The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francoism (Gaming)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Neologism which lacks any verifiable, third-party sources establishing any notability. MuZemike (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a Cybernations player, I can say for certain that it is notable...in CN. Certainly not notable enough in the real-world to merit an article. Paragon¹²³²¹ 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment There is a huge war in CN going on right now. One of the (many) sides of it is Vox Populi (one of the alliances in the article) accusing the New Pacific Order (also mentioned) of being a completely tyrannical government. The fact that this article was created now leads me to believe that it is a propaganda piece, merely an other attempt to use Wikipedia for soapboxing. Paragon¹²³²¹ 04:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you prove that? I'm just asking because if so, this can be G10'd (page that disparages their subject). MuZemike (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have found no reliable sources that suggest this term is established outside of NationStates, and CyberNations. As a result, I have concluded it is a neologism, and I believe that this article should be deleted as a result. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely irrelevant to, well, anything. Atheist Haircut (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what the heck is this nonsense? JuJube (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I am all for this, as I prodded the article a few days ago. The creator contested the prod, and if you look at the article's talk page, seriously suggested that the Francoism redirect be turned into a disambiguation page Spain Under Franco to give this nonsense more billing (and, in point of fact, actually did so). Wikipedia is not for something made up in an online game one day.  RGTraynor  11:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's snowing in August. TravellingCari 13:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late Victorian Holocaust[edit]

Late Victorian Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Late Victorian Holocaust" appears to be a non-notable neologism. Apart from being used as a title to one book, I have found no reliable sources that use "Late Victorian Holocaust" to describe the events in India that the quote pertains to. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced and apparently non-notable term coined by someone who doesn't even have thier own article. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The person who wrote the book has got an article on Wikipedia, and I have fixed the relevant hyperlink on the Late Victorian Holocaust article. However, the fact that this person does have an article does not detract, imo, from the evidence to suggest that "Late Victorian Holocaust" is a non-notable neologism. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This might be just barely notable enough to warrant mention in the article on the Great Famine of 1876-78, but does not warrant its own article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone a dictionary of neologisms. LordAmeth (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable term. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British-India Holocaust. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looking at a related article Late Victorian Holocausts, it's not even that clear, absent any clear references, that the term "late Victorian Holocaust" has the single meaning contended for by this entry. Even if it did, it would seem to belong under the heading of Mike Davis who appeared to coin the term or in an article relating to that period of Indian history. Brammarb (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. I did find some evidence that the author's other coined term for this event currently at afd, British-India Holocaust, has been used elsewhere - although mainly on sites with an extremely pointed agenda - but not this one. Karenjc 22:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clearly part of a campaign to push a POV, related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British-India Holocaust. --Russ (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-neutral, neologism, POV fork of Great Famine of 1876–78.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since no reliable sources seem to exist that prove 'Late Victorian Holocaust' is not a neologism, I would like to urge a deletion of this article per WP:SNOW. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, now has dab targets.  Sandstein  19:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Rogers House[edit]

John Rogers House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unneeded disambiguation page as there is currently no articles of this name. This was originally prodded but was removed with a message saying that the John Rogers House is notable. I am not here arguing whether these houses are notable, but that if there are no Wikipedia articles for a certain disambiguation, then there is no need to disambiguate it. Note: This can always be recreated if there is a need for it in the future, but right now its not needed. Tavix (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—clearly not currently required.--Grahame (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) Delete, obviously. As Tavix says, if articles about more than one John Rogers House are created, this dab page can be recreated. Dab pages are not list pages, where redlinks can be included to signal the need for specific articles. Deor (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've taken a closer look at the Manual of Style, I see that WP:MOSDAB#Red links would allow (I think) the appearance of entries of the form "John Rogers House (Branford, Connecticut), a Registered Historic Place in New Haven County, Connecticut" in dab pages. But I still think that a dab page in which all the entries are of this sort is unnecessary. Deor (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep now that articles have been created, but reiterating my opinion that dab pages consisting entirely of redlinked entries are deletable. According to WP:DAB, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles" (my emphasis); and whereas redlinks in list articles can serve the purpose of indicating articles in need of creation, such use of them in disambiguation pages is to be discouraged. Deor (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The dab page is actually very informative. One searching for "John Rogers House" now knows that there are four different places with that name, and knows the States where they are situated. In addition, articles on National Historic Registered Places are created by the dozens on a daily basis (I know, I patrol new pages). It won't be long before there are articles on atleast two of the listed places. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But you can also find that information if you go to List of National Register of Historic Places entries and search for Knox County Courthouse. This is a disambiguation and not a list, and therefore goes against what a disambiguation is used for. "n addition, articles on National Historic Registered Places are created by the dozens on a daily basis" This disambig was created several months ago and there still isn't any signs that any of the articles are going to be created. If any of the articles are created, wouldn't it make logical sense just to recreate it? Right now, however, this "disambiguation" goes against policies. Disambiguation pages are "non-article pages that serve only to refer users to other Wikipedia pages." This doesn't refer to any pages. THERE ARE NONE! There are plenty more points I can bring up, but hopefully you get the point. Tavix (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I took a few minutes and wrote one of the articles, addressing your objection. This particular AfD now appears to be moot. Alansohn (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:MOSDAB#Red links states that "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link." All of these red-linked articles listed here appear to have inbound links from historic article lists by various geographic criteria. I see no reason, certainly on a policy basis, that would require deletion of this article. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Yes, but if you read carefully you will see that is for links that are included within other blue links. An entire page of redlinks is not what a disambiguation is for. They are "non-article pages that serve only to refer users to other Wikipedia pages" and this one doesn't do that. Tavix (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note What are "links that are included within other blue links"? I assume you mean with? If so, note that the example given in the "redlink" section ("Flibbygibby") contains two entries, both of which are non-existant. That's implicit acceptance that a page containing non-existant articles is appropriate (and in any case, see my comments below). Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 1. For a reader of the encyclopedia, the disambiguation page itself provides information on the location of the property, AND serves notice that there are multiple properties with the same name. Those are pertinent pieces of information when using Wikipedia as a starting reference point. Minimal information, yes, but hardly unuseful. 2. As for style rules, note WP:MOSDAB#Break rules: "For every style suggestion above, there is some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason." Utilty to the reader here trumps other style requirements. 3. For an editor of the encyclopedia, it's nice to know up front that an article should be unambiguously named; disambiguation pages are useful to flag repeated property names. For example, there are (at least) two Park Avenue Historic District, as I found when I wrote the Detroit article (and moved the Talahassee article, and edited links thereto). It's not a disaster to have to rename and relink, but it needn't be necessary, either. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Cart before horse: disambiguation pages are internal navigation tools and so far here there's nothing TO disambiguate. Write the articles first - or at least one.HeartofaDog (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep One article has been written, and as inherently notable buildings it's highly likely that the others will be written. Since none of them has a better reason to be called "John Rogers House" (without geographical disambiguation) than the other two, we need to have a disambiguation page here. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sensible way round, for future reference, is nevertheless to write the article(s) first, and to dab them afterwards. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my explanation at User talk:Tavix#Lewis House and other disambig pages why creating the disambiguation is helpful. doncram (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that Tavix's nomination of this disambiguation was more or less in good faith, but, as I explain in User talk:Tavix#Lewis House and other disambig pages, there is considerable value provided in disambiguation of NRHP pages. It saves considerable amounts of work later, if the first NRHP page created under a common name is the disambiguation page pointing out all the NRHP sites, rather than a page for just one of the NRHPs (see that user talk page for expansion on this point). I also ask that Tavix withdraw this AfD nomination. doncram (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It now has two blue linked article and the third has a bluelink to the article that refers to it. The nominator should immediately withdraw this. clariosophic (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and a barnstar to Alansohn, for implementing WP:SOFIXIT.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla de Castro[edit]

Camilla de Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hasn't won any notable awards, has not started any new trends or done any groundbreaking work, and the only Tv media she appeared in was an obscure show, and not mainstream, and thefore fails to meet WP:PORNBIO criteria. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She was a very notable Brazilian porn actress and her death was mentioned in various papers. Callelinea (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:PORNBIO. No sources to show she was "mentioned in various papers." and even if there was she, this doesn't automatically mean she's notable, there are lots of people who kill themselves and are mentioned in newspapers, who do not have Wikipedia articles. Xeron220 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources apparent. Epbr123 (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a stub (on sources). She was noteworthy in her genre, and country. Baga34 (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing notable here. Even if her death was notable WP:BLP1E applies --T-rex 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only sources appear to be blogs and obits. Without better sourcing, there is no evidence that the subject meets any notability guideline.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eastmain (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, failing WP:PORNBIO. There's a lot of noise on filesharing sites and blogs, but I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources about her. News about her death isn't enough, and I can't see that she was noteworthy enough in her genre & country to warrant an encyclopaedic entry. --Amalthea^Talk 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, She is famous. Although it seems most editors are bigots.--Amalthea^Talk 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.169.141 (talk) [reply]

• Keep. Although some people may not have liked who she was, what she represented, or even what she did in the porn arena, she was the most repected Transsexual of her generation, and a notable TV personality in her native Brazil. I just don't quite understand the desire to "Delete" this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathendude (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why delete? She was quite well known.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Sams[edit]

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

Blatant autobiography by someone who cannot even be bothered to format the article decently. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes poorly written but he is notable.Callelinea (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep marginally; there are probably more references out there and someone who founded a number of ground-breaking businesses (a macrobiotic restaurant in 1967?) is notable enough.Hgilbert (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - also this Times Online article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - while it may involve members of a notable band, at present it doesn't merit its own article; I'd suggest a mention on the page of the notable band instead. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Void (band)[edit]

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

Article on an unnotable band which was likely created by a member of the band itself (username same as band name). I originally prodded this and the author removed it without a reason so taking it up here. Tavix (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as per CSD A7 --frogger3140 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-It has no sources/citations whatsoever. --frogger3140 (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. WP:COI issues too, possible speedy.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION: hello this is georg wilfinger and yes i am a member of this band. i strongly object against being deleted for following reason:

i think the band destination void meets the demands outlined at WP:BAND- at least at point six where it says:

6) Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.

