< January 22 January 24 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

((

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor in chief[edit]

Editor in chief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article i just searched looks like something that does not qualify for Wikipedia, and this article here should be deleted per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is no more than a dictionary entry, and this page should either be deleted or transwikied to Wikitionary if it hasn't yet. Mythdon (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am not necessarily opposed to merging, but it would seem that Editing is more general and describes a process, whereas this article describes a job or function. I would need that explained a bit before I would say merge is acceptable. My gut instict is that a merge isn't the proper course to take, but open to hear why my instinct is wrong. Pharmboy (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this misspelling to Blastocystosis. The Transhumanist (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect complete. The Transhumanist (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blastocytosis hominis[edit]

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

contested prod. I'm not certain about afd'ing this article, but... I can find very few ghits for "Blastocytosis hominis" (only 73 if you include WP and non-English hits). Worse: Google Scholar lists only four hits for the term. So is this a non-notable disease? Looks that way to me. andy (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! - I never thought it might be a misspelling. andy (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I, since I was getting hits with the misspelling. Pharmboy (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiddly-Tom 07:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glasvegas[edit]

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

Not sure if it fails WP:CSD#A7 or not. The user who created this article says that the band is notable (Talk:Glasvegas). Since the speedy deletion was contested, that is why I am bringing it here. Glacier Wolf 23:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merged, thanks Tim Ross. Canley (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BANTAM STAMP[edit]

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

non-notable art.; copied word-for-word? Rapido (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides[edit]

List of suicides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This should be a category, if anything. Meanest Streets (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment More important than that the fact that the subject matter is notable is the fact that a List can provide context that a Category can not, and this article puts that to good use. Pharmboy (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When we are together[edit]

When we are together (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable song. Macy's123 (review me) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boys with xray eyes[edit]

Boys with xray eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Author removed PROD without explanation, so here we are: Article is about a band that fails WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. —Travistalk 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC says that the band should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. In any case, a search of the Kerrang! website fails to find anything relating to this band. Ditto for the Metal Hammer website. —Travistalk 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete, CSD G12 by Keeper76. Non admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panos pardalos[edit]

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

This is a little essay- or resume-ish, take your pick. This guy just seems like a professor at a college, but many rewards. Maybe a rewrite may be in line?? Jonathan 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Big Brother Celebrity Hijack. Wizardman 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latoya Satnarine[edit]

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

Simply not notable as per WP:BIO. Hasn't actually won an award, and being a backing dancer alone is not enough. I would suggest a merge with Big Brother Celebrity Hijack, but all the information that can be verified is already there, so I'm nominating for deletion. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted because she's non-notable, isn't it unlikely anyone will look her up on Wikipedia? BlinkingBlimey (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With over 6 billion people in the world, how is it unlikely? The Transhumanist (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete; an obvious criteria G10. Marasmusine (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi bertini[edit]

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

worthless nonsense mitrebox (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Angelo (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garath McCleary[edit]

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

Prod removed without explanation. Hasn't played in a fully professional league - see Soccerbase here. He gets a page when he plays for Forest. Delete. BlueValour (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AaRon Bussey[edit]

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

Blank mitrebox (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Korn (talk • contribs)

Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University[edit]

Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete NN organisation Mayalld (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TrustMe[edit]

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

Speedy request was declined due to under construction notice, but there is nothing here to indicate any notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was withdraw. I started this afd debate in response to this edit, but although the article didn't sufficiently explain her notability, there are plenty of reliable sources out there to establish this. That particular template probably shouldn't have been added in this case, as the other reason for deletion given by the original editor was that the article lacked sources. Cleanup or unreferenced or sources might have been more appropriate. So I am withdrawing the debate and adding more appropriate templates to the article. Egdirf (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Lowachee[edit]

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

A feletion notice was placed on this article due to a lack of reliable third party sources. I have no opinion on the matter personally as I'm not familiar with the subject, but feel we should have an afd debate as it may allow for greater consensus than the original method might have permitted. Egdirf (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a little background information is required here. The original deletion template was added by David Monniaux earlier this evening. His rationale for doing this was "Article does not point to why this author is notable, and lists no sources." If I shouldn't have opened an afd, let me know, and I'll be happy to withdraw it. Egdirf (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean for that to sound like an attack on you, I was just trying to reply to the previous comment. It has nothing to do with this AfD in particular, but over the past week or so, there have been several instances of people nominating articles for AfD for reasons of improvement. I was not meaning to imply that you had done that. I was just intending to reply to Edison, who seemed to be defending instances in which people had nominated things for AfD for improvement. I have all confidence in the good faith of your nomination. I just personally believe she meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, no worries. Egdirf (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, since there is consensus that the sources put forward are either not independent or not substantial enough. Tikiwont (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lessman[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding

~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username))

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

Vanity article, fails WP:BIO by a mile. Editor claims to be a historian (on the basis he draws maps and edits Wikipedia seemingly), I guess that makes us all historians. No source for such a claim, and no independent non-trivial sources either. One Night In Hackney303 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While it may not have been started by the subject, the unsubstantiated claims about him being a historian which he insists on retaining in the article make it so in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment1 ONE editor (me) is a subject of the article; other editors have done their own work to the page, and as was already pointed out, I did not create the article, I only corrected some inaccuracies and added the parts about my historical activities that ARE relevant to my work on Wikipedia.
  • Comment2 As for claims that this article doesn't fit guidelines for "notable people", I read those guidelines, and there are several articles or parts of books that have sections about me in them. I can provide those again (first time I did so they were deleted by someone else). Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talessman, "proof" (through Wikipedia:Reliable sources) must be provided for something to be kept in the encyclopedia, not for it to be removed. There are no "baseless accusations" here; comments are made strictly upon the content of the article as it now reads. Please don't take this AfD discussion as a personal attack on you or your credibility. It is only a discussion about whether this particular article, as now written, falls within our established policies and guidelines for inclusion in the encylopedia. Short comments such as "not notable" simply mean that another editor, hopefully familiar with the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (people), has looked at the article and judged that it fails those criteria. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Andrwsc, if the article can be improved, it should be improved, not deleted. It is relevant to keeping it up because it has been used by news sources to reference information about the subject. Just because I happen to be the focus of that subject means nothing - the edits are minor, only meant to improve inaccuracies like where I am, and the chronology of my activities. You and Hackney say it needs "sources", which it HAD until someone deleted them as "not relevant" - even though they verified and provided information you said it needed. If you are truly concerned about what you say, then help me re-add that information, instead of wasting time arguing to delete the article. Thomas Lessman (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the last version of the page before the editors you cite above began editing the article: [5] You can see here that the seven "sources" are:
  • Your own personal self-published webpage
  • Your own Wikipedia user page
  • Your own personal, self-published blog
  • A subpage of your own personal self-published webpage advertising a business you own
  • The webpages of several organizations you belong to that simply prove you belong to them.
In order to be deemed notable, per WP:N and WP:BIO, people who aren't you, and aren't associated with you or businesses or organizations you belong to, need to have written about you extensively. I see no evidence of that. If ANYONE has any evidence of that, then provide it here, and you will see the delete votes change sides quite quickly. As yet, I have seen no evidence that there are any reliable, extensive, and independent sources that discuss Thomas Lessman in any detail... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found three sources, and cast my recommendation as weak keep. See below. TableMannersC·U·T 05:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already begun adding the requested references. Some of them link to information on my personal website (especially for requested citations needed for statements like me being a Libertarian my whole life - it's on my website). Some of these link to articles referencing the statements (like the results of the 2004 and 2008 elections). If I can find links to the published articles about me or my activities in magazines (like in BSI International, In Search Of Fatherhood, etc), I'll post those as well. It will come in time, do not delete the article. Thomas Lessman (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The edits made by Talessman are not minor. Here is where he added the laughable claim that he is a historian because he drew a few maps, and here and here are where he edit warred to retain the hilarious claim. One Night In Hackney303 02:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I was just reading that and changed my recommendation from keep to weak keep. I think two of them are non-trivial (voting habits and illegal immigration.) TableMannersC·U·T 05:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not really, unless you're planning to write an article about things he's said... One Night In Hackney303 06:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't appreciate the tone. I am just trying to help out here, with sources, and by improving the article. I have found six sources. Please read them, and comment appropriately. I am not sure if this person is notable or not per WP guidelines, but he is certainly more notable than I am. I understand that the article might get deleted anyway, but don't blame me for giving the article a fair shake. TableMannersC·U·T 06:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get defensive. I have carefully reviewed the sources provided. They all refer to the subject in the context of electoral knockabout and none of them provide in-depth coverage of him in a way that would meet the criteria for the notability guideline. None of the coverage appears to be beyond the local press and the subject does not appear to have been elected to anything. Failed candidates for state office are not notable in themselves and the sources provided do not otherwise provide an independant existance that is adequately documented to allow an article to be sources from them. So, in short, we don't need this article. (Note that I have alreay expressed an opinion up top}. Your research is appreciated but unfortunately we don't have emough to keep this. Spartaz Humbug! 09:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that Talessman (based in Kansas) is definitely not another RexJudicata sockpuppet nor is he 66.176.106.94, the Florida-based IP making edits similar to RexJudicata.[12] --A. B. (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not, we know exactly who Rex is, as Rex he never tried to hide his real life identity or location. Rex clearly was Cia123454321, Thomas clearly is somebody completely different and we must not judge him as an editor based on Rex's actions. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to make an argument based on policy? Is he notable? Can you help us to verify this using reliable sources? Off topic rants about why you hate Wikipedia are not helpful to the discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest just leaving 66.176.106.94's comment in place. It gives a good sample of the RexJudicata-type edits that have permeated this cluster of articles at various times. --A. B. (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not planning on removing this one. At least it offers an opinion on this particular article this time. The original version, which I also probably wouldn't have removed a second time myself, was just an anti-wiki rant. --Onorem♠Dil 15:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. I kept links to the earlier versions (first part of item D) --A. B. (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete or edit what was a legitimate complaint, relevant to this conversation, just because you didn't like the point made by the person making the complaint? Being pro-Wiki or anti-Wiki has no relevance to whether an article should be deleted. And funny, that's the point he was making about wiki-bullies. I also read the info about wiki-stalkers, and it applies as well. You definitely should not be editing another editor's comments just because you don't like what it said. Thomas Lessman (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His original edit was not relevant to this conversation. "Being pro-Wiki or anti-Wiki has no relevance to whether an article should be deleted." - Exactly the reason why his comment was removed. It had nothing to do with this discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 16:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looked relevant enough to me. I've already raised the alarm that this whole charade is nothing more than an episode of wiki-bullying, started by a wiki-stalker, who obviously is just fishing for trouble. Seems to me that that is exactly what the anonymous poster was defining, and it should be taken into account when considering this article for deletion. Does the article really NEED to be deleted, or is it one that can be improved? Wiki-bullies never give the chance to prove or fix articles, they just delete them. Wiki-stalkers then go on a rampage and start attacking every article or contribution by their target. Seems to me the demand to delete this article was started for that exact reason, because someone didn't like my contributions. No compromise will work for him, even when trying to satisfy the criteria he put in place (citations? not good enough. Got more? Still not good enough).
Thus you had no business editing his original edits. Seems a few of the people arguing vehemently FOR deletion seem to have trolled out against other similar articles. Seems they have a problem more with the subjects at hand, or maybe they don't like the issues and are attacking articles that speak about the issues. In any case, there is FAR more going on here now than just an article that needs work. The people demanding it the loudest happen to be wiki-bullying their way through and deleting several articles that should be kept. Thomas Lessman (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Talessman, whatever problems other than notability your article may have can get fixed; that's not really what this AfD is about. The problem that many here see is that there has not been enough coverage of you in reliable sources as required by our very specific guidelines on notability. This applies regardless of whether some editors like you or dislike you. Heck, Adolf Hitler has an article and nobody likes him; my kindegarten teacher was beloved but she has no article. Most people don't qualify for articles. I've had more coverage than you and I don't qualify for an article. A good closing admin will see through any POV comments here and make a decision on the article based on facts and our rules. That means he or she will probably focus most on TableManners' comments and look at the depth of coverage in the sources he cited. Everything else here will be viewed mainly for a sense of what the community consensus is about those sources. He or she will not really care who Thomas Lessman is or what he advocates. Future solid mainstream press coverage will get you a new article here in the future even if this first one gets deleted. Trust me, when you become the first Libertarian governor in America, it'll be a big article. --17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)

KEEP:COMMENT: I see nothing wrong with this page. Lessman obviously has SOMETHING to offer this world if he is willing to stand up FOR the MEN of this Country who are under fire by all the Femininsts, UltraExtremist Liberals and Socialists who are trying to destroy Men and ther ability to raise their own kids. Fathers are treated today like the Jews were in the 40's..Keep up the GOOD work, and hopefully, the psychos out there who have no clue about the CSE Gestapos will take some time to better educate themselves.$$$governthyself$$$ (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC) this user (contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-Shma[edit]

Ta-Shma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Rips apart WP:NPOV. Sounds like an advert. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course, generally speaking that's one of the arguments generally considered to be unpersuasive at AfD. If you haven't all ready done so you might want to look at WP:INTERESTING. Xymmax (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 19:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. Scott[edit]

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

I speedied this article twice for A7, non-notability. The author created a new article, with some claims to notability. I'm not sure they are enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia though. I get the impression that this is just another blogger about showbizz and celebrities, nothing that sets him apart from others doing this. AecisBrievenbus 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlt02k (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) — Tlt02k (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --12 Noon 2¢ 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm restoring this comment, which was added when the material above was blanked) DO NOT DELETE B.SCOTT'S PAGE!! HE ROCKS!! :o) Accounting4Taste:talk 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- *DO NOT DELETE. This is an interesting circular discussion that seems to almost have less to do with whether or not B. Scott is notable, and more to do with acceptability of the mediums that make him notable. For those of us who follow B. Scott's broadcasts and blog (and there are THOUSANDS of us), there is no question that he is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. While it is true that blogs and video-sharing sites (like YouTube) allow anyone to have a public face and are relatively new mediums that are not yet considered mainstream sources, this is quickly becoming a fallacy. Of course, as one of the above objectors pointed out, Perez Hilton is perhaps the most well-known blogger. While I cannot disagree that blogging and video-sharing are TECHNICALLY "self-publishing," I WILL argue that to ignore THOUSANDS (not hundreds) of readers and viewers because the mainstream media has not discovered something is very erroneous logic. Anyone can put up a video and proclaim themselves "notable," but not everyone can garner 50,000 PLUS viewers on a single video (as has B. Scott). Not all YouTubers are accepted as "YouTube Partners," which basically means that said partner has "enough" regular viewers (YouTube specifies "thousands") that the corporate arm of YouTube can sell ad space on said poster's videos (as is the case with B. Scott, a YouTube partner). Additionally, not all "self-publishing" people can claim to be featured in ANY magazine. B. Scott is slated to be featured in the February 2008 issue of "Clik Magazine" (http://www.clikmagazine.com/img/24.jpg for a preview of the issue). B. Scott has also been quoted by other notable blog sites like Concreteloop, which has well over 1 million readers DAILY; has been featured on B.E.T.; and has garnered such coveted celebrity interviews as Kanye West, Rihanna and Ne-Yo just to name a few (http://concreteloop.com/2007/12/video-b-scott-on-the-chris-stokes-scandal). In addition to his printed and video blogs, he also interviewed celebs on the Red Carpet at the 2007 ASCAP Rhythm & Soul Award Show in L.A. (For video of red carpet interviews: http://lovebscott.com/wordpress/?s=ASCAP) B. Scott is a phenomenon who might be unknown to some of the objectors here, but he has definitely become a notable personality to THOUSANDS of subscribers who voluntarily tune-in every day. I hope Wikipedia will reconsider deletion of this individual because I think at BEST this is a borderline case, but at worse, this is an outright mistake because of a lack of recognition of this individual's medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennsifan (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by TinnyLOVE (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC) :*— TinnyLOVE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

mention in an obscure magazine is sufficient notability for someone to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I've seen Perez Hilton on reputable news programs; he really is notable. I have nothing against the notability of a blogger in and of itself. What I object to is the notability of THIS blogger, because it hasn't been demonstrated in appropriate terms for Wikipedia. When Mr. Scott is quoted as a source by CBS news, then I'll write the darn article for him myself; in the meantime, I suggest he'll have to go without. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: There is a place for famous you-tuers why cant he be on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.4.203 (talk • contribs)

