< January 30 February 1 >
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. Black Kite 02:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pompeia Paulina[edit]

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

I suggest that we delete this page because it simply repeats information available on the seneca the younger page. The statement that Paulina would have wanted to commit suicide because she was Seneca's wife is laughable and pure speculation. The only information we have is that given in Tacitus and it is poor historiography to imagine you can construct anything detailed about the actual events described. You cant write biographies on the basis of references in ancient authors as if you were writing modern biography. Seneca_2007 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain what else you plan to add to this page? What is here simply repeats what is on the seneca the younger page. Perhaps you could explain and cite the discussions of her "in some of the 100s of books written about the period". I think you will find the discussion of her in the scholarly literature exiguous. She may be mentioned in several books but it is only in connection with seneca's death. Seneca_2007 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "As Pompeia was wife of Seneca, Nero's tutor, it would be expected that she also wanted to die,". So yes the article does make the laughable suggestion. Who says it would be expected. Tacitus doesnt. This is just another example of sloppy work. Why dont we have pages and pages of wikepedia entries of all the people who are mentioned in Tacitus for whom there is no other information. Perhaps that could be a new project for someone who thinks that this sort of entry is useful. But no-one sems bothered by the fact that the information on this page repeats what is on the seneca page. Anyone clicking the link on paulina will simply find exactly the same information that they have already read. Seneca_2007 (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you prepared to do the work? Do you know anything about Roman History. The page on Boccaccio's famous women does little morer than list the women he wrote about. It is nothing more than a list and another poor piece of work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seneca 2007 (talk • contribs)
The page is not well referenced with excellent primary and secondary sources. Only one of the links for the secondary sources works and it does not offer any discussion it simply paraphrases Tacitus. I dont think you can have looked the references up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seneca 2007 (talk • contribs)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vixen (film)[edit]

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

Film explicitly fails future film guidelines and asserts no notability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:58, 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 | Disclaimer 20:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern deathrock bands[edit]

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

All modern death rock bands are already listed in Category: Death rock, which encompasses all death rock groups - not just "modern" ones. Funeral 23:05, 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, proving once again that consensus can change. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pål Johan Karlsen[edit]

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

Orphaned, and notability is a problem here. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:01, 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. — Scientizzle 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Bolah[edit]

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

Procedural nomination; article was prodded, deleted, restored with message "15 revisions restored: contested prod" (?), reprodded, and deprodded (by me). Taking it to AfD to sort it out. Jfire (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Jfire (talk) 01:15, 24 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, — Scientizzle 22:51, 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 -- Andrzej Kmicic gives a prefect reason. — Scientizzle 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nash Brennan and Jessica Buchanan[edit]

Nash Brennan and Jessica Buchanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tempted to speedy, but this doesn't fit neatly into any of the categories so I figured I'd go here. This page has very little information, each character here already has their own page. No new ground being broken, no indication that the couple is notable enough to warrant a page distinct from their individual pages. Gromlakh (talk) 01:12, 24 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, — Scientizzle 22:51, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of classic deathrock bands[edit]

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

Besides the obvious POV vio in this list (who decides which bands are "classic" death rock), the bands in this list, along with "non-classic" death rock bands, are already listed within Category:Death rock. Funeral 22:47, 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andesu shônen Pepero no bôken[edit]

Andesu shônen Pepero no bôken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability, orphaned, no external links etc. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We might as well snowball keep. Nobody is going to seriously argue that a 26-episode globally broadcast TV series is not notable. --Gwern (contribs) 07:44 3 February 2008 (GMT)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In spite of the lengthy defense of this article by many new or quasi-new contributors, the lack of authoritative sources (as the nominator puts it) about the author is and remains a fundamental problem. Fram (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just ridiculous!!!!!!!!!![edit]

The only reason you seem to offer to delete this poet is that YOU DON'T KNOW HIM!!!!!! How ARROGANT!!! Do you know all poets in the world???????? This is just RIDICULOUS!!!! You may not agree he's a metaphysical or whatever... But Thios is meant to be an encyclopaedia... INCLUSIVE, not exclusive, and there are dozens of links to prestigious webistes, including the Guardian and the British Library. FFS!!!! Get a life. Wikipedia deserves its bad reputation!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.87.45 (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Bulla[edit]

I think it's time there was an article. I counted articles and pages on him in the hundreds, magazines, and I read his books have charted, one apparently settling as second highest charter for a living poet in the UK after Seamus Heaney (!!!) for weeks. Whatever the billion reasons below, there are five or six books of his on the market, lots of articles, reviews and stuff. Not an expert on Wikipedia, but it looks weird that with so many links no one has written one and I'm not good at writing and don't know enough, sonwon't do it and don't want to. But some of the boffins should — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.165.15 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

I came upon this poet after his name was added to Metaphysical poets. After clearing out the wiki-mirrors used as references there doesn't seem to be anything here. He's published a couple of articles in national newspapers, but the only other sources are of dubious authority: [2], [3], [4]. I can't find anything to substantiate his notability. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I posted about 20 links to newspaper and magazine reviews of his work that have since4 yesterday been deleted.
KeepShall I point out that this poet is sold worldwide, and my links made clear that top-grade academics rate him as an outstanding poet. Also the very link above, greatworks, is opne of the most authoritative poetry webistes in the uk, and shall I point out that the article is signed by T Harrison? So, if you don't know you are talking about someone who is studied in most universities around the country, please DO NOT delete my links. It is also incorrect to say that he has published 'a couple of artcicles': his collection of poetry is available from Blackwells as well and Amazon. Moreover, there are [plenty of articles on him all over the internet. Now, the person above who has deleted more than half my links, would be pleased to know that it will take me time to re-intrioduce the 20 or so articles written on him. The 'couples of newspapers' mean no less than 'The Guardian', by the way, one of the most prestigioyus newspapers in the UK, and with a FEATURED article, not just a few words. So, whoever has nominated this article for deletion should actually look at the oputstanding achie3vements of an academic poet whiose work is by many regarded as great, instead of editing my own article deleting links to reviews of his work to make it seeem as if there is nothing on him on the net, and so cinically ignoring that his work is sold all around the world,. There was a list of more than 20 links to it just before this person decided to tamper with it.
Now, the fact that User:Ethicoaestheticist does not know of Adriano Bulla, is not reason enough to delete a published poet and critic, who has been featured in one of the most prestyigious newspapers in the UK, who has been reviewed by one of the most prestigious English poets and who is widely documented on the internet. As to the link to the metaphysical poetry, I would suggest that the above editor reads an article called 'the conceit of movement' ON Adriano Bulla published in no less than the Times Literary Supplement, which unfortunately is not online, but if we do not count the Guardian, the TLS and Greatworks online as authorities in poetry (He also is featured in Canned, by the way), against the word of a single editor on the basis of his own opinion, then THAT would be an insult to Wikipedia's notability standards. Bulla also appears in OTHER encyclopedias online, and the editor above has been so careful as to delete the links to these encyclopedias. I suggest User:Ethicoaestheticist reads some of his poetry (as I said, he can purchase it online all over the world, or contact Blackwells, a pretty famous distributor in the UK)and makes up for his/her own lack of information, rather than assuming that because s/he does not know him, the poet has never published, never been reviewed or never been featured in magazines, newspapers and webzines, and trys not to delete links to prove a point of 'non-notability' when a search on google will find hundreds of pages with the poet's name.
So, Ethicoaestheticist proposes to delete an article about a poet that s/he does not know by 1- stating the false ('a couple of artcicles' while famous retailers and worldwide online retailers have his poetry in stock), 2- duiscrediting sources (and I would like to see how s/he can discredit the Guardian or Greatworks) and reviewers (which says quite a lot, as they are all lecturers). Now, my case is simple, the poet DOES EXIST, HAS PUBLISHED (I actually posted the ISBN of one of his collections, so, let's try and discredit that now), his work IS AVAILABLE, reviews ARE AVAILABLE online and in magazines, authoritative 3rd party sources ARE PROVIDED, the opinion on his poetry is given in quotationsn, and yes, he is not an old poet, but given the fact that there are plenty of online and paper sources ON him, Wikipedia MUST feature him. Or is Ethicoaestheticist suggesting that no online source is fully traceable? Even there, sorry, but 'The Guardian' is, Blackwell is a one of the biggest book retailers in the UK (the biggest maybe?), unlike most sources on OTHER people who seem to be only online. My sources are online as well as online records of paper sources, therefore, sorry, there is no reason to doubt them (even ukpoetrylive, which by the way is an official poetry website, publishes a paper magazine, and the feature contributors there all have articles on Wikipedia, I don't see why Bulla should not....) Thanks. Now, my contribution to his article on the Metaphysical Powets comes from an online review of his poetry and a TLS (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) article about his poetry which SHOULD interest Ethicoaestheticist if s/he has any interest in metaphysical poetry, and I expressed it as 'some consider Adriano Bulla as a modern metaphysical' which is not deniable. When Dr Asbee (Cambridge University!!!! , the OU) says that in a review, I think it is worth mentioning. Ethicoaestheticist may not agree, but cannot deny that some critics see Bulla as such, and how can s/he not agree if by his/her own admission s/he has never read Bulla's work? Maybe before asking to delete the article Ethicoaestheticist should have bought one of Bulla's books and read it, and to his.her surprise, would have found that Bulla exists, writes, is published and is reviewed around the world. TonyBrit (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBrit (talk • contribs) 10:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep one thing uis deleting the entry from the metaphysical poets, another thing is deleting a published and revied poet from wikipedia. If you dont agree hes ametaphysical, fair enough, but you canmt deny that he exists, hes been published, his books are available (I have them!) and is reviewed online. BY the way, yes, TonyBrit is right Dr Asbbe who reviewd him is cambridge lecturer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.26.72 (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no difference whether he's a Cambridge lecturer when he isn't writing a peer-reviewed article or an academic book. Not everything a Cambridge lecturer happens to write on is necessarily notable, any more than anything they happen to mention in conversation. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No doubt. 1- all articles here are supported by online evidence, so why not this one? It has online evidence on specialised websites. 2- It is clear that the aricle talks about a real published poet, some poems are available online and of course, there is the ISBN and the evidence that he is sold in the UK, Canada, France and Norway. 3- There is no reason to doubt what is said about the poet, as it is well supported by evidence. I do not see anything in the article that may suggest any hint of mendacity. 4- I for one have a copy of Ybo' and it IS an amazing collection. 5- It is clear from the quality of the articles ON him that they are very academic, one a very good study in comparative literature [5]. 5- Are we arguing that he shoud be deleted from the list of Metaphysical Poets? No problem, but the fact that he might not be a metaphysical does not mean that he does not exist, has not published and has not been reviewed. 6- Shouldn't Wikipedia be comprehensive? So why eliminate a poet that is sold in shops and reviewed while there are articles on much less significant people? Or should we only include articles on extremely famous people? He certainly is not the most famous poet around, but he must be known to have articles published on him in different websites, and nowadays it's so hard to publish poetry that of course having a whole collection published and sold in bookshops is a feat in itself. 7- I can see other authors who have been proposed for deletion, there is no comparison between the quality of the sources for A Bulla (different sources of established webistes) and the total lack of sources in the other authors. 8- I actually think it is a decently good article, factual and to the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.168.162 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I exist and have written books that have been reviewed and read on three continents - it makes me a "real published historian"; it doesn't make me a notable historian. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bulla's book is published by Poetry Monthly Press [6], which specialises in self-publishing. Here are their terms: [7]--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of courseThere are actually more links on the Adriano Bulla article to sources than on the onbe on the Metaphysical Poets, so, if we simply go by the rule that we need evidence of notability, well, there is (on Wikipedia) more evidence about Bulla than the Metaphysicals themselves. Now, that the Metaphysicals are famous there is no doubt, but we canot use paper sources on wikipedia, so, as things stand, at the moment, the article on Bulla is better DOCUMENTED than the one on the metaphysicals. Whether his name should appear as a Metaphysical, it's a matter for the editor of that article to decide, but how can HE suggest that a better documented article should be deleted? I think it's a good article, balanced and what is the point in requesting paper sources that canot be quoted online? How many articles are there on wikipedia that refer to paper sources? Plus, it is evident from the article, the reviews and the poems themselves that Bulla is an extremely talented writer - if young. I find it rather upsetting that someone who allegedly likes poetry would like such a poet to be ignored. And what could be bad about having an article on a poet on wikipedia? Does it by any means hurt anybody to document the work of a talented writer? Even his newspaper article in the Guardian is extremely well written. I bought his collection from a bookshop, and yes, I appreciate his work and am pleased to see a some information on him here. I have also noticedfrom the vandalic attacks (some silly comments, like that he had chlamydia appeared) that seem to be proof that the article is receiving attention and the name is known, maybe not a best-seller so far, but do we only put best-sellers in Wikipedia? Most of the writers would need to go then... Now, Patience Agabi's article has only ONE source, and an online source. Should she be deleted? Even the article on Derek Walcott has about the same number of sources as Adriano Bulla's and of course all online - should the nobel prize winner be deleted? At least Bulla has a paper record in The Guardian and UKPoetryLive as a source. How can this be denied?
Again, The Guardian reference is not a source on him: it's an article by him. UKPoetryLive is "a source", but not what wikipedia requires: a reliable source; it's basically an "experimental poetry" fanzine. And "Adriano Bulla, whose articles on post-colonialism and on identity have been published in 'The Guardian', has agreed to write fierce article against the current canonisation of what he calls'minor amateurs'." Oh irony! --Paularblaster (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never said it was ON him, as stated in my article, it is BY him. TonyBrit (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above ukpoetrylive is 'basically a fanzine'. How inaccurate is that? ukpoetrylive is not anyone's fanzines but it collects and publishes articles on experimental poets, amongst others Mapanje etc... Read the editorial policy, all submissions need to be provided with contact details, only published writers can be reviewed, there are links to other sites, and it publishes its own paper format. By the way, Bulla appears in LINKS August 1998 ISSN 1366-4557, a specialised poetry magazine, and in Openings 16, 1999, an anthology published by the Open University. Plus I read that comment on amateurs, well, again (talk) misread the article in ukpoetrylive, Bulla seems to be meant to attack the examination boards, calling them amateurs. I suppose, again, that is his own opinion, but that is what criticism is all about. I agree with the comment above, there are plenty of poets here whose only source seems to be a reference online, I do not see what the problem with the sources on Bulla is. I have given varied sources ON him and by him, both greatworks.org.uk is a very establiseh site, with a clear editorial policy, a named editor and contacts, ukpoetrylive is all but a famzine, the articles there are of extremely high academic level, and contact details are available and must be provided to the editor on submitting articles, I have now given you two magazines where Bulla appeared. Now if your game is simply discrediting all sources, then I suppose we could delete half the poets on Wikipedia. I do not see different sources for most of the other contemporary poets on Wikipedia either, as stated by someone in a post above. Shall I make a list of poets whose only source is an online reference? I have emailed ukpoetrylive on the subject of the reliability of the webzine, informing them that (talk) calls it a 'fanzine', which is really against what is clearly stated in the editorial policy, and clearly does not accept articles that are not of good academic standard. I still would like (talk) to get in touch with greatworks.org and tell them that they, despite being one of the mostauthoritative organisations (.org) online when it comes to poetry, should be regarded as liars. (talk) assumes that sources that are regarded as reliable on their own for other poets should be regarded as non reliable for Mr Bulla. Why? Double standards? TonyBrit (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If half the poets on wikipedia could only be referenced to websites like ukpoetrylive then yes, they should be deleted. Please list them. Reviews in reputable (fact-checking) newspapers and discussions in peer-reviewed academic texts, as well as certain types of edition are of a completely different order of verifiability and notability (which is not to say that ukpoetrylive does not partially meet both descriptions, but I'm sure the editor would be the first to tell you it doesn't entirely meet either). As I said, a review in the TLS would be quite sufficient for me, but although one has been claimed to exist it is referenced neither here nor in the article. I would say you seem to have a much lower opinion of fanzines than I have; personally I have nothing against them except that they don't meet the guidelines on verifiability. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Keep There isn't only ukpoetrylive that Paularblaster keep banging on about, there is also greatworks.org.uk. And Blackwells and stuff. I think that there are quite enough sources to establish that what is said is true. Also, first Paularblaster said ukpoetrylive was a fanzine, now it meets some of the standards. Well, some of the standards met by ukpoetrylive, all met by greatworks, the Guardian - which is there as a reference to him as critic maybe- and what is his problem? Shouldn't wikipedia try to provide AS MANY SOURCES as possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.254.89 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that it was one of the people here who "keeps banging on about" ukpoetrylive - after I pointed out that the references to The Guardian are to pieces of journalism written by the subject, rather than pieces about him written by someone else. The reaction to my mention of fanzines, and the apparent belief that my further remarks indicate some sort of retraction of the comparison, reveal unsuspected depths of snobbery. Any decent fanzine would meet some of the standards; the point is that they don't fully meet the standards. And in that respect greatworks.org.uk is certainly no more a reliable source than ukpoetrylive is. Wikipedia should be striving, in the first instance, not for lots of sources but for one or two policy-compliant sources; which is to say: references in other encyclopedias and reference works (no matter how specialized in scope), major newspapers, top-level academic textbooks, peer-reviewed academic works. Just find one of these to demonstrate this writer's notability in a verifiable manner, and the article is sure to be kept and can then be fleshed out from things like ukpoetrylive at will. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis does Paularblaster discard ukpoetrylive (partially) then neglects greatworks.org.uk? He wanted paper evidence? I have given an Open University anthology and another magazine, all registered publications.
An example of a poet who has an unreliable source? Gillian Clarke, her own website is cited as the main source and a small biography on an unofficial site about Welsh poets [8][sohttp://gillianclarke.co.uk/home.htm], . Delete her then. No reviews ON her are given, no proof of her importance as a writer is cited. So, my article is actually supported by MORE EVIDENCE and 3rd party evidence, Gillian Clarke's isn't. Double standards?TonyBrit (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the subject being anthologized, if you read the policies and guidelines again (and yes, I know we shouldn't be slaves to them) you'll see that writers being published is not sufficient; they have to be written about in secondary publications of the type detailed at WP:V. Arguments that an article should be kept because strictly comparable articles have not (yet) been deleted are generally discouraged (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but if you do really think that Gillian Clarke cannot be edited up to scratch, then do please nominate the article for deletion. As I've already said, I'm not much of deletionist so if you could just give the reference to the TLS review you mentioned I'll be able to check it when I'm in the library on Thursday and will happily withdraw my seconding of the nomination for deletion. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been invited to comment on this article. I am the editor of ukpoetrylive.page.tl. I do not know the poet personally, but do know his work, as it appears many other people on Wikipedia.org. I must strongly object to the comment posted by Paularblaster above, that ukpoetrylive is a 'fanzine', and I am pleased that the same has later on changed his mind. Our editorial policy is very clear, only published writers can be reviewed, we check every reviewer's details, which must be given to us, and we do not accept articles from amateurs or of low academic standards. I find it very unfair to have my site defined a'fanzine'. I understand a fanzine to be a website set up to promote an artist, while mine only accepts very academic articles, and we do have difficulty finding articles that satisfy our standards, and does not promote any artist, it simply records academic studies, rather than reviews on experimental poets in the English language. We do not have any direct contact with the artists. In Adriano Bulla's case, I must say that he is the most visited poet on our website. All our featured poets have an article in Wikipedia, and links are provided. The articles on him are undoubtedly of very good standards. Should Paularblaster wish to contact me, I would be pleased if he sent me an email. Personally, I first heard of Mr Bulla from a friend, a lecturer, who introduced me to his work. I bought his collection online and did a google search to know more about him. I found an article on him in greatworks.org.uk, a very established poetry website, which also has a biography of the poet that seems to match what is reported on wikipedia. We have recently contacted Mr Bulla through his school, the prestigious Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College in London and asked him to contribute a review, having been impressed by his style in the article he published in The Guardian. He has accepted but such review is not ready yet. The reason why we have contacted him is that, as stated above, we DO find it difficult to have submissions that satisfy our academic standards. Other featured poets in our websiuite are J Mapanje and P Agabi, however, we have found less good quality work on them than on Mr Bulla. Ukpoetrylive (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-+