Destination Voids drummer Gregor Schmidt ["Capral Adorator"] has done 2 CDs ("Changes" - full CD, "Love Songs" - EP) with the original band "Miasma" which both are still available worldwide and distributed by Napalm Records [after buying the rights from Lethal Records].This is notable. Go to the Page Miasma (band) -> there you´ll find the links

Even all other members of the band Destination Void have been part of Miasma ( I myself 1995/1996 and 2008; Fischer and Patrascu 2007/2008)before and have performed numerous shows with Miasma. The latest show was in Austria and had a good press, see also the link at the stormbringer-zine:

Link to the Live-Report (german)[1]

Yes and the guy depicted is me - that is noteable, too.

I hope by now that all questions are answered, as I put "Redirects" to the original band´s page - as it is proposed in your guidelines. Thus I suppose Wiki should be able to delete the "this page may be deleted"-notification. If not please let me know what else i have to do..... thx a lot

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: How long does a discussion usually last? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destination void (talk • contribs) 08:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A discussion usually lasts between 2-8 days depending on how long it takes for consensus, although I've had a AfD last 4 weeks before. Tavix (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tony Fox (arf!) 04:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parent-centred parenting[edit]

Parent-centred parenting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A disputed speedy deletion. The original tagger noted that the article contains no reliable sources that establish any usage outside the author's own work (and the author cited has the same name as the creator of the article) -- and comments that there are no Google hits that are not self-referential (I may have paraphrased incorrectly). This seems to me to be a form of self-advertising of a self-created neologism but people with more expertise in this area than I may have more insight. At any rate, this AfD may provide some closure. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was the person who tagged it originally. A clearly self-promotional piece with no evidence whatever of notability. andy (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the author states on the talk page that "no commercial activities are on offer on the linked website, it is purely for information". This is untrue - this page which is titled "What We Offer" offers commercial services and also links to this site. Both sites state that they are run by FUNdamentals which is owned by... guess who? Here's the Nominet record. QED. andy (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails with respect to notability. Author is hunting for exposure. --Blehfu (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly self-advertising. Title is the name of author's commercial web site. Ningauble (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabitha's Secret[edit]

Tabitha's Secret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The lawsuit and its coverage provide notability. It highlights a notable episode concerning and breakaway band from a notable band Matchbox Twenty An example of third-party sources would be the write-up in the Atlanta Business Chronicle: http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2002/07/29/tidbits.html Advocate (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for meeting WP:MUSIC#C1 with the ref that Advocate70 provided, and the fact that 3 of their albums have been reviewed at Allmusic.com, thus providing more third-party sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HQ Media[edit]

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

Lacks notability per WP:CORP Advocate (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per apparent lack of coverage in reliable third-party sources. Gr1st (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and WP:CORP.--S_RX 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -Company has multiple products available on Amazon (Osmonds' 50th Anniversary DVD, Untold Tales DVD). KT (primary article author) (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -Direct involvement with Osmonds seems notable. KT (primary article author) (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited - working with someone notable does not automatically confer that notability onto the other party. The more pressing problem here is that this is currently unverifiable - not even HQ Media's own website, never mind the wider web, mentions the Osmonds in connection with the company. Gr1st (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -More references have been added. (Even more would be better still.) KT (primary article author) (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 7 (Adobe Design Achievement Awards) is the only one which hints at notability and has reliable third-party status. Even there I'm unsure how significant the awards scheme is. Gr1st (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete(for now) -The main issue here is lack of notability that can be readily verified by reliable third-party sources. There is currently not a sufficient amount of evidence to verify notability and warrant the article's place in Wikipedia's main namespace. I am not opposed to this article being closed for now, but I certainly would like to submit the article again at a later time, once I am sufficiently able to verify notability. I welcome suggestions from any useful users who can help out. (There is no need to userfy this article; I already have all the material from this article on the workspace on my user page.) KEZIA TAXT 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If other articleshave similar problems, you can always nominate them as well (but please avoid WP:POINT of course). Fram (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Jacobsen[edit]

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

Unremarkable, possibly fictitious, drink. Sole reference is a website that is open for editing (but still does not list this drink). Disputed prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is my defense for the article, which I have also included on the talk page for Stan Jacobsen:

In response to Delicious carbuncle's proposed deletion for Stan Jacobsen, I have removed the WP:PROD template for a number of reasons. Listed among reasons for its deletion was "Reference has no listing by that name (and appears open to editing)". It is important to note that many of the cocktail articles on Wikipedia source DrinkSwap.com as their only source. The website does allow anonymous users to add their own drink receipes, and as such, there are bound to be many entries which do not exist outside a submitter's group of friends. If the article for Stan Jacobsen is to be deleted on grounds that it sources only DrinkSwap.com, then I would motion that all cocktail articles on Wikipedia with only that website as their reference be deleted for the same reason. I have contacted DrinkSwap.com and have learned that the Stan Jacobsen is not yet listed on the website, but is in the reviewing process, which can take days or weeks to complete. While not yet listed, the Stan Jacobsen has been served in Northwestern Ontario pubs and restaurants as a variation on the Tom Collins for well over 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamilive (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE. Then see WP:NOTE, and WP:RS. You may wish to read WP:AFD as well. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I am unable to locate any sources what-so-ever. Nothing in Google News or Google Scholar. Google Web hits are either irrelevant or Wikipedia mirrors. Encyclopedia articles require reliable, verifiable sourcing, and the source in the article can be editind by anyone. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no listing anywhere except wikipedia and mirrors Advocate (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources, so fails Wikipedia:verifiability Jll (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QutIM[edit]

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

Non-notable software, fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:N.--S_RX 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: http://www.google.ru/search?q=qutim&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:ru:official&client=firefox-a

  85100 rezults of Google search. QutIM - young and very perspective icq-client. --213.79.105.42 (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Non-notable (and unlikely to ever become so) software. 3rd party reliable sources need to confirm notability, not devolopers own sites or forums.Yobmod (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Queirolo B.[edit]

Jorge Queirolo B. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

moved to

Jorge Queirolo Bravo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was tagged for CSD per Wikipedia:ANI#Article_Jorge_Queirolo_B.. I declined to speedy because the article appears sourced and author meets minimal notability requirements with two books in a national library, see Fiebre amarilla en Zanzíbar in Chile's National Library, and Cambodia in same. That was before I saw the WP:AN/I reference. I'd feel better if we had more discussion before deciding one way or the other. I did not find any Google News or Google Scholar references. Nothing helpful on Galenet. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Keep, I looked on Amazon.com and two of his books are listed there. He is obviously notable in my book. Callelinea (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Please take a look here for the full rationale. This article has been created against COI policies and is a cross wiki placed vanity article. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear vanity spam to several wikipedia projects. Mayalld (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Multi project vanity spam. His sole publishing company Ediciones Altovolta is owned by Queirolo himself. --jergen (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per m:Multilingual_speedy_deletions#Jorge_Queiolo_Bravo_and_related_articles. —Giggy 08:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per ANI, Jergen and Giggy. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Confimation that he is the owner of the editorial publishing his works: on the blog for ediciones altovolta he is the only poster, a web publishing a short history of him claims he is the owner of the editorial [2], on this web he is listed as the contact for the editorial [3]. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being listed on Amazon does not convey notability. Having two books in a national library is a minimum requirement. Forgot to check for an ISBN number-- that's another. Having books in a national library is not sufficient. My reasons for bringing it here instead of Speedying the article are my lack of resources for researching Spanish language authors, my reluctance to delete unless I am certain, and the long-standing nature of the article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Enric. The most I could get on the one link was that it said "Contemporary Authors" in Spanish, which sounded like the "Contemporary Authors" publication I use to resource articles about English language authors. Dlohcierekim 14:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of es support I would expect Kved to be along at some stage (he was the one who alerted me to the issue). As an es admin he should be able to give a valid view. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI above notes it was deleted from es:. Perhaps their COI restrictions are stronger than ours, but I can't find the reasons for the deletion over there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at es:Usuario_Discusión:Jorge_Queirolo_Bravo#Sobre_tu_articulo, it was speedied by an admin because: a) a AfD on 2007 had closed as delete and b) a discussion between several admins determined that the article was self-promotion (WP:COI) and not relevant enough to stay on the wikipedia. Additionally, a checkuser determined that most of the IPs creating the article were from the same ISP as the subject. Also, link to deletion log[4] and link to the 2007 AfD [5], which was cut short by an admin who speedied for self-promotion two days after it was opened. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a subject is notable and the tone is neutral, the motivations of the article creator are really irrelevant. The question in my mind is whether or not the subject meets WP:BIO on the English Wikipedia. I have seen nothing that demonstrates that he does, but I cannot read Spanish. Placing the article on multi Wikipedias is concerning if the intent was to promote his work. However, judging by his WorldCat results here and in my nomination statement, I would say such an effort has been unsuccessful.] Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong Delete, as said above, Ediciones Altovolta is in fact owned by Jorge Queirolo Bravo. The first time the article es:Jorge Queirolo Bravo was created in es.wiki was by the user es:Usuario:Altovolta: He said that he was Jorge Queirolo Bravo and he was the owner of Ediciones Altovolta. Second, searching the National Library of Chile we found a couple of articles written by Jorge Queirolo Bravo and only 3 of them available to public ("Antología cultural : recopilacion de artículos y ensayos periodísticos sobre temas culturales, literarios y artísticos", "Cuentos indecentes" and "Pasándola bien"). All of them, published by Ediciones Altovolta. Google throws up references about Jorge Queirolo Bravo, but mainly blogs and opinion articles in literary web pages, curiously all of them signed by him. The deleted article in es.wiki was a flagrant violation to neutral point of view policies, and please let me quote you from es:Jorge Queirolo Bravo:

El oficio de escribir llevó a Jorge Queirolo a autoeditar sus propios libros, ante las múltiples dificultades que tuvo con las casas editoriales establecidas en Chile, las que prácticamente le imposibilitaron la publicación de su obra cuando todavía era relativamente anónimo. [...] De a poco se convirtió en un renombrado editor, creando su propia empresa especializada en el tema, conocida con el nombre de Ediciones Altovolta, la que ha crecido hasta ser una de las más grandes de Chile. A Queirolo se le considera un editor de primera clase y muy profesional en todo sentido.