Do Not Delete: B.Scott is making revolutionary moves within the entertainment industry by using YouTube as a mechanism to change the life of his fans by sharing his own experiences and advice. He is a noted entertainment host and has been featured for entertainment contributions in national publications (See, Clik magazine this month) for a recent view. As a gay entertainer, B.Scott is not only notable but he is necessary. Just because he has not been relevant for you, does not mean his is not relevant to the world. Check your sources. Blaackstarr (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaackstarr (talk • contribs) — Blaackstarr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DO NOT DELETE -HES A VERY GREAT GUY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.205.207 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which has nothing to do with whether he deserves an article. Please present an actual argument. Did this guy ask his fans to post here? What's up with all these editors who have very little (if any) edits outside of this AFD? I guess they don't know admins will usually ignore their comments. TJ Spyke 11:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Since I'm a gay man who has devoted more than 35 years of his life to fighting homophobia, and a founding member of two national-level organizations in that area, to have it suggested that I'm homophobic means that this discussion will now have to take place without my further contribution, since it has descended from the acrimonious to something which I have no words to describe. I'll save my breath for where it will do some good; I'm removing this discussion from my watchlist. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


*Delete per nom, another YouTube loser who needs to get a real job. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, as the "delete" comments hinged on its apparent non-existence, as the subject has been proven to exist, the arguments for deletion have no substance. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KXLJ-TV[edit]

KXLJ-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no record of a station with such call letters and designation within the Federal Communications Commission's database. There is also no record or source of this station being a CBS affiliate. Rollosmokes (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but I don't understand. When I search the FCC database with KXLJ, I get a record that matches. Yngvarr 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guess that Nate got it. Doesn't appear to be a TV station. You have a link for the search results? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The search link is on my first comment. It matches the city and the broadcast method (the FCC database lets you search AM, FM, TV, etc) which is why I am surprised. Yngvarr 22:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's fascinating right there. =^^= Wonder if it's to be the HD broadcast, since it's UHF. You changed my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep no consensus to delete - default to keep. Canley (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC) (reworded after discussion --Canley (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Lingua Franca Nova[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lingua Franca Nova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and all sources are self-published. A mailing list and a wiki are not too convincing per WP:SPS. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-well Im on both sides of this one, I find alot of pages on this subject in searches, so it doesnt fail WP:NOTABLE. Although, the sourcing is bad. Mayby a clean up and additional reliable sources and then it should be able to remain.TrUCo9311 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How exactly does it pass as notable? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to see some documents about this "scrutiny". The committee that grants those ISO codes seems to be doing a pretty lousy job if they gave a code to a constructed language based on a request from its creator, which says that it is not recognized by anyone and that it is used in "email correspondence", without any more references. See for yourself: Google search for site:www.sil.org "lingua franca nova". This very short request was written by the language's creator, so it is also self-published per WP:SPS. This may sound like cruel bureaucracy, but actually it is just common sense. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment. Here are some facts to supply a basis for this discussion. ISO does have standards, an earlier request to grant LFN an ISO code was denied (Google it). The new request was not only submitted by the creator of LFN, it was supported by about 10 other persons (Google it). The “self” you refer to is not “the” creator of LNF but a community of 30+ people that collectively worked at the LFN project for about 10 years (there are 3 or 4 generations of contributors). The result is a conlang that is widely known and appreciated in the wider conlang community. (Take the trouble to go to the auxlang yahoo group. Yesterday I counted 556 messages that referred to LFN and 465 that mentioned Lingua Franca Nova).The LFN corpus is not overwhelming but definitely noticeable – and I would claim: noticed - . LFN is (omni)present in lists of conlangs that are compiled by independent compilers of such lists. (go to the auxlang page of wikipedia, scroll to the bottom, there you will find Lingua Franca nova among the MOST notable conlangs – LFN is not just notable, it is most notable according to the judgment of the authors of that page). Yes, you are right, the modern conlang community does live and publish on the web, “respectable” references are hard to find. However, there is one initiative where this web based world strives to gain a foothold in the traditional academic sphere: the Language Creation Conferences, organized by Sai Emrys of Berkeley. Guess what, Sai votes KEEP (see below) – thanks Sai, keep up the good work. w.dijkhuis 25 january 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.125.38 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One tries. ;) But I don't expect to have any especial personal weight on Wikipedia; I'm just another editor who believes in WP:NNOT. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
  • ISO number - see my comment above.
  • 200 speakers - find me a secondary source to prove that, see WP:PSTS.
  • wiki articles in several languages - this is a self-reference to a sister project, see WP:SELF.
  • its own wiki with more than 1000 articles - an open wiki is not a reliable source, see WP:SPS.
  • a tutorial in five languages on wikibooks - by now you should already guess that it is both WP:SELF and WP:SPS.
  • how many Esperanto books are published by advocates - quite a lot. But Esperanto is also covered by an enormous number of external sources, and with LFN it doesn't seem to be the case, until someone proves the opposite.
  • any innovation is essentially kept from the wiki public - yes, it is. This is called original research, see WP:NOR.
You see, all these policy pages with annoying bureaucratic acronyms seem like tools that help deletionists that want to destroy interesting articles that other people wrote, but actually they are there to show that all those discussions about notability, verifiability, quality and reliability of cited sources etc. have already been held numerous times and a consensus has been reached about them. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE is not a rule, it's a suggestion. One that not everyone agrees with. We are not bound to agree to this previous "consensus", and it is not part of Wikipedia *policy*. You have said nothing that actually claims the article is of poor quality, verifiability, or reliability for the *facts* that are claimed in the article. Remember, these aren't just pointless suggestions; they're there to try to achieve certain specific ends. Third party sources aren't always relevant, nor do they always make something better. That would imply that journalists ought to control what goes into encyclopedias... Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE is a rule: it has a big V on it, while WP:NNOT has a big X.
journalists ought to control what goes into encyclopedias - it's a sad fact that journalists often make things notable. Journalists didn't make LFN notable. Neither did anyone else. The ISO code is an extremely weak exception, as i explained above.
I am not saying that LFN is a bad conlang or that it doesn't have potential to become notable in the future. It just doesn't appear to be currently more notable then any of the other languages on LangMaker and similar sites. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ORLY? Did you read the thing at the very top of it that says it's not a policy, just a guideline? Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous[edit]

Once upon a time, Wikipedia was a place to get information on all kinds of things. It was both an encyclopedia of basic information, a place to find out about things a bit more esoteric, and even a place to find trivia. For some reason, the powers-that-be decided it only wants to be an online Encyclopedia Britannica.

When I was a kid, interested in languages, I could get a few language books from my local library, but most languages were unavailable. Encyclopedia might have a paragraph or two, but nothing satisfying. One of the wonders of the net is that you can find detailed information on just about anything that sparks your intellect. And Wikipedia is - or was - the best source of all.

It's hard to find an article nowadays that doesn't have a "needs sources" or "inappropriate content" or "not up to standards" or other tag attached to it.

That said, I would like to know why a language like LFN, with hundreds of advocates and even (just recently) its own ISO code, is somehow of less interest than Esperanto or Ido or Novial. Or of less interest than sports figures and movie stars. Or of less interest than porn stars and sexual techniques?

Perhaps we should concentrate more on adding and improving what's already there, rather than tearing down other people's work.

Agricolaplenus (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Wikipedia is getting more anal about things, but it's not too bad that there are lots of "citation needed"s all over the place; in fact, they are helpful in pointing out possibly untrue information. But to delete the article on LFN because all the material is self-published is silly. This is a constructed language, so of course its creator would know the most about it! Why is the work of the creator and speakers not valid? They are the only ones who can provide any information on the language! --Kinghajj (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's creator knows the most about it, but if no-one else knows anything about it, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. See my comments at the deletion discussion. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the 200 people that speak, or at least read, the language? Besides, although one person began the creation, dozens of others improved it with their suggestions over the years, including more than doubling its vocabulary! I respect you, Amir, but this time, your action is baseless. --68.82.216.178 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I'd like to see proof, which is in line with Wikipedia policy on sources - WP:PSTS and WP:SPS.
(You forgot to log in. IJzeren Jan? Saizai? Someone else?) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(That was not me.) As I mentioned in the other deletion discussion WP:NOTE is NOT A POLICY it's just a guideline that not everyone agrees with. Moreover, WP:PSTS, which IS a policy, clearly says that primary sources ARE allowable, and should just be treated with a certain amount of sanity. Saying that something does not have third party sources, yet not actually disagreeing with FACTUAL CLAIMS, is bullshit. Just think about it - how do you expect that journalists writing about it would find out the facts? Simple: they would read it up on the same primary sources that the articles cite, and talk to those same people. And then probably get it half wrong because they aren't linguists. So please stop claiming that WP:NOTE is a policy, and please stop misapplying guidelines without heed to the actual reasons for their existence and the ways in which articles can be improved... or cases where they simply do not need to have external sources because they're not claiming anything that violates WP:PSTS. Putting an article up for deletion simply because it's about something that primarily takes place online is, IMNSHO, both abusive and heedlessly destructive and does not improve the quality of Wikipedia. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't me either, but here I am, and I cannot say I disagree with Agricolaplenus and the anonymous contributor above. And with Sai, of course. Let's get this straight: conlangs are a field that by many people is considered "obscure"; interest in the field is not broad and therefore cannot count on lots of media coverage. In other words, you simply can't compare it to rock bands and the like. If we'd apply the same standards on conlangs that we apply on other fields of art, then we'd end up with articles about maybe ten conlangs, at best. Is that where we want to go? Apart from the fact that Notability is indeed a guideline and not a law carved in stone, why do people make such an issue of articles about subjects that are, say, somewhere in the grey area between notable and non-notable? Frankly, I'm not happy at all with the fact that virtually every page on Wikipedia.en has all kinds of ugly tags attached to it. Why would people waste their time adding those tags instead of just improving articles, or, for that matter, trying to eliminate other people's work instead of creating their own? I'm all for keeping Wikipedia clean of nonsense and completely irrelevant stuff, but for heaven's sake, is it really necessary to make so much fuss about doubtful cases? An article about a conlang created in 2007 with 14 Google hits and no coverage at all should of course be deleted; but LFN is obviously not such a case. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 08:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A Lingua Franca Nova FAQ, apparently written by the language's creator, hosted on a personal website of the creator of the LFN wiki, Stefan Fisahn
  2. A glossary of LFN, self-published on the personal website of its author
  3. A pronunciation and spelling guide of unclear authorship, also hosted on Fisahn's website
  4. A page on Omniglot, self-published by its author
  5. The complete grammar of LFN, a page on Fisahn's LFN wiki.
  6. A list of prefixes and suffixes, also on Fisahn's wiki.
  7. Fisahn's LFN website, again
  8. A translation of a Cat Stevens song on Fisahn's wiki.

Even if this article were to pass AfD, these sources are still unacceptable for use in Wikipedia. Once these sources and all the information attributed to them are removed, what verifiable information will remain? Only the fact that the ISO assigned this language a number at the request of its creator, and nothing else. -- Schaefer (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I get this right. There are a number of conlangs that promote their virtues on the web. Lets take lojban, toki pona and LFN. Each of this conlangs has a thriving and productive community. Each reports it’s own achievements enthusiastically on the web. In your purist view they are not allowed to mention their existence on Wikipedia (that would constitute the cardinal sin of self-publishing). However if each would add on their websites a short message like: our conlang xxx is the best, but yyy and zzz are also quite nice, then all would be right, all three are endorsed by multiple external authorities. Your self-publishing problem would be solved? w.dijkhuis 25 jan 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.125.38 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan is essentially a publisher in this case: He likes lfn and has contributed, but is teaching his son esperanto. Omniglot is edited by Simon Ager, who does not simply put up what anyone sends him. The glossary referred to is not of lfn at all, but of the original Lingua Franca, and is published by Alan Corré (do your research!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.216.178 (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My friend Stefan Fisahn and I once talked about the relative virtues of anarchism and socialism. Stefan said that if each person is permitted the freedom to add his or her voice to community decisions, the community will run itself, without an authority structure. And he pointed to wikipedia as an example of how well anarchy can work. I countered by suggesting that in an anarchy, authoritarians will arise, make alliances with other authoritarians, and we will soon be in the same position - or worse. Well, I don't know who is right about politics, but I do think wikipedia has developed a rather obvious authoritarian system. Those of us coming into the system from the outside find ourselves faced with many rules and regulations about which we have no voice. A sad state, for something with so much promise. --Cgboeree (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

all formal and informal groups of people have their conventions and social practices. The group of people working here is a very large one--a larger number of people than have probably been working on any equivalent project ever. We/they are trying to find ways of making progress on a multifaceted project while accommodating each other. What is needed is tolerance of diversity, but we know that this tolerance has given opportunities to those who would pervert our goals to their own propagandistic or commercial purposes. the tension here is unavoidable, and i can only urge that, like other people entering a group, that you learn the customs so that you can change them. At least that is what I am trying to accomplish personally.DGG (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading some of the standards, and it appears very clear to me that the sourcing issue revolves around the problem of anecdotal sources and opinions. If you look at the lfn entry, you will find that there is no use of anecdotes, that there is no proselyting, no effort at self-promotion, only a straight-forward presentation of the facts about the language. Even the so-called claims about membership are easily checked by looking at the editing histories and the group emails. Agricolaplenus (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned in Switching Languages: Translingual Writers Reflect on Their Craft by Steven G. Kellman and Esperanto: Language, Literature, and Community by Pierre Janton. Wiwaxia (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also mentioned in A Brief History of Globalization: The Untold Story of our Incredible Shrinking Planet by Alex MacGillivray: ". . . and more recently Lingua Franca Nova (1965) and Mondlango (2002)." It was verifiably invented in 1965 and people still care about it? Definitely a keeper! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiwaxia (talk • contribs) 08:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can search Google Print, too. The coverage in these books is very trivial. LFN is only mentioned there. From WP:NOTE: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.. It may be "just a guideline", but it makes a lot of sense. If it is passingly mentioned in printed books, than i suppose that it can be passingly mentioned in other articles, with an external link to Boeree's site.
Let me reiterate it: I totally assume good faith about the people who want to keep this article, and i really do think that LFN is one of the loveliest conlangs that i encountered, yet i am still convinced that this is a language that can only be properly described by its inventor it and possibly by a community of supporters on the web, whose number and authority is questionable. Please don't take "questionable" as an insult: I am just saying that a mere count of user accounts on a wiki or a Yahoo group is not by itself a very good measurement of the size of the community. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 11:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol alliances in the Middle-East[edit]