No offence intended; I clearly take a higher view of fanzines than Mr Bulla's fans do. My own notion of a fanzine is not that it is a promotional website (or indeed any kind of website, or any kind of promotion), but that it is a publication by which fans can share their reflections on the subject of their enthusiasm - reflections that can be complex and profound. I was much impressed, in just this respect, by the zine of the Charles University Tolkien Society. It is a form of publication for which I feel much affection, but sadly it does not fit wikipedia's guidelines on sources, and so far as I can tell ukpoetrylive does not either; as the ways in which they do not are strictly comparable I saw no harm in drawing the parallel, which was intended to elucidate rather than to belittle. I have explored your site, and bookmarked it for further reference, but even with the undoubtedly high intellectual tone it strikes me very much as being about sharing an enthusiasm (in the best tradition of the fanzine), rather than about enforcing the rigorous policies that should typify academic peer-review or media fact-checking. The way that you encourage readers to send in reviews is one of the things that weighed in my assessment. Other editors may think otherwise - these discussions are all about reaching consensus. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Keep I wonder what Paularblaster means by peers? University lecturers certaibnly have a right to publish well written articles on poets they have studied, as they do on our site. We DO NOT ALLOW anybody to post, all posts come through the editor, it is not a free for all'. Paularblaster uses rhetoric, 'it strikes me' 'enthusism' to DISTORT facts as stated. If a Cambridge lecturer published an article ABOUT him (Sue Asbee) that means at least a peer has talked about him, not to talk about the other 4 signed articles available online. His comment on our forthcoming article BY A Bulla, (quote 'the current canonisation of what he calls'minor amateurs'." Oh irony!') seems to imply that Mr Bulla should be deleted because he has no right to express his views and is not FACTUAL nor relevant to the point, unlike our page, which IS factual.Paularblasteris therefore using irony to prove a point about whether the Wikipedia article is supported by online evidence. I will tell him, irony does not count as evidence! We are as a site non-committal with regard to Mr Bulla's views on the examination boards, but will not prevent Mr Bulla from expressing his views on his peers, as long as his article meets our academic standards. We also find that he should have kept the argument factual insteead of using sarcasm. No wghere in the deletion policies here is written that if someone posts a sarcastic comment on a poet he should be deleted. Paularblaster may disagree with Mr Bulla's views, but that does not give him a right to DISTORT FACTS. I suggest that if he disagrees with Mr Bulla's views he reads the article and provides us with a counter article, if it meets our standards and we are given his contact details, he will receive a call from us to discuss the publication of his work on our website. We do not appreciate PaularblasterPERSONAL assessment of our site as 'sharing enthusiasm' about poetry therefore being a fanzine. Of course a site about poetry has an INTEREST in poetry, butb all our articles are traceable, well written and highly academic. What he UNDERSTANDS to be a fanzine does not make our site a fanzine, as what he understands is not FACTUAL. A fanzine is a promotional site dedicated to an artist, not a general site about poetry where academics can post. Moreover, every submission is screened, publication on our website is not open to every 'fan'. I find Paularblasteruses HIS opinions to prove a point, and why should we listen to his opinions against signed articles by academics that have provided contact details? We do not claim to be a famoyus website like www.greatworks.org.uk where Mr Bulla is reviewed more in detaiil and where there is a biography of the writer (which Paularblaster keeps ignoring), however, we ARE a serious poetry website. So far, our counter says that more than 1,200 people have read the articles on Mr Bulla, which tells us that there is interest in the poet, given the fact that such articles are not easy to read and poetry is not read by many in the UK. Paularblaster seems to be on a personal crusade against Mr Bulla and our site. As someone posted above, a lot of other poets, including Gillian Clarke, are supported only by what really is OPENLY a fansite as evidence for a Wikipwedia article. Our site is about experimental poetry, not Mr Bulla alone, who is ONE of our featured artistrs, not the only one. Paularblaster also seems to be fighting a very lonely battle on the whole, as it appears that the great majority of posts on this thread are against his views, and more for FACTS. Ukpoetrylive (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ukpoetrylive might like to try reading Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette, as well as deleting one of his duplicate "keep" recommendations. I can assure User:Ukpoetrylive that I am not on a "personal crusade" against Mr Bulla; when the article on him was nominated for deletion I looked for sources to save the article and could find none that conform to wikipedia guidelines and policies. Since simply pointing this out I have been inundated with comments and replies (the "great majority of posts" referenced by User:Ukpoetrylive, although all posted either by one IP or another, or by User:TonyBrit, so it's moot just how many people are involved in the discussion). These replies, I feel bound to point out, indulge in all the classic non-reasons such as WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFF, irrelevant appeals to authority along the lines of "this was said by an academic" (flattering to us academics, but not useful in this context), insinuations of some sort of ulterior motive from WP:SPAs who themselves might benefit from reading WP:COI, and still nothing to establish Mr Bulla's notability in terms of wikipedia guidelines and policies. Sorry for the list of jargon, but it is almost comical how every trick in the book is being put on display, as though in a deliberate showcasing of bad AfD arguments. I won't go into the various (mis)readings of my own arguments immediately above, since they hardly seem to be to the point. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an experienced commentator, in fact I have joined just because invited. So forgive me for not following all these strange etiquette rules. However, everybody can contact me, my email is on my website, and what I say has no less value because I know little of wikipedia acronyms than others. Thanks Ukpoetrylive (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep notability proved in greatworks.org.uk and backed up. credible article Logastellus (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source needs to be found to substantiate the claim that Sue Asbee [9] has indeed written an article about the poet, whether in an academic journal, a newspaper or even on a credible website. The reference in the article is to this [10], which is clearly inadequate (and gives the name as A.Asbee). It occurred to me that since Asbee teaches at the OU and it has been claimed in this discussion that Bulla's work appears in an Open University anthology, that perhaps Asbee once said some nice words about her students' work, and that is where all this is coming from, but that is just conjecture. By the way, the Openings website makes clear that the "The magazine is not considered a publication per se, rather it is produced by the members for members"[11]. The Openings anthology homepage is here: [12].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The flaw with the argument here is thatEthicoaestheticist and Paularblaster show problems with SOME of the sources, however they do not tackel the main source I provide. Not everything on the net is 100% reliable, we know that, but assuming that PART of the sources are not reliable while ignoring my main source is not an argument that stands. As to Dr Asbee, well, I did not even enter that source to start with and have entered the comment carefully, also because there are some typos in that review. It is by NO MEANS what my article's reliability rests on. I will here point out again that iit is requested that there is a reliable and verifiable 2nd part source (http://greatworks.org.uk) by the guidelines. FAILING this (!!!!!!!) a series of different sources should be provided. I have provided different sources ON TOP of the first one. I would really invite the two supporters of deletion to comment on this. Attacking back up sources and ignoring the main source is not a reason to delete. TonyBrit (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paularblaster proposes deleting the article on the basis that he /she thinks ukpoetrylive is not a reliable source. My counter-agrument is that...