Which in a fast and rough translation approximately means:

The writing business took Jorge Queirolo to self-publish his own books, because of the multiple difficulties he had to deal with the publishing houses in Chile, which practically make him impossible to publish his work when he was still anonymous. [...] Slowly he became a well known editor, ^{[citation needed]} creating his own publishing house known by the name of Ediciones Altovolta, who grown into one of the biggest in Chile.^{[citation needed]} Queirolo is known as a first class editor and a professional in all sense.^{[citation needed]}

Between other paragraphs in which he ennoble his writings and books and grumble about the publishing houses in Chile and how they despise his work. To me, it's a clear case of self promotion and cross-wiki spamming and should be speedy deleted from all involved wikis per WP:V, WP:POV, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Hope this helps, and I will be around if any other es.wiki POV is needed. :D Cheers, KveD (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per KveD's analysis and m:Multilingual_speedy_deletions#Jorge_Queiolo_Bravo_and_related_articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete In the strongest possible terms, per all the above. Delete without delay per WP:SNOW and then SALT. ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete should discourage absolutely this kind of multilanguage spam --Sailko (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twirking[edit]

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

Contested prod. Promotional neologism. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nonsense. JuJube (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WHAT_THE_FUCK??? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. MediaMob (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pure spam -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  17:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amaryllis Knight[edit]

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

Procedural listing for User:Fatbat who made a malformed listing with an edit summary of "Amaryllis Knight in no way a TV personality, nor did she "co-star" with Jack Osbourne in the Mongol Rally - she appeared on screen for no more than 5 minutes". No opinion here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of references in the article, inline citations. Seams notable to me. Callelinea (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete despite the references/inline citations in the article. The references are either trivial, primary source, and/or unreliable. I say weak because I did find one item in the LA Times which deal somewhat more with her than with the motorcycles but, I don't think that with or without the stuff in the article means she meets the threshold for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BIO Notability established through mentions in multiple reliable independent sources. I note that users have deleted things in her page such as Norman Foster being her step father. Her mother and Step-father divorcing does not change the nature of her relationship with him. Galliano7 | talk 21:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BIO I created this article as Amaryllis Knight is of interest to countless people. Her notability is documented in multiple third-party sources, including the The Financial Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. She is the owner and co-builder (as per these articles and others) of what has been awarded the "best custom motorcycle company, 2008" by Esquire Magazine UK. The recent motorcycle she built along with her fiancee Ian Barry won "Best Custom Motorcycle" at the only International motorcycle Concours Legend Of The Motorcycle, where she was awarded the prize by Jesse James, along with Ian Barry. Knight has done notable and high profile charity work, as well as appearing along-side Jack Osbourne in the Mongol Rally and Jack Osbourne: Adrenaline Junkie series in three episodes according to IMDB. Knights family are of interest too. Although this is not reason for inclusion, it is of additional interest to many. Agreed with User:Galliano7, that although Knights notable mother divorced her step-father Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank, this does not change the fact that Foster was and is indeed, independently her step-father.- Ash773 | talk 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments notability is not inherited so who her parents or step-parents are/may be etc is not remotely relevant to this conversation. Nor is her being the fiancee of anyone (as this also falls under notability is not inherited. The company has won an award (good for them, that still doesn't make her notable), IMDB isn't a reliable source. Being of "interest to countless people" does't make one notable either. It seems to me that all her supposed notabiliy is based on who she is related to, who she knows, or to the company that she co-founded (none of which make her notable in her own right). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:BIO Notability established-several independent and reliable sources. Not just the co-founder of the company, but a celebrated custom bike builder who is of public interest to the motorcycle community. Her family/who she is engaged to is not Notable but is interesting. Being a character that has appeared on multiple seasons/episodes of a prime time television show that has aired worldwide is also of public interest, as is her humanitarian work, as seen on Prime time Tv, Oprah and various magazine publications. LAmusic3 | talk 06:47, 21 August (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:BIO Multiple references - notability and public interest authenticated through independently verifiable and reliable sources.JzoJames | talk 07:17, 21 August (UTC)

Please can you show me where the subject of this article (not her company, or a motorcycle, or her fiancee, etc) has been covered in a significant, non-trivial manner in reliable 3rd party sources. The ones present in the article at the moment don't show this so instead of just saying they exist over and over again, please show them to us. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a handful - the motorcycle is a motorcycle she built, that won the most important motorcycle concours in the world this year, and it is in this context that she is mentioned, as well as being mentioned as the owner/ co-founder of the company, a rally car driver, an entrepreneur and having starred in the Mongol Rally with Jack Osbourne.

• LA Times article December 10th 1997
• San Francisco Chronicle: Bullet Falcon Built by Ian Barry and Amaryllis Knight
• Vapors Magazine
• LA Times article April 30 2008
• Legend Of The Motorcycle Press Release
• Intersection Magazine: The Bullet Falcon
• imdbid=Amaryllis Knight
• The Mongol Rally
• The Next Right Thing: Connecting children in medical need with people who can help.
• The Oprah Winfrey Show: Creative Visions The Name Campaign (started by Knight)

JzoJames | talk 09:42, 21 August (UTC)

Okay. Falconmotorcycles nor IMDB are reliable 3rd party sources. Your ITV and Oprah links still don't work, Press Releases don't normally qualify as reliable 3rd party sourcing, the LAtimes thing you provide isn't about HER and barely mentions her name, please give me something new that I haven't already commented on above that actually meets our criteria for inclusion. Just saying something meets a criteria doesn't cut it. Just saying she is notable doesn't make it so. And just having a group of people that have all worked on the same extremely small group of articles repeat the exact same rationale over and over again doesn't make the subject actually meet said criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Motorcycles is not quoted in the links, an independent article written by Intersection Magazine is available from their site, and that is what the falconmotorcycles link downloads. Oprah link is now working. ITV is still working on this end. 1st LA Times article mentions her multiple times, second LA Times article is about her and the company she started with Ian Barry, the rest of the article pertains to the bike she built and won a show for (as per the San Francisco Chronicle article and others). The Press release is from the site of the largest and most well respected International motorcycle concours in the world, which was attended by 7000 people, and where knight was awarded the prize for "best custom motorcycle" this year for the Bullet Falcon. (refer to San Francisco Chronicle article). People being interested in the same sets of things or people makes sense to me. Are you in the motorcycle world? If you are not a fan or this subject is not your expertise, maybe this is why you are not aware of her and it would be best to leave the subject to be edited by the people in the know. JzoJames | talk 09:26, 22 August (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:BIO Notable figure in the motorcycle world and culture. Independent refs and citations. Halfmoon3 | talk 18:51, 21 August (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sport utility convertible[edit]

Sport utility convertible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is original research and has no references. See also related AfDs: Sport utility coupe and Sport utility coupe (2nd nomination). swaq 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article is almost completely original research and opinion--Flash176 (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - I am not quite getting why it didn't get deleted along with Sport Utility Coupe, but for all intents and purposes the result of the AfD should be the same. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - G1, pure nonsense.--S_RX 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —swaq 15:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If people here thinks it should be deleted, I say merge to an existing article pertaining to SUVs. --Roadstaa (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sports utility vehicle. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article contains 100% original research, the phenomenon is not confirmed to actually exist under that name by reliable sources. I don't think we'd want to merge imaginary stuff, we delete it. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is not an established automobile design type. This term is either original research or marketers' attempts to differentiate models thus making it part of their BS (Boastful Superlatives). — CZmarlin (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Motor vehicle classification blends is the author's completely WP:OR typology. Ningauble (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense. Fails WP:V and WP:OR. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priscila Sol[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is being a nominee for 2 awards, but has never actually won anything, doesn't appear to meet notability criteria, for WP:PORNBIO JoshuaD1991 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She does meet PORNBIO for her AVN award nominations, as it says "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award" (emphasis added). Tabercil (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PORNBIO. Nominations for well-known awards are good enough. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • update: Pricila Sol also won a Venus Award in 2004, another recognized award now added and cited. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per award and nominations. Epbr123 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and I have moved the other article here per Esrakaden. Black Kite 11:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song, sources are only trivial. Song didn't chart and was just an album cut. Delete and move Heartland (George Strait song) to this title if deleted, as that song did chart and was indeed notable (not that simply charting makes a song notable). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and make way for the George Strait one per the nom. It only just fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs since it was covered by a notable artist, but the criteria calls for several artists So close, but not close enough.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete move Heartland (George Strait song) and include a hatnote back to Rattle and Hum - yes, this is U2, but the song was never a single, nor received significant attention or airplay --T-rex 19:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. non-notable song. Article can give nothing that the album article shouldn't give.Yobmod (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as notability has been confirmed by this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Steiner's exercises for spiritual development[edit]

Rudolf Steiner's exercises for spiritual development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These exercises have not received notice outside of the anthroposophy community. Therefore they can not be independently sourced and that calls their notability into question. The entire article seems to be an explicit violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation since it does not have any outside sources and only contains anthroposophy propaganda. See WP:SOAP and WP:ADVERT. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: there are 6 reliable sources referenced in this article which are published in non-anthroposophy related publications in accordance with the arbitration ruling. Therefore it is properly sourced and notable. The article factually describes meditative exercises but doesn't mention, let alone promote, any practitioner, teacher or group who could gain from this description, so it is not an advertisement or WP:SPAM. It describes the exercises in a neutral way as presented in the cited sources; the descriptions are not detailed enough to put into practice, so it is not self-promotion or advertisement. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is accurate; all of the references are to independent sources. Hgilbert (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons described by EPadmirateur. Thebee (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above - ill-founded nomination.HeartofaDog (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Keep (updated per below) The Hemleben source is not independent of anthroposophy. It looks fine as a resource for the views of followers, but does not establish real-world notability. The other, less credulous, Steiner biography at my local library, ISBN 978-1-58542-543-3, is half again as long but barely mentions these exercises as part of Steiner's more general philosophy that "supersensory consciousness" is attainable by anyone. The Hammer (ISBN 900413638X), though, does appear sufficiently independent and to provide sufficient depth of coverage to argue for notability within the wider spiritualist community. If the Faivre (ISBN 0824514440) or some other independent resource provides a similar depth of coverage (viz. not a mere passing mention), I think this article should certainly be kept. If not, I am not sure that a single description is sufficient to warrant a full article on this aspect of anthroposophy, and would lean towards delete. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original, German edition of the Hemleben book is published by one of the largest and most respected presses in Germany, Rowohlt; thus it both satisfies the requirement of the arbitration, that the publishers are independent and include a review process, and establishes notability. There are six independent sources here. The article might require clean-up, but satisfies the notability requirement. (It could be merged back into the Rudolf Steiner article, but this is already excessively long.) Hgilbert (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Faivre article has slightly more than five pages essentially dedicated to the subject. Hgilbert (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a sufficient treatment, I have updated my comments to favor keeping. Thank you for checking this. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Teledildonics. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluedildonics[edit]