Mongol alliances in the Middle-East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is yet another POV fork by PHG and represents a further attempt to avoid consensus discussion at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Multiple editors have asked him to stop this behavior, and yet he keeps creating more POV forks. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265) (which last also covers Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282) and Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304). Kafka Liz (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before this angry bunch obviously pissed off by the user inquestion gets theirs, I would ask them to clearly explain fork of exactly what this page is. To me it seems a valid overview page and not near the mentioned Franco-Mongol alliance beyond summary section, which may be edited (er.... I guess...). `'Míkka>t 22:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. The problem stems from a wide range of Mongol-alliance articles that one user has created. The reason for deletion is that the articles misrepresent sources and push original research. The user has been evading the consensus by creating multiple new articles whenever one gets deleted, or when his original research is removed. This looks like a big problem. Jehochman Talk 23:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mikka, sorry about the lack of information, it's mainly because this problem has grown so large, that it's taking too much time to re-explain the case at each new AfD. It seems like each time we deal with one article, PHG creates a couple more.  :/ And we're not disputing all articles related to the Mongol Empire, we're simply disputing the "Mongol alliance" issue. For more info though, you may wish to review the thread at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Articles for deletion to see some of the other discussions that we are dealing with. You are welcome to join into discussions there, to help determine consensus. You may also find this useful to come up to speed on the POV dispute: User:Elonka/Mongol quickref. Best, --Elonka 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you left this vote and comment at the other AfD's as well. Please note that for the others the content is duplicated and so the AfD is not about content per se. This AfD is really about stopping the repetition of material whose accuracy and truthfulness is disputed. If I create an article with disptued content, I should not be allowed—before the disptue is finished—to repeat the disputed portion on many articles old or new. The content would be deleted in old articles. In this case we the community merely ask that it be deleted from a new article. If the whole purpose behind the article under consideration were not the spreading of a certain POV then I would merely vote to "Keep and delete duplicated disputed content", but it is the very idea of this article that spreads the disptued POV. The article, in a useful way, could be re-created later if the dispute settlement eventually reached allows for it. Srnec (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the article is that it's largely speculation. Material is being placed here from deleted articles or that was removed from other articles by consensus. Unfortunately, the impressive list of references is window dressing. The references frequently do not say what the article says. Jehochman Talk 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mikka, though at some point it might be worth having an article on Mongol relations in the Middle-East, this article isn't it. The primary purpose of this article, as written, is as a WP:COATRACK to push the concept that the Mongols had multiple alliances, including with entities that, in actuality, they didn't have alliances with. For example, their relationship with the Franks was never an alliance, their relationship with Antioch wasn't an alliance, and their relationship with Armenia wasn't an alliance. Especially with Antioch and Armenia, the relationship was that of overlord-subject, meaning the target countries had surrendered, not allied. But this article is trying to push the POV that they were equal-party alliances, even though they weren't. The article is also being used to push an original research concept of a "North-South axis" and an "East-West axis", which to my knowledge are not discussed in any other work of history -- this "axis" angle is something that PHG came up with on his own, and is a clear violation of WP:NOR, the "novel interpretation" clause. PHG has been seeking to rewrite history in multiple articles on Wikipedia (at last count, he's been pushing false information into about 50 different articles, see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review), and when he couldn't get the information pushed into existing articles, he was going around and creating entirely new articles to push his POV. Two have been deleted so far, and a half-dozen more are under AfD with a clear consensus to delete (though they haven't been closed yet). We've been discussing this at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, and the consensus was, and is, that we need to get rid of all these POV forks, and concentrate discussion in one place to figure out how to proceed with cleanup. So again, this "Mongol alliances in the Middle East" article is biased, it's a duplication of biased information elsewhere, it is not needed at this time, it just adds to existing confusion, and it should be deleted. --Elonka 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, I quite understand the possibility you are talking about. However I don't see nomination for deletion of articles Byzantine-Mongol alliance, Armeno-Mongol alliance, etc. As long as these article exist, the discussed one is a valid summary, regardless the quality/quantity of references (which, quite frankly I am not even taking into the consideration now). If you are saying that the terminology "North-South axis" is OR, remove it from the texts in question (the term "axis" means operating multi-sided treaties, not just a bunch of geographically sorted treaties; that I may see). `'Míkka>t 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the references please. Reliable sources don't say what the article says. Jehochman Talk 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mikka, thanks for keeping an open mind.  :) And you're right, the Byzantine-Mongol alliance is probably salvageable. Armeno-Mongol alliance is probably going to get deleted/merged eventually, but since it's in more of a grey area, it's being left alone for now, as we decided to go with the low-hanging fruit of articles that needed immediate deletion. Remember, we're fighting a multi-front war here, with biased information in about 50 articles, so we're having to prioritize cleanup efforts. My guess (and this is just a guess) is that the way things will go after we get a handle on things, is that the Franco-Mongol alliance article will be renamed as "Crusader-Mongol relations" and will then incorporate any necessary information about Middle East diplomacy, including Armenian relations, and a link to the Byzantine article. But that still leaves us with this "Mongol alliances in the Middle-East" article, which is still inappropriate, and should go away. It's biased, it's OR, and it's disruptive to even have it around. If consensus exists in the future to re-create it (which I highly doubt), it can be re-created easily enough, but right now it's just adding to confusion. Nobody wants it, except for PHG. And the really irritating thing is that after we'd expressed concerns, after we'd told him to stop with POV forks, after we'd submitted multiple AfDs on the other articles, what did he do? He went and made this "Mongol alliances in the Middle East" article, within hours. That's why there are so many angry voices at the top of this AfD, and why people came tumbling in rapidly, is because the creation of this article was clearly disruptive. It wasn't created as thoughtful scholarship, it was mainly just a copy/paste of POV information. Just take a look at the long list of sources on the article -- most of them have nothing to do with it, they're just copy/pasted from the Franco-Mongol alliance article.[17] So as soon as PHG created it, we got it tagged as disputed within a half-hour, and sent it to AfD within an hour or two after that. If PHG makes any other POV forks, we're going to tag and nom those too, because he has to start working with consensus, instead of against it. --Elonka 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DGG wrote: "I think I am through with creating new articles on this subject" so I think y'all may calm down a bit and figure out whether we are talking about POV of a wikipedian or POV of some historians. Unfortunately I have no resources to look into the matter seriously, but on the first glance the article is substantiated thoroughly not only by references, but by quotations (some of them do use the word "axis" in kinda informal sense). I am aware that there still may be WP:SYNTH issues, but I would suggest to consider salvaging this article. It is a widespread image of Mongols as ruthless conquerers, but they were also cunning politicians as well, so I see nothing unusual that they made various alliances/treaties (btw, may be the latter word may be better to describe their political relations), especially when their drive westwards halted. `'Míkka>t 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty damn thorough already. I think that anybody in the Wikipedia community who ever had an opinion about Mongol alliances in the Middle East... has made a comment. Mandsford (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Hashmi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sami Hashmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I put this up for AfD before and it generated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Local government. The consensus of which was that being a London Borough councillor was not notable unless there was something else. I've since tidied the article and added references, and the article really isn't up to much. He's just not notable as per WP:BIO#Politicians, so now the outcomes debate is over I'm relisting. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness Survival[edit]

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

Should be deleted in accordance with the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music). 0kdal (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this source has been sited http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/wilderness-survival/we-were-21-in-03.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.56.188 (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One review in an online magazine is not sufficient to establish notability. --DachannienTalkContrib 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roach Motel (computing)[edit]

Roach Motel (computing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This seems to be a non notable neologism Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an yet to be determined article, if you think you found a proper article for redirection, please boldly do so. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban magic[edit]

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

Complete OR. I'm finding plenty of Ghits for the term, but all in relation to paganism, not books. Seems like the editor is trying to coin their own phrase. Redfarmer (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TeenSpot[edit]

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

Article is written more like an advertisement, and does not "describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." Barely asserts any notability, aside from listing sourced traffic stats. Also has only trivial mentions in articles, often just listing the site along with other social networks. -- pb30<talk> 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:

2005 TS Top 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WP:WEB requires far more than a mention, it requires significant coverage. A controversy with another site means nothing unless that has been covered in significant detail by a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That goes for both articles, by the way - the second nom could probably be deleted per WP:SPEEDY (A7). --DachannienTalkContrib 09:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 TS Top 100

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo J. Meyer[edit]

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

This man was a United States Army officer during World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. This very long article, likely created and principally authored by a relative, is more a life story than a biographical encyclopedia entry. The problem is that unless I've missed something, there's no notability in it. The external links/external sources provide no information about Meyer specifically, only about the groups in which he served/commanded and a Smithsonian folklife exhibition. There's a claim that some of his scrimshaw work was featured in a book, but the title and/or ISBN of the book isn't listed for verification.

If all Bronze Star, Distinguished Service Medal, and other combat award/medal recipients other than the Medal of Honor are notable simply by receiving those decorations – and I don't believe that's the case – I can reach no other conclusion than the article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Li style Tai Chi Chuan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Li style Tai Chi Chuan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A primary source driven article, prodded once unsuccessfully, which ends up being an unverifiable advertisement. It has been tagged for a while as such, with no cites forthcoming. The question I propose is, is it a keeper without any reliable sources? Bradeos Graphon (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Jackson_Heights,_Queens#Education. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Jackson Heights[edit]

List of schools in Jackson Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is not really a list of schools although it mentions some. It's more like an essay and is not very encyclopedic. I see why no reason schools should be listed unles they are notable, and then they could go on the Jackson Heights, Queens page. MSGJ (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe you could clarify what you mean by the usual sense, as there are districts in NYC. Most of Jackson Heights is in district 30. CitiCat ♫ 04:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although by simple count, the comments are only slightly in favour of keeping, I find the arguments that the subject has pioneered a notable area persuasive of meeting WP:PROF, while the third party articles cited are adequate for verifiability. The several delete arguments that hinge around coatracking, original research or pseudoscience do not seem well founded. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tajmar[edit]

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

Not a notable personage per WP:PROF. Looks like soapboxing and coatracks for fringe theories as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all advances in science are "amazing" and end up on the evening news. Are you actually so naive as to think that public accolades are the touchstone of a scientific discovery, or are you just putting a spin on things? Also, I don't understand your remarks about Heim theory. Would you care to elaborate? Freederick (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heim theory has been criticized as pseudoscience. Public accolades are part of what can conceivably make someone notable who is a (pseudo)scientist. Likewise, scientific recognition. However, this person has received neither. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. You do realize that "has been criticized" is a classic example of weasel wording, right?
2. The article on Heim theory has been through several AfD's itself, with a Keep result.
3. Heim theory gets one mention at the bottom of the Tajmar article. If it's HT that you have a quarrel with, I won't object if you remove that mention, and leave the Tajmar article out of it. AFAIK, Tajmar's research is not grounded in HT, and the claimed connection is tenuous at best. Freederick (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I removed the sentence linking to HT from the article. Freederick (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Biographical sources? Gimme a break. This is a scientist, not a pop star: his academic work is what is relevant, and that is referenced in the article. WP:PROF applies, rather than WP:BIO. But even WP:BIO says nothing about "biographical" sources being necessary. On the contrary, it says: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Sort of fits the bill, doesn't it? Freederick (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I say "biographical" I mean independent sources that discuss him as a person and assess his personal accomplishments relative to that of other scientists. His academic papers themselves do not establish notability, we need sources that were written by somebody else. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relistsed to generate consensus ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This had already been closed but been relisted by the nominator with the original closer's consent. I just corrected the log. Tikiwont (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Deutschlandfunk (if you are in the US, it's like NPR) visited his laboratory in November 2006. What he said sounds impressive, and the way he said it does not sound like the usual fringe stuff to me. (I only read the transcript.) Here is a translation of something he says:
"If someone finds that there is another translation for my effect, it's all right with me as well. Now I don't insist that I have created a gravitation field. I think it's the most likely explanation. If it's something else, then it's something else. In any case: I don't think that so far anybody has done something else where a laser gyro thinks it's rotating even though it's firmly attached to the ceiling. Now that's at least a curiosity that is worth being examined further."
2. I am unfamiliar with the German language Wikipedia, and it seems to be a few years behind. In any case I found a relevant discussion (in German) there in the physics project, in which people were very critical of Martin Tajmar. I have invited Ben-Oni to take part in this discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this work does not involve unification, or any electromagnetic connection to gravitation. The theory is only formulated using gravitomagnetism which is a convenient set of formal analogies between electromagnetism and gravitation. It aims to explain observations of the mass of paired electrons in a particular superconductor, the physics of the electrical properties of electrons and superconductors does not really enter into it. The theory was really quite a long shot, and the evidence seems to show it incorrect. Still, correctness is not a criteria for a theory being in wikipedia, only notability. Rgraham_nz (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added comment. It sounds like ScienceApologist thinks the guy is a kook. I could defer to his expertise if a case is made that this is a fringe loon or something, then change my vote. I'm not familiar with the guy's work. Tparameter (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The content relating to gravitomagnetism and superconductors be restored
  2. The content be moved to a separate page, just about this theory


   My opinion is that the first option is the best option at this time ... if other researches become significantly involved in this research at a later time then the second option may be best. Please post your opinion. Rgraham_nz (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although the article should make it clear that the data has been not confirmed, and the theory not accepted. This is one ofthe exceptional cases where proposing something that turns out to be wrong is still notable. DGG (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was DELETE - All keep votes were made by socks of User:Yaktail. Chris 07:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beerluck[edit]

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

Unreferenced article that appears to be completely non-notable. Quite possibly made up, and clearly unencyclopedic. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do NOT delete. Etymological rules based on pre-existing usage would have preempted a vast majority of words now seen in common usage or idioms (i.e. Rule of Thumb) from entering the English language. While we must consider the negative influence of Recentism, as someone who has attended a beerluck, I can testify to their existence. --ashwin User:ashwinsodhi User blocked as sock --Chris 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Regardless of Mandsford et al.'s wimpiness, it is a human rights outrage that Wiki would delete such a benevolent and articulate article. Beerluck's have been around since the origination of beer; do not be persuaded by the fact that this cannot be etymologically verified. If etymological root-laws held true, we would have no new or interesting variations of our language. No 'w00t'. Carl Sagan wouldn't even be accepted as a common noun (How messed up would that be?) Beerluck actually appeared in Book VI of Plato's Republic (par. 511): "The beginning of the beerluck is the most important part of the work." Rather than insist upon a proto-fascist and fiercely anti-intellectual modality of language, why don't we begin to tarry with freedom a little bit more? The freedom to potluck. kylenstone (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2008 — kylenstone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User blocked as sock --Chris 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete per WP:Boosh!. I deeply resent being accused of sock-puppetry .--pmatarese —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmatarese (talk • contribs) 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) User blocked as sock --Chris 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killed in action (band)[edit]

Killed in action (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Conested WP:SPEEDY so I thought I'd bring it here. Non-notable per WP:BAND and violation of WP:COI. Also, author asserts significance under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Redfarmer (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Les Paul Special-II[edit]

Les Paul Special-II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete contested prod; article about a specific model of guitar without any indication why this particular model is notable, no significant coverage by 3rd party RSes (WP:N) and with features & pricing smells a little spammy to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete per G11. TalkIslander 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glamforless[edit]

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

I don't believe the subject is notable enough. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 20:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, as nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Fowler (Writer)[edit]

Ruth Fowler (Writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A mess of links and non-sourced material. Speedy removed saying this "asserts notability" (I don't see it), and later removed by anonymous user (most likely logged-out author). JuJube (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice.
User:Nakon closed as delete, commenting on his talk page: "Per the discussion that followed the rewrite, I didn't find that the article sufficiently showed how the subject was notable." I complained that we couldn't have reached consensus because only SWik78 and I were commenting after the rewrite and disagreed. So, let's get some consensus! Do the newspaper articles and upcoming book by a major publisher establish this writer's notability? — brighterorange (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiddly-Tom 07:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still Life (1974 film)[edit]

Still Life (1974 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete contested prod; this article offers no sources that show that this film meets WP:FILM Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep awards are notability, notability is permanent, and being a "core film"" is way beyond the WP standard.DGG (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete G7 by Edgar181. (non-admin closure) RMHED (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Benson[edit]

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

Non-notable; notability is not inherited. Gromlakh (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - Cricketking is the article's author. Gromlakh (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiddly-Tom 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MyHeritage[edit]

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

Non-notable website whose speedy deletion was declined. Mh29255 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiddly-Tom 07:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Redfield[edit]

