that it lacks notability. Wikipedia makes this information more accessible, concise and (in the near future) better explained than the paper. This page, by existing, does not make the idea of diagonal clipping more believable, credible, or notable. The paper in itself is far more trust-worthy. --Weedrat (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misunderstanding our notability guidelines. They are available here. They clearly state that a topic has to receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to be notable. In order to be notable, it would have to be the subject of scholarly discourse by more than two undergraduates publishing a paper by what is widely regarded as a last resort publisher in the community, and/or be used by software companies. This concept doesn't even meet our verifiability guidelines, which are even less stringent. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for original research WP:NOR plus there is conflict of interest WP:COI. Although it does appear there is a personal vendetta occurring, the authors state above they are using Wikipedia to let the entire world about their research, that is enough to warrant a delete. MortimerCat (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not original research in itself. Original research was published a long time before this article was up. It cites original research for credibility. Also, do look at the google groups link, and well, it does look like personal vendetta (I have no idea what this guy has against the article).(Also read the comment above)--Weedrat (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Digging around I see that the article first appeared, but speedily deleted, days after the paper was originally published. Although some have claimed that the article is wrong, that is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia has to include independent verifiable sources. If you can show sources that software companies are showing interest in the technique then it becomes notable. At the moment, it is your own research. MortimerCat (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Five Years 11:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from the paper being just plain wrong about more than a few things (which it is; it isn't necessarily a peraonsal vendetta thing on the part of the ipuser nom), it doesn't meet notability guidelines at all. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google scholar turns up one hit that appears to be related; one of the authors is the username of the article creator: [54] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice to recreation if the algorithm does achieve some notability. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:16, 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. — Scientizzle 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observerspace[edit]

Appears to be pure OR. No sources, highly dubious conclusions, zero mentions on arxiv.org or Spires. Bm gub (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems made up, and no sources (except Doug Adams, which doesn't count)--SevernSevern (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)(reformatted to close the bold tag - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a place for the "shut up and calculate" school, but it is called positivism. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:26, 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) 22:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Sagstad & Friends[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thomas Sagstad & Friends

Non-notable radio show, no RS. ukexpat (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something can be found that asserts notability. Because it is an internet radio program on a notable site (at least notable enough to have its own article), it has the potential to be notable, but I don't see anything to say that it is. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the creator is almost an SPA (appears to have made one off-topic edit). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Five Years 11:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Rtphokie (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable secondary sourcing, no hits for "Thomas Sagstad" in Google News, and a twice-monthly internet radio program is unlikely to be notable. - Dravecky (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Nominator withdrew nomination. WilliamH (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Men's Studies Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/American Men's Studies Association

Contested PROD - not notable per WP:V, no WP:RS, reads like a promo. ukexpat (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not important enough for its own article--SevernSevern (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I could continue to list books that point to AMSA as the second of two national organizations for men's studies, but that seems kind of unnecessary, especially as they don't offer anything more useful to the page than the proof that the organization is "notable". AMSA is and has been listed in the "Men's Studies" entry for years now and is an important entry for anyone trying to understand the history of men's studies in the US. The most obvious verification of the organization's status/notability is the organization's official journal, The Journal of Men's Studies. Toosidz (talk)
Keep Per above. Five Years 11:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable, and sourced speedy keep--English836 (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn after the new sources added. – ukexpat (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:03, 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) 22:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Bell[edit]

Bell has never played at a professional level in any competition. He does not meet criteria per WP:Athlete and WikiProject Football notability. crassic!^[talk] 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:Athlete ukexpat (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of adequate notability as per WP:BIO/WP:ATHLETE. JJL (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Notability; BIO, ATHLETE. Five Years 11:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. – Pee Jay 22:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - also, the text is currently a straight copy from the club's official website (possible copyvio?) Bettia ^(talk) 14:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with all of the above. No need for me to cite anything, everyone else has already done it. Red Phoenix (Talk) 23:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Mostly the nom.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 02:50, 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. John254 01:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Huthart[edit]