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

• Merge to sex toys. Imagine, a vibrator that can be controlled over the telephone. Ain't the 21st century great? Mandsford (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Teledildonics. Sufficient coverage already exists there (a sentence mentioning that the neologism or subtopic exists), though it is unreferenced. Someone in a less public area than where I currently sit should vet and add references from here as appropriate. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not sure I agree with a merge but Teledildonics doesn't seem to be the best target as that's about computer use whereas this is a similar but different technology. Banjeboi 00:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Bluedildonics are not the same as Teledildonics. For a start, they are controlled by bluetooth: you send a text message (SMS) to your lover, who is wearing the bluedildonic inside her vagina all day. Her mobile phone sends a message via Bluetooth to her bluedildonic. Each letter of the alphabet creates a different sensation/vibration. Only text messages received from your phone will activate the bluedildonic (although you can set it so that any text message will activate it). These are gaining popularity in the UK where they are mainly sold, and the product features regularly on TV. So of course it should neither be merged nor anything like that.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tris2000 (talk • contribs)

But if you do try to merge it, please read the instruction manual first. Bluedildonics is not responsible for any discomfort that comes from wearing the product inside your vagina all day. Mandsford (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Teledildonics and name page Dildonics which is what it was once called anyway. There is currently simply not enough material to justify 2 pages. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge - not notable on its own --T-rex 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Teledildonics, not notable enough on its own yet, and not sufficiently differentYobmod (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Yobmod. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We now agree that the fact that there once was an inhabited village of that name is verifiable, in particular thanks to the print source cited by Ezhiki. A more general discussion about whether the inclusion in certain geographical databases is sufficient for verifiability should probably be held elsewhere.  Sandstein  18:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Əngəlan[edit]

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

I am nominating this stub on a purported village in Azerbaijan for deletion because I believe it fails WP:Verifiability. I hope that the usual arguments about all populated places being notable or not can be put aside here.

• Wikipedia's verifiability policy says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
• The article has a wikilink to GEOnet Names Server and no other sources. The questions here are; did the government workers who key in data on millions of placenames ever make mistakes? If they do make mistakes, how are we to know?
• I did a Google search for this place; it returns one website, a computer-generated page typical of sites that use GNS data to sell product. A search by the alternate spelling--and it should be noted here that the United States Board on Geographic Names mandate is to provide the correct spelling--Angelan, is contaminated by hits for the personal name Angela. I searched by both names of the rayon Angelan supposedly lies within, and got only the usual computer-generated hits by the commercial websites, but nothing by a human being. There are no News Books or Scholar hits for this place. I did a number of other Google searches and, tellingly, there is not one website in Azeri that mentions this word. I also looked on maps.
• As can be seen, this is quite unusual; most places listed by GNS have easily found evidence of their existence.
• For those that worry that deleting this one stub because it cannot be verified might unleash a wave of AfDs, let me just say that I am not contemplating such a disruptive move. A look at the articles I have created or worked on should show that I am not against articles on obscure places. My goal or agenda (Option 3) is to make Wikipedia better than TravelingLuck, FallingRain and their ilk by having encyclopedic treatments of populated places.
• Thank you for carefully considering this nomination. Again, please confine the arguments to WP:V (and maybe WP:PSTS), not WP:N. If anybody can find the slimmest evidence this populated place exists, I'll withdraw this nomination. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:Carlossuarez46 is an editor of longstanding, so I trust the verity of his articles. I'll agree, however, that Əngəlan is unlikely as a name for a village, since we don't use the schwa except for showing a pronunciation (you know, the "Ə", the upside-down "e", the "uh sound"). Using an Ə is not an acceptable substitute for showing that a Cyrillic spelling could be rendered in different ways. The title should be moved to whatever is reflected in English language descriptions of the place. Mandsford (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Carlossuarez46 is indeed an editor of longstanding, but he is getting his information from a single source. My argument is that the source has misled him. As for moving it, Google has no problem with finding articles on Əsgəran, for example. If you look it the category, there are about a hundred others that start with Ə, out of the 3,300 or so Azerbaijan village articles most use the Latinized Azeri script. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All I can say is "WhƏt thƏ fƏck??" How is anyone supposed to search for a town that begins with "Ə"? I don't recall seeing that on my keyboard. Don't know that Carlos has made all of those messes, but I see about 100 articles that should be moved to English Wikipedia type titles. Mandsford (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that were the only problem, a move or redirect would be appropriate. But if something doesn't exist, a move or redirect is inappropriate. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the existence of this village cannot be verified by a source other than a Geonet database or any other database that uses it without modification. If verifiable, Redirect to article on containing district, which itself is in dire need of content, until more information about the village is found. A list of villages should be created in the rayon article that encompasses this village. --Polaron | Talk 22:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can, as there are 2 cites now, the nominator has been too lazy to search for them in order to push his WP:POINT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Falling Rain gets its information from the same database. Still, these need to be redirected until we can say more than their location. These should not really have been created in the first place. --Polaron | Talk 21:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I searched assiduously. Furthermore, my point is that you, the article creator, are required to provide sources, by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, a policy. Instead, you have created thousands of stubs with only one primary source, and you just wikilinked to GEOnet Names Server. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, as a Google search with the Anglicized name, which is Angalan, comes up with lots of entries. I agree with Mandsford that this is English Wikipedia, most of us in the English-speaking world don't have keyboards that can type the Latin Azerbaijani alphabet, and that the town should be listed as it would be written in English, which is Angalan. --Friejose (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if the town can't be verified to exist? Those Angalan Google hits are mere artifacts. There are people in India by the name, and a place in the Philippines. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Angalan" in Azerbaijan does in fact exist: Falling Rain Data. Compare the coordinates there with Carlos' article and you will see that they coincide. Keep and place a redirect. De728631 (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failing Rain gets their data from GNS, how does that help verify the place? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep this is a WP:POINT nomination. I have had a long conversation (see our talk pages) with the nominator and his problems with GeoNet Names Server are the same problems we have with any other reliable source. I told him how to find sources, but rather than do so, he prefers drama here and wastes everybody's time. A simple google search on the alternate name "Angalan" shows 2760 hits, including maplandia, fallingrain, Yet Another Atlas, and Travelpost. Under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), if there is a Widely accepted English name for a place, it is used, if not the local form. Given that the nominator is not even convinced that the place exists (his WP:OR vs. reliable sources) it seems hardly fit to assume that there is a widely accepted English form. Hence, the local one is used for the title of the article. If we don't like that result, perhaps we should revisit the naming convention and move the article to one of the alternative names. Deletion is wholly unwarranted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith. My concerns are warranted; there is not one Azerbaijani website that so much as uses the words Əngəlan, Angelan or Angalan. Maplandia, Fallingrain, Yet Another Atlas, and Travelpost all use GEOnet Names Server data to populate their websites, and therefore cannot be considered independent of GNS. How does it benefit Wikipedia to become a mirror of GNS? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this 2007 USGS meeting, the GNS database is never purged of a placename. The exact quote is; "Also the GEONet Names Server, like the GNIS, is cumulative, i.e., name listings are not deleted except in cases of obvious duplication." The mandate of GNIS and GNS is to provide correct spelling for consistency within the US government's own agencies. Using this database as the sole source for a Wikipedia article is inappropriate. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • FallingRain gives populations and elevations - getting those from the GNS database? Where, how? That data isn't in there, so they must be getting it elsewhere. The problem you have is that people make mistakes, hence all sources that have humans are unreliable, that's a WP:POINT. After Dewey Defeats Truman, we cannot trust newspapers or at least the Chicago Tribune, right? Your insistance to delete a existing place because of possible error by humans working at GeoNet combined with a schwa in the initial position stretches good faith. I (and another editor) have provided verification with reliable sources - sufficient to show the place exists; you now have the burden to show that these sources are both wrong. Another google search, for "Angelan" and "Azerbaijan" but excluding "Merkel" (the "Angela" most contaminating the results, no offense to the German premier), finds plenty of other links to the place, including the USGS which seems to be interested in mining the region. [6] But of course, the USGS, and everyone else could be in error - then let's not have any articles referenced to fallible sources, like newspapers, books (lots of errors in books), magazines (Hitler's diaries showed up there), the web (notorious for mis- & dis-information), or basically anything other than Holy Writ (and even that requires faith). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • FallingRain get the elevations elsewhere, based on the coordinates. They estimate the population very crudely, using the general population density of the area. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The USGS says "...the Angelan, the Kebadzhar, the Kedabak and the Tauz regions of Azerbaijan." This USGS document makes several errors right in that sentence. First, Kebadzhar is a probable misspelling of Kelbadzhar, which has been destroyed. Kebadzhar does not appear in GNS! Neither does Kedabak, which is a probable misspelling of Kedabek, which is Gadabay Rayon. Tauz is an alternative spelling of Tovuz Rayon. GNS says all but Angelan are rayons (regions). So the USGS document is not reliable, according to GNS, or GNS is not reliable, according to the USGS document. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Errors occur, so they way Wikipedia deals with it is to require multiple reliable secondary sources. By using only GNS, (which may or may not be reliable, but is primary) and no others you may have introduced errors into Wikipedia. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of the fallingrain source: as the nominator says that he (assuming that roosters are "he" :-) isn't questioning the idea of this being notable, and as we've gotten a good source for its existence, I don't see why not to keep it, whether or not we can type ə very easily. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read above as why FallingRain is not reliable. Polaron is a major authority here on Wikipedia on geographic places and particularly on population. (Although I see you have experience on US places.) Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand -Falling rain is a pretty awful source in terms of reliability of data and I've even gone so far as to propose that the site is blacklisted. However I believe it verifies the existence of the place as do any other of the maps or auto generated NGIS site. My only concern is it does not give information on the status of the site, e.g it could be hamlet or little significance. Initially I think the article is fine, providing it can be expanded later once information becomes avilable. The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does one know whether it can be expanded or not? Why do these need stand-alone articles? Is it inappropriate to make a table of them in the containing municipality/district where one can list name, coordinates, population? Put them in a list first then expand once information about the culture and history is found. --Polaron | Talk 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Based on Verifiability - which was the criteria cited for AfD nomination) and Expand.

The U.S. Department of Defense National Geospatial Intelligence GEOnet Names server is a reliable/verifiable source. NGA receives their information from aerial and satellite photogrammetric (spelling?) analysis, and corroborates it by local field investigations or reports from foreign intelligence. According to NGA, "Əngəlan" is the current foreign official spelling, and "Angalan" is the Anglicized version.