1- IT IS NOT THE ONLY SOURCE PROVIDED. http://www.greatworks.org.uk is one of the most authoritative poetry websites in the UK and has a more comprehensive review of Bulla's work than ukpoetrylive as well as a biography. So far s/he has completely neglected the other sources provided and has turned the argument into a discussion about ONE OF THE WEBSITES provided.

2- OTHER POETS HAVE FAR LESS RELIABLE SOURCES. As I have pointed out, Gillian Clarke has just her own website as a source (that is a 'fanzine'), no review of her poetry at all, yet that seems to be sufficient.

3- SOURCES CAN BE OF ANY MEDIA, according to the guidelines, well, I have provided sources in paper form and on the net. Different ones all saying the same thing. However, Paularblaster is now asking me to provide a hyper link to a paper source. That is not possible and I have provided publication and ISSN of an Open University Anthology and previous publications. These ARE NOT ONLINE. I would like then to see the same treatment for other articles. I do not see paper sources for most poets or writers on here, I have provided reference for Mr Bulla, and still Paularblaster is not satisfied.

4- HIS COMMENTS ARE NON FACTUAL. Use of sarcasm will not prove anything. S/he should read the editorial policy of ukpoetrylive and not assume that the site accepts evrey submission. S/he seems to think that it is a 'blog'. It simply isn't, and is not backed up by other than his 'impression'.

5- UKPOETRYLIVE is not a 'fanzine'. Which shows that Paularblaster is willingly attacking a source. It appears that the website does not allow anybody to post freely on it. It checks all its contributors' details and expects very high academic standards. The editor has offered his availability to be contacted. Still, Paularblaster talks about his/her IMPRESSION (!!!!!) that the website is 'enthusiastic' about poetry as being unreliable. This is not in the guidelines. Nowhere is it written that specialised websites sshould be disinterested in their subject matter. It is a 3rd party website (and NOT THE ONLY ONE PROVIDED). Its policy is clear. I wonder what 'IMPRESSION' s/he has of Gillian Clarke's own website? Is it a 3rd party website? Is it not related to the author? I have provided a few examples where poets are included with sources that are no where near as reliable as the ones I have included. And why should his/her 'IMPRESSION' matter so much? Impressions are not facts.

6- I have provided a list of bookshops that sell Bulla's work. It is shown as available in different countries all over the world. This is not bad for a poet (we may remember that poetry is not as common as novels etc...)

7- There have been different comments on this article by different people. Paularblaster quickly discards them all (I count 4 different signed people), yet forgets that s/he is alone in his/her argument. I checked the other articles for deletion. I do not see the same INTEREST as in this poet's article. Not only, I see that most articles are very weak and really provide no 3rd party sources at all. This is a different case altogether.

8- S/He wants reviews by peers, yet does not accept lecturers as peers?

9- S/he does not seem to realise that for a poet to have 1,200 hits on a very academic article on him in a few months is a certain sign of notability. Or does he deny that there is a counter at the bottom of the ukpoetrylive page?


As to the link to the Metaphisical poets, as I have said, the author of the Metaphysical poets has every right to exclude Bulla from the list, but to delete an article on a poet altogether, backed up by online and paper evidemce, well, that's far too much.

I rest my case. TonyBrit (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. 1. User:Paularblaster has already addressed the issue of multiple sources: the point is not numbers of sources but compliance with policy and guidelines; 2. User:Paularblaster has already provided a link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; 3. see 1, and please recognize that User:Paularblaster has not asked for a hyperlink to a paper source; s/he has asked for a reference (not a link) so that a repeatedly but vaguely mentioned paper source can be checked; 4. User:Paularblaster has been consistently patient and polite, and has clearly indicated when his/her comments have been fact and when opinion; 5a. User:Paularblaster is appalled at the depths of snobbery elicited by his/her mention of fanzines, which is not a term indicating an attack, and suggests that some of the contributors to this discussion might like to read Fanzine just so that they know what one is; 5b. far from saying that enthusiasm for a topic is a bad thing, User:Paularblaster has referred to enthusiasm only in the context of defending fanzines from the outraged vituperation of snobs; 5c. fanzines do not print anything anyone happens to send in, and vary greatly in how scholarly they are, so the way in which ukpoetrylive differs from a more scholarly fanzine (one example of which has been mentioned a few posts previously) has yet to be established; 5d. Gillian Clarke is still a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS no matter how many times she is mentioned; 5e. User:Paularblaster's impressions matter because if User:TonyBrit wants to form a positive consensus he will have to convince other editors (of whom User:Paularblaster is one) that s/he can actually provide policy-compliant sources; 6. User:Paularblaster can provide a far from exhaustive international list of bookshops selling User:Paularblaster/Publications, but would not expect that to be counted as a verified assertion of his/her notability; 7a. User:Paularblaster might be forgiven for thinking that the consistent style of the postings in favour of the article (HisSpaceResearch's "weak keep" excepted) would justify a usercheck; 7b. User:TonyBrit seems to forget that User:Paularblaster came here initially to defend the article from deletion but was forced to conclude that the nominator, a different editor, was correct in seeing the article as one that fails to meet wikipedia's really rather modest requirements; 7c. User:Paularblaster regularly reviews articles nominated for AfD and proposed for deletion with the intention of saving articles that can be improved, and is struck by the extent to which this nomination has elicited responses (again with the exception of HisSpaceResearch) only from passionately invested SPAs, IPs, and from User:Paularblaster (who is thoroughly enjoying this discussion, but couldn't care less about Adriano Bulla except in so far as his inclusion meets wikipedia's guidelines); 8. "peer-reviewed" does not mean that Bulla's peers have reviewed his work, it means that a piece of writing by one academic has been subjected to anonymous scrutiny by one or more other academics before being published; it is also used more widely to mean the various related safeguards to academic quality that academic publishing maintains (such as sending books out to known experts for review, rather than inviting readers to send in reviews, as ukpoetrylive does); 9. ukpoetrylive has a counter on the site - I'm not sure that that meets WP:N or WP:V, let me just check ....; 10. (unnumbered postscript in original post) it is not the case that "the author of the Metaphysical poets has every right to exclude Bulla from the list": the author of the article, by posting it on wikipedia, has made it common (intellectual) property to be edited by any other editor; you have done the same; wikipedia is not a collection of single-authored articles, but a collection of mass-co-edited articles, and its contents are subject not to authorial preference but to community consensus. If you have any new infomation that would shed light on this matter please do post it. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep A good article with good reference. Blueswan1967 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)— Blueswan1967 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am pleased to see that User:Paularblaster entered the discussion to keep the article. But s/he is still dodging the question of http://www.greastworks.org.uk and keeps talking about ukpoetrylive. The most comprehensive information on A Bulla comes from the former, not the latter, which is used as an extra source. I do not feel there is any snobbery. I simply commented on the use of sarcasm and 'impression'. TonyBrit (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted many sources and I do not understand the problems Paularblaster has with them, so, I will go through them one by one.

1 - http://www.greatworks.org.uk/poems/thab.html It is a very famous poetry website, has a rather comprehensive academic article written by T Harrison on A Bulla, which clearly states that A Bulla is a force in literature to be recognised. User:Paularblaster has not commented on this source at all, yet, it is thee main source fror my article.

2- http://www.greatworks.org.uk/texts.html the same website with a biography of A Bulla, which matches what is in my article.

3 - http://www.ukpoetrylive.page.tl User:Paularblaster seems to have reservations about this site. Yet, S C Gale, the editor has joined in on my request and re-iterated that the site only accepts academic articles by academics whose contact details are checked. SC Gale also states that the rather hard to read articles on him in the website he moderates were read by 1,200 people in the last few months. That certainly is a lot for a poet, and given the high quality of the articles, one would not expect that number. The counter at the bottom of the pages shows quite a few visits (up to 100) a day and in their LINKS page, A Bulla seems to be more popular than all the other featured poets. On this very day so far, 88 people have read reviews of his poetry on this website according to the counter. That ADDS proof to the notability argument which, as I have said mainly rests on http://greatworks.org.uk All this is recorded DESPITE the editor, if I am not mistaken. Please check out the editorial policy of ukpoetrylive http://www.ukpoetrylive.page.tl/SUBMISSIONS.htm I do not see where they contradict wikipedia policies , i.e. 'the subject of published[2] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]'

4 - http://www.scilt.stir.ac.uk/Languagesnews/TEFL/tefl200381.htm This is the Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. It's a National and official website related to the University of Stirling. I have included this reference to prove that A Bulla has status in the academic world, and the article pertains Post-Colonial policies.

5- http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4811005-108281,00.html is from The Guardian. Now, I have never said that there are articles on HIM in the Guardian, but BY him, (from my article 'He has also published in 'The Guardian). That article was the featured article of the week. It is there to prove the point that Mr Bulla has credibility as a commentator/critic, and I do not see where User:Paularblasterhas read that I said there are articles ON him in the Guardian. There may as well be, but I have no evidence of that.

6- I have just added 'Openings' 1999, The Open University. This is an anthology. It is there to back up my point that his first publications were in the late 90s. I do not have a copy of the anthology, but I am sure it is available from the Open University. I am sure this adds to the point that Mr Bulla must be regarded as having some literary status and influence if the Open University decided to include him in an anthology.

7- LINKS August 1998 ISSN 1366-4557, This is a poetry publication,, it is there to prove that his first publications were in the 1990s, at least that we know of.

8- http://www.critiquesdelivres.com/1905126182 is there to show a comment on his work by Dr Asbee. It is a French website, I do not know how reliable it is, but it is of little relevance to us, given all the links above.

Now, I do not think Mr Bulla is a household name. Most, even influential, poets are NOT in fact. This is the reason why I have produced a series of links all showing his literary status and recognistion in the academic world. His 'notability' is in my opinion widely proven in the academic world. There are academics and academies that have either published his work or work ON him.

As to Gillian Clarke, of course I do not expect her to be deleted, my point is simply that there isn't as much online evidence of her 'notability' and yet she is still included. The editors may know her, but that does not make her necessarily notable.

For a modern poet to have 4 articles on him published online by academics, it is quite a lot, as we do not find the same amount of evidence on a lot of other poets.

The TLS, I said it appears to be from an article, I do not have that copy of the TLS therefore I have NOT included it in my sources nor in my article. I have just retreived LINKS and a refernece to 'Openings'. But do we expect an article i8n the TLS for all writers on Wikipedia? That would be impossible, also because the TLS do not come in e-format.

I think there is plenty of evidence to show that Mr Bulla is a respected author in academic circles and read pretty widely for a poet, especially a 'highbrow' one like him (a poetry book would sell well with 2000 copies in the UK, we are talking about a similar number of readers for CRITICISM on his poetry....)

From the notability guidelines of Wikipedia: 'A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[2] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]'

All these are met by http://www.greatworks.org.uk/poems/thab.html alone (no one has dared discredit this site, neither User:Paularblaster nor Ethicoaestheticist), PLUS I have a list of websites and paper publications to back it up. So, I think my article meets the basic guideline listed above, attacking back up soources while ignoring my main ones seems to be, sorry to say that, creating a diversive, a smoke screen to divert attention from the main source. Therefore, unless my main sources can be discredited, I do not see any reason for deletion. One could actually argue the other way round: i.e. that sources whose reliability may not be certain are validated by the matching information in reliable sources. In the end, that's what Wikipedia does: it is not itself a reliable source, but as long as the information matches what's available on reliable sources, it is generally considered accurate. My secondary sources match what appears in the main ones, which no one has discredited, so they very likely are fairly reliable....TOO. TonyBrit (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is their opinion, Logastellus (talk · contribs) may want to consider to actually start editing and write an article on that site.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tikiwont says that none of the sources 'cuts it for me'. Now, with all respect, that is a bit vague. Being a Middle Temple Barrister myself, I would argue that if there is a policy, the sources either comly with the policy or don't. ShouldTikiwont state in what respects greatworks.org.uk does not comply to the Wikipedia policies, I would myself comply with a deletion, but I would need to know why this does NOT comply to the policy.