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

Non-notable resident evil character. No real world context in the article at all, References are all to reviews of the games that mention the character, thus establishing notability for the games not the character. I have repeatedly tagged this article for improvements and the tags keep getting removed with no improvements to the article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why pick this time and only this character? This sounds like you want this deleted just for the sake of being deleted. I'm pretty sure you have a thousand other pages to worry about. 64.85.234.166 (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so what you are saying is instead of having an edit war over tags if people actually improved the article and stop arguing with me the article could be improved. Hmmm what a concept.Ridernyc (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 19:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in the deletion revivew. I Have looked and so far have found no references other then plot summaries and minor mentions of game development of the new Resident Evil game which still has no release date. Take out the plot summary in this article which is simply recreation of plot summaries that belong in the game articles and you are left with a stub. Merger to a list of resident evil characters is a very valid option for all the resident evil characters with the exception of Jill Valentine and maybe Albert Wesker who due to the movies have enough notability on there own. Sorry just don't see these sources people keep claiming are everywhere and take a second to find.Ridernyc (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources haven't come as fast as expected, by a mile, but those ones above did pop out in no time. I think you're selling the Famitsu interview covered by GameSpot a little short, it's a solid base to include further details about Chris' development for RE5, which can be paired with the 'reveal' from Joystiq. RE5 might not be out but even if the development team dropped everything tomorrow RE5 would still pass notability, secure its own article and any info from it related to Chris Redfield would provide out-of-universe information. We then have the furore over the racism allegations, [20] [21] (amongst others), which together will not result in more than a sentence or two, but Chris Redfield is the "white man in military clothing" and there is material there. Joe Whyte's interview, as the voice actor for the character on REmake is again not overflowing with usable info but there is some info and it's from a different game - great. There are translated sources posted on fansites, like this, which may be unsuitable but do hint at where materials could be found. We then have George Romero's movie script, where Chris was a main character there's some reprinted online interviews buried in here, the script itself is online and perhaps can be used in one form or another as a reliable source, in which case we get good info. This interview quotes RE film producer Jeremy Bolt saying that Chris was being considered for the fourth film (which got canned). The info is going to take awhile to pull out and deal with but those are indicators that there's more to this. Last but not least, RE5 is the sequel to one of the most acclaimed games of recent times, it is extremely likely that more information will come to increase out-of-universe info even further. I think there is plenty of potential information here justifying a separate article. That isn't to say the chaotic RE character lists don't need some fixing and merging, but this character has good potential. Someoneanother 02:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete G7 by DJ Clayworth. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matteo Mameli[edit]

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

Junior academic with no particular evidence of notability. The only independent reference cited is a mixed review of one of subject's papers. Article created and edited by a couple of near-single-purpose accounts (possibly autobio), that keep removing ((Notability)) and ((Primarysources)) tags without explanation. Hqb (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yazaki[edit]

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

I had originally speedy deleted this as failing WP:CSD#G7, but I'll give it a chance here instead. · AndonicO Hail! 18:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aharon Moishe Leifer[edit]

Aharon Moishe Leifer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet bio standards. No sources since last January. Non notable. Metal Head (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia needs reliable sources to verify which criteria is use for this article. It contains point of views which are potentially WP:OR and non-neutral. So it is better to not write about subject. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of FA Cup giant-killings[edit]

Previous AFD
List of FA Cup giant-killings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The criteria used to describe what a giant-killing constitutes is inherently original research and, per a recent discussion at WP:FOOTBALL there's quite a strong consensus for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we reproduced those lists, though, wouldn't that be copyvio....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so please define what a "giant-killing" constitutes precisely. Do you agree the current criteria are what make a giant killing? And do Sky and the News of the World have the same criteria as this article or even each other? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own any Sky books so can't speak for them. I own quite a lot of NotW books but I can't check them right now as they're at home, but as I recall they just have a section headed something like "famous shock results" and don't set out any specific criteria..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, while we're at it, why shouldn't Chasetowns win over Port Vale be considered a giant killing? According to the current criteria, because Port Vale aren't in the top two divisions, it can't be listed. There's a five-division discrepancy between the two teams. That's about as "giant-killing" as it gets. But it's not going to make the list. Unless we add/modify the criteria. Which is precisely the problem with the list in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

To be honest I don't think it's possible to define giant-killing. Like I said above, the BBC cast giant-killing on even non-league teams beating other non-league teams and also Bury beating Leeds in the Football League Trophy. Yet one FA Cup story I found for Third Round day was headlined "FA Cup reaches giant-killing stage" with the implied suggestion that only teams from the top two divisions can be giant-killed. As much as I want to keep this, I reckon it's only a delete (because of WP:OR reasons and problems with sourcing the definition) or create a new entry, such as List of non-league teams beating league teams in the FA Cup or List of top tier sides beaten by lower league opposition in the FA Cup - both unwieldy titles. Peanut4 (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOR, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." All that needs to be done is come up with an set of criteria and apply it based on the sources available and possibly move the article to a more appropriate name. Catchpole (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"All that needs to be done is come up with an set of criteria..." thats that first big problem. "...the sources available ..." that's the second problem with this list - there are no reliable sources. In the current state the article should be deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of British Football (ed. Cox, Russell, Vamplew, 2002 ISBN 0714682306) has a six page section on 'Giant killers', complete with sources and match descriptions. Catchpole (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And reprinting it here would be a copyvio. Do they mention their criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can read it starting here...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main sources appears to be a book written by Geoff Tibballs entitled "FA Cup Giant Killers", I've added this to the article as a good source. Catchpole (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that source hasn't been used in the selection of matches here has it? Does it have the same criteria which have been arbitrarily selected here? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I have the 1996 NOTW annual about me, which has a giant-killing list. It doesn't say, and I can't tell at quick glance without knowing what divisions the clubs were in at the time, what criteria they adopt. It names about 75 results in the ten years up to 1996, about 30 in the previous ten years, and about another 30 in the whole preceding history of the FA Cup. Which to me looks pretty recentist, unless shock results only started happening in the last 30 years. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←There is precedent for this at Polymath, where every Tom, Dick and Harry's favourite genius used to be inserted on the basis that they once did a chemistry experiment or published a book on sailor's knots or whatever. Now only people cited in RS as a polymath remain listed. However, in this case, it brings its own problems. Sports journalists tend to get a bit excitable. If (say) Fulham of the English Premier League, defeated Man Utd in an FA Cup game, I wouldn't be surprised to find an RS that described it as a "giant-killing" and I would expect to see it reported as an "upset", yet it would not be a notable match and in encyclopedic terms shouldn't be included. Yet how could we exclude it without contravening NPOV? I just think this is unrescuable. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Upset' is far worse than Giant Killing as its even more in the eye of the beholder. Wins by clubs near the bottom of the Premier against the big four are usually described as upsets. With over 700 ties taking place each season that means at least 50 games each season. For the list to have any value it needs to avoid recentism and include only the most notable results. This was the whole point of the current criteria. Its obvious that there is no agreement on the criteria so this is a clear delete for me I'm afraid. Valenciano (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is an oustanding example of a deletion debate. Kudos to everyone involved. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People need to keep Wikipedia policies in mind here.
First WP:Verify says that results should be backed against reliable sources. I'm sure we could do that with results currently in the list. But theres also WP:Notability which says: "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability" in other words just because journalist X considers a result an upset today doesn't mean it will be remembered five years from now. So those two need to be balanced against each other.
Second WP:NoOriginalResearch. Thatš the problem with the list regardless of how we tinker with it. If we're not going to have a pointless indiscriminate list of 5000 odd results we need criteria. But to cover results which always crop up on the lists those criteria will always be arbitrary e.g. "a three division gap over top flight clubs or a two division gap if they finished in the top six or won the cup the previous season; or a four division gap for lower level clubs; or a one division gap for the final"
Thirdly WP:I like it. Yes it's an interesting list but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Valenciano (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good summing up. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: WP:Verify. I totally agree, which is why I would rather see the criteria be sourced rather than individual results. That way it avoids one journalist at either the BBC, or a local newspaper, but at any RS, getting carried away with one win. If such verification isn't possible, then the only possible result of this titled entry is delete.
Re: WP:I like it. I think this list suits WP:LIST. It is a structured chronological list, partly as an off shoot of the FA Cup entry, and would be of the giant-killing entry currently on the Requests list. Peanut4 (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is that who decides which criteria is correct? There's no right answer. There wasn't much response to the question "why Chasetown beating Port Vale (five divisions above them) shouldn't go in this list". The reason why it all went quiet was because I suspect we all know the answer and it's that the criteria will always be subjective, therefore POV, therefore unsuitable for an article like this. 192.93.164.23 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I've given reasons why Chasetown shouldn't be included on umpteen occasions. First - recentism. An identical result when Bedlington beat Colchester who were five levels higher in 1998-9 is largely forgotten. Secondly and most crucially Chasetown is already mentioned in the appropriate section History of the FA Cup and I truly don't believe that a second round win over Port Vale is so notable that it needs to be mentioned twice. Thirdly it comes down to how we define giant killing and I view it to be beating a giant as if we're to include all wins by non-league clubs over level three clubs, the list becomes a bit pointless. Is my POV any more worthy than your POV? I readily accept that it isn't and given the multiple disagreements in sources, thatš why its gotta go. Valenciano (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chasetown beating Port Vale to me isn't a giant-killing (though I agree it's a relative giant-killing to Port Vale). Chasetown beating Port Vale is a cup upset, and a very substantial one at that. Subtlely changing the article title, as suggested above, changes the goalposts, pardon the pun, a hell of a lot. Peanut4 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Bizarre. A part-time amateur team beating a professional league club founded in 1876, five divisions above them isn't a giant killing act? Well that's it (all over again) - a subjective choice. Relativity, subjectivity, arbitrary criteria, that's what makes this whole thing wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it all depends on how you define the word 'Giant'. I don't know about you but when people ask me for a giant of English football, Vale aren;t the first club to spring to mind. If they'd been founded in 876 it wouldn't change that one iota. As I say Chasetown are already mentioned in the relative section, why should we duplicate a mention of a win over third level Port Vale but not mention arguably more notable results? The simple question Rambling man, is do you remember the equivalent result in 1999 when Bedlington beat Colchester? If the answer is no, then I rest my case. If the answer is yes, then weŗe still broadly in agreement about the subjectivity of the article. Valenciano (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, and I've said it before, the term "giant" in this context is relative. So Chasetown's giant (Port Vale) is Liverpool's minnow. Everything is relative, needs context and will always be dependent on someone's definition. Thus never NPOV, thus delete. BTW I'm the wrong person to ask about Col U since I'm an ITFC/Col U fan (if you can have such a thing) so yes I do! And that's yet another problem. All lists will be infiltrated by the "Oh, but what about X F.C. who once beat Y Rovers in the 2nd round in 1955?" This list can never be resolved satisfactorily. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
I totally agree with you Valenciano, which is why I say it's a substantial upset. I just don't count Port Vale as a giant. But I also agree with TRM's synopsis. Our difference of opinions unfortunately, and I say unfortunately because I see this as a notable list, show how POV the whole list will always be under its current title. Peanut4 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peanut you and I have probably spent more time than anyone trying to keep these lists workable and I just think weŗe flogging a dead horse here. Rambling man, as a colchester fan you are forgiven :) Youre totally right anyway. The lists have been dogged from the word go by 'whataboutery.' Last season it was league one Forest beating Premiership Charlton. A straw poll from a predictions league I'm on had 13 people going for a Forest win, 12 for a Charlton win and four for a draw. Not even an upset nevermind a giant killing. No matter who we quote from, be it BBC, Sky, News of the World, theyļl never agree. As youļl agree, my POV and Original Research is no better than yours. Valenciano (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we can't use BBC, Sky or NOTW as full reliable sources because none existed when the FA Cup started so the list will never be complete using those. Peanut4 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cup has also been around longer than the league (and certainly longer than a series of organised lower flights of it), so the early matches are always going to be a problem from that point of view. But there are histories of the FA Cup published out there - if one of them says that, say Cambridge University beating Royal Engineers 1-0 in the 1877 Quarter Finals was a major upset (which it was - RE had won the clash of these two sides 5-0 two seasons earlier, and had been in three of the first four finals), then if that source is a reputable souce it should be good enough. This strikes me as being a similar problem to that met with by Place names considered unusual - a page which was thoroughly and sadly gutted after AFD. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please note that the reasons for deletion here can be fixed with cleanup, article so tagged. Keeper | 76 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Mukarram Ahmad[edit]

Mufti Mukarram Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

To start with, this article was initially a copy paste job from other sources as was noted here. Beyond that, it is currently laden with so many unsourced claims, peacock terms, honorifics, and POV breaches that when the article was fixed to be in line with WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and other policies it was too small to even justify an article about this individual as may be seen here.
Regarding the "sources" provided, none of them actually establish Mufti Mukarram Ahmad's notability. There are nine total:

Honestly, it seems as though someone has created an article for some random Imam they happen to like and are grasping for straws to find any mention of him on the internet to bolster its notability. There are thousands of other individuals like this that you can find in Muslim countries and while i'm sure Mr. Ahmad is a good person, a few mentions of him in India-based news sites here and there really isn't proof of notability beyond any other imam anywhere else. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, however lately there has been a large abundance of imams from India and Pakistan, especially those associated with the Barelwi movement, which articles created for them and little to no sourcing or signs of notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

representing Muslims in different fields. Former Popular president of India APJ Kalam has Offered Eid Prayers two times here in Fatehpuri Mosque due to Strong appeal of Mufti Mukarram in the mass[28].

I have told you multiple times not to call me a Wahhabi as it is a derogatory term, to the point where you had to be banned temporarily by the admins. Consider this a warning. Keep this focused on discussion of the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed the exact same thing. Are your two cents support for deletion? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shabiha (t 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, AfD is not a call for editing services, go edit the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Hindmarch[edit]

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

There is no doubt that this article is very spammy; however, if the assertions are true, it may not be irredeemably spammy, so I would feel wrong speedy deleting it. Still, delete, pending reliable sources and a major trimming job. Xoloz (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If the statement "must not be allowed to remain" then just hit the edit button and remove it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read my words more carefully. I didn't say there was an issue with that statement, but with the overall tone of the article. If fixing it was as simple as removing a line here and a line there, it wouldn't be at AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Belousek[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as original research. Closing under WP:SNOW. KrakatoaKatie 06:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility of Yankee Imperialism[edit]

Civility of Yankee Imperialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:OR. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 contribs 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering To Order[edit]

Engineering To Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as per A7. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a1 empty, g1 nonsense, a7 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zana Jaff[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Total nonsense WhaleyTim (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western School of Health and Business Careers - Monroeville[edit]

Western School of Health and Business Careers - Monroeville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okaythen, with the deletion of the adverts and the original research, it just barely meets WP:N, but I can only upgrade my vote to a Weak Keep right now Doc Strange (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't think material from the school should ever be used as a source for anything other than (personnel and) to document the school's viewpoint: in general, not just with for-profits. I agree, though, that a single article for the school would be better -- renaming it might be appropriate. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have converted this to a single article covering both campuses. I have also cleaned out the page to remove promotional material and added the Dean's conviction for balance. There are 122 articles in the For-Profit colleges category and I don't think we can object on that ground when Wikipedia is chock full of commercial companies and products. TerriersFan (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and now added the necessary independent sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me, I am confuzzled. What other article? JERRY talk contribs 02:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was an article just on the Western School of Health and Business Careers - Monroeville caampus but with a wave of my mouse, as if by magic, it is now a page on the college as a whole :-) TerriersFan (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. OK, good deal. Another article saved from certain death by TF! Do you keep count? JERRY talk contribs 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, the job satisfaction is enough but if we ever started to delete tertiary institutions we may as well give up having any pretence at being a serious encyclopaedia. TerriersFan (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 19:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pipiskin[edit]