If you Google "site:.az", you receive the various Azerbaijan web sites of which Google is aware.

NOTE: the language is "Azerbaijani" a.k.a. Azeri which is a Turkic/Altaic language. Over time "Azeri" has been written in Arabic, Cyrillic (Russian) and Latin alphabetic scripts, so there are lots of transliterations, especially for Place Names.

"Əngəlan" can be "Əнгəлан" and "Angalan" can be "ангалан" (from http://www.russianlessons.net/dictionary/transliterate.php).

If you Google "site:.az ангалан" you receive: http://www.day.az/forum/index.php?showtopic=33738&st=40&p=864568&#entry864568, the entry:

Aligeydar
Рейтинг: 5
Просмотр профиля
	
сообщение Aug 1 2006, 14:21
Сообщение #58

Забугорник
******

Группа: Members
Сообщений: 1,551
Регистрация: 2-April 05
Из: Kiel, Deutschland
Пользователь №: 3,881

Фаррух, извини за оффтоп, а почему нету села Ангилан или же Ангалан Хызинского района в твоем списке.
На месте этого села сейчас голые холмы. Её ликвидировали как не рентабельную в советское время.
Это село есть в списке даглинских сёл в книге "Даглыларын китабы" Фирудина Гурбансоя.
Я родом из Хызинского района, отец из села Хызы, мать из села Ангилан (Ангалан).
Буду рад за ответ в ЛС.

П.С. Ещё раз приношу извинения за оффтоп. Прошу не удалять этот пост.

Сообщение отредактировал Aligeydar - Aug 1 2006, 14:22"

Translated:

Aligeydar
Rating: 5
View Profile

message Aug 1 2006, 14:21
Message # 58

Zabugornik
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1.551
Registration: 2-April 05
From: Kiel, Deutschland
User №: 3,881

Farrukh, apologized for offtop, but why not Angilan village or district Angalan Hyzinskogo in your list.
At the site of the village now bare hills.
Her eliminated as a cost-effective than in Soviet times.
This village is on the list daglinskih villages in the book "Daglylaryn Book" Firudina Gurbansoya.
I come from Hyzinskogo area of the village Hyzy father, mother from the village Angilan (Angalan).
I would be glad for the response in the LS.

PS Once again I apologize for offtop. Please do not delete this post.

Message edited Aligeydar - Aug 1 2006, 14:22

So there are various alternative transliterations (switching vowels "AaƏəEeIi" or "ааƏəээии").

If you Google "site:.az +Ангилан" you get some more hits:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:.az+%2B%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD&hl=en&filter=0

... much of the on-line or published texts you are going to find mentioning the "Əngəlan" village (in its various transliterations) are going to be in Russian Cyrillic scripts, in you figure out what the name is in Azeri Arabic/Turkish script ... then you can probably find some more (older "pre-Russian" ) references. LeheckaG (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. So the short answer is; the village is gone. I believe this vindicates the policy requirement at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources that all articles have reliable sources, and the policy requirement at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources not to create articles with only primary sources. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal; what is gone (from when it was under Soviet jurisdiction) was a separate Soviet local administration which was likely incorporated into the City-Town of Khizi which is reportedly about 3 miles (4.8 km) away. It is still an officially recognized populated place (in a relatively unpopulated region). I believe the U.S. Department of Defense National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) qualifies as a reliable non-primary source. In addition, the populated place/village is apparently cited in several foreign (non-English) language texts. LeheckaG (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete -
  1. As has been discussed ad nauseum, Falling Rain, GEOnames, etc. are not reliable secondary sources. Thus it is OK to use them for data, but it is not OK to base an entire article solely on those sources, per WP:OR.
  2. The village doesn't exist anymore, so it is extremely unlikely that reliable secondary sources will ever be available for it. Do we really want an article that will say only "Angelan is or was a village (or some other kind of settlement) in the Khizi Rayon of Azerbaijan." in perpetuity?
  3. If this village really is notable, why not just mention it the Khizi Rayon article? I can't see any reason why it has to be separated out to its own article.
  4. "All places that have ever existed are notable" is not a policy (or even a good idea).
• Kaldari (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal - Are you seriously questioning the U.S. government (NGA.Mil GEOnet names) as a reliable/verifiable source with regard to WP:V? THAT IS NOT WHAT WP:OR says at all - please re-read and cite a specific complete sentence if you sincerely believe it does? Again, what is apparently "gone" is just the former Soviet administration, the populated place/people still exist there. There are many "notable" North American "city" articles based on U.S. Census Bureau Census Designated Place estimates/statistics which have similar or smaller populations. Yes, a proper article requires people searching for, translating, and citing Azeri texts from either Arabic or Cyrillic scripts into English - language translation is NOT WP:OR. LeheckaG (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: Doesn't quite cross the threshold of verifiability, which leaves it way short of notability. Even if we verified the existence of this village, there isn't any reason to believe that we could ever create a properly sourced article about it.
  Kww (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal Are you seriously questioning the U.S. DoD Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 18 at GEOnet Names Server which pretty much has all of current information in the article? LeheckaG (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• From [7] it appears that it may be a mining district. --NE2 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discredited, see above. Also, primary. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! Luckily for all of you, I have a few reference books in my library dealing with the administrative divisions and inhabited localities of Azerbaijan SSR. The 1961 book lists the village of Angelan (Ангелан) under jurisdiction of Sumqayit (which borders Khizi Rayon), so the place definitely existed then. The 1977 book, however, no longer lists this place, so it is safe to assume it disappeared between 1961 and 1977. A definite keep, in my opinion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't address why it needs a stand-alone article if this is all that can be said. What's wrong with treating the topic within the containing district article, which itself is in need of content. Doesn't your book say anything more than what is already in the article? --Polaron | Talk 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said this is all that can be said?! If you read LeheckaG's excerpt above, you'll see that the village is also mentioned in the "Даглыларын китабы" book by Firudin Gurbansoy. Now, I don't have a copy of this book and I don't suppose you do, but I see nothing wrong with keeping a stub until someone who has one shows up and expands the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why can't that content be put in the district article where you can have a blurb of few sentences for each settlement point? Also, unless that book is about this village (rather than just a passing mention), the information is likely insufficient to write a full article. --Polaron | Talk 19:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to that, my rationale is that we normally create separate articles for separate inhabited localities, no matter how small they are. If WikiProject:Azerbaijan members decide that merging blurbs such as this one into the articles about raions or elsewhere is a better solution, I certainly ain't gonna be the one arguing with that decision. It is, however, out of scope of this AfD.

On an unrelated note, I've just added my references to the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key word; "inhabited". Thank you for your references, though. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. As for "inhabited", in my book an "inhabited locality" is a locality that is or was at some point of time officially recognized as populated by the government of the country in which it is/was located. Whether a locality is currently inhabited or not has nothing to do with verifiability (or notability, for that matter). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to NGA (as of their 1999 country review/update) it is an "inhabited" village (populated place). Keep in mind this is a foreign place where English has not been the primary language. So a 1991 DoD NGA database review/update ("Census") is a "reasonable" date for a source. The United States census only occurs every 10 years, and although the U.S. Census Bureau publishes annual "estimates", they are exactly that - estimates based on historical trends of population demographics, age, birth and death rates. LeheckaG (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's an actual village confirmed by many of the sources listed above and in the article. There's no such thing as a "non-notable" village. An AfD is not a place for a meta-discussion on the inherent notability of population centers.--Oakshade (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You read that it is "bare hills" now, right? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's confirmed it was a village (sorry for the use of tense that could've lead to confusion). That it's a historic village doesn't change the fact that it existed. I created the article Midland, California which is just rubble now, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a population center. --Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So now people shouldn't dare question concepts like inherent notability for villages? It's a concept that has no place whatsoever in an AFD, as it is not contained in any policy or guideline. The closing admin of an AFD should always discount arguments that are not based in policies or guidelines. As for whether this is an appropriate place, it has to be: people that believe in it and use it in AFDs have never succeeded in getting it incorporated anywhere, so it has to be refuted on an individual basis.Kww (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a AfD nomination of WP:V, the primary rebuttal requirement is that U.S. DoD NGA GEOnet Names Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 18 at GEOnet Names Server, which is an "official publication" of the Unites States government, be accepted as a reliable source. Specifically, see GEOnet Names Server "The GEOnet Names Server (GNS) provides access to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's (NGA) and the U.S. Board on Geographic Names' (BGN) database of geographic feature names and locations for locations outside the United States. The database is the official repository of foreign place-name decisions approved by the US BGN. Approximately 20,000 of the database's features are updated monthly." and http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/. The GEOnet Names server is NOT to be confused with other similarly-named commercial/non-official services which attempt to receive higher search engine rankings and "mislead" people by using similar web site names. If people do not accept official publications of the U.S. government within the scope of their particular organizational expertise, then I have thousands of "U.S. Census Bureau"-based Wiki articles to nominate for AfD (making a point by "proof by contradiction" see Reductio ad absurdum "reduction to the absurd").

"Bare hills" is a bit of an exaggeration, comparing a smaller population with a relatively larger previous population. Overall the country is supposed to be the most populous in the region (compared with its neighbors) but the particular administrative region (rayon) the village is in is the least populated one in the country, overall the country has very few heavily-populate cities (only about 11), mostly composed of many relatively smaller villages.

In the Wikipedia sense, "Primary" refers to "self-publication" about "oneself" not corroborated by an "independent" third-party, which mostly applies to celebrities, bands, and the like. In a formal reference citation sense, "primary" refers to using an authoritative "normative" source (going to the horse's mouth) rather than "hearsay", second-hand reports, a.k.a. secondary "informative" sources.

The corresponding DoD NGA GNS record was updated in 1999, so the "populated place" still existed at that time (1999) - which puts it (the populated place) as more recent than the various speculation that the "village is gone" - again what is gone is the former Soviet administation. The country achieved its current independence with the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. The significance of the "1999" date (for DoD NGA) is that is when the last "significant" international activity occured for the country (specifically an international "arms" treaty which probably triggered a corresponding DoD NGA database review).

What the article needs is contributors taking the time to read Azeri texts in Arabic or Cyrillic alphabet scripts (which are not going to be that "common" on the "English" sites. If do not have the resources available to go through such, but I can provide a "how-to" or pointers for someone else who wants to update the various Azerbaijan/Azeri-related articles. The Az: Wikipedia has limited contributions. LeheckaG (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to this 2007 USGS meeting, the GNS database is never purged of a placename. The exact quote is; "Also the GEONet Names Server, like the GNIS, is cumulative, i.e., name listings are not deleted except in cases of obvious duplication." So having an entry in the GNS database after an update means only that the village was entered into the database an no duplication was discovered.