In detail:

This is from the Wikipedia Policy:

' topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2] "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.[3] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[4] "Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6] "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7] A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.'

[[13]]


To start with, an article should be PRESUMED to be notable unless there is a specific fault with the sources, while some commentator here are presuming non-notability on the basis of their opinion (I quote 'without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors'.) This clearly contradicts the Wikipedia policy above. It's like in court when we presume someone innocent.

Now the criteria to prove that a source is not acceptable are as follow (again, from the policy)


"Significant coverage" "Reliable" and "verifiable" "sources" as secondary sources "Independent of the subject" meaning not produced by the subject of the article.

I would like to know which of these criteria are not met, otherwise, we should presume notability. If there is a policy, we should stick to it.

Now, www.greatworks.org.uk covers A Bulla with an extensive review, which makes up most of the article in Wikipedia (see references to it in the article) therefore, it would be absurd to say that there is no significant coverage. Other sources comply with this.

I would like to know then, if www.greatworks.org.uk is for the above commentator, not reliable or verifiable. As per usual, contact details are provided which means it is verifiable. I will also point out that it is a prestigious poetry website, so well above "reliable" in all respects. If anyone could find fault with the website's reliability or verifiability, then it would not fit the policy's criteria.

"Independent of the subject" it certainly is. It is an impartial poetry website edited by Peter Philpott which has been running for quite a long time.

Moreover I would point out that despite some comments on ukpoetrylive, this site too matches all the above - though not as famous as greatworks.org.uk, it provides verifiable details, it is independent from Mr Bulla, is a secondary source and gives coverage in detail of some of Mr Bulla's poems.

Again, 'detractors' have called it 'fanzine' or generally addressed it as not good enough, but no one has yet told me where this website too fails in relation to the specific notability guidelines in the policy.

They either comply or not. If not, I would kindly like to know how they do not comply. 'It doesn't cut it for me' or 'it's enthusiastic' etc are nice comments, but do not refer to the policy.

So, There sould not be any doubt about the fact that the sources do establish notability.

There are then The Guardian and other websites too, but I am not entering into the old argument, these provide, again evidence of some of the information I have provided.

I would like to point out some other fallacies in the arguments put forward, which, though absolutely marginal to the point of notability, I feel I have to debate. 1- Arguing that one source is not reliable (and I myself am not convinced about critiquedelivres, because it seems that to post a comment one simply needs to email them and confirm, unlike other sites, but the information there is similar to what we find in other articles) all the others should be disregarded.

I read a comment above that being included in 'Openings' does not constitute publication. we all know that poetry anthologies often have the proviso 'it does not constitute publication' for copyright reasons, that, however, does not detract from the fact that the Open University have included A Bulla in one of their anthologies.

I will therefore change the article from 'published in Openings' to 'included in Openings, amn anthology published by the Open University', and I do wonder what the difference in academic terms will be... none?

Some commentators have arguesd using a lot of Wikipedic slang. Well, if a comment does not use the exact slang, that does not detract from the validity of the comment. As I read in the deletion policies, the final judgement should be made on the arguments presented.

On the other hand, this use of wikipedic slandg (which I myself am not familiar with) seems to me to miss the point, lots of acronyms and re-directions but I have seen little reference to the particular criteria of the notability policy and no evidence as to how these sources do not meet such specific criteria. I have seen a presumption of non-notability, on the other hand, an attemt to discredit sources without pinpointing where the sources fail and sometimes using humour, often saying 'for me'. Well a policy is a policy. Point to where each source fails, and if you manage to prove that each source is unreliable, delete. Call my sources whatever you want, but if they meet the precise critera... Keep... This is the policy and it's independent from the editors' views... stated in the policy itself We have a contract, we either stick to it or not. Thanks. TonyBrit (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you say greatworks.org.uk is a self published website, and these are in general not considered sufficiently reliable per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 That policy seems to be clear enough to me and as far as I'm concerned, it applies to the mentioned sources about the subject, whether or not you consider some of them prestigious or famous, since this assertion is again not backed up by reliable sources that write about the websites.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Erroneous, Tikiwont, http://www.greatworks.org.uk cannot be considered a self-published website. It is a poetry website which has no relation whatsoever to Mr Bulla. Unless we consider every website a 'self-published site'. Again, it is clear from your guidelines that no websites published about the subject and by the subject should be included. Now, despite the fact that other authors are in Wikipedia and supported by their own webpage, www.greatworks.org.uk is not a self-published site but a trust (.org) and is by no means related to A Bulla. ukpoetrylive is a freestanding website and by no means related to A Bulla. I would like to see how far we can go and argue that no website is per se a verifyable source.

From Wikipedia:

'Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable'

The site does not match any of the above or the further specification

' "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.'

I would point out that www.greatworks.org.uk is deposited with the British Library (should therefore have an ISSN and the names of the publishers, editors, contributors and copyrights should be deposited).

[14]

Again, this is a third party (and what more than the British Library?) That gusrantees the verifyablility of the site. I would really like to see how many sources can claim as much by any means... Backed by the British Government! [15] (I count 5 in the whole world, and mine is one of them...) What more does one need? On top of that, 2 .ac (academies - again official educational insitutions recognised by the UK, not any website, by those 700 or so MPs that sit in that very famous building called Westminster Parliament, its government anf HM The Queen) and despite these sites having such seal of approvals as the gates of the houses of common and the Royal emblem, here we are arguing that they are not veryfiable? Well, this is a paradox. Now, let's check most of the articles on Wikipedia and see how many have the same guarantors as official stamps from the the UK government. Come on!!! You 'state it's a self-published site, but it simply is not and is not published by Mr Bulla and is Backed by the British Library.

I do think we are becoming ridiculous with this argument. The 'delete' party have been trying to discredit sources all along, not giving detailed reference, and when they did, they stumbled across no less than the British Library itself, the UK Government institution that is the guarantor of all UK publications.

If I had to request the same amount of 'officiality', 'veryfyability' to all articles, Wikipedia would be reduced to about 200 articles altogether.

I rest my case. Go and tell the British Library that they have been mistaken and should not archive and put their seal on www.greatworks.org.uk now. When I get a formal letter from the British Library, I will consider deleting the article. So far, there is no way we can try and discredit the reliability og greatworks.org.uk your opinion against the official seal of the British Government.

I told you I am a Barrister (Middle Temple- check it up). I teased all the 'delete' party to discredit www.greatworks.org.uk in order to prove that one can say whatever one wants on a website and 'tag' a website whatever one wants, unless... unless... there is an official stamp on it and www.greatworks.org.uk, it escaped most of our detractors, simply has the biggest seal of reliability of all: the British Library. Paularblaster Ethicoaestheticist were wiser, they did not attack my main source despite my teasing them, but limited their argument to vaguely showing some doubts about back-up sources. Tikiwont attacked my main source, now, s/he has to explain to me whether the British Government is not enough to guarantee the reliability of my source...

Endgame. Your honour, I rest my case.

TonyBrit (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the UK Web Archiving Consortium: "The inclusion of any web site in this UK Web Archiving Consortium archive does not necessarily constitute endorsement of the information held on those sites" [16]. the site is archived by the Consortium (or at least was in 1996 2006), but does not guarantee its reliability. Here is a list of another 171 literature websites being archived: [17].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, my above remark refers to self-publishing not in the sense of published by Bulla, but to self published by someone (Peter Philpott). I did indeed not noctice the note about archiving by the BL. I did notice, however, that neither the site nor the person have curently an article. That might of course be an omission, but on the other hand the site is hardly linked to from other wikipedia articles apart from those related to Bulla [18] So I may or may not have been wise, and i am certainly not a barrister, but I certainly do not aim at 'attacking' or discredit sites or sources, but was just trying to help to built consensus here. Therefore, I am mildly dissapointed that possibly useful information has been held back for the sake of playing games and lengish tirades. That the site is archived as part of a project at the British library is interesting and might require further investigation.
Which could have been doen already if put on the table, but has now been initiated above. As far as I see this amounts to 2 editions in 2006, and it is not clear whetehr they include the text on Bulla (and actually it does not seem to be the case). Nor do I see how this amounts to an ISSN which isn't necessary anyway. While I am not convinced that this seals the issue or that all adds already up to notability, I am not on a case here. Rather I'd appreciate a relisting of thsi discussion, possibly with the so far contributors stepping back.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All issues get archived by the British Library, of course the article on Mr Bulla is not archived yet, but will be in due course. I do believe that the British Library 'seal of approval' on the website is clear. I did not hold back information. I kept saying that previous 'delete' suggestions were based on a source that was not my main source, and that there was no doubt about the reliability of my main source. The article is clearly mainly based on greatworks, ukpoetrylive is used to develop some themes (the articles in there are more limited in scope if more detailed). I have used the Guardian and Scotticsh CILT to prove that Bulla's contributions to Postcolonial Studies are accredited by academic insitutions. I have now provided a list of 3 major bookshops that sell his work in the UK. I do not honestly think there is a case for deletion. I have not held back information on purpose, but have based myargument on wikipedia's policy... a source is presumed reliable unless proof against it is given (self-publication being proof). TonyBrit (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Characters in The Warriors[edit]

List of Characters in The Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft in its most annoying form. No sources, no verification, no context as to what "The Warriors" is (game? film? TV show? what?). Maybe a hoax. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:10, 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 No consensus, so Keep especially in light of additional RS that are available. John Vandenberg (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiombe Lockhart[edit]

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

This article lacks sufficient WP:RS attribution to satisfy either the WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO notability guidelines ... the author, MrMPS (talk · contribs), removed a dated ((Prod)) tag without comment, so I have opened this AfD. —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the commendts in the discussion page (I updated the entry, added place of the artist's birth, some more bio and links). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMPS (talk • contribs) 22:38, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Another Savage Weekend[edit]

Not Another Savage Weekend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, direct to video film. 0 Google hits for "Not Another Savage Weekend", IMDB has no info on film as well, possible hoax? Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:03, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Main Streets[edit]

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

Apologies for tagging a list which is marked as 'still in the middle of expansion'. But my feeling is that this whole concept is just not going to work. If complete (or even a quarter complete!), this list would have tens of thousands of links, almost all red. A far better way of finding an article on any given Main Street will be simply to insert this into the 'search' box. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Wikipedia will never be 10% complete as a whole.Sebwite (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was reluctant to AfD this when I saw the template (hence my apology above). I went ahead because of the opinion that, however much work went into the list its concept was fatally flawed and no amount of editing work could redeem it. Of course, I may be wrong in my opinion and if I am the consensus will go against me! But it seemed more considerate to AfD it now, rather than wait for you to put lots of work in and then AfD it. By the way, I could not find any policy against AfD'ing an article with this template: you are quite free to continue editing the article while we discuss it, and should do so if you think it will help the case for retention. Best wishes - Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response This list is a work in progress that is not intended to be completed in one day. The list is not of every single street called Main Street in the world, but only those that A.) have existing Wikipedia articles with that title themselves (e.g. Main Street (Hamilton, Ontario)), or B.) are part of a numbered route that has a Wikipedia article. The purpose of the page is to list these articles in an organized place where it would be easy to find them based on geography, just like so many lists of other things are listed. For example, one who wants to find Main Street in Hamilton, Ontario would first look for Canada, then Ontario, then Hamilton. This page does not need to be completed overnight either - Wikipedia is a work in progress. Regardless of what others say in this discussion, this list is perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia's guidelines. It is an organized list of other Wikipedia articles, not indiscriminate information. As for the idea of just entering "Main Street" and hitting Search, that is a much less efficient way of finding such articles. The articles come up in a disorganized, computer-generated order that most humans cannot decipher, and it is anyone's guess if the article one is looking for will be on page 1 or page 1347. I used this feature to find some of the articles I listed, but mostly, I am searching for various Main Streets using maps and studying numbered routes, and hoping that others will contribute too.Sebwite (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I had originally thought of using the Main Street (disambiguation) page to list these. I then found that this page lists other things that are titled "Main Street," such as books as songs, and if 100 streets are listed on this page together with just a dozen other things, the list of streets would be too overpowering for the other things. There are other street names for which use of the disambiguation page does work, such as Pennsylvania Avenue (disambiguation) (which I created as such), but with the name Main Street being so common, I felt that it was necessary not just to have a separate page listing them, but perhaps eventually to have a separate one for each continent or large country.Sebwite (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 assertion of notability per WP:BIO Black Kite 02:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Ankrum[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Claim to notability is as failed candidate for U.S. Congress, military service. Bellhalla (talk) 21:47, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Antuna[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Claim to notability is as a failed candidate for state legislature. Bellhalla (talk) 21:40, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bandar Albuliwi[edit]