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

No notability, a notorious prank, corresponding article was deleted in Russian WP. --ssr (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Further reasoning: the originating event was that editor flawed with fictional surname and was instantly fired the morning after. The consequent event was a huge temporary resonance in blogs and some news discussing RSS-exported flaw shortly removed from the originating article. Further talks on the "virtual politician", "his websites" "election candidate" are unrelated to the event's origins and are unnotable. Such an article was previously deleted in Russian Wikipedia with similar reasoning and blocked for further creation. --ssr (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Pacheco[edit]

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

Another youth player not yet made his professional debut in first team Matthew_hk tc 16:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost (producer)[edit]

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

Non-notable producer who has worked with, for the most part, marginally notable artists; not responsible for any hit singles or albums. His own albums are either self-released or on a minor indie label. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTE. Speedy deletion was declined, this this nomination. Precious Roy (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Next Gen Series[edit]

Sonic Next Gen Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article does not contain any actual content itself, just links to other pages for the games listed. Information that would fall under this page is already on the Sonic the Hedgehog series page, and so the Next Gen page does not need to be a separate article Redphoenix526 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wedcast[edit]

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

Non notable. No links. No real references. Nothing here at all. Delete Metal Head (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no "must provide link" rule. Print sources are valid. --Oakshade (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - Not because it's a "rule", but just as a service to editors, I've added a url to the Boston Globe article. --Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source as significant and in depth as the one from the Boston Globe suffices. Besides, the Time article is also from a very reliable source and the piece is in depth. Deleting an article on a notable topic because you think it's "cutesy" is a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. --Oakshade (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Time source wasn't listed when I made my comment. I was not arguing deletion because it's cutsey, but because a single source is not adequate. Newspapers write plenty of fluff pieces that do not describe encyclopedic subjects; thus my cutesy comment. However, the new addition of a second source pushes me up to weak keep. bikeable (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a classic case of WP:OSTRICH. Do research on a topic before making a decision to delete an article. The Time reference was found within seconds. And if a reliable source writes about a topic, it is considered notable. Cheese making is an encyclopedic topic, that's why the Boston Globe wrote about people moving to certain areas to learn it. Your opinion as to what is "fluff" is not a deciding factor in keeping or deleting articles.--Oakshade (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, please chill. I did some quick research, and missed the Time article, but the small number of google results show that this is extremely close to being a neologism. And you still misunderstand my argument; of course cheese making is notable, but one article in a paper on an alleged local trend does not make that trend notable. I'm sorry you didn't like or understand my argument, but you needn't insult editors whose !votes you disagree with. bikeable (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABC For Kids Video Hits 2[edit]

ABC For Kids Video Hits 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable. No links. Nothing special. Metal Head (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW. ChetblongTalkSign 05:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish culture during World War II[edit]

Polish culture during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing significant. General knowledge that culture suffered during WWII. Nothing special about this page. Metal Head (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what encyclopedias are for - general knowledge. Not for sophisticated subjects as "Lorentz transformations in 6D time space (3D time, 3D space)"; with that question I recommend to look at Physical Review, Section D - Unified theories of fields. If you know everything about the subject of Polish culture during WWII, I don't see why the others, less educated ones on this particular matter than you shouldn't know of it too? I advise you to withdraw this AfD until you make a complete fool of yourself. greg park avenue (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. But I shared my comment when this article was still a baby. Let's make a peace and bury the axe, Undead Warrior. greg park avenue (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though it badly needs referencing.--Kubigula (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dial-a-Phone[edit]

Dial-a-Phone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was originally a candidate for speedy deletion, PRODed by me in the alternative, and now disputed. There are presently no reliable sources offered to support this stub, calling into question whether it can meet WP:V, and whether the article is advertorial. Delete Xoloz (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the arguments presented by both sides of the debate, the keep arguments were much more convincing overall. The issues that were presented by the people who adovated for the article deletion has been mostly addressed or irralevent, at least in version I read at the time of AfD closure. The article passes WP:SELF and WP:OR by my interpretations, which were the majority of the deletion arguments were based on, therefore, there is a stronger consensus towards the keep, if the strength of the arguments are considered. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy[edit]

Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:SYNTH, WP:ASR. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you serious? The fact that somebody nominated this article for AfD is a good evidence that "its contents are both true and noteable"? So, whenever someone nominates something for XfD, that is a good evidence that the content is both true and notable??? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand me. This is not true for any AfD article, but for this one it is, because deletion is precisely what it is about. The discussion here and in the media shows clearly that the topic is noteable. The notability standard for a controversy must obviously be how many people care. And lots of people care about this one - on both sides of the matter. --Arcanios (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I wouldn't object to a merger if someone could do it appropriately, but I do not believe this AfD should be withdrawn. I brought it here for discussion. I'm leaning towards delete, but if someone could suggest an appropriate place to merge this, then I might support that. Still, at the moment, I'd favour deletion. There are many, many Wikipedia-related things like this which we don't have articles on in the main namespace. What about articles about WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV? I'm sure these could be written with reference to third-party sources, but they're not necessary.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer to your question is simply that National Public Radio, The Telegraph, USA Today and Harvard Business School are not primarily talking about subjects of minor interest such as the alphabet soup of WP policies...They're talking about the deletionist vs. inclusionist controversy. If they *did* start talking about those subjects to the same extent as this one--then by all means, they'd deserve their own mainpage articles as well. This subject is large enough and garnering enough attention that it demands its own article, and there's no other appropriate place for it (I'd be open to a rename if someone has a better idea, but that discussion can happen on its talk page). Tarinth (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, 100%. WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument for deletion, nor does WP:IDONTLIKEIT carry any weight. This article as it stands needs to be addressed and this article provides real-world reliable and verifiable sources from prominent national publications covering the issue. If you can find any corresponding references to WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV, they might be subjects for articles, and I will be more than happy to support your creation of such articles once the needed sources are available. This is a real-world notable subject for an article. One has to love the irony of seeing the article's subject played out right here at an AfD nomination submitted ten minutes after the article was created. Ah, the folly's of deletionism, which can be best enjoyed if you appreciate the entertainment value. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way it's written now replicates most of the material at Meta Wiki. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never actually read the Inclusionism page, so no bias here. Your observation that they're similar probably means the sources are doing a good job. The article better reflect the viewpoints, or else what is it for? –Pomte 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I understand why people are uncomfortable with this article. I remain convinced that the article should stay, because it does seem adequately demonstrated that our internal processes have become the subject of controversy and discussion outside the internal forum. It could be argued that this is a case to invoke ignoring "notability" rules; editing controversies maybe shouldn't be made article subjects, even if they are subject to studies and opinion pieces by external sources. Still, plenty of articles already contain similar material. Part of some people's discomfort might be remedied by moving this to a more transparent title, like Controversy regarding appropriate content in Wikipedia. "Inclusionist" and "deletionist" are insider jargon, and it does sound a little bit like the war between Big-Endians and Little-Endians. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A discussion regarding that could be held once the AfD is completed. Are you now suggesting a keep? (For what it's worth, I think the article is too long and too specific to become simply a part of an article on Wikipedia in general, and the article also has information from at least one German source). The English Wikipedia article already has a practice of externally referencing significant controversies, such as the Seigenthaler_controversy. Surely a general article with the level of coverage this one has received should also have its own entry? Tarinth (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge is not the same as keep. I was never against a merge, in fact I advocated a proper merge in the beginning. The question is, what to merge to? Either Wikipedia (documenting wide-range controversies) or English Wikipedia (documenting controversies involving English-language Wikipedia) are acceptable solutions to me. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Tarinth: Look here, since you're the author of the original version, can you re-write the article in such a way that it clearly references different wikis in general and not just Wikipedia? If this controversy is just something within Wikipedia community then it's pretty minor and does not deserve a separate entry. If, however, this is something that is common to many wikis out there, i.e. in all wiki-communities there are inclusionists and deletionists, and there is a fierce battle between them, then perhaps you can re-write the article to document this? This would really be a big help! Because, in this case, the "navel-gazing" argument would not apply -- but it's up to you to provide the arguments and/or sources!!! Best regards, Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, relax. The article has been undergoing major construction this entire time, and continued comments about your personal standards don't help. Come back in a couple of days. –Pomte 00:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea all right don't worry! I'm willing to wait any time, remember there's no deadline. But, as it happens, it's not about my personal standards -- it's about my ideas about what is an encyclopedia! (I have no problems if other users have different notions -- I respect that.) Cheers! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has been synthesized that is not stated in the sources? Is he really majority contributor (have you checked diffs)? I'm wondering how you have concluded that such problems can't be fixed. –Pomte 01:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this "logic" ( of "possible huge conflict of interest due to the fact that the creator and majority contributor is a self-labeled rabid inclusionist"), is that the article written by this so-called "rabid inclusionist" provides a rather thorough and well-balanced summary of the issue with dozens of real-world reliable sources. It's not writen from an inclusionist persepctive or from the deltionist view; it covers the topic using the ample reliable sources available. The far more logical conclusion of your concerns regarding editing philosophies being imposed by individual editors, would be that all votes from deletionists should be ignored at AfD -- here and at all other such debates -- due to their huge conflict of interest. Alansohn (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not leave. Never will everybody agree with you; there is always somebody who does not share your views. But that does not mean you should give up. Be persistant! SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're going to quit WP just because you can't get an article deleted that you want deleted? Threatening to quit is rarely a persuasive argument. Tarinth (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only part of the article that implies the issue could be widespread is a phrase in the first sentence, and I added it only to potentially expand the scope based on comments above. The "unnecessary" detail provides context and is relevant to the issue; imagine a reader who doesn't know Wikipedia processes. Your labeling them "minor" essays on meta is not compatible with the attention put on them by reliable sources. –Pomte 16:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, if Britannica sparked a controversy that garnered international media coverage in reliable sources like USA Today, the LA Times, Der Spiegel, National Post, Business Week, The Telegraph, The Inquirer, IDG's CIO magazine and the Washington Post; plus scholarly research on the specific subject from Harvard Business School and the Journal of the American Society of Information Science -- not to mention the tens of thousands of posts on the very subject within the blogosphere from sources as noted as TechCrunch on down; then I'd say that yes, in that case a Britannica-related controversy would be notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. (for those who are still confused with what constitutes notability, I recommend reading WP:N so that you may present a better argument on what you feel constitutes notability or "encyclopedic content" that is unaffected by your subjective judgments on what you like or find interesting.) Tarinth (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the record, "Britannica does not suffer the same issues and criticism, but I suspect this is due to their selection process happening behind closed doors."[39] –Pomte 12:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's any consensus on where it could be merged to. The article is now fairly longand distinct (significantly improved relative to the AfD, which happened while it was still in the process of being built...) The article is not about criticism of Wikipedia. The fact that these factions exist is well-documented and has received significant attention. This article explains the fact of these factions, the controversy, the background, and significant cases within the media. Even if there was an appropriate place to merge it, we're quite far from consensus on where that would be--and that would best be done in the talk pages of this article, and the talk pages of the potential targets. It certainly wouldn't fit in a "Criticism of..." article, and if placed in the main articles on Wikipedia or English Wikipedia it would take up too much space (although a brief synopsis with a link to this article is entirely appropriate, similar to how the Wikipedia article currently deals with the Seigenthaler_controversy.) Tarinth (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge into English Wikipedia would be anglocentric; consider all the links to meta and the non-English publications. –Pomte 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, how about my usual chainsaw-mergist viewpoint: Merge but cut the long-winded explanations. (An extreme illustration: "Inclusionists do blah[1], deletionists do bleh[1][2], there's a giant debate between these two viewpoints and it leads to a bunch of problems like zat[2][3], bleh[1][4], and qoof[1][3][5].") It's one possibility. But I definitely don't think the fate of this article needs to be decided now; We could just leave it here and maybe it will get fixed later. (Unless The Immediatists Attack® =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and chainsaw a version, but I've tried to be concise. The Immediatists are attacking; notice the implication of comments here that this article can never be encyclopedic. –Pomte 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsourced statements? This is perhaps one of the best-sourced articles that exists, with 28 references and citations for nearly everything (and things that aren't directly footnoted are rather well covered in previous citations already). Tarinth (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I found the following: "The Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians were founded by administrators.[9] Each has a page listing their respective members, charters and principles." Neither assertion was supported by any online, easily accessable reference. I'm not able to immediately verify the source cited for the first sentence nor the real online existance of the factions so don't know if the second is WP:FACT, WP:SYN, WP:HOAX or what.Trilobitealive (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations are right there. For the first one, it's on page 16. For the second, page 25. These page numbers are clearly documented in the citations, and both are online in PDF format. The second one is French, so you can use the translation device of your choice to verify the statement. –Pomte 18:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I can see the documentation of the assertion. But where is a plain language statement in the text that the associations are found on the Wikimedia.org and not the wikipedia.org site? Why isn't there a link similar to Association of Deletionist Wikipedians in the article? Do you see my point or not? Being a relative newby and entirely ignorant of this controversy before this last Thursday I find this most confusing. I may have to go back and edit the article to correct this.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY talk contribs 04:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalu (band)[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable band. Creator declined prod on the basis that they have multiple, non-trivial media references. These are yet to be found. tomasz. 14:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Your personal inability to understand the references has no bearing on the notability or verifiability of the article. I have difficulty understand many references given for articles about mathematics, even though I have studied the subject at undergraduate level, but that doesn't mean that I demand their deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If one cannot verify the sources, then the sources are useless. To the majority of users of the English Wikipedia, these sources are not verifiable because they are not in a language they can read. There are no translations provided, so for the English Wikipedia, these are not enough. DarkAudit (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as attack page. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaylee[edit]

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

Contested prod; removed by anon IP without explanation. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or collection of descriptions of slang terms. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... page was deleted under CSD. Nevermind. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, suggesting to actually add the found sources to the article. Tikiwont (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boyband (New Zealand band)[edit]

Boyband (New Zealand band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is a host of issues with this page. First is verifiability, searching google for boyband along with 'new zealand' - some links do come up relating this band to some sort of contest winner, but I'm not sure if I see any reliable secondary sources. The page attempts to show notability by them being the winners of some sort of show, but I'm not sure how accurate that is. The band's website is a dead link. Let's see if anyone knows more about this and if it should stayGwynand (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm ready to withdraw this, but before I do, could someone produce a better link to the #1 hit reference? It looks legit, but these links seem a little questionable. That being said, assuming this band had a # 1 hit (even on New Zealand charts, which notability I am not sure of), I think the page can stay, with the page being tagged with a few templates to encourage improvement.Gwynand (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a citation to a newspaper in Christchurch, The Press. Their single did indeed debut at #1 in October 2006. I find it a little hard to believe myself! --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable not because of the contest, but because they had a #1 hit on a national chart. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although this article currently has sourcing problems, a sufficient number of wikipedians felt it should be kept. Interested editors are encouraged to continue to search for sources. JERRY talk contribs 12:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitespace (programming language)[edit]

Whitespace (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Esoteric programming language. I have not been able to find any coverage in reliable sources for it. Most coverage seems to be in blogs, and Google Scholar returns no results at all for "Whitespace Programming language." [40] Snthdiueoa (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm, I wasn't aware of the previous discussion: there was nothing about it on the article's talk page. However, none of the arguments in it address the issue at stake: there is no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Snthdiueoa (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is a link to whitespace http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/whitespace/

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slartibartfast[edit]

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

No assertion of real world notability. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 contribs 00:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BoyBand[edit]

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

Makes a claim to notability (has been on TV) but may still fail WP:MUSIC. Doesn't have an entry on the All Music Guide which is extremely comprehensive. No sources cited and the generic name makes searching for sources difficult. Searching for t4, boyband, popworld produces nothing referring directly to this group. If nothing else, fails WP:V at the moment and quite possibly WP:N as well. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I did a brief search and NOTHING comes up on this little thing called the internet. This may be due to the tough search term of 'boyband' which is so generic, but even with qualifiers I didn't see anything. Definitely doesn't appear notable, certainly not verifiable. I know this isn't scientific... but the picture of the "band" looks like a hoax picture. The entire entry could be a hoaxGwynand (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification - I meant that "BoyBand" is not a hoax, and "Boyband (New Zealand band)" is not a hoax either. For sure.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Fat Wah[edit]

Big Fat Wah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Doesn't even have an entry in the All Music Guide which is extremely comprehensive. Only claim to notability is this. I get under 150, and about 23 unique ghits. Ghits for the name of the only song they are known for are even less numerous. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the YouTube video is a tape recording of something that was broadcast on television in 1991 - but that in itself does not make this band notable.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes them even less notable, as nothing's happened to them in the past sixteen years to make them any more notable. That video has just 1,443 views, which isn't enough for it to be considered even a small internet meme (even if it was, it was still be NN). There's no sources about the band on the page or virtually anywhere else on the internet. They still fail WP:MUSIC either way. Doc Strange (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This band is not an internet meme in any way whatsoever. Just a non-notable one-off pop act who had a brief television appearance, I think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said they were. I said that even if they were an internet meme, they'd still be NN, and that 1,443 views on Youtube doesn't make them notable. They're just a band. They only appeared once - briefly - on a NN show. Doc Strange (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 appropriate content to one or both of two possible target articles. Specific action to be discussed by interested editors elsewhere (I suggest: Talk:Baby Fozzie). The result of this AfD therefore is a default keep for now. JERRY talk contribs 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Fozzie[edit]

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

No stand-alone notability. Certainly not for the baby version. Poor writing, unreferenced original research, and third-party reliable sources that are not trivial are unlikely to exist.