Did you notice that there are now 4,552 stubs in the Category:Cities, towns and villages in Azerbaijan, nearly all based on an entry in GNS? more than a 1000 have been created since the beginning of this AfD. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ëzhiki and others have enough sources to prove that the village existed at some point. That is enough to satisfy WP:V requirements. Notability should not be an issue for settlements considering that this is the kind of subject which is traditionally covered in encyclopedias, commercial paper encyclopedias often cover settlements which are very small. The fact that a village is abandoned is no more relevant to notability than the death of a subject is to his/her notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the AfD nomination based on WP:V, the article's cited source U.S. DoD NGA GEOnet Names server meets/exceeds Wiki's WP:V criteria for the facts included in the article - expansion of the stub article with additional facts would require citing additional references.

With regards to whether 4552+ AZ stub articles should exist or a better way to do things going forward is a discussion outside of the scope of the AfD. What you probably should have done is posted your issues on the WP AZ discussion rather than nominating the article for AfD based on an extremely weak argument whether a U.S. government officially-published source (DoD NGA GEOnet Names) meets WP:V criteria. I am guessing you more likely confused GEOnet Names with other similarly-named commercial/non-official sources which try to "sell" something? Personally, my two points are:

• If GIS/GNIS/GNS or other databases are going to be used as sources for Wiki articles, they should be bulk downloaded into a Wiki MySQL table rather than being manually incorporated into articles' WikiText source by contributors or bots assisting them. The same argument goes for the many articles incorporating U.S. Census Bureau statistics - which creates an annual and 10-year update "problem", and for other "bulk" data sources.
• Wiki needs better language translation and name transliteration tools, like these "pairs" should be one source page for each pair:

Administrative sub-division	En:	Az:
Country	Azerbaijan	Az:Azərbaycan Respublikası
Rayon or Region/State	Khizi Rayon	Az:Xızı
City, Town, or Village	Angelan	?

The author's original post on the article creator's talk page was: "Əngəlan gets one Google hit. Could be some sort of error by GNS--it is listed there exactly as spelled. Perhaps it would be best to db-author it? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)"

So gee, if Google does not find it, then it must not exist? As an American, I prefer to "bury my head in the sand" and "play ostrich" but not always. I am interested in International events when they can affect overall global stability and cross international borders. Google only "finds" what it can get paid to find, more an more top search results are "sponsored" i.e. paid for, or those "gaming" the search engines to try to get higher rankings in order to promote whatever commercial product they are promoting. While "Əngəlan" is the U.S. "official" name and "Angelan" the Anglicized name for the village, they are most probably not names used locally. Exactly how much English text does one expect to find about places using "Azeri" (similar to Turkish, historically written in an Arabic alphabet script, and under Soviet rule, in a Cyrillic alphabet script)? I know how to search for the Cyrillic texts (see above), I am not as familiar with searching for Perso-Arabic, see Azerbaijani alphabet. Apparently, Arabic script typically drops "unimportant" vowels from words leaving only the consonants - so either Regular expression searches need to be done, or several variations need to be searched for excluding or including various vowels until the proper names are located.

At the "root" of the issue: Should "foreign" (non-English) language places exist in the "English" Wikipedia? What criteria determines inclusion versus exclusion?

With regard to the 1st., Wiki should have some "babelfish", see Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, mechanism where there is (1) "official native language" source WikiText for an article (possibly including some "foreign" language translations), and "assisted" translations back an forth between the "native" language (like Azeri) and others (like English, and the various Azeri transliterations - Arabic, Cyrillic, Latin). The current Wiki model where each language is "siloed" into independent separate encyclopedias is "broken". Language separation does have some advantages, but is largely broken/flawed. So personally, I believe an "Əngəlan" article should exist, that its source WikiText should be primarily in Azeri, possibly with assisted-translations (similar to the Commons: language template tag mechanism.

The heart of the issue is that Azerbaijan has about 10 million people (similar to the population of Ohio and likewise a similar geographic area 30,000-40,000 sq.mi.), and is similar to Ohio with several dozen "rayons" similar to List of counties in Ohio, and villages similar to the 691 incorporated List of villages in Ohio, and many more "towns" (a.k.a. GIS/GNIS/GNS "populated places" or U.S. Census Bureau CDPs). Ohio has about 1362 "townships" 5 to 6 by 5 to 6 mile "square" platted/surveyed subdivisions. If you divide 10 million by 5000, you get 2000 people per "city-town-village". I do not know whether all of the 4552+ stub articles in the category are really populated places (versus other geographic features)? or how many are actually alternate names for the same place (like Əngəlan, also Angelan, Angalan or Ангилан, and they missed two spellings which I had cited "Angilan" and the other Cyrillic one)? The country is still catching up to more developed countries in the Americas and Europe, so one cannot expect the degree of on-line information which is available for similar U.S. entities (like Ohio counties, townships, populated places), especially when one is searching in English where Azeri in its variants is most commonly used.

So the article is within the WP:V guidelines/policy by citing U.S. DoD NGA GEOnet names for a reference source, so its content should not be deleted, but there has to be a better way to provide the multi-lingual encyclopedic coverage. And exactly where does one "set the bar" as to what content to exclude or include? I believe the Wikipedia precedence has been set that any "officially-recognized populated place" (i.e. "semi-permanent geographic gathering of people, cited from a U.S. or foreign government source) is significant enough to meet WP:N inclusion criteria (otherwise there are an awful lot of U.S. Census-designated places to delete). Places which are not listed by a governmental source as a populated place or other significant (a.k.a. "named" feature) need to justify another criteria to meet WP:N guidelines, for instance being "historic" or of "current events" significance - like being listed on an official historic register or "making the news" for instance bridge collapses, floods, or other "disasters". LeheckaG (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your considered response. However, I can say with no uncertainty; GEOnet Names Server fails to distinguish between formerly inhabited places and currently inhabited ones. Therefore, if an editor is using GNS to create articles, s/he should still have a second source to verify that the place is inhabited or has been abandoned. There are a number of other stubs created in the last few days which claim an inhabited village where none is today, possibly hundreds. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Pointed Nomination forcing the issue of "GEOnet Names Server" and "FallingRain". If you wish them BlackListed, this is not the forum to shop for/gauge support. Quoted sources above (esp, Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)) are good enough for me that it did exist and with WP:RS's supporting WP:V. The fact that is does not now is not reason to delete. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Every nomination has a point. I nominated an article that differs a lot from the current one. Given how short the article was, it could not have been more incorrect. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of AFD is not to promote a "goal or agenda (Option 3)". Nor is it to force a wider discussion about the reliability of Gov't Reference sources. Build a concensus at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion if you wish to confirm your feeling that a source should be blacklisted. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said Option Three was my goal because I had been accused of trying to get all the stubs deleted. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. If you suspected somebody was entering incorrect information onto Wikipedia, stub after stub after stub, what would you do? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect into next larger geographic grouping (and tag the redirect as ((R with possibilities))). There is no question that a place with this name (or something resembling the name after transliteration) existed. At present, I don't think there is enough to warrant leaving this as a likely perma-stub. There might be some possibility it can be expanded further, but it seems unlikely. For similar situations with unincorporated communities in Michigan where all that is available is the location and a sentence or two of history, I add the available information to the appropriate township article (or occasionally a city, village or county article) and create a redirect for the place name. But I do think this nomination is a little pointy -- and if it comes down to either keeping or deleting, then there's no question this should be kept. older ≠ wiser 14:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What does it matter that it's a ghost town now? We generally assume that "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, so long as their existence can be verified through a reliable source." I can't give you a link, but I've seen it said all over the place that notability isn't temporary: if it were a village once (even if that were only when there was no Wikipedia), it was notable then, and thus it is notable today, as long as we can verify that it existed. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am persuaded that there is sufficient verification here to establish that an inhabited village did exist. As notability is permament and I believe (and plentiful precedent supports) that all verifiable villages merit articles we should keep this article. Davewild (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roll On (Kid Rock song)[edit]

Roll On (Kid Rock song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Song has yet to chart. "All Summer Long" isn't even close to done (at least on the country charts), so I doubt that this will be made into a sourced page anytime soon. Given the qualifier at the end of the title, I don't think that it would be a viable redirect either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it probably won't chart for a while, no source! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to Rock N Roll Jesus. Non notable song per WP:MUSIC and by the same guideline should be redirected to main album. Can be made into a seperate article if the song charts. --MattWT 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Delete rather than redirect as a as a non-plausible search term.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is, don't delete' Has notability. Ghost109 (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern kung fu[edit]

Modern kung fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable new art; minimal (relevant) ghits, no verifiable sources. JJL (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability, I've cleaned some up but still adverty. --Nate1481 12:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sim City's Next Top Model[edit]

Sim City's Next Top Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claims to notability, no references, no independant coverage or sources to indicate it is anything more than someone's Youtube postings. Canterbury Tail talk 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of notability. (Full disclosure: I originally proposed the article for deletion.) The claim to notability seems to be that it's "popular", which is unfortunately not enough. ... discospinster _talk 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it fails both notability and verifiability. It has not been covered in a non-trivial manner in any reliable 3rd party sources that I can find. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Cunningham[edit]

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

Non notable reality show contestant. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a CSD#G4 unless WP:reliable sources surface to confirm anything in the article. I can't find anything but forum gossip. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. violates G4 for recreating deleted material. Also doesn't meet notability guidelines. --MattWT 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Still no independant sources, no real claims of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable in any real way TommyP (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - G4 recreation of deleted material; with no visible improvements at all. Still fails WP:BIO with no sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Sawyer[edit]