Just stunt coordinator (the article doesn't even say that) who once appeared on Gladiators. Buc (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This definitely needs some references other than imbd, but would seem to qualify under WP:BIO#Additional Criteria for entertainers i.e. featured role on a television program. Mstuczynski (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Stumbled across her page when looking for info on Gladiators, This is the only contender I actyally REMEMBER from gladiators and she has done alot of work and even won the International series of Gladiators.
Keep - nominator blatantly misrepresents the content of the article. She didn't "once" appear on Gladiators, she became one of the gladiators. McJeff (talk) 01:40, 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, Singu larity 00:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO per Mstuczynski. Five Years 11:36, 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 --JForget 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Baligian[edit]

article fails to establish notability, no references. Appears to be a local radio figure. Rtphokie (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Book Search apparently shows that he's in the book Detroit's Sports Broadcasters on the Air but the page is restricted... no other hits. It could be a small pass over mention or not. Just figured it was worthwhile to mention. gren グレン 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Baligian is a Detroit radio personality and columnist that was named the "Best Radio Sports Talk Host" in Metro Detroit. While most local radio hosts are probably not notable, I believe Baligian is. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He might be notable in Detroit, but he is not notable enough for an article, just a local radio figure. Izzy007 Talk 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N Keep. Nice work DHowell. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some references, and even locally notable is still notable, especially in the #11-rated radio market of Detroit (and #88-ranked Toledo as well). DHowell (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Great work, DHowell! Pundit|utter 01:34, 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, Singu larity 00:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-known media figures in major markets should be considered notable, and DHowell has done some good work with this article. Zagalejo^^^ 05:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources added by DHowell. Five Years 11:35, 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), per unanimity of comments after initial listing and upgrading to Heymann standard. Skomorokh 02:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Barreiro[edit]

article fails to establish notability with reliable references Rtphokie (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I feel that he is notable with all the references. Callelinea (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just recently added these references. He was a sports columnist for the Star Tribune for 17 years, and has been selected "Best Sports Talk Show Host" by City Pages (a local weekly) a few times. He's gotten plenty of press. This is now the third radio host up for deletion for which I have found plenty of sources. I implore the nominator to please read Wikipedia:AFD#Before nominating an AfD and to do a good-faith search for sources, as suggested in the prod-nn template, before nominating more radio hosts for deletion. DHowell (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 00:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of references and award winning radio host and long time columnist in a major market. matt91486 (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources added earlier in the AfD demonstrate notability. The nominator should probably have another look at the article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With added refs meets notabilty and RS. ukexpat (talk) 01:47, 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) 22:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voices (Ashley Tisdale album)[edit]

No apparent sources for any of this. Fabricated out of whole cloth. WP:CRYSTAL violation Kww (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no verifiable info yet exists on this album and probably won't for a while. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to verify the information. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all above. My quick Gsearch for Voice album "Ashley Tisdale" didn't get any hits relating to a new album, and news was just as empty. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS, fails WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal-ballery, with the option to recreate when reliable third-party sources are found. Five Years 11:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS, fails WP:MUSIC. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CRYSTAL ball with SNOW balls. Admin, please close this puppy - we're on the verge of piling on. B.Wind (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are redirects, too. Please note the existence of Voices (Tisdale album), Voices (Ashely Tisdale album), and Anymore. Kww (talk) 20:23, 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 per lack of independent sources indicating notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mata Nui (Island)[edit]

Unencyclopedic, unreferenced (except to blogs and to first-party publications) Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given the subject matter, first-party publications should be fine. I mean, for just-"facts" stuff at least (not that this isn't fiction, or anything). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fictional island in a story + no reliable sources = delete. Five Years 11:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of Fictional islands in Wikipedia. First party publications exist. If these are acceptable for Shakespearean islands then they are acceptable here too (though proper citations are indeed needed). Neither of the arguments above hold. Don't delete it, fix it.Filceolaire (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are third-party reliable sources for every word Shakespeare ever wrote - Not so the world of Legos.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WAF based on current content. The article is written almost entirely from an in-universe perspective. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: that's not a criterion for deletion - it's a criterion for cleaning up the article. There is enough information in the article for it to be rewritten to conform to WP:WAF. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Grutness on this point. If I had any knowledge or interest in Lego universes, I'd clean it up myself. This just doesn't seem notable or encyclopedic to me and there are no sources in the article to suggest otherwise. If someone can show me some third party reliable sources on this fictional island, I'll gladly withdraw my nomination.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There may be enough information to write a decent article that follows the style guidelines of WP:WAF. However, the question at hand is, can enough third-party sources be found to demonstrate the subject passes the notability guidelines of WP:FICT. On a quick search, I fail to find any. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a fictional location may be notable (outside of the fictional universe), there is no evidence that this particular fictional location is notable. Pastordavid (talk) 20:19, 16 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.