I am also nominating the following related page:

Baby gonzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very little of this content actually looks like it's worth merging. Maybe like one sentence describing the existence of baby fozzie.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per article sourcing. Keeper | 76 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Rowing Club[edit]

Glasgow Rowing Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 12:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little Glasgow Sport information in Wikipedia and almost nothing about rowing in Glasgow. The history of the sport in the city is the clubs. Currently only GUBC is listed. GRCSecretary (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, you don't give much encouragement. When I look at 'Glasgow - sport' the picture is all wrong. As long as you stop entries dead in their tracks, so it will continue.GRCSecretary (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any difference intrinsically between the Glasgow article and (e.g.) Molesey Boat Club GRCSecretary (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that GRCSecretary has a point (but also a WP:COI from the username). This should not be speedily deleted, let the AfD run its full course so that third-party sources might possibly be found. See WP:N.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Isaby[edit]

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

Nominated for WP:PROD but the tag was removed by an IP address. I do not think this meets the criteria of WP:N. Notability seems to come from being deputy editor of a Telegraph column, having been chairman of a university society, a researcher for the BBC and an author and founder of an 'informal drinking group' (which only seems to be mentioned on blogs). It is also full of unverified facts WP:V and weasel words WP:WEASEL - while these alone are not enough to justify deletion a tidying of the article would leave very little left. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete g1, obvious nonsense (medieval knight named "Joshua Banerjee"). NawlinWiki (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Banerjee[edit]

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

Unsourced, tons of unlikely claims, can't find anything about any of the other people mentioned in the article maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 12:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY talk contribs 02:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Emory[edit]

AfDs for this article:
David Emory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is largely unreferenced conspiracy BS. Five references are included, and it's doubtful whether any one of them constitutes a reliable source. Two references are to a book published in 1981 by Paul Manning; as far as I can determine, Emory himself is not even mentioned in the book. Then there are references to Emory's own website, and to some fringe filmmaker who is allegedly making a documentary about him. A large portion of the article reads like spam. I put a prod tag on the article and it was removed by an anonymous editor. The last AFD verdict was to keep the article but remove various policy violations. That hasn't happened and there is no evidence it ever will. This article appears to be owned by a handful of conspiracy nuts. *** Crotalus *** 12:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--This is interesting. Someone--"Crotalus Horridus"--who declines to use his or her real name moving to delete an article about a syndicated talk show host, whose work has been on the air in Los Angeles, New York, the Silicon Valley and a number of other places for decades. After removing references to Emory from mainstream publications such as "The Washington Post," the Anonymous Ones claim that there are no mainstream references to Emory's work. Odd. Deleting references from mainstream sources and then claiming that no mainstream sources recognize him is revealing of the focus of the critics. "Rattler" might do a Google search on Emory. The filmmaker working on the documentary has excerpts from another work about Emory available. It is not an "allegation." Later--Farstriker

Here's what Peterhoneyman already listed:

He is quoted in this NY Times magazine article.
  • Weiss, Philip (1997-02-23). "The Clinton Haters; Clinton Crazy". The New York TImes. Retrieved 2007-11-04.
The Washington Times suggested he was the inspiration for Mel Gibson's movie Conspiracy Theory
  • Head, Tony (1997-08-29). "Real life conspiracy theories that inspired Mel Gibsons new film". Washington Times. The Washington Times. p. 60.
He is quoted in another Washington Times article
  • Scarborough, Rowan (1995-05-03). "Hate broadcast from left wing often overlooked; Some urban stations full of venom". Part A; Culture, et cetera. Washington Times. p. A2.
This one is particularly apt
  • Strachota, Dan (2001-11-28). "The plot to get rid of Dave Emory". SF Weekly. Dave Emory [is] one of the nation's foremost chroniclers of fascism and governmental funny business.
Here is an article about a ham-fisted attempt to silence Emory
  • Zinko, Carolyne (1996-04-30). "Airwave Pirates Block Show Foothill College". Peninsula Edition. San Jose Mercury News. p. 1B.
This article has a couple of paragraphs devoted to Emory
  • Thomas, Kenn (1994-01-16). "Clinton Era Conspiracies! Was Gennifer Flowers on the Grassy Knoll? Probably Not, but Here Are Some Other Bizarre Theories for a New Political Age". Outlook Section. The Washington Post. p. C3.

David Emory often mentions the "controled demolition freaks". Well one of them wrote this article. The tip-off is the whole anti-Zionist propoganda as well as the 9/11 lie of controlled demolition. Those who believe this are simply mentally deranged; have issued to say the least. So mention of this should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zensixties (talk • contribs) 02:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here an additional article:

  • "JFK Conspiracy", City News Service. August 21, 1997. This article involved a 1997 JFK conference Dave Emory was a speaker at. The ADL was protesting this particular conference because of some of the anti-semitic nature of some of the speakers, including Michael Collins Piper. Piper refers to Emory as his "ideological adversary" in that article, and it mentions that the two often fight at different JFK conventions:

Also, the 2nd story referenced by Peterhoneyman, "Real life conspiracy theories that inspired Mel Gibsons new film" (where Dave Emory is said to be the 'most obvious' real world inspiration for Mel Gibsons character), was also printed in the Scottish Daily Record. So add international news references to Mr. Emory's CV.

The folks that continue to push for the deletion of this entry need to address the numerous publications that have mentioned his work. --Newsie23 (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GéNIA[edit]

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

Delete NN musician Mayalld (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, merging might still be an option, but would need further discussion.Tikiwont (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of New South Wales railway station codes[edit]

List of New South Wales railway station codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This topic has no notability as it is unknown outside a narrow interest group and has no particular importance or impact. It is unlikely to be of interest to a general encyclopaedia reader, and the codes are already individually listed on railway station pages Quaidy (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not all of the stations in the list are in Sydney. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accountability mechanisms in local governments in Kerala[edit]

Accountability mechanisms in local governments in Kerala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Essay-style article on rather arcane topic. Dougie WII (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See other related articles by same originating editor:

Comment: I have moved these discussions here as they are substantially similar. There may be one or two comments on the old discussion pages which have been lost, but I have moved the pages to the oldest discussion which had the most comments. Apologies if one or two contributions are missing, but I felt this was the most efficient way to discuss the articles. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please make an objective examination of the article before deleting the articles. I am the largest collector of books on decentralisation in India and can say authoritatively that the contents are undisputed facts and not personal perceptions. Many of the points are from official government records. As well, my ignorance of editing made it imperfect. I can make it better by learning the editing techniques. Regarding references, I can attribute innumerable.

See for example the reference list in the Kerala Decentralisation : Problems and Prospects, those problems are mainly consolidated on the basis of a study by Institute of Rural Management, Anand - a most respected institution in the country.

K Rajasekharan, Creator of the article

NB :- I donot know writing my original name infringes the rules of Wiki. If so, kindly excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajankila (talk • contribs) 12:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cheers, Keeper | 76 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salzburg Forum[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication as to what the topic in question is about, maybe OR as well? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 10:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; much improved from the COI version.--Kubigula (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tobias[edit]

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

Autobiography, it seems claim to notability is mostly based on films, but aside from IDMB listing them, I see no indication of their notability (IDMB contains almost no information on any of the films ... or even user comments, Google doesn't turn up much more). Scott.wheeler (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's still pretty rough around the edges and I consider it a threshold case for notability. If it survives the AfD some more cleanup would be appreciated. And usually, yes, barring convincing evidence, my goal is to flush articles people have written about themself (even moreso if they're poorly done). Scott.wheeler (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you may consider revising your approach. Even if an article's current condition is unacceptable (POV, COI etc), this is no grounds for deletion, but for improving it. Iff reliable, third-party sources to demonstrate sufficient notability and to verify basic information cannot be found should an article ever be deleted. User:Dorftrottel 13:19, January 24, 2008
  • For the same time and effort spent disrupting Wikipedia with this AfD, our nominator should have done the basic research that Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires be done before the mad dash to AfD, and made the edits the policy mandates to address any concerns, which would clearly have obviated any justification for deleting the article. That these obligations appear to have been ignored raises significant questions regarding this AfD, and other nominations that may not have been addressed in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy. One of Wikipedia's policies is to flush editors who fail to observe this fundamental policy. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for assuming good faith and all. I'm not new around here and I feel like it's pretty clear from my nomination that I don't believe that this entry meets WP:BIO. A non-notable award, some non-notable books and a bunch of non-notable films don't add up to notability. I tend start off more skeptical in the case of autobiographies and the first several pages of Google hits don't turn up non-trivial sources, hence me not being convinced. As the only two sources that were since added are subscription-only, and presumably Mr. Tobias wasn't reading them when writing about himself, I still believe that a deletion debate is justified. Scott.wheeler (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You described yourself as having not just an interest, but a "goal" in flushing content, hardly a description of good-faith editing activity. That you are not new and yet are still so unfamiliar with your obligations under Wikipedia:Deletion policy -- which requires a good-faith effort to research notability, edit, improve or merge content before pushing for deletion -- only raises even greater cause for concern. While you are still utterly convinced of the subject's non-notability, a cursory search finds dozens of sources on Tobias, dozens of which are non-trivial discussions of Mr. Tobias and his work. The material in the sources in the article establishing notability is in the sections of article text available even to those of us without a subscription. Even if the links provided were removed from the sources, the articles would still stand as clear evidence that the real world media disagrees in the clearest possible manner with your dismissive snort at this article. While your WP:AUTO issues may have had validity before other editors such as myself came along, you are forced to deal with the article as it stands. As it stands, notability is established. Alansohn (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, I'm not sure if you took my original comments personally or what, but please try to adhere to wiki etiquette. I appreciate the work that you've done to bring this article further along, that's great. It could use some more. Please try in the future to word your disagreements more respectfully. For example, the comment just above yours said basically the same thing, without being inflammatory. While we could keep arguing over the semantics of flush, cursory, non-trivial or good faith it's beyond being relevant for the present discussion. Suffice it to say, if there is anyone else reading this far and debating registering their opinion I'd encourage them to do a quick search themselves, keeping in mind that most search results for Michael Tobias refer to others by the same name. Scott.wheeler (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tesalonica Clemente[edit]

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

non-notable finalist of a Philippine musical competition. Google searches say that she didn't develop notability afterwards Lenticel (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solaufein[edit]

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

Disputed prod and prod2, with the reasons "Non-notable fictional character" and "This article fails WP:V, WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF." Procedural nom, no opinion as of now. UsaSatsui (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard Wrestling Federation[edit]

Backyard Wrestling Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Prod raised questions about whether or not this was a hoax, with no google hits or sources. I'm inclined to agree, and at the very least, there's no proof of notability. UsaSatsui (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shoreline School District. Whether, what, and where to merge is, as always, an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Room Nine Community School[edit]

Room Nine Community School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable community middle school. Shortage of RS to establish importance and notability. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 School District 43 Coquitlam. Canley (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Drive Elementary School[edit]

Cedar Drive Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school - importance not explicit, and searches do not reveal anything noteworthy. Also, talk page might indicate WP:COI. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all that have been merged to Canada Wide Media Limited. Tikiwont (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AnimalSense[edit]

AnimalSense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Appeal Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bark! (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BCBusiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Granville Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PeopleTalk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Soar Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TV Week (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Westworld Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Westworld Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Westworld Saskatchewan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BC Approved Accommodation Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
99 North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Waters Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BC Restaurant News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grocer Today (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Burnaby Board of Trade Directory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mineral Exploration Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Truck Logger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Numerous articles on non-notable magazines published by Canada Wide Media Limited. I suspect the creator of all these articles and of Canada Wide Media Limited, Matthewt123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is affiliated with the publishing company. I have merged the content of the articles to Canada Wide Media Limited and suggest the magazine articles be deleted rather creating an excessive number of redirects to the company. Jfire (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete, patent nonsense. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 12:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital marxism[edit]

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

Original research / neologism / nonsense. "Their effort redistributed to charitable projects" - what does that mean in the context of social networking sites? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPling Inc.[edit]

IPling Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was up for speedy deletion but the speedy tag was removed; the entire article has a promotional tone and reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. KurtRaschke (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Extraordinary Adventures of Jane Arinton[edit]

The Extraordinary Adventures of Jane Arinton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:HOAX. Googling yields zero hits. I can't find any information linking the author to anything even related to the topic. Article fails WP:N and WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with hopes that the young child will want something different for Christmas next year :-) (see comment #3). Cheers. Keeper | 76 21:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piraka[edit]

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

Another contested prod Original research essay about a non-notable fictional group of characters. No real world context and all sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mum of child who talks - apparently - complete gibberish, the article was very useful to ensure I bought the right Christmas present - very important! I now have some idea what hes been going on about! 19:42 UK time 24th January, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.220.237 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 contribs 00:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roodaka[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Roodaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another contested prod Original research essay about a non-notable fictional character. No real world context and all sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 contribs 00:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Muhammad[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Richard Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was speedily deleted before AND had an Afd discussion going at the time in which all votes cast were for "delete". Not enough significant changes by parties without a conflict of interest have occured to justified inclusion. Is not notable, and the article appears to be nothing more than a vanity project. DJBullfish (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe article is most likely being primarily edited by either the subject itself or a personal assistant or friend *of* the subject. DJBullfish (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted - the current machine translation was WP:CSD#G1 patent nonsense. The foreign language version has been moved to the appropriate Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De ludo tactione[edit]

De ludo tactione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Content duplicates Tag (game) Meyer (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discussion at WP:Pages needing translation into English#De ludo tactione. -- Meyer (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Heh. I forgot to look at the article's history. That's one bad machine translator (although the typos in the original Latin didn't help). Deor (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy keep. per nominator and clean-up on the article. Pastordavid (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana national college[edit]

Ghana national college (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Can't really tell what's going on here, but it's definitely unsourced, the last paragraph appears to be a violation of WP:NOT#SOCIALNET, and the rest looks like a copy of http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5017/school_history.html. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is also extremely poorly written and the style doesnt comply with Wikipedia article standards. - Ravichandar 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unencyclopaedic. As per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY.-Ravichandar 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect can be made if someone wants it that bad. Wizardman 17:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Intermediate School[edit]

Bell Intermediate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school. Most of page consists of non-encyclopedic content (including upcoming events, schedule, grading criteria, etc.), while usable text constitutes about two sentences. Recommend Delete Dchall1 (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

what do you mean by "redirect"

Redirecting will mean that the article when viewed will be Redirected to the district's article. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay you can do that but i dont know how —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.16.181 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find out what is written on the awards. That would help us find references for them. Kingturtle (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus


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

The result was Keep.