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

Article on young footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he's never played a first team game. The article made the claim that he has, but the reference provided did not state so, so I prodded the article. It was then deprodded and a new link to a BBC story claiming one first team apperance was added. However, I believe the BBC are mistaken. Their own statistics page claims zero apperances, as does soccerbase. The match report from the game that he supposedly played in also confirms that he did not play. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to withdraw as he has now played for Southend.[8] пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until and unless he plays in the first team. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Obviously people are misinterpreting "made a substitute appearance" as meaning he came on as a substitute, when it actually means that he was named on the bench but did not play. – PeeJay 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The man is under contract and has been with the team since the age of 9. It's probably only a matter of time before an official and substantiable game appearance occurs. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like WP:CRYSTAL balling to me. For all we know, he may break his leg in training and never play professionally. We have WP:ATHLETE for a reason. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ESPN Soccernet also doesn't list any league appearances, [9] meaning he fails WP:ATHLETE. When he plays an official match for Chelsea Southend United or another pro club, this can be recreated. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Has played in one professional game, so he now satisfies the notability guideline. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRYSTAL. doktorb _words^deeds 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Player was only sent to a 3rd tier team a few hours ago. Surely before spending the time to involve everyone in an AfD one should assume good faith rather than being pointy and see if he is going to be playing. Let's evaluate based on Friday's game and then worry if it should be deleted or not. There is little point removing content that we are likely going to have to restore. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD won't close until the day of Southend's next game, and obviously I will withdraw the AfD if he plays. I'm getting quite tired of your attacks on my motivations for AfDs - there is no WP:POINT-making here. As I've said many times before, the real problems are (a) editors creating articles before people meet the critiera, and (even worse), editors deprodding articles that clearly fail the criteria (as you have done at least 15 times in the last month - 11 articles from which have already been deleted after AfDs). Restoring is no effort at all compared to having an AfD forced upon us all. I'm not going to add tens of articles to my watchlist and then check back in a week/fortnight/month to see if they have played or not. If they haven't played, then there shouldn't be an article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails both WP:ATHLETE and the general notability criteria. There is little point creating content which fails the most basic of the criteria for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he makes a fully-pro appearance. --Jimbo^[online] 09:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin - he has now played for Southend[10], so most of the delete 'votes' are no longer applicable. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - he's played for Southend now. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to list of characters article. Black Kite 23:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa (Dead or Alive)[edit]

Lisa (Dead or Alive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This video game character has no Wikipedia:Notability,same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafina, this one should be deleted or merged as well. There is already a "list of character" article for this game series. And "other game characters also have their own articles" isn't a valid argument for this one to pass the Wikipedia:Notability requirement. Shrine Maiden (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List_of_Dead_or_Alive_characters. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Jelly Soup. While it can be argued that all DoA characters are notable for two very prominent reasons (tee hee), it wouldn't convince me. JuJube (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to List of Dead or Alive characters, as it would be a useful redirect. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Dead or Alive characters. I hate to use the C-word, but I'm afraid that's what this is. I also don't think there isn't anything worth merging to the list. And no, it's not that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, either. MuZemike (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weather forecast also calls for WP:SNOW. MuZemike (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Jelly Soup. Edward321 (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to List_of_Dead_or_Alive_characters. Character does not have appropriate sources (as defined by the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline) for its own article. But a merge makes sense here, until the character can be verified by reliable third-party sources. That might even make a split appropriate at a later time. Randomran (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Lisa was IGN's "Videogame Babe of the Day". In fact I have found at least two reliable third-party sources to verify this information with her name in the titles of the articles and have revised the article accordingly. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Burke[edit]

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

Prod removed so procedural AFD. However, not sure how this chap meets WP:BIO. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not Monster.com.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I see no assertion of notability. Speedy per A7, possibly advertising too Computerjoe's talk 22:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability. --Dweller (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete he fails the notability criteria, has not been covered in reliable 3rd party sources, and Wiki is NOT a number of things (Webhost, CV site, etc). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajvee[edit]

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

No Notable references. Request delete. Youtube video and program schedule are hardly what could be called references. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, no significant coverage in reliable sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any merger is best discussed here (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Armstrong[edit]

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

This video game character has no Wikipedia:Notability,same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafina, this one should be deleted or merged as well. There is already a "list of character" article for this game series. And "other game characters also have their own articles" isn't a valid argument for this one to pass the Wikipedia:Notability requirement. Shrine Maiden (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List_of_Dead_or_Alive_characters. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep she is one of the flagship characters of the DoA franchise. However, the article needs some cleaning up. JuJube (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claiming her to be "flagship" doesn't mean anything. Give credible outside sources to prove that she is notable. Shrine Maiden (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, want to avoid being a Richard here, Sparky. Tina Armstrong was, as the article states, present in every DOA iteration and used frequently in merchandising. Cleanup would involve finding those sources. I'm gonna invoke WP:SOFIXIT and say that that's what should be done, instead of taking the lazy way and just deleting it. But I'm not gonna be the one to do it since I neither know nor care all that much about the franchise. JuJube (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect to List of Dead or Alive characters, as it would be a useful redirect. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 11:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Dead or Alive characters. I hate to use the C-word, but I'm afraid that's what this is. I also don't think there isn't anything worth merging to the list. And no, it's not that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, either. MuZemike (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weather forecast also calls for WP:SNOW. MuZemike (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Moderate Keep: She's definitely a "flagship" character. She's been used as a marketing portrait, and I'm sure we can find plenty of sources speaking on her. However, if it can't be done, I'll support merging. King Zeal (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per King Zeal, otherwise Merge Edward321 (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect She may be a flagship character, but it doesn't seem to have benefited her in terms of appropriate sources. A merge/redirect to List_of_Dead_or_Alive_characters makes sense until this character can be verified by reliable third-party sources, at which point notability is certain. Randomran (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This character is notable because she appears in both video games and a film. Only a handful of the millions of video game characters out there have also made the leap to the big screen. And she has also been made into toys something else only a handful of video game characters could claim. And yes, she is also covered in reliable third party sources, such as "Girls of DOAU: Tina: This simple country girl will snap you in two in the blink of an eye. New screens and direct-feed movies" on IGN. She is also an award winning fictional character. Winning a televised award is additionally notable. As usual, I have revised the article accordingly. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Halton Catholic District School Board (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Teresa Catholic Elementary School[edit]

Mother Teresa Catholic Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable school, peacock terms, non-sourced & non-encyclopedic facts Go^LeafsGo 19:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Nomination was incomplete so I have now included it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 18. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Middle and elementary schools are, generally, not intrinsically notable; no other indications of notability. justinfr (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Anything worth saving could be merged into Halton Catholic District School Board. justinfr (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Halton Catholic District School Board. I should think that there would be a Mother Teresa School disambiguation page somewhere but I cannot find one. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per DoubleBlue. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Halton Catholic District School Board, as usual. TerriersFan (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Halton Catholic District School Board given current state of article. Alansohn (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or (only) redirect to List of Dead or Alive characters#Kokoro. I'm redirecting now. It's left to editorial judgment what, if anything, is worthy of merging from the history.  Sandstein  22:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kokoro (Dead or Alive)[edit]

Kokoro (Dead or Alive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This video game character has no Wikipedia:Notability,same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafina, this one should be deleted or merged as well. There is already a "list of character" article for this game series. And "other game characters also have their own articles" isn't a valid argument for this one to pass the Wikipedia:Notability requirement. Shrine Maiden (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to a list of characters. There are plenty of video game characters with their own articles. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean this should. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean it shouldn't either. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Countering an 'other stuff exists' argument with an other 'other stuff exists' argument doesn't strike me as the best strategy. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sources provided and changes made to the article since nomination, it is good enough. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List_of_Dead_or_Alive_characters. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Jelly Soup, despite her... ahem, assets. JuJube (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to List of Dead or Alive characters, as it would be a useful redirect. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 11:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Dead or Alive characters. I hate to use the C-word, but I'm afraid that's what this is. I also don't think there isn't anything worth merging to the list. And no, it's not that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, either. MuZemike (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weather forecast also calls for WP:SNOW. MuZemike (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Jelly Soup. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to List_of_Dead_or_Alive_characters as a more appropriate location for this character. If this information is eventually verified by reliable third-party sources that are independent of the game/publisher, then a split might be appropriate. But not yet. Randomran (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As usual, she is indeed covered in reliable third-party sources independent of the game and publisher, such as "Dead or Alive 4 Girls Week #7 (X360): In this GameSpy exclusive, we take a look at some of the game's femme fatales. Today, it's Kokoro," "Dead or Alive 4: The Characters" (notice the second page of this four page article especially), etc. I have naturally begun referencing the article accordingly, but it's apparent that that in these sources enough information exists for someeone to add a reception section. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to /dev/null Testmasterflex (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British-India Holocaust[edit]

British-India Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Biased violation of WP:SOAP; use of words "holocaust" and "genocide" and comparisons to Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia evince the biased approach of the editor. Also, duplicate (refers to the same topic) of Great Famine of 1876–78, a far longer, more detailed, more balanced article. LordAmeth (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oppression of Indian people during colonial era is definitely worthy topic to have an article, an encyclopedic article without soapboxing like in this case. We have enough "Allegations of apartheid" non-sense already, and there is need to start "Allegations of Holocaust" tradition M0RD00R (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, inherent violation of WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article's title is not compatible with WP:NPOV. The contents are also non-neutrally written. Apart from the references, which might be added to a different article covering this period of Indian history, there's nothing encyclopaedic that can really be rescued from this article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Great Famine of 1876–78. The article itself is too emotional, and not enough sourced, to be kept. Mandsford (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is best covered in Great Famine of 1876–78. I've said before and I will say again it's bad to have 2+ versions of an article, one with a neutral title for an event and another that is a POV. Every time the neutral title version has a shot at neutrality while the POV titled one exists for POV purposes. Let's just have one article, and improve it. --Rividian (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the article is a POV fork of Great Famine of 1876–78 Nick Dowling (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Let see , clearly fails WP:NPOV; relies on a single source hence, fails WP:RS; title itself is blatantly WP:OR. gcount for "British-India Holocaust" gives only 7 links(1 to this AFD; 1to this article:Late Victorian Holocaust also under AFDWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late Victorian Holocaust; rest are videos). --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per D'Souza, everyone else. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else. Violation of WP:NPOV. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete and Salt -- the topic is adequately covered in Great Famine of 1876–78. It is possible that British governors were misguided in their policies, and may have adopted harsh policies on famine relief for finacnial reasons, but I cannot believe that they deliberately cause a famine, let alone a genocide or holocaust. This is a POV article, lacking the NPOV required by WP. Modern newspaper articles are virually useless as a historical source for events of a century or more before, and must be disregarded. This leaves one source cited as University of Wisconsin, but it is not clear if this is a book, a research paper or a student essay. On an emotive issue such as this reliable sources ought to be from peer-reviewed journals or books from academic publihsers. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Yopie 03:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-neutral, neologism, POV fork of Great Famine of 1876–78.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article uses a source identified as "How Britain Denies its Holocausts, Why do so few people know about the atrocities of empire? By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 27th December 2005". I have looked for this article, including in the Guardian's archive, and I have determined that it does not exist. George Monbiot only published one article in the Guardian that day, and it was called "The Turks haven't learned the British way of denying past atrocities" [11]. It does argue the famine in India was caused by the British, but nowhere does it assert that the famine was a "Holocaust". I say this because the creator of the British-India Holocaust article is using this Guardian piece to try and ensure the British-India article is kept up, and I don't want people to be mislead by a source that has been manipulated, it would seem, by the creator to push his POV. As a result, I have tried to remove the mentioning of the false Guardian piece in the British-India article. However, the creator of the B-I article has reversed my removal on the two occassions I have tried to do so, and the creator has not offered any reasonable explanation why. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe the article should be deleted for several reasons. Firstly, 'British-India Holocaust' is a neologism that breaks WP:NPOV. One could argue that the sources used by the article mean that 'British-India Holocaust' isn't a neologism. They do look reliable, but the fact that one source that was listed has been shown to not exist, does make me cast doubt over the rest of the sources listed. Unfortunately, the user who added the sources has not added enough information for me to check the sources, and thus I feel this article does not yet meet WP:V, and as a result does not also meet, imo, WP:N. If someone could verify the rest of the sources listed, that would be excellent. Another reason why I believe this article should not exist is the fact that there is already an article covering the Great Famine of 1876–78, and duplicates of the same subject should not be allowed. I believe the Great Famine of 1876–78 article should be kept at the expense of the British-India Holocaust article, because the Great Famine of 1876–78 one is much more balanced. If the sources used in the B-I article can be verified, I will consider advocating a merge between the B-I and the Great Famine of 1876–78 article. Until that happens, I believe Delete is the appropriate action to be taken against the B-I article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sree sankara vidyapeetam[edit]