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

Explicitly fails notability criteria for creative professionals. --72.229.138.61 (talk) 21:48, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Music Hall of Fame and Museum[edit]

Christian Music Hall of Fame and Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article for a new organization that does not yet meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG. There has yet to be any non-trivial coverage of this subject by reliable, third-party published sources. Google News Archives search produces 0 hits. A search on Yahoo! News also produces 0 hits. Contested PROD, so comes here for deletion. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:32, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Bolanos[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Claim to notability is as failed political candidate, and the fact that he is one of three brothers that all served in combat in Vietnam War. Bellhalla (talk) 21:36, 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 Merge and redirect to Kimbles. I am merging it into the most local article I can find, other editors can change it if they disagree. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ladymede school[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. Elementary school, nothing special about it. No school district to redirect to (per WP:SCHOOL). Delete. or Redirect to school district if it can be found. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:35, 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. I give high marks to both User:channelvmedia and User:Travellingcari for their extensive interest in this article, their remaining civil throughout, and detailed reasonings. However, the subject of the article, I agree, does not meet our notability criteria. If anyone in this debate would like a copy of the deleted material to continue work in userspace, ask me on my talkpage. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Pulizzi[edit]

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

I debated on this one for a while as I'd tagged and watched it even before the creator reverted my tagging and added fluff. There's some substantial COI issues, but also nothing to assert notability to enable fixing of the COI issues. Fails WP:BIO quite substantially. Travellingcari (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a conflict of interest?? I added proper references, not "fluff." Instead of deleting, give me advice. And how is my username "dubious"? Channelvmedia (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Channelvmedia[reply]

Comment I still question whether the references, thank you for adding those by the way, meet the guidelines of Wikipedia:SOURCES#Sources. Especially the last, which is a blog. The first, seems to be little more than a press release. If he were more notable, I believe he'd garner more press in Reliable Sources. The reason I brought it here for discussion was exactly that, a desire to discuss whether it meets the standards. That's what this is. Travellingcari (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm trying to track down better sources for him. He's been written up in more reliable sources, just having trouuble finding them... Thanks, channelv

Comment Okay, making progress. If you have any feedback/advice for me, please let me know! Thanks again, channelv —Preceding comment was added at 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added several citations and they've all been deleted. May I ask why? I would love to resolve every issue with this page today. If you could offer your suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it. Another option would be for me to work on this in the Sandbox (which I wish I would have done initially). Is it possible for me to take this down at this point and work on it there until it's ready to be posted? Thanks, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 14:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commentt Also, if you could help me eliminate anything that comes off as a conflict of interest, I would be happy to comply. Joe Pulizzi is truly an expert on the growing field of content marketing and I would love to add him to Wikipedia, as he's a great reference on the subject. However, I don't want it to be biased and will certainly do it in the best interest of the community. Please help. Thanks again for all, Channelv. —Preceding comment was added at 14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Channel: I believe that autobot edits such as this one are due to the addition of links that may be on the spam list. I'm trying to find confirmation of that, has to do with reliable sources and such, i.e. blogspot, which are sometimes added to the article as spam. I think your intentions are good, there's nothing that prevents an article from being re-created once improved. At this point there's no consensus to delete, it's a discussion. I hope others will join in. Be back in a bit when I can find the info on the bot's actions. Travellingcari (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Response: ok found the info quicker than I thought. The link shows frequent reversions, and the bot also left a comment on your talk page. It has a lot to do with reliable sources, especially the information on self published sources, as is the issue with lulu (his book) and the blogs. Also when looking at whether Pulizzi meets the notability standards, it's good to look at Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria, which is not policy but rather a consensus established. I'm not sure whether he meets that criteria, but I wouldn't say that he definitely doesn't. Hope that has helped some. Feel free to ask if you'd like more information. Travellingcari (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you. I didn't realize the book was self-published, so I'll get that out of there (unless I can keep it in there without adding an external link?). I'm going to play with the rest of it now. Is there anyway to get this offline until it's perfect? Joe Pulizzi doesn't need to endure the embarrassment because of my mistakes. Also, do you think that adding his upcoming speaking engagements looks too much like a sales pitch? I haven't heard anything either way on those, but thought they might inhibit me. Please let me know your thoughts. His bio is part of a larger network of entries I'd like to add about the custom content industry. I wish I had known all of the rules before posting but this is definitely a good crash course for my entries going forward. Next time I'll be more thorough in reading the guidelines. Best, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response No worries. I've asked another editor who recently stepped into the article to come lend a hand here to see if he can sort some of the reversions that are making your head spin (and mine too every time it shows on my watchlist). I don't know whether that would seem like a sales pitch or not. My question lies more on whether someone would come to wikipedia to look up information on Pulizzi, i.e. whether the content is encyclopedic. As I learnt from someone else, you can use ((db-author)) to have it speedily deleted, but I don't know policy when it comes to something that's already here. Travellingcari (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I definitely believe that people will come to look up Joe. He just started a business bookmarking site that is completely revolutionary in our industry, and people will certainly want to find out more about him. The problem with his past experience and positions is that his companies and publications were the focus of many articles, but he wasn't always necessarily directly credited. That's where there's a disconnect. Obviously you can't take my word for it--that's what the references are for--but he is a dynamic figure/leader in the content marketing industry, which itself is just now becoming a buzzword (hence my wanting to get it on the radar before anyone else). I just want to perfect this one before I attempt to start another article. Back to the ol' drawing board! Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 I guess i'm a bit confused by the fact that people like David Meerman Scott offer no citations for any of their claims, and have similar articles to what I'm trying to add. This seems like a disconnect. They are in the same industry, have similar backgrounds, but one is acceptable and one is not. Do you know why that is? Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I can't really comment to your other issue since I'm not too familiar with the industry but for this comment I can point you to Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF which basically answers your question, although it's not policy per se. I had never seen that article but on looking I see that you're right, it's not sourced. However [it's possible that it can be] due to the coverage he received, including three apparently notable books per Google Books. There's no question that article can be improved. I tried to improve this one before nominating as I believe that's what should be done, but I couldn't find any reliable coverage. Travellingcari (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just read "other stuff" and it makes sense--I wasn't saying one should exist b/c another does, just wondering why mine was getting pounded. But yes, the article certainly explained that, so thank you. [I'm learning so much, actually]. My next and close to final question, then, is: What exactly do I need to provide at this point to get this article up today? If I can delete some claims until I can offer citations, I would be open to that. I could even get rid of half of the stuff on there if needed, but I want to make this article as valid as possible and remove it from discussion. Is that going to be possible? Thank you again and again, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm sorry if you think I'm pounding this article, I'm not or at least that wasn't my intention so I'm sorry if it came across that way. What you can do is take out anything you can't source and leave it as a stub. There are lists of stub types including Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#People_by_occupation and marketing and perhaps the stub would fit in one of those? It might also help to remember that there is no deadline and that an article can continually evolve. Travellingcari (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I get more involved in this process, I understand why you're monitoring this so closely--so, no worries (and even more appropriately--thank you). I just went in and marked those things that need better citations as stubs, as well as marking the entire article a stub. That said; is this article getting closer to complying? I will updated it frequently as more reliable sources become available. Please let me know your thoughts or if you have any further suggestions to improve the article. Thank you, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've done a very good job cleaning up this page. I just did a minor clean up for formatting issues and the fact that I didn't explain the stub tags very well, but I agree with your changes in that respect. One issue that I'm still having with this article, I see you list "How to Profit from a Custom Publishing Strategy" as something he's done and you may be right but there appears to be no way to verify this. Have his engagements received mention elsewhere that I wouldn't know to search? Travellingcari (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Why thank you kindly. I couldn't find anything on that engagement either, so I've requested it from the association and taken the reference down for now. Did you need a reference for each engagement? Is there anything else I can do at this point? Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 21:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response2 I found the reference and added it! Are we ready to go?? Thanks, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 13:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Given that ChannelV appears, in fact, to be the subject hisownself, tracking down information on what he's done ought not to be too difficult. What's at issue is whether that information is worth anything or shows whether he rates an article in the first place. And what rush are you talking about? --Calton | Talk 16:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't know how to link directly to a comment here but his comment above your "discussion" subheading reads " Response2 I found the reference and added it! Are we ready to go?? Thanks, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 13:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)" I interpret "Are we ready to go?" as a rush to have this AfD done with, which is what I don't follow. There is also What exactly do I need to provide at this point to get this article up today? further above. I didn't realise ChannelV was JP, I just assumed it was a press entity working to get a puff piece up, which was the original issue. I know reliability and notability are an issue, that's why I brought the article here initially after some tagging. I'm not convinced there's going to be consensus to do anything ince the Afd was ChannelV and I before you wandered in. I'm hoping some other chime in on one side or the other as it would be helpful. Travellingcari (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I am not Joe. I am a woman who works with an organization that is deeply engrained in the content marketing industry, and to those in our industry, his profile, along with others, are important. Whether or not this informaiton is relevant to you, in particular, has no bearing on whether it should be considered encyclopedic. I've done my best to comply, and have added reliable sources. If you'd like to take it down, please do so, but to sit around and speculate (and make assumptions based perhaps on past experiences) seems immature and catty. Thanks for all of your help, but please, make a decision. My rush on this matter is to save face of someone who doesn't deserve the biased scrutiny. Best, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 14:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Wikipedia:COI is seriously beginning to apply, although I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Notability is a huge issue here and his existence may not push him past the barrier. That's where I've stood from the first moment and where I'll continue to stand on the issue. Travellingcari (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like you guys have your minds made up. I don't know that seeing Joe as an expert in his field is a conflict of interest, but okay... Nevertheless, I found quite a few reliable references and have added them. Thanks, channelv —Preceding comment was added at 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with this discussion, the COI is blatantly evident. The notability is not. If it gets relisted, we'll see what happens but this entire "novel" is essentially a back and forth. Creator did her best to create a good article from a marginally notable, at best, subject. Travellingcari (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Anyone else? I've added several notable/reliable sources--more so than most articles on this site--as well as created stubs for those things that I couldn't yet find sources for. I don't see how my position in this posting poses a conflict of interest. It seems like a biased grudge that will not die. Either way, it seems silly to leave this page up with deletion tags plaguing it. Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 14:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the page will be up until an admin decides to close the discussion. It's conflict of interest because you're close to the subject and have a vested interest in getting him mentioned here. You can't be objective. There's still a lot of unencyclopedic content (personal life, a future self published book) and it's unclear whether he's notable. Someone objective will decide that -- we're all allowed to have an opinion and saying that those who disagree have a 'biased grudge' doesn't help. Travellingcari (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd note you acknowledge in the article that he was involved with B2B magazine, therefore an article from that magazine, several of which were used as sources, is not going to meet RS because it's not independent of the source. You're trying and I get that -- but it may just be that there isn't enough independent and verifiable material on him. Travellingcari (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response There are two magazines, B2B magazine and B2B Marketing Trends (the latter is the one with which he was involved). I removed those two references (good point). I removed his personal life section and mention of his book. I also removed his upcoming and past speaking engagements to avoide "looking like a resume." I've done what all that i can to comply, and I think it could be argued that anyone who posts something has an interest in getting it published--I won't agree that my interest is vested though, but I see why there might be speculation. ChannelV —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Vandenberg (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robot (film)[edit]

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

Explicitly fails notability guidelines for future films. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no reason to excuse this particular project from the guideline -- many projects in development hell are comfortably merged elsewhere. WP:FUTFILM#Process suggests various places to merge if necessary. I listed a few examples in my recommendation below. The problem is that this is not a genuine film article -- it's merely an article that talks about a film that might be. It's been a possibility since 2001, and it could continue to be a possibility in 2011. It's not appropriate to have the illusion of a full-fledged film article when there's no guarantee that there will be a fleshing out with Plot, actual Production, and Reception sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The project was already called off as recently as October 2007, according to the article, so I'm not sure why rules should be ignored in this instance. Because there's activity now that will possibly set up for future activity doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to happen. It's an issue I've seen with articles about future films -- headlines being in front of editors seems to presently indicate a good chance, when in reality, it's as questionable as the headline that came the year before or five years before that. That's why WP:NFF exists, in my opinion -- to create an objective threshold rather than use editors' personal judgment calls (especially when not informed about how many projects really falter in the film industry). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Just because there's a wealth of information about a project, it doesn't mean that the project will necessarily go ahead. Scripting issues, casting issues, all kinds of things can interfere. There are many better examples, but in my own personal experience I can point to State of Play, which had big stars attached and lots of verifiable coverage from September 2007 onwards (pre-merge version here) and which nearly collapsed due to the departure from the project of Brad Pitt. It was only Russell Crowe's late involvement which averted its abandonment, but it could quite easily have ended up as yet another failed production which was ultimately not notable enough to warrant its own article. Steve T • C 08:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, there's a similiar situation here. Despite early hiccups with actors backing out, Rajnikanth will certainly play the lead role, after completing his current project. Universal Hero (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve was trying to suggest that anything can happen before production begins, and there may not necessarily be a last-minute rescue of this film like there was for State of Play. That film was merged to the source material's article until production began, at which point a full-fledged film article was established. It's not realistic to discuss the likelihood of a film taking place when we only have foretelling from the filmmakers. There are numerous instances of filmmakers involved with a project beyond State of Play, where production just cannot move forward. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question As I usually don't edit film articles (and just responded in this AfD because the title of the film was "interesting"), can someone tell me if there has been a case where a movie never entered production (death of main actor, who knows...) but was still so notable that wikipedia has kept its article and kind of always will? I'd consider revising my !vote to merge, but not anything beneath that. – sgeureka t•c 19:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking at unfinished films and cancelled films, some of which has mentioned reasons for not being complete. It's difficult to determine because usually such projects in development will be merged elsewhere due to very little information available. Feel free to browse the entries, but I don't see many of them in necessarily good shape. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasClose as no consensus towards deletion which defaults to keep. I strongly agree that this is a content dispute that needs to be moved to Talk:Psychohistory and related forums and WikiProjects. Keeper | 76 19:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychohistory[edit]