The article as it is now is clearly a copyright violation from http://www.everestpeaceproject.org/dvd_film_overview.html. As is This version. This other version is fine and will be moved to mainspace to replace the current copyvio version.DO11.10 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everest: A Climb for Peace[edit]

Everest: A Climb for Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nothing here michfan2123 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • See the talk page. I made a non copyvio less spamy (+ more references) version a while ago and mentioned it on the talk page. It's just been sitting there waiting for an admin to look it over. :) I'd forgotten about this article honestly or I would have brought it to an admins attention. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narziß Ruiz[edit]

I think this is a hoax. All the pictures on the article are not of him and it seems very unlikely that a 21 year old would be a notable philosopher so early in life. This appears to be a difficult case so sorry if I am wrong. Captain panda 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photos were temporary. This is the first article I've created, and I was just trying to figure out how to post pictures. More information on his philosophy will come when I have more time, I find it very interesting. However, I just wanted to get down some biographical information on this student. Semiology (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous that people are marching around with their torches, it seems to me this is a blind, unfounded, and overdone. Wikipedia torchers are not compassionate to the manner of trial and error concerning how to create a page on wikipedia, and they don't even read the entire article before they start to argue their vast understanding of names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semiology (talk • contribs) 06:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blind, unfounded and overdone what? And how about addressing the more important issue that the college you named doesn't exist? Don't get angry because you got caught in a hoax. JuJube (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the college does exist. The problem is that they don't offer a philosophy major - indeed, as a community college, they don't offer any bachelor's degree programs. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the criterion now. Thank you BigHaz. I can't figure out how to delete the article. Semiology (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regular users can't delete articles, although now you've indicated that you believe it should be deleted, I would imagine an admin will delete it shortly. Before anyone says it, I can't use my admin powers here, since I've contributed to the discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus between keep and merge, certainly deletion is not the consensus. However, I am redirecting to List of pigs because all the material is currently there. Mangojuicetalk 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of pigs over 1000 pounds[edit]

List of pigs over 1000 pounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A pointless collection of facts about animals that are only united by weighing a lot. Tavix (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get confused by the title. They're all notable, and they're all pigs. That's enough to keep them together. That they all weigh over 1000 pounds is a bonus. For a suggested solution, see my !vote below. The Transhumanist 08:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The form of classification is pretty funny and unencyclopaedic. Animals could be classified by species, genus and other similar forms, but I dont think a list of pigs by weight is required. Also it isnt a big deal that someone has discovered a pig which weighs 1000 pounds or more. You cannot call that a notable achievement worthy of being recorded in an encyclopedia. -Ravichandar 07:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was transwiki to Wikibooks. Action has already been performed. Justin(c)(u) 16:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Atlas Shrugged[edit]

Structure of Atlas Shrugged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no significant structure of Atlas Shrugged. Since it is just a three part novel with thirty chapters I see nothing very special about it. I believe that this soft redirect is unnecessary. Marlith T/C 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Oxymoron83 06:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List Film Scores with Solo Piano[edit]

List Film Scores with Solo Piano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Arbitrary conjunction of two non-related items. Why not List of films with oranges on the table? Corvus cornixtalk 03:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus/weak keep (keep on a vote count, no consensus anyways). Non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nakor[edit]

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

I doubt very much that this fictional character is notable in itself. Of course, there already are articles about the author and some of his books. Goochelaar (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what counts as 'notable' for a fictitious character, but he is a major character (in the top 3 in importance) in the Riftwar series. Marjaliisa (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genki Dama[edit]

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

A ridiculous level of detail ... an article devoted to a single attack mode in one anime series? No third-party reliable sources at all, either. Kww (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 contribs 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deregowski's cross-cultural study on perception[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Deregowski's cross-cultural study on perception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unreferenced stub on an academic study, with little more than a bald statement of the conclusion, and not much detail on anything useful. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Terribly written is not a valid reason for deletion. (Though I wish it was, personally..) Wizardman 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Allanah Scully[edit]

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

    Article is terribly written, but makes a claim of notability for sure and is not totally orphaned. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lord (band), action complete. JERRY talk contribs 15:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Dowling[edit]

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

    The article does not assert the notability of it's subject via reliable sources. Note: If this can be fixed in a timely manner, I'll withdraw the AFD. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 contribs 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Swaminarayan articles[edit]

    List of Swaminarayan articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    A list of topics in alphabetical order is completely redundent by a category Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Catogorizing will have exactly the same effect as this list. Pastordavid (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete all. JERRY talk contribs 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Emirates Airlines awards and accolades[edit]

    Emirates Airlines awards and accolades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    These articles fail WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. All of these articles are sourced only to the airline's PR department. A mention of 1 or 2 of the awards in the main airline article is sufficient; we don't need sprawling lists of airline-related PR on WP. Russavia (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they too fail all of the above:[reply]

    Malaysia Airlines awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Russavia (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Singapore Airlines awards and accolades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Russavia (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Keep Malaysia Airlines awards & Singapore Airlines awards and accolades These 2 pages have been nominated for deletion but failed due to most wikipedians felt these pages should be kept. Jannisri (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decoupling of multiple nominations: As Singapore Airlines awards and accolades has already passed a previous AfD process, and that there has been no major changes since the last nomination as per Wikipedia:CCC, I hereby remove this article from the above nomination. Users are welcome to initiate individual nominations on these articles subsequently.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I have reverted the above changes by Huaiwei, as he was not the instigator of this Afd process, and as [Singapore Airlines awards and accolades]] has been part of this process since the beginning of this Afd discussion, I don't believe he has the authority to remove any other article from this process. --Russavia (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aimee Allison[edit]

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

    Unreferenced biography of a living person, questionable notability, likely promotional. Dougie WII (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "editorial" you cite is attributed to: "Ben Wyskida is a writer and activist living in San Francisco. He is a volunteer with the Aimee Allison campaign, obviously, Go to www.aimeeallison.org. " Hardly an independent source IMO. That's the problem with this, there are plenty of hits but if you dig deeper most seem to be from her organization or closely affiliated activist groups. - Dougie WII (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually agree about editorials in general not being reliable sources, I was trying to be cute with the whole "Why Aimee Allison Matters" title. Still, leaving the editorial aside, you don't find the newspaper coverage nontrivial? Looking over my hits, I guess some of the problem is that a number of these newspapers require payment for their stories, while I can view them on Nexis. There's a certain element of her being a "go-to" person for a certain kind of quote, but I can actually locate a small story about in the San Francisco Chronicle from way back in 1991 about her applying to be a conscientious objector . If you have Nexis access, the story is here. She clearly is one of these people who knows how to get her name in the paper, but does appear to have nontrivial mention in multiple sources. Xymmax (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that mentions in the Oakland Tribune provide notability. She ran, unsuccessfully, for City Council in Oakland. That guarantees some coverage in the Oakland Tribune. If she had won, or if her campaign had sparked interest outside the Bay Area (or even across the Bay Area), then I'd consider that she might be notable. But being the friend of a reporter and thus getting "woman in the street" quotes doesn't create notabililty. Heck, the woman she lost to doesn't have an article here. Argyriou (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please recall that if the subject is notable is what matters, not the article quality. The newspaper links provided above appear to be enough, but I honestly don't have an opinion here. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cathay Pacific. Content here minimal and doesn't seem ideal for the target article, so I'll leave merging up to others. Mangojuicetalk 18:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Asia Miles[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Asia Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The article is unsourced, provides no claims of notability, and consists nothing more than a list of wikilinks with absolutely no context. The previous version of this article was removed after not passing its previous Afd Russavia (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing seems to have been addressed. W.marsh 03:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arborland Center[edit]

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

    Non-notable mall in Ann Arbor. Only source is another wiki. A search for good sources found none. Makes a couple of unsourced claims and that's about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 02:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 contribs 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The BattleGrounds[edit]

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

    This article reads like a game guide and an advertisement and, while while it may be an interesting concept, I do not see where this meets the criteria for notability.

    Also note that, though I have listed a few HL2 mods for deletion recently, I did not list them together so that each can be evaluated separately. I think each article could reach different consensus and should be evaluated separately. Slavlin (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel that this is actually a good candidate for rescuing. It is a little user manual styled, but contains information that people would be interested to find, I see it as being not much different from Texas_hold_em. Erick880 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: If you feel that it can be re-written and sourced with credible sources, I think this could be a unique enough mod to allow for notability. If we can't get consistent high level media coverage, I would say significant low level media coverage in multiple publications and/or countries might do. I would be happy to know I was wrong on this one. That is why I didn't lump everyone of the mod nominations I have made recently together in one AfD. Slavlin (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 20:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blue Shift 2[edit]

    Blue Shift 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article has no assertion of the subject's notability, was created by a user with the same name as the mod and really reads like an advertisement/feature list. The only claim that I can see is being an unofficial sequel to a spin-off of a notable game. I can't see where it establishes any of the criteria for Wikipeda. Slavlin (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 contribs 04:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Bass[edit]

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

    Obviously an autobiography and lacks verification of any notability from sources other than his own website TheHammockDistrict (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-spam expert status - The only references that could be found are in documentation written by the subject about defenses against a particular attack, utilizing anti-spam featuresets that were already present in the MTA and built specifically for this purpose. The claim on the talk page as this work being a basis for all future anti-spam development as quoted on the talk page cannot be verified and is likely exaggerated.

    Blackhole strategy - No reference to this 'technique' can be found apart from within the subjects own documentation. If this strategy was the basis for other anti-spam developments, would this not be referenced multiple times by multiple sources other than the subject?

    Intrusion detection expert status - There are no references that can be found demonstrating the subjects claim of expertise in the field. Whilst the papers written describe multisensor fusion, no evidence can be seen that shows any formalization of this into anything tangible in the field of intrusion detection. Possibly his skills should be listed as in the much narrower field of multi sensor fusion and complex event processing.

    Talk page references to programming skill - Cannot find evidence to substantiate this claim, apart from within his own documentation on e-mail bombs. The war.com pdf is written by a technology editor who does not have the credentials to be able to comment on the subjects programming ability nor his security experience.

    Claims regarding other 'inventions' such as egress filtering were also deleted in earlier edits as these were demonstrably not inventions of the subject.

    Ultimately it seems that the only potentially notable behavior is development of a multi sensor fusion paper. Whilst this is an interesting paper and has certainly been referenced by other graduate level papers, there are no visible references that are using the paper as a form of any other significant deriviative work and the publication itself is in no way significant or well known. Additionally Bass has not been visibly referenced by anyone else notable in the field of information security, or can independently be verified as an expert through reliable sources. As such the subject is novel, but barely notable and certainly not encyclopedic.

    Spatulacity (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The searches on the 'net do return some references to him, but almost all of them were written by Tim Bass. The notability guidelines suggest 'published peer recognition' not published self recognition. The usenix article as well as the ACM publication represent commentaries on the technology, and the state and direction of its developement by others; this does not constitue developement or design by the author (Bass). No software written by Bass or evidence of programming ability is anywhere to be seen, so I fail to see how the suggestion he is one of the best programmers in the country is useful to anyone but Tim Bass. This will probably be labeled a 'personnal attack' as well as other edits, but viewing the actual Computer security experts category quite clearly shows the level of notability required to occupy this page. In Tim Bass's defence, his is not the only page in that category that should be deleted out of respect for the people that actually deserve the title. The external links to silkroad basically take you to an ad-words site, and the reference - if you can find it - to his pioneering work in anti-spam techniques doesn't link to anything making that yet another unsubstantiated claim. The site simply doesn't apear to be the work of an expert in the field.
    TheHammockDistrict (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Every substantial edit of Tims page can be related to directly to Tim, a one time created account or a company directly related to Tim. The following accounts are most likely to be Tim editing his own page - 63.100.100.5 (Tim at Tibco), AFNETWORKING, EditorPerson99, FullMoonFallin, 70.174.144.171 (Tim), 68.93.134.193, 68.100.99.160

    This has been identified on at least one other occasion by another editor : User_talk:68.100.99.160 If Tim or the page itself were to be noteworthy, would it not be possible for at least one other individual to independently create and maintain this page? Spatulacity (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was No consensus (default keep). For more details see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pig mask. JERRY talk contribs 02:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pig mask[edit]

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

    Delete - fails WP:NOT#PLOT as a mere rehash of the appearances of the prop in the film series. The mask may be important within the series but there appear not to be reliable sources that establish any real-world notability. Otto4711 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep This "keep" probably won't mean anything considering how the mods deleted Hoffman's article, but in addition to being significant in all four films, the pig mask has also been sold as halloween mask, a number of action figures and models, and has been the subject of a number of promotional posters. The article does need work, but that doesn't mean we should all be delete-happy and get rid of it. (BTW, are you on some quest to rid Wikipedia of every Saw-related article or something??) --CyberGhostface (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just the ones that don't meet WIkipedia policies and guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    keep same as above though the vote will mean nothing because unless you have a shed-load of guidlines and policies to quote your vote doesn't count. An iconic part of the Saw series that needs a little work. Agent452 (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean the part of that essay that explicitly states that "per nom" may be sufficient? One can only hope. Otto4711 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're taking one part of the essay and ignoring the rest. It says in "instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues", which certainly doesn't apply in this case.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not ignoring anything. You posted your little 'look at the per nom comments' thing and I simply pointed out that it doesn't mean what you think it means. As for whether the nomination, which cites multiple policies and guidelines, constitutes a well-formulated argument etc., well, that's what we're here to decide. Otto4711 (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Hoffman article also led to 3 accounts being permanently band for sockpuppetry. Ridernyc (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think even without the sockpuppets the keep-delete ratio was still higher.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment To the closing admin: WP:PLOT states that articles should "[offer] detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." The article has since been accomadated with a section on the pig mask's development outside of the films, its impact on the series and on popular culture as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the independent reliable sourcing for this new material is...where exactly? I'm not seeing that hypebeast.com and action-figure.com really meet that standard. Otto4711 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Action-figure.com is a fairly reliable, neutral source for the field. I can't speak for Hypebeast (although I'm sure that would be) but if it isn't I can find another source to vouch for it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The action-figure.com link is a press release. so it dose nothing to establish notability. The rest of sources are not reliable sources. One of them is a ebay link. You need thrid party reliable sources that back up the statements made in the article. Ridernyc (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the links was a review of the pig figure.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 02:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    lets see just off the top of my head there is Motel Hell, and the original The Wicker Man and no there is no reason for a pig mask article unless you can find sources that have written about the use of pig masks in a critical way. Ridernyc (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Whilst I've made my vote already, the only issue I have with the suggestion of merging the content into Jigsaws article is that the pig mask/Billy were used by both Amanda and Jigsaw (and quite possibly Hoffman) and that merging the content will essentially make a completely "in-universe" section of the article Agent452 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • And as usual you have completely failed to address even a single aspect of any issue raised by the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    would it is possible to re-factor this as "The above comment does not address even ...." ? DGG (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This five-day AFD has now been open for 14 days. Otto4711 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a Saw fan. The article is about a notable theme in a notable series of movies. It pulls together information in a helpful way. What harm comes from keeping?--Wageless (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, asking What harm, combined with an assertion of notability, is a perfectly decent way of making a case for inclusion. You cite the "Arguments to Avoid" essay as if it's some sort of tantric text; recall that it's just an essay--it isn't a set of officially sanctioned protocols, and in fact there are thoughtful editors who would take exception to it. The reason we should ask What harm in a case like this is that the overzealous deletions of people's work, as here, do in fact cumulatively harm the future usefulness of the encyclopedia.--Wageless (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • not going to get into a huge debate about it here but non-notable fancruft like this is dragging the entire project down. Ridernyc (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A simple assertion of notability that is not backed up with reliable sources is not a component of a decent argument. No-it-isn't-yes-it-is exchanges are fairly worthless. And, not to get all "tantric" again but WP:USEFUL isn't particularly compelling either. All sorts of potentially useful things get deleted every day because they fail WP policies and guidelines. I would argue that keeping articles that violate WP policies and guidelines cumulatively harm the project by encouraging people to devote time and energy to maintaining such articles, setting the example to encourage the creation of more such articles and overall dilute the mission of the project. Otto4711 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My dear Otto, nobody's "violating" anything. Do you really think that if you succeed in deleting Pig Mask, the Saw people are going to devote themselves to touching up, say, an article on Robert Benchley or FPA? The mask is a big deal--it looms in peoples' imagination--and don't cite WP:LOOM, please. Your deletions are dilutions.--Wageless (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My dear Wageless, while I will not cite WP:LOOM, I will note that "looms in the imagination" does not appear to be a criterion for establishing notability. I will also cite WP:CIVIL. I have no idea what the "Saw People" will do with themselves should this article be deleted. Perhaps they'll devote themselves to looking at the other Saw articles with an eye to bringing them in line with WP policy instead of writing long rambling plot summaries and other unencyclopedic stuff. Maybe they'll find themselves a new hobby to obsess about. Maybe they'll be fine and dandy, like a hard candy Christmas. Doesn't really matter. Otto4711 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 contribs 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LG Chocolate (VX8600)[edit]