Sree sankara vidyapeetam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable organization. Also, there are no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is a notable institution. But article still needs to be improved. --Avinesh Jose  T  06:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Do you know of any reliable sources that discuss this information? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, it is a Govt of India listed cbse school. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comparable schools in western countries have articles. There are 192 Wikipedia articles for elementary schools in California alone, for example.[12] Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. ~ priyanath ^talk 06:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chet B. Long // talk // ark // 17:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The site above says that the school is recognized by the government, but I dont think that this alone offers it notability. If reliable sources existed that stated how this school is notable, then this issue would be more clear. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no claims of notability or evidence of why it should have an article. In general all schools are recognised by governments, so that doesn't confer notability. Canterbury Tail talk 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no sources which assert its notability. I don't even see enrolment information which would be used to help to assertain a school's notability usually Computerjoe's talk 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with priyanath's comments above. If there is a criterion for inclusion of school then it should be applied equally to California or Kerala. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - senior secondary schools are notable. Indian schools are poorly represented on the Web and we need to be aware of, and avoid, systemic bias. Time should be given for references to be identified from local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Priyanath. Looks a valid Indian school stub. Expand rather than delete.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: Consensus is that all secondary schools, even those without any particular notability or sources, should be kept. Further, I'm concerned about systemic bias here: would these 'delete' !votes happen for a UK high school? But I would like to see those 192 California elementary schools come up on AfD. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  These 'votes' would occur for a UK secondary school where reliable secondary sources aren't available nor is any enrolment information. For all we know, there may only be 100 students in which case it would be deleted (even if it were in the UK or US!). So perhaps it is 'systematic bias', but we can't prove its notability like we could for a Western school. Computerjoe's talk 12:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  19:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Garvie[edit]

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

non-notable figure. This is someone who aspires to be a racing driver Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An autobiography and/or Made-up gibberish. A random earlier version of this page even uses itself as a reference. It seems to mostly be madeup nonsense/an attempt at a sandbox page because of its creator's several unreferenced, random edits to the page which change the subject from a race car driver to a pornographic actor and back again. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Reading the edit history makes me think this article is primarily a coatrack for an attack page. David in DC (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interestingly, it started out as a puff piece favorable to the subject. So favorable, in fact, that some of its text was a press release with "XXXXX" in several places where important information was not yet filled in. It reads like it might have been self-penned, or penned by the subject's publicist. The editor's user name is similar to the name of the subject's purported team. But it became a place for editors of an opposite opinion to dump unsourced, highly derogatory material. There's an object lesson here somewhere, I'm sure of it. David in DC (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This proposal is sensible and a good interpretation of the facts.
  • Comment This entry in its original form was giving a false impression as to the stature of the subject. On that basis, commerce was conducted and resulted in fraud and could continue to do so. That is the reason why the entry should be a Strong Delete".
• Speedy delete. Some local feud [13], has no place in Wiki. M0RD00R (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Regardless of the motivations of any editors, the article is unsourced and only talks about what he plans to do sometime in the future. If he wins the auto race then maybe write an article on him. Redddogg (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete without all the stupid crap, there is no assertion of notability. JuJube (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:BIO (all counts) and WP:RS (for not having any!) -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete vanity--DuckFan88 (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Warhammer 40,000 universe[edit]

Timeline of the Warhammer 40,000 universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a massive plot repetition with no notability of it's own. It is therefore totally duplicate with the many Warhammer 40,000 articles plot sections, and should therefore be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 18:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Content is not appropriate to Wikipedia but would be appropriate in a specialist wiki. I know there is a W40K one but can't think of it right now. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Due to a large chunk of articles being deleted which had relevant information along the lines of this subject, this needs to stay. Unless of course, you would care to transwiki all this yourself. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Synthesis of disparate in-universe sources. Entirely plot summary. Perfect example of what is meant by "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." --EEMIV (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not much I can add to EEMIV's evaluation, except to state that from personal experience GW have freely retconned events in the 40K universe for over twenty years now and that no out-of-universe discussion could possibly be coherent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A transiwiki of this stuff would take far less than the 5 days for discussion it will receive here. This article represents plot repetition and information which has no relation to items outside the Warhammer 40K universe. Because of the intellectual property policies of Games workshop, we are unlikely to see significant coverage of this fictional element in sources independent from the subject. The sources cited in the article are wholly owned and published by Games workshop and so cannot be considered independent per the WP:GNG. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply just plot repetition, with no notability shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to the Warhammer wiki (if it's not already there) and then delete per WP:IINFO Nick Dowling (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for having no real-world context. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40,000 wikia, thanks to the kind work of Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Excessive plot summary arranged in an entirely in-universe way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world content. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no adequate assertion of notability through significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. The entire article is pure plot summary and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orbiter[edit]

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

Article is little more than a definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - has potential for expansion. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; article has as Green caterpillar says much potential for expansion. Article is linked by ~70 other articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator's concerns are valid about the current incarnation of the article, but I don't think they're valid concerns about the topic; I think there's a lot of room for expansion, which makes this a problem that can be solved through regular editing processes, and thus not a good candidate for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. massive room for expansion, lots and lots of material available. I'll take a crack tomorrow. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Articles in other Wikipedias show this can be expanded into a long article. That it is now a substub is no reason for deletion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Valid stub - obviously lots of room for expansion. Dpmuk (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Exists. Expandable. MediaMob (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to notability being asserted in third-party reliable sources (below). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Gibson[edit]

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

Lead singer of a red linked band and writer of one hit for the Dixie Chicks. No other assertations of notability, permanent stub, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the only role that anyone can find for her is in a redlinked band. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She seems to have gotten quite a bit of coverage[14] (including such articles as this, this, this) and has released several albums herself on what appear to be major inde labels. - Icewedge (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a stub. That's how this whole encyclopedia was built, by people starting stubs and others later adding on. Not by fully-developed articles dropping from the sky. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:MUSIC#C1 for the ref's Icewedge supplied.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as I read it there are no references to the article and as such I say Delete, If someone wishs to put references in the article then I would say to keep, but as the article is now get rid of it. Callelinea (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Short Circuit. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny 5[edit]

Johnny 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has no reliable sources and no evidencing notability. Consists wholly of unreferenced trivia and plot reiterated from the Short Circuit and Short Circuit 2 films; this fictional character is protagonist and central plot point for both, and duly covered in each. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No Disassemble!!! Actually, delete redirect to Short Circuit since most of this is covered in the articles on the films. What isn't already covered is trivial and unsourced. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC) - changed to redirect DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think it could actually be entirely possible to create a valid article on this topic. Such an article should contain in-depth information about character development, prop-design, puppetry, voice-acting and impact. This article however, is almost entirely in-universe and adds extremely little beyond plot-points from the two movies. (Still, in an all-out cage match between Johnny 5 and ASIMO, we all know J5 would beat ass.) -Verdatum (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Short Circuit or Short Circuit 2. I fully agree with Verdatum about the possibility of this information suitable for comprising a singular article, but as currently offered the sources fail WP:RS, being rather singular in their content and opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. Sources are not up to snuff. JuJube (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Michael's comments. It's simply plot repetition of the Short Circuit movies, and doesn't need an article to do that. RobJ1981 (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Elabouration. I thought about merging and redirecting the article before bringing to AfD; the problem is that merging the non-trivial information to the film articles will effectively just duplicate the plot already found there. As for redirecting, since this character is the central point of both films, to which would you redirect? Perhaps turn it into a disambiguation page? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great question. Perhaps now time to reconsider merging Short Circuit and Short Circuit 2 and then do a further merge, since this information belongs with the series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not personally familiar with Johnny 5, but I gather that it's huge in the popular consciousness in the States yet not well-known outside them, so I implore the lot of you to make sure that WP will still be able to tell people what the thing is when this AfD is over.
  
  Yeah, that's about it. --Kizor 21:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:BEFORE. Neutral on merging; but, such an obvious search term redirecting to the movie seems clear-cut to me. Neier (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with that, but to where should this redirect? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/delete, don't merge. Or I could say, merge all the encyclopedic content here, which is more or less zero. That's too bad because the subject is notable and would probably make a nice article about a recurring film character with some influence on popular culture and subsequent films. But it's written in-universe without any real content and no sources. So it would be very hard to improve it, and indeed nobody has improved it despite notability and other tags being on it for a long while. It would be easier to start from scratch, which is what someone should do either now or after it gets deleted if they want to help. Wikidemo (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If I may provide input on behalf of 208.87.54.35 (talk · contribs); I believe that based on the empirical evidence ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), she or he !votes to keep the article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per others. This info should be in the film articles, a 3rd article doesn't add anything for wiki readers.Yobmod (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect as so many have explained. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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