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

Delete article that even after all this time has failed to psychohistory is a legitimate field. Yes, there are plenty of references for the historical things discussed within the topic but not for the topic itself. After all this time, somebody should have been able to show that the term itself wasn't made up by the article's original author. When I find the word through google, the sources either refer to Asimov's fictional term which is already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, or they vary so vastly in their uses of the term that this cannot possibly be a specific field. Where it might seem to be legitimate, a mention of it might be appropriately incorporated into the article on the better known Asimov term. Otherwise, the content of this article is not actually about any field of psychohistory itself. Wryspy (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be a legitimate field to have a Wikipedia article!P4k (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "There are a few references to it in a handful of journals but in those articles it is using 'psychohistory' in a completely different way and to communicate a completely different concept." You are wrong there, Woland. When an academic source talks about psychohistory it invariably refers to subjects related to what is being discussed in the article. There is no wide use of the term aside the deMause school (and a bit of Freud) and Asimov's sci-fi novels (the latter obviously have an independent article). —Cesar Tort 23:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Precisely what I was trying to say but said much gooder.--Woland (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "the article that Wikipedia has is not that article on that topic". What are you talking about? As stated above, what is widely regarded as psychohistory is (1) Asimov's Foundation series or (2) the field related to deMause's school. It's true that once in a while it appears a mention of some of Freud's work as "psychohistory". But it's the exception rather than the rule. —Cesar Tort 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, if you go to the Journal of Psychohistory, you will see that it is not built aournd DeMause's school. DeMause is mentioned in about 6% of the google hits for psychohistory. Only 6%. As a matter of fact, if you feel it's that closely connected to DeMause, this should be turned into a redirect to DeMause's article with appropriate content merge.Wryspy (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Slrubenstein's assessment that the article appears to document somewhat of a fringe view. Not being a social scientist myself, I would even go so far as to say that psychohistory per se appears to be a pseudoscientific endeavor — and that I am certainly not qualified to address which topics are "mainstream" within its particular sphere of applicability. However, this certainly does not disqualify the article for inclusion in Wikipedia. (See, for instance, Flat earth theory.) Since this appears to be a content dispute, I suggest that the issue be raised not at AfD, where the threshhold has clearly been passed (notability), but at the article talk page, RfC, or other more appropriate forum. Silly rabbit (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you talking about, Wryspy?? DeMause has been the editor of that journal for more than thirty years! (I subscribe that journal BTW). —Cesar Tort 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We very obviously seem to be in a content dispute. I suggest a rapid close.DGG (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Jameson[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Claim to notability is as a three-time failed candidate for a minor (in Texas, at least) party. Bellhalla (talk) 21:21, 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, if you wish, you may create a redirect over this deleted article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Woodward (Niagara Falls)[edit]

Roger Woodward (Niagara Falls) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Guy who is notable only for having survived going over Niagara Falls. The story is already in the Niagara Falls article. This is a clear-cut example of WP:BIO1E. howcheng {chat} 20:58, 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 Keep and cleanup article, so tagged. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Kimball[edit]

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

The pastor of a local church doesn't meet the notability threshold; sorry. While this person is presented as "part of" a movement, no substantiation is given for the existence of said movement, nor is it asserted that the subject is a significant leader. Has been prodded for substantiation for several months. Apparently created by single-purpose account. P L E A T H E R talk 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he is quite well known as being one of a handful of "founders" of the movement, the (Emerging Church), and he has authored a number of important books in that space. There is currently a great bit of debate about the movement (which leads a number of vandals to fight over pages like this one), in which Kimball stands as the key conservative figure, along with Mark Driscoll. I do not agree with deletion of this article.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I just wanted to add that I edited the article to better show Dan Kimball's relationship to the Emerging Church Movement. WinstonKap (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)WinstonKap[reply]

Wikipedia has many entries about authors and Kimball has written several books and is known in the emerging church and evangelical church movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by INBY (talk • contribs) 05:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I haven't the slightest axe to grind here: I have no church or ideological ties. I came across this page at random, and was struck by the lack of substantiation. Nothing has emerged yet to change that. -- P L E A T H E R talk 21:15, 31 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, Keeper | 76 20:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I came to the article searching for information about him. I have been reading articles from traditional Christians, who consider his "emergent church" ideas to be very controversial. He is the author of the book entitled "The emergent church" Many others beside those who agree with his thinking are interested in finding out who he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattDiClemente (talk • contribs) 01:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research study on transplants[edit]

Research study on transplants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Essay on organ transplants. Comes down to a content fork. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:42, 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. Black Kite 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Rice Harris[edit]

James Rice Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Claim to notability is as failed election candidate, with unsourced statement regarding record number of votes for an independent candidate. Bellhalla (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Even if he were a major party candidate, coming in second place for a state assembly falls short of notability. Jacksinterweb (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Redirected to the list of minor characters. Black Kite 02:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kieron Hobbs[edit]

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

Non-notable character by WP:N and/or WP:FICT. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's going to become a pretty important character as the months go along, so I would vote to keep the article. If people would rather create a minor characters page for Hollyoaks, which I suggested on their talk page, that might be a place for some of the Hollyoaks faces who aren't major characters, but no one else has responded to the idea yet.--JamesB3 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Keep per above--KingMorpheus (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CRYSTAL. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's based more on actual spoilers for the months ahead than on speculation, and that part of the story has already begun. If people want to create a minor or recurring characters page for Hollyoaks and debate whether his page should be moved there, I could see the point of the discussion and perhaps his info could be moved to that type of page, but I think the character is important enough to warrant some entry. --JamesB3 (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Keep per JamesB3's comments ~~ [Jam][talk] 10:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Merge to an article on the minor characters, as suggested. if this ever becomes important enough, then write a separate article. DGG (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a list of minor characters from Hollyoaks which this article can be merged into. ~~ [Jam][talk] 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Dodd[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Claim of notability is as failed candidate for office, and descendant of founder of Atlanta, Texas. Sounds like fine citizen, but not notable. Bellhalla (talk) 20:34, 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Peterson[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, reliable source and notability guidelines. 2 of the sources are blogs/forums and can't be used. The AFA link is a press release type bio on the subject, and other independent non-PR sources can't be found to afford this person notability Russavia (talk) 20:34, 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 Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Moses[edit]

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

Article about a political candidate who has not yet been elected to office and thus fails WP:Bio#Politicians. Ros0709 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something went badly wrong in AfD creation! Fixed above. Ros0709 (talk) 20:29, 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 Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cowschwitz[edit]

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

An unencyclopedic take on a non-notable cattle ranch — AjaxSmack 20:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks better, but I'd like to see some more sourcing. Weak keep Tony Fox (arf!) 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the comments by HSR and DGG. Paupiette appears to be a well-documented meal, and so verifiability shouldn't be a problem. A general clean-up is probably what is needed, but for now the article itself satisfies the notability guideline, which was a majority reason for the nomination. Rudget. 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paupiette[edit]

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

Fails WP:DICDEF, orphaned for over a year, tagged as lacking sources for several months. Rtphokie (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe merging and redirecting all of these is the solution. I don't know enough about the subject to judge.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Vandenberg (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Tales (live)[edit]

Fairy Tales (live) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is a bootleg, article is unreferenced and does not demonstrate notability. In fact, the page does not even specify which band is being bootleggaed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:33, 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: no reliable sources that give significant coverage and are independent of the subject. Sancho 01:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Education Mixtape[edit]

Physical Education Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article on a planned mixtape. Per WP:MUSIC mixtapes and future albums are not notable without substantial reference in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:32, 31 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, Xymmax (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Vandenberg (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Company[edit]

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

The topic does not appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND. —BurnDownBabylon 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note: there is a redirect at Quiet company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BurnDownBabylon (talk • contribs) 19:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Company meets criteria 1, 5, 6,9, 10, & 11 listed in WP:MUSIC,

Joe Wallace (talk) 22:27, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julianity[edit]

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

Hoax or neologism. -- Mentifisto 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally speak as a Julianite. As a new religious movement, is it not self-evident that there will be few sources that aren't self-published? And that these are not valid sources? As to the suggestion that Julianity is not a true and original belief system, does not the existence of followers of it represent its existence, and the roots of major religious movements in previous ones is well documented so I don't think you can say, just due to similarities and origins in major religions, that Julianism is not its own movement. 79.64.113.52 (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as one of the people closely involved in Julianity, I feel obliged to argue that this page is not deleted. It is only a small religious movement, and a lot of people criticize it, however, there are followers, and this is therefore a real faith. I feel that everything written on the page about the faith (obviously not its content) are facts. Therefore I think that it should not be deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.99.172 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I am also a follower, and it most certainly is a real religious movement! I was not aware that there was also a facebook group, but I did not see that quoted as a source.? Don't delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.106.18 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.35.234 (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Frost- Live in Weinheim, WG/ Bathory, Demos 1984-1985[edit]

Celtic Frost- Live in Weinheim, WG/ Bathory, Demos 1984-1985 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is a bootleg, has no sources, and no demonstration of notability Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:09, 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 Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oriflame[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Article contains no evidence of notability - there are no references to independent coverage; the one "outside" reference is a reprint of a company filing. Entire article content is advertising or trivial. Argyriou (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - what part of A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. has been satisfied by this article? Argyriou (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you nominated it, you should have done due diligence with a simple Google search, since you're supposed to do that before nominating. On the first page of Google hits, there's general third party news for them in regarding to outsourcing and product development. Those are secondary sources about the company. Obviously this isn't a particularly thorough search and I'm sure there are better sources than that, probably particularly in Swedish. matt91486 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there are 614 results for Oriflame in the Access World News database, a collection of third party news sources in the English language. Admittedly, many of these are stock reports, etc from business sources, but the company is well covered. But most importantly, here's a substantial feature article here. matt91486 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a news report from forbes.com as a source in the article - there are plenty more where that came from. Surely WP:CORP is unequivocally satisfied now? Gr1st (talk) 23:18, 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. Fram (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-OS[edit]

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

Much of this is WP:SYNTH. Of the valid information, most of that is available in the more relevant articles, such as VMs, emulators, etc. Yngvarr 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The problem I have with the article is both a misleading title, and the presentation. I use VM's every day at my job as a network engineer, and use emulators at home as a hobby, so I am a little familiar with them. I understand that my interpretation here, and my discussion, is subject to WP:OR, but the title of the article suggests that these are not "real" operating systems. VMs provide a layer of hardware emulation under which a real operating system runs; emulators generally do not provide a hardware emulation layer, but a real operating system still operates. But under all circumstances, they are very real operating systems. I submitted it for AFD, rather than address it, because I think the term hopeless is applicable (and that is not being snide). A move to address the name would not address that concern, as virtual machine and emulator are appropriate, and the individual articles discuss the inner workings, which are vastly different between the methods. Sorry for the long-winded reply. Yngvarr 20:44, 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 no consensus, mainly because there is no rational given for deletion other than a simple "non notable" comment, which doesn't explain anything about why the subject is non notable. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Yuchtman[edit]

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

Not notable. Raliah (talk) 18:53, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt Fishermen[edit]

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

Nonnotable musicians in a nonnotable band. Google search find myspace and lots of underground types of things, but nothing that would make them worthy of an article here. Kingturtle (talk) 18:48, 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 Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action for Blind People[edit]

Action for Blind People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG and WP:Notability. No third party sources to assert notability. Delete Undeath (talk) 18:44, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smash Physics[edit]

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

Contains a lot of what seems to be original research and does not hold a neutral point of view. Also much of the content cannot be verified with reliable independant third party sources as I've tried to find sources but all I found were links to game forums. AngelOfSadness talk 18:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite nomination. Please refrain from nominating articles for deletion because of problems such as original research and npov, it is not grounds for deletion. This article does fail WP:N, however. скоморохъ ѧ 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I actually meant to delete the first sentence before filing the Afd but got distracted. AngelOfSadness talk 18:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I appreciate your contributions скоморохъ ѧ 18:58, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12480 alphanumeric system[edit]

12480 alphanumeric system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. No third party sources to assert notability. No citations to compare with the Klingon langauge. Searches yield nothing except for the article on Wiki and a few bands that have some of those numbers in their name. Undeath (talk) 18:32, 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 delete, A7, by User:Pb30. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JRG Lifestyle Group[edit]

JRG Lifestyle Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dosn't look notible, created by User:Jeremyrgeorge which is what the company's leader is. RT | Talk 18:26, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Region Ministries[edit]

Atlantic Region Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:NOTABILITY. The only link is a pdf explaining what the organization does. That does not assert notability.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aldair Mocelin[edit]

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

Regional league player Matthew_hk tc 18:12, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Galhardo Borges[edit]

Fernando Galhardo Borges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable player Matthew_hk tc 18:07, 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 Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art of Venezuela[edit]

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

Does not assert notability. No external/third party links, and no references or citations. There are other articles about the Venezuelan artists and museums. This fails WP:NOTABILITY so Delete. Undeath (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I must comment that it may not be necessary to have such an article for every country in the world. Art of Tuvalu, for example, would be unlikely to be useful.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I reluctantly have to conclude that the current article is unsalvageable. It reads like promotional copy for tourists rather than like an encyclopedia article. The list of artists at the bottom of the article is unnecessary as List of Venezuelan artists already exists. If reliable sources are found, it would be better to rewrite the article from scratch rather than to attempt to work with the existing text. --FreeKresge (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walking Corpse[edit]

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:MUSIC and also lacks reliable third party sources. Also the editor who created the article may have a conflict of interest. AngelOfSadness talk 18:00, 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 Keep Non Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Records[edit]

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

Article about a company that doesn't assert significance Gdean2323 (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC) cat=O[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Bridcutt[edit]

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

Non-notable as he hasn't played in a professional league Eddie6705 (talk) 17:46, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jederson Cristiano Camargo Lopes[edit]

Jederson Cristiano Camargo Lopes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not-notable player that just played in Serie C and now regional league Matthew_hk tc 17:45, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Moura Cabral[edit]

Diego Moura Cabral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another young regional league player Matthew_hk tc 17:40, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Rangel Rosa[edit]

Marcelo Rangel Rosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another young footballer for regional team Matthew_hk tc 17:34, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Danilo Padilha[edit]

Marcos Danilo Padilha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable: Brazilian state league players, seems not yet a professional/notable enough Matthew_hk tc 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As no data has documented, although Cianorte seems played in Serie C, but not yer prove him played in Serie C. Matthew_hk tc 17:29, 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 Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2K Sports Mixtape (Hosted By Clinton Sparks)[edit]

2K Sports Mixtape (Hosted By Clinton Sparks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:MUSIC, mixtapes are not notable unless there is substantial coverage in reliable sources. Prod was declined stating there were refs available via a google search. No reliable sources were found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only reason why I said that is usually a parenthetical in the title is used to disambiguate the article or to identify what type of thing the article is, such as "(album)". In addition, the only place where "hosted by Clinton Sparks" is pritned in relation to this compilation is at the top of the official webpage and it's not in parens. Even on that page, all other references to it is just "2K Sports Mixtape". All the other source pages don't have the "hosted by" part either. This leads me to believe that the title is "2K Sports Mixtape" and the "hosted by" bit at the top of the webpage was more descriptive than actually part of the title. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleix Serra[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO#Athletes because he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:56, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Dog IV Brass Band[edit]

Bad Dog IV Brass Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:53, 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; the problems with this article (unverifiability, lack of reliable, secondary sources and original research) would be enough to be fatal— coupled with the lack of attempts at salvaging it deletion is unavoidable. Norrath has been mentioned as a merge target, but there is no prose to merge and the article is little but a table of bullet points. — Coren (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EverQuest timeline[edit]

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

Despite the previous nomination resulted in "No consensus" over two months ago, nearly no effort has been done to fix the issues upon this article.

The article still appears to be plot summaries of unnotable cruft with poor sources.

As a timeline, this article contains in-universe storylines, something which Wikipedia is not.

Such material is still unnotable to the real world and non-EverQuest players.

Containing cruft has a tendency to attracting original research, something not welcome in Wikipedia.

Finally, the sources on this article were very poorly done, with some of them not working, and still were not working even since the previous AfD over two months ago. Such sources do not even seem acceptable in the first place, ranging from game manuals to forums.

Despite the previous AfD, there has only been three edits total on this article, none of which attempted to improve the issues other than adding an in-universe template. It is apparently obvious that no effort will be done to fix the problems this article has. IAmSasori (talk) 16:47, 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 Keep. Fram (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Coleman[edit]

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

Subject fails notability. The article seems to violate WP:SELFPUB and a search for reliable sources only turned up a book review. Justin chat 16:44, 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 merge to Ragnarok Online. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ragnarok Online locations[edit]

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

Unsourced, unnotable fancruft inviting original research.

There are no sources whatsoever to determine this article's notability to the real world or non-players of Ragnarok Online.

It contains fancruft which only invites original research. It also apparently is read like a game-guide, which is what Wikipedia is not.

This article with such issues are generally not acceptable in Wikipedia. IAmSasori (talk) 16:31, 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spin Jet[edit]

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

Hello community! This article initally had an entire [section] with Spam. The spam was there since its conception. I believe that "spin jet" might be a real physics term, but I am afraid that it might have been invented to spread the spam. Since the article has no references and google searches for <"spin jet" physics> do not give me anything good, I suggest deletion per WP:NN. This sounds like something that was created to sound legit but is not. Any experts? Brusegadi (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you wanted, I just stop to proceed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.248.115.158 (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COD4 disease[edit]

COD4 disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:Verifiability. A google search says CODE4 (not COD4) is a disease management program instead of being a disease. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:24, 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 John Vandenberg (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Tyler (musician)[edit]

Jason Tyler (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability demonstrated, no references, article created by subject (hence simply a vanity page), subject has removed relevant tags to article and discussion from talk page Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article is also created by the trhe subject of this AfD discussion, and has been subject to the same editing issues, i.e. tags being removed and the like. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we have a conflict of interest issue as the person who created these article is very close to the subjects of the articles. It seems like the band article fails all of the critera for WP:MUSIC so I have gone ahead and filed for an Afd for that. AngelOfSadness talk 18:00, 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 delete under G4 criterion, article had the same content as before. --Oxymoron83 18:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem is Back[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSIC, mixtapes are not notable unless there is substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Procedural, completing on behalf of nom; No opinion on Deletion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:55, 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; mix tapes have no presumption of notability under WP:MUSIC, and the article fails to establish any specifically. — Coren (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost In London[edit]

Lost In London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:MUSIC mixtapes are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Coverage means a coverage that illustrates its significance. Otherwise it will be automatically deleted as per WP:MUSIC. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 11:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn) - non-admin close. —Travistalk 16:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masjid Hajjah Fatimah[edit]

Masjid Hajjah Fatimah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability RogueNinjatalk 15:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I missed that. The declaration of notability should be a little more prominent. Withdraw my nomination please. RogueNinjatalk 15:48, 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, leave a message on my talk page if you need the deleted version of the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulance Service of Manchester[edit]

Ambulance Service of Manchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Well-written and carefully formatted article, but no indication of why this local ambulance company is encyclopedically notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would help. Particularly if you can add references to verifiable and reliable sources. -Verdatum (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the looks of the direction of this !vote, I dont believe you will not be granted your request of time to fix this article up. However, may I suggest that you create an account and have this article "Userfied" (moved to a sub-page of your Userpage). there you can keep it as long as you wish while you bring it up to expected standards. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 case has been made for deletion, and insurmountable justification that this topic is notable enough for a separate article has been provided. Possibly the AfD was unfounded, but it makes no difference: this is a clear case for WP:SNOW. Geometry guy 13:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations of statistics[edit]

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

Merge and redirect to statistics. This is not really a separate topic. (Procedural note: we don't have a "articles for merge", and nobody watches the talk page of articles like this.) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By using the AfD procedure to accomplish your stated purpose of merging, you are violating WP:Point. The argument that "no one watches the talk page of articles like these" is ludicrious: of course, not, the article existed for mere 4 hours when you tagged it for deletion! Thanks for not prodding it, at least.Arcfrk (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have an "articles for merge" because you're supposed to propose a merge. WP:MERGE would be the obvious place to look. You also seem very unfamiliar with the point of the article - why would you nominate it if you hardly even know what it is? --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The foundations of statistics is an important topic. I just tried googling for "foundations of statistics" (with the quotes) and got 110,000 results. There are also whole books with that title (see Amazon). The topic has been much debated by statisticians for many decades. I have substantial skill in statistics; I can assure you that it is major, well worth an article.
Niaz: You should not be making judgements like "noway it deserves a standalone article", if you do not have a background in the topic.
HisSpaceResearch: No claim is made that the present stub fulfills the role it should; it is a stub, for expansion.
TheSeven (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I prefer you to place an under-construction tag at this article if you feel that it would become a standard article soon. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did not know about the under-construction tag. It would take a great deal of work to get the article to a truly good status (because it is intensely debated, from several perspectives). But I will add a bit more, especially references, if it is not deleted.   TheSeven (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Under construction" tag serves an entirely different purpose: to avoid edit conflicts if a major work is under way by one editor. The correct tag is "statistics-stub". Arcfrk (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not about the history of statistics. I will put this bluntly: if you believe that, then you are unfamiliar with the topic, and so should not be remarking on it. See, for example, the abstracts in the current seminar series on the topic being held at Stanford University (currently only available for the first half of the academic year, yet even that is enough). The topic is vibrant and intensely debated.
Additionally, as the 110,000 google results and several books on the topic make clear, the topic is too large to be properly incorporated in the main article.
TheSeven (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't support a move anymore. The article's apparent focus has changed enough that the current title is more appropriate. -- Avenue (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (I am the article creator.) I do not have a strong preference for "foundations of statistics" over "philosophy of statistics". I picked the former because it was more familiar to me, and shows up more in google. There was some brief discussion about that on Talk:Statistics, where I suggested that perhaps both articles should exist, with one redirecting to the other (I don't care which).   TheSeven (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are distinct topics, true, so perhaps we should have two separate articles. They have similar numbers of Google hits. My reason for suggesting the latter was that the only real content in the article when this AfD began was Abelson's argument, which seems to me to fit better within a "philosophy of statistics" article than one on "foundations of statistics". But the article has moved onsince then. -- Avenue (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; mix tapes do not meet WP:MUSIC unless independent notability can be established. It was not. — Coren (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free's World[edit]

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

Mixtapes are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources, per WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:06, 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 Keep. Fram (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fufeng Group[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE. It was tagged for Speedy Deletion but user removed that tag and tried to give it a standard look. Provided Fufeng-Group address is not even a registered one. All other citations are in Chines language. Some vanity claims are made though there is no supporting reference exists. This user has created a good number of such articles on WP that were initially tagged for deletion but he removed those tag. I would like to request moderators to have a look at this issue. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:54, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch Muzik (album)[edit]

Bitch Muzik (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has been repeatedly deleted. Previous creator User talk:Soccermeko seems to be a sockmaster. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:43, 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 keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guo Guangchang[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:BIO. This article was tagged for Speedy Deletion on 6 January 2009 December 2007 but creator carefully removed that tag. It contains some misleading links that doesn't establish its verifiability clearly. Moreover, Fosun International Limited, another article created by this user is claimed to be the largest private-owned conglomerate in Mainland China which is also a vanity claim as a google search clearly shows that it's a rising company. And current article person (Guo Guangchang) is the CEO of this company. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Fosun International Limited also seems to be a non-notable entry but I didn't tag it just to see the feedback of other wikipedians for this entry. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here he is active as one of the Shanghai delegates to the NPC - assuming it isn't somebody else with the same name. --Paularblaster (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Ocean Land[edit]

Sino-Ocean Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge with COSCO. At least doesn't have notability to be a standalone article. Moreover, it is written in an advertising tone. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it passes verifiability. But still lacks in notability to have a standalone article. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:28, 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. Fram (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovechild[edit]

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

Previously deleted unsourced article on an unreleased album recreated by same editor with a different name. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:31, 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 Speedily deleted as copyvio by User:KillerChihuahua. AFD closed as moot. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SELA - Semiconductor Engineering LAboratories[edit]

SELA - Semiconductor Engineering LAboratories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Comment Text appears to be a cut 'n' paste from some company promotional material HereUser A1 (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, set to speedy for Copyvio -- ShinmaWa(talk) 15:20, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exerpainment[edit]

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

Violates WP:NEO and WP:OR; states that it was invented and published by Wikipedia on 2008-01-31. скоморохъ ѧ 14:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion also concerns Enterjoyment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). скоморохъ ѧ 14:17, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Textual analysis of Quran[edit]

Textual analysis of Quran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dump of own research into Wikipedia, without any showing of notability. Wiki article should describe such research, not contain it.

Article's copyright status is OK (OTRS permission), but prod has been removed before, so AfD-ing. Alvestrand (talk) 14:00, 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, invoking WP:SNOW. Wizardman 14:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anakin's father[edit]

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

Seems to be pure Original Research Pollytyred (talk) 13:46, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura-Hanagasumi[edit]

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

A yet to be released single, Maybe it will be notable but it can't be now. Pollytyred (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger - at this moment I think a merge/redirect will be a better solution. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:45, 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, no reliable sources or notability demonstrated. John Vandenberg (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yordan Likov[edit]

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

I cannot find one reason why this person is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Also note that the creator and only contributor to the bio is user:Mad Hatter the self confessed son of the person in question. Hereitisthen (talk) 13:40, 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 John Vandenberg (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Vigdal[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTE, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Pollytyred (talk) 13:31, 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. Fram (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Kauppila[edit]

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

Probably isn't notable, though hard to tell for sure. Pollytyred (talk) 13:15, 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 Delete Band failed to indicate any notability per WP:BAND or WP:V. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mot (band)[edit]

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

No references, no hits besides Wikipedia on Google for either the band or its members, therefore band is either imaginary or non-notable Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:36, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global pharmaceutical prices[edit]

Global pharmaceutical prices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced possible WP:NOR issues. Unencyclopedic Sting au Buzz Me... 11:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam
The content is very valid for encyclopedic content. It serves to provide a reflection of the globlal price variances of pharmaceuticals. This is extremely important. In fact this very discussion falls within the ambit of pharmaco-economics and there are departments at universities and government agencies that deal with this subject daily. The intention of this article is to highlight the exploitation by global pharmaceutical multi-national companies of the third world. I am from South Africa, we are in the midst of a AIDS pandemic and the country is not able to provide ARVs ( anti retrovirals) to the millions of suffering poor people because multinational pharma companies refuse to make it affordable to the masses of poor impoverished people. We as humans have to decide and weight the importance of intellectual property rights and patent laws versus the human right to affordable medicines.
Another reason is to reflect the price discrepancies multi-national companies have from country to country.
i.e. A product Neksium ( chemical name: esomeprazole, strenght 40mg, company AstraZeneca) sells in India for under $2 but the same product from the same multinational sells in South Africa for $45.
South African companies cannot make generic copies of this product as they are bound by the international TRIPS (treaty of international property rights) agreement. We in the third world are being exploited by multinational companies. We being the poorest of the poor!
Faizal Mahomed Ayob


Faizal Mahomed Ayob —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheApothecary (talk • contribs) 12:00, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koridai[edit]

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

Author removed prod. A non-notable country from a video game. JD554 (talk) 11:45, 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 Redirect to Spiked (magazine) (pls. merge content if useful) John Vandenberg (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiked Review of Books[edit]

Spiked Review of Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Weak Delete or Strong Merge. It seems notable (although weak) but not as an standalone article at least. Merge with an appropriate article may solve this issue. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 11:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added the AfD tag  Done Sting au Buzz Me... 12:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle is showing some bugs these days. Yesterday it didn't add any AfD entry in the main-page and I guess today it started showing this one. Thanks for adding the tag. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in the process of updating this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesoundofsinners (talk • contribs) 12:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having discussed the matter with my colleagues, I've agreed to the article's deletion, as I haven't provided the proper template for the article. Apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.50.103 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Vandenberg (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Containerart[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable event. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I added more content on the event, including list of artists who participated and additional info. Borsalino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsalino (talk • contribs) 13:24, 19 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, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:34, 25 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) 10:13, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Nomous[edit]

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

User:Soydog has blanked the page on at least one occasion, and has just now tagged with a speedy tag with the reason "the author wishes it deleted for privacy reasons" he isn't the only contributor, but he did write most of the article, however I am uncertain how it works when deletion requests are made "for privacy reason" so I brought it here SGGH speak! 10:12, 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 Redirect (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda MacLeish[edit]

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

Non notable. Written like fan site. No sources Delete Metal Head (talk) 03:31, 25 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) 10:08, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Music News Scoop[edit]

Christian Music News Scoop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, no reliable sources listed or easily found via Google search. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page. They should go hand in hand:

Jeremy Shum (Radio Presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:47, 25 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) 10:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Since the Christian Music News Scoop has featured big acts like Bethany Hamilton. Although it is quite new it has reached a fanbase of more than 220,000. Also related myspace is http://www.myspace.com/jeremyshum which has nearly 3000 friends - and it is listed as #12 on myspace top Christian music acts No1jemmfans (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)— No1jemmfans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Myspace doesn't help notability. The people it features are notable yes, but notability isn't inherited. Doc Strange (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, based on strength of arguments. Fram (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Richards[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article since expanded to link to several mentions in lists, but no non-trivial secondary coverage, so the article still fails WP:BIO. Also, the main editor seems to be using it as a place to house adverts for Spellbinder Games products, now that their articles on those topics have been deleted. Note also long history of deletion; possible CSD G4 candidate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will that do? Malakai Joe (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. Notability has to be backed up by reliable secondary source material. So you would need to find some commentary on his appearance in TV commercials, rather than just the commercial. Further, it needs to be non-trivial, so an entry in a list isn't sufficient; basically you need to find whole articles dedicated to Randy Richards. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a rather narrow view of notoriety, and may be unattainable by most local celebrities - people who have notoriety but do not appear in Internet-accessible media or articles. For example, how do I point to an article in a local newspaper or magazine? I know of several articles on Randy Richards that appeared locally in newspapers in two separate cities. Do I have to scan them as an image and then link to them? That seems silly. Malakai Joe (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are wikipedia's guidelines for the notability of people. The preferred method of pointing to newspapers and magazines, as I understand it, is to use ((cite journal)) or another similar citation template. Offline sources are allowed, but it's preferable to have something that wikipedia's editors can see if you want them to believe that a person has notability; since it's generally easier to get online coverage than offline, and since most newspapers have online versions, the absence of online coverage makes the offline coverage seem suspicious. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I'm trying. I was able to find an article on Randy Richards in Gloomwing Magazine issue #20, titled "Interview With D&D Author Randy Richards". Its a rather long interview that includes a review of his Dreadmire book. However there is no online source for the article itself, other than a copy posted on a message board: http://spellbindergames.yuku.com/topic/398 What to do? Scan the article and e-mail it to you?Malakai Joe (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That won't be necessary :-). Use that URL in the url parameter of the ((cite journal)) template. I haven't heard of Gloomwing Magazine - could you tell me a little more about it? Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find the newspaper articles online at their websites, which are Times-Picayune out of New Orleans, and The Advocate out of Baton Rouge. Problem is not all articles in these newspapers are copied online. Apparently its only the bigger articles. Looking at last week's newspaper and comparing it to the online version, I would say most of the printed articles do not even appear in the online version. Is this unusual? The St. Bernard Voice does not even have its articles online at all - http://www.thestbernardvoice.com/ Malakai Joe (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the person to ask about what's usual for US papers - most of the UK ones I read publish everything online, but usually after a delay. What do you mean by "biggest" articles? If the articles aren't more than a few paragraphs, they might not count towards the notability guidelines. Also, what was the title of the articles? Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Biggest articles" are the ones that take up a half a page or more, and even those were shortened for online. And you didn't mention anything about size of the article, you said "whole articles dedicated to Randy Richards". The magazine article takes up several pages so that should be sufficient. What is the minimum qualifying size for a newspaper article? Does an appearance/interview on local news for a half hour show count? I can post the video. Malakai Joe (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a hard and fast rule about article size, other than to say that one sentence is definitely too little and a 360-page book is definitely sufficient, but in general I'd say it would have to be several paragraphs at least, and the article would have to be about him rather than about his company or products. The appearance on local news would depend on several things, chiefly the topic: If he was appearing in order to promote a product, it doesn't count. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to upload - I found the 18-minute news video online: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=5415068
Randy isn't the subject of that coverage - it's an interview about Hurricane Katrina, not an interview about him. If they'd spent the time asking him questions about himself, that would be the sort of thing you're looking for. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They spent time asking him questions about himself. Did you not watch the whole thing? Besides, Randy was the photojournalist whose photos were being shown. The entire segment was about him and his photographs, not Hurricane Katrina per se.
I did, and it was almost entirely about Hurricane Katrina, albeit illustrated by his photographs. There was no substantial discussion of Randy himself. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying because the show was about Richards' photographs, its the photographs that should be list on Wikipedia? Thats ludicrous. The artist is the one that gets the credit, not the art!
The man is on TV as an actor and in the news, in magazine articles, in newspapers, and has award winning photographs on a national tour, is a published author of magazine articles and books, he makes paid public appearances at convention across the U.S., plus he recently bought a publishing company. If that doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia entry, no one does. Malakai Joe (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a common claim, but one to avoid in deletion discussions, and certainly not one that contributes to his notability. He can do almost all those things, and if no-one but him comments on it he doesn't meet WP:N. However, you say his photograhpy has won awards - which awards? Winners of notable awards are often notable themselves. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Common claim or not, its still true. He's done a lot of stuff! Not everything is showable on the Internet. I am looking for the award website. I'm sure it will not be prestigious enough for you, if the pattern holds. Here is the link: http://www.lumcon.edu/lagniappe/photocontest/winners2006/default.asp (scroll down to Swamp Moon).
Third place isn't the same as winning, I'm afraid. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL!!!
I am awaiting an e-mail reply to find out what the exact titles of the newspaper articles are. I don't want to give you the wrong title by mistake. All I can tell you is they are definitely more than three paragraphs each. I am sure you will find some other problem with the articles once they are revealed. Do you have a history with this guy? Some enmity between you two perhaps? Me thinks thee protesteth too much, as it were. Malakai Joe (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered when this would start. I have no link to Randy Richards, whatsoever. I just think that he didn't belong on wikipedia before, and he doesn't now. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well what did you expect?? I mean really: Third place awards are not good enough, Newspaper articles must be online, Magazine articles can't be proven because they are not online, 18 minutes on the news is not good enough, TV commercials are not enough, publishing books is not enough, paid appearances across the U.S. is not enough, a national photo tour of his photos is not enough. Its stretches credibility! I knew there was something ulterior going on here. How long ago was the other article removed?Malakai Joe (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've specifically said things don't have to be online. Beyond that, it's all down to the WP:BIO guidelines. Randy's done a lot with his life, and well done to him; but that on its own isn't enough; multiple independent sources have to provide non-trivial coverage, and that hasn't happened. The article has been deleted four times so far. I'm sorry if you feel that the guidelines are too harsh, but I don't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines are not too harsh, its your interpretation thats harsh. For example, here is an author entry Elizabeth Donald that is less prestigious, less verified, less published, and less notable than Randy Richards. And by the way, if an article on Randy Richards has been deleted 4 times, that means several contingents of people believed it needed to be put in, and that would ironically suggest he is notable. I mean, seriously dude, you seem awfully contrary for it not to appear like you are picking on this one person (whether you are or not). Malakai Joe (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WAX. The existence of another article that doesn't meet the guidelines doesn't mean this one does. And the page having been deleted certainly doesn't suggest it's notable. I'd also point out that Elizabeth Donald has actually won an award, rather than coming in third. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but thats just my point. Your are judging Randy Richards ten times harsher that Elizabeth Donald. Winning the "2005 Darrell Award Winner for Best Midsouth Novella" is hardly a prestigious award. The Darrell Award web page suggests its some trivial secondary organization, which you said doesn't count. Anyone can throw up a web page and make up an award (it doesn't even have its own web page -- its a free site: http://freepages.misc.rootsweb.com/~timgatewood/sf/darrell/2005_results.html. So I ask again, why are you holding Randy Richards to a higher standard? It doesn't make any sense. Malakai Joe (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm judging Randy Richards against WP:BIO, because I'm interested in RPG articles, and he fails to meet it. That's all that matters here; we're not judging Elizabeth Donald at all. He failed WP:BIO back when Cryogenesis put his pages on wikipedia first, and he fails them now. Oddly, Cryogenesis used exactly the same file names as you and chose to upload a back cover, which is unusual. I wonder how he's getting on. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try to twist this back on me. This is your vendetta, not mine. The file names were determined be the source, which is http://www.Dreadmire.com. I don't know who else uploaded similar files. The format comes from the message board. Malakai Joe (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not twisting this on anyone; I have no vendetta. I must ask you to be civil. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Don't make unwarranted accusations.Malakai Joe (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what have I accused you of? You've done a lot of research and failed to find any substantial coverage. I applaud your efforts. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, in photography, third place counts as "winning an award". Malakai Joe (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