    LG Chocolate (VX8600) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable commercial product. Reads like an advertisement. Completely unreferenced, full of original research and how-to. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. Too few references are available that are not reviews and adverts; as such, a Wikipedia article that itself isn't an advert or review can't be sustained. Mikeblas (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: If we delete this, and we most likely will, we're going to have to rework the LG phones infobox as well. Two One Six Five Five discuss my greatness 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is obviously more work to delete and recreate the article. It is trivial to blank the existing article and rewrite it - no admin action is required for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. I could relist it again but it's pretty obvious no one cares if it's deleted :) Wizardman 17:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bahia Escondida[edit]

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

    Not notable private development. —Noah 17:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. No objections in 10 days. Since there was so little participation, I'll hear appeals on my talk page... arguments should address the nominator's argument for deletion. W.marsh 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cosmo speedway[edit]

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

    Should be deleted in accordance with the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music). 0kdal (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Oxymoron83 06:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Libertarian Youth Bloc[edit]

    Libertarian Youth Bloc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unclear encyclopedic notability. A youth party founded last month, aiming at candidacy for a model parliament. No independent sources. High on a tree (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY talk contribs 04:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Terry O'Neill (karateka)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Terry O'Neill (karateka) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Borderline notability. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Oxymoron83 06:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Baroness Grimm[edit]

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

    This was tagged for speedy deletion as nonsense. I contested the speedy as the article is not random nonsense, and asserts notability. It is, however, very likely a hoax: the subject is claimed to be a well known artist and writer, and most unlikely of all, a life peer of the United Kingdom. No apparent search results for the person or the peerage, however I am happy to withdraw the nomination if someone can find reliable references. Canley (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. The author created numerous nverifiable/hoax articles. `'Míkka>t 18:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Finally Here[edit]

    Is Finally Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Jonathan 01:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed the speedy tag, as it was an invalid A7. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not an invalid A7. Non-notable music by non-notable people is clearly a speedy deletion candidate. Corvus cornixtalk 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, it is invalid in that it is not referencing a real person, organization, or website with no claim of notability (i.e. vanity pages). I, personally, think this article falls under the intent of A7, but not under the letter. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. This is prime speedy fodder. i have used ((db-reason|Unnecessary song/album page of a deleted/non-notable artist)) to get rid of rakes of such articles. tomasz. 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sharon Stone (Flintstones)[edit]

    Sharon Stone (Flintstones) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This somewhat lengthy article is completely unreferenced and consists of nothing more than plot summary and unnecessary quotes. The character has only appeared in this one film, and there is no evidence to suggest that the chaarcter is notable enough to warrant a seperate article. Any relevent information should be covered in the main film article. PC78 (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Oxymoron83 06:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christoforos Zografos[edit]

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

    Delete few referees are notable, this one isn't; fails WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (under the speedy deletions policy). Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Site Explorer[edit]

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

    Delete not every internet tool or feature is notable; this unsourced article is about one that isn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete, no independent sources nor other indication of notability. Tikiwont (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    North Carolina Buddhist Vihara[edit]

    North Carolina Buddhist Vihara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non notable recent Buddhist temple. Speedy deleted four times, each time recreated, so listed at AfD to get rid of it once and for all. No Google news hits[53], only six Google hits[54], none of them indicating any notability. Fram (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PrabathKuruwita (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep as a result of the rewrite, and several of the delete voters reconsidering. Wizardman 16:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Murdock Middle School[edit]

    Murdock_Middle_School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

    Murdock Middle School is a very short article which doesn't contain enough information to show notability. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I pointed out that it is only proposed, but WP:ONLYGUIDELINE would apply as it is currently the closest thing to an official policy we have, flawed or not, and is as valid as any essay or policy in a discussion. Pharmboy (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the above !vote is that of the nominator, who appears to have reconsidered the deletion. JERRY talk contribs 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment we have in the past usually accepted Blue Ribbon schools as evidence for notability, --although it continues to be over my objections, it does seem to be the consensus. DGG (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Trading Post Magazine[edit]

    Trading Post Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article does not clearly indicate the notability of the subject. I can't find non-trivial sources on the publication, and I don't think it meets notability guidelines. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Redirected to The Elder Scrolls. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dremora[edit]

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

    Recreated article that was previously merged into a bigger article that was AFD'd; notability issues and lack of reliable sourcing issues still stand. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 contribs 00:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SkyscraperCity[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    SkyscraperCity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unremarkable website. Unable to find references to add. Ranked #68,937 on Quantcast. [55] Failed Prod Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete per WP:RS. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PCS (Factions)[edit]

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

    A two line article on a subject with very few Ghits so no WP:RS, and a book by an author who doesn't get one listing on Amazon. Looks more like a piece of cheap publicity than an suitable subject for a Wiki article Trident13 (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete A non-notable fictional country on a non-notable world in a non-notable book by a non-notable author. Perhaps even CSD:A7 - not even an assertion of notability. Argyriou (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lombardi trophy curse[edit]

    Lombardi trophy curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article seems to be filled with original reasearch and might possibly be a hoax. Tavix (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy delete a1 empty/no context, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of notable people who regularly wear spandex[edit]

    List of notable people who regularly wear spandex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Tried prod, author deleted. Total nonsense list, appears designed primarily to make fun of Lance Armstrong with the comment of "roughly 21 hours a day". Gromlakh (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I find it hard to believe that anyone would create an article like this in good faith. It's just ridiculous. Speedy G1 tag remains on the article. We don't have to go through process just for the sake of it here; it just needs to be speedily deleted. I would delete this per WP:BLP alone.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. Keeper | 76 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Red Sulphur Springs Hotel[edit]

    Red Sulphur Springs Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    A hotel like this one does not deserve to have a standalone article. - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ross Mullan[edit]

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

    Non-notable puppeteer. "Ross Mullan" + "puppeteer" returns only 16 results in Google Gromlakh (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep with cleanup (I'll add a tag to the article). Keeper | 76 17:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    San Soo[edit]

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

    Advertorial tone, minimal (some primary) sourcing, questionable notability. Was prodded (not by me) but contested. If kept will need a POV clean up Nate1481( t/c) 10:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Wizardman 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Dr. Floyd episodes[edit]

    List of Dr. Floyd episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Procedural nom as de-proded in June 2007. I realise I should have not requested prod again November 2007 so this is now brought forward to Afd for discussion. Article has no WP:RS reliable sources to establish WP:V verifiability. Although a podcast and not a television show, WP:EPISODE should be considered as it handles "List of X episodes" guidelines as it seems this list is based on. Breno talk 06:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:EPISODE doesn't apply, really, now that I look at it again. A lack of outside information is concerning, but no longer enough for me to !vote to delete. Neutral. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Instant Flight[edit]

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

    Possible Conflict of Interest due to creator's user name - possible promotion. No indication of notability. Wisdom89 (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiddly-Tom 17:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Demonoid[edit]

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

    Demonoid is (was) one of countless Torrent trackers on the web. There is nothing in this article to establish notability, and the article content mostly chronicles the site being shut down. No third-party sources for the article are given. -- Atamachat 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It is definitely a reason for deletion. If you look at WP:WEB, it states that the site should have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Every reference on the page so far has been to Demonoid itself, except for the "Ross & Bride" link which doesn't even mention Demonoid anywhere on the page. The lack of references isn't the only problem with this article however, the content of the article itself is a problem. Again from WP:WEB:
    Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known.
    What achievement has Demonoid had other than being shut down? What impact has it had, or historical significance? So far there's not much to this article aside from general info about Demonoid itself, and makes no assertion as to why Demonoid should be included as an article on Wikipedia. -- Atamachat 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A site can be the subject of reliable sources and yet its article can be devoid of them. We don't delete articles just because they have no sources, but because there are convincingly no sources. I said I would add some, so your questions were premature. –Pomte 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to be snippy, my questions were not regarding the reliability of sources but the establishment of notability within the article itself. I was explaining my nomination of deletion for this article, which has been under attack on this page. -- Atamachat 01:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one's attacking your legitimate nomination. Here I contested your claim that "It is definitely a reason for deletion." I'm clearly not talking about the reliability of sources either, but the existence of them. When I said "I will add some", that should suggest that these new sources will be part of the attempt to establish notability, by definition. –Pomte 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought notability couldn't expire?
    As I said, I don't see how it is notable. Not before it's closure and not after. If there ARE reasons the former webite is notable, it should be more apparent in the article page.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Notability can't expire"... That's false. Notability is not temporary. That means that for something to be considered notable at all, it needs to stay notable. For example, if some guy makes national headlines for surviving a 500 foot fall, and it all over the news for a week, and is then never spoken of again, he isn't considered notable. The link you give proves the opposite of what you're trying to say. -- Atamachat 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the guy was notable back then, then he is notable now. But in your case he wasn't. Staying notable is a misnomer. –Pomte 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not only are nearly thirty references given, but some of them predate the deletion proposal which leads me to wonder why the proposer said there were none.JulieRudiani (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Because the references were all to Demonoid's own web site, they weren't third-party references which is what Wikipedia requires for verifiability. The only reference prior to the AfD that didn't point to Demonoid itself was to a web site that didn't even mention Demonoid, it was about file sharing sites in general. -- Atamachat 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the second time you've ignored the citation to TorrentFreak.com. You could argue that it's not reliable, but it's clearly third-party. –Pomte 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ignoring it because it's a blog. Blogs are rarely considered to be viable sources of information on Wikipedia, see WP:V for details. -- Atamachat 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, and you could have said that at the beginning to avoid this exchange. –Pomte 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what the source says. –Pomte 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ?? Yes it does... --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Honorable Mention: Demonoid For being one of the most visited BitTorrent sites until they pulled the plug in November.

    "one of the most visited" does not mean the most used. –Pomte 13:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that being slightly pedantic, they have made their point. --Sin Harvest (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It'd be a much stronger claim to notability if Demonoid was used more than The Pirate Bay. People who don't click links might take their word for it. –Pomte 07:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Demonoid was a public tracker, they kept repeating that all over the forums. Arc88 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was snowball keep. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas Wilcher[edit]

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

    Disputed prod. I removed a speedy tag on the basis of comments at the talk page. I disagree with the remover of the prod that the source given is sufficient to necessarily pass our notability criteria for sportspeople, but am happy to be persuaded otherwise. Looks to me like a very good sportsman who didn't quite make it at the top level of athletics or American football and I'm inclined to think he's therefore not quite notable. A debate will no doubt clarify things. Dweller (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KeepThis article has twenty sources with more coming. When the nominator says "I disagree with the remover of the prod that the source given is sufficient" what does that mean. Also, "like a very good sportsman who didn't quite make it at the top level of athletics or American football" is not quite appropriate either because his notability is not based on professional accomplishment as outlined at Wikipedia:Bio#Athletes, but instead based on Wikipedia:SPORTS#Amateur_sports_people. As a two-time Michigan H.S. Athlete of the year who went on to become a NCAA champion and three-time NCAA All-American he passes this hurdle.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note Wikipedia:SPORTS was rejected by the community, as the tag at its head states. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summary for the prod removal referred to one source in particular, but while it is reliable, it does nothing more than prove college amateur sports career, which doesn't seem to cut the mustard with our notability guideline. It's more than possible that the guideline needs fixing, but I can only go with what is. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I say keep it, sure it could use some work but Mr. Wilcher is recognized as one of the best in the state of Michigan, he also had a respectable college football career and holds numerous MHSAA records in football and track & field. Jake (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep I really see nothing wrong with this at all. Well written and well referenced. Why delete it? michfan2123 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep I think Wilcher's NCAA and MHSAA track championships make him notable. I note also that the author (a very productive editor) states that he intends to put the time into beefing up the article with additional sources and references. If the author wants to put the time into this piece, I would not discourage it.Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - I'm the one who removed the PROD template. I'm no expert on Wikipedia criteria for sports articles, but it seems to me that Wilcher's record of accomplishments as a two-time Michigan High School Athlete of the year, NCAA track champion, U of Michigan football player, and a successful/influential high school coach add up to the sort of distinctive career that is considered "notable." The issue raised on the talk page was a dearth of "secondary sources published about him." Based on the record of his accomplishments in high school and college (which are documented by reliable secondary sources), I believe that the absence of news media profiles and similar sources is due to the fact that his accomplishments predate the Internet (two decades have passed since he was in college). If he were an active college athlete now, I believe there would be no dispute over his notability because there would be an abundance of recent coverage. --Orlady (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rationale explanation Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My concern was based on our guideline at Wikipedia:Bio#Athletes. I'll quote it in full:

    Athletes

    • Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
    • Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).[8]

    My concern was that he fails on the first point and on the second too, as the highest level of amateur sports is not college level, nor national, but international. I'm obviously swayed by the number of RS that report on his achievements. Hence my somewhat ambivalent nomination. Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep and rename to Bibliography of atmospheric dispersion modeling. (I've already completed the move procedure) Please also note, I strongly feel the Atmospheric dispersion modeling#Further reading section should be updated to include a ((main)) tag leading to this article. As closer, I will not be making that change. Keeper | 76 20:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Air pollution dispersion modeling books[edit]

    Air pollution dispersion modeling books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I'm sure that air pollution dispersion modeling is a worthwhile topic, but this page is a bibliography, and is only a listing without any indication of the notability of the topic of APDM books. It is a violation of Wikipedia is not a directory. My PROD tag was removed one minute after I posted it, with the edit summary "this article has survived almost two years with no complaints. prod removed". I found the article by hitting the Random article link, so maybe it was just its time. PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep with an additional consensus that this needs cleanup (so tagged). Keeper | 76 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Half-Life 2: Capture The Flag (Mod)[edit]

    Half-Life 2: Capture The Flag (Mod) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This reads like a detailed guide and advertisement for a game mod. Though other mods do have their own pages, this article asserts no notability for the mod itself. Slavlin (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry, but how does the current state of the article relate to the merits of the topic and how the article can be improved? --Kizor 05:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're confident that the sources you have can pass notability then keeping the article for now and allowing sufficient time for you to get to it seems only fair. Changed accordingly. Valve's stunt is certainly worth covering, but the guts of game articles are 'gameplay', 'reception' and 'development'. At the very least a crisp gameplay section and a reception section with at least two separate views, along with reliable sources, are enough to sustain an article. If other editors agree that Planet Half-life's review (this one in particular), Mod Database review and/or Half-Life Fallout review could pass as reliable sources then I'd have no problem with it whatsoever - coupled with the PC Gamer review that'd make a reception section. Someoneanother 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy deleted per A7. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Piper (car)[edit]

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

    Delete another unsourced 1-line article about a small car maker that makes reproduction cars - does every autobody shop get an article around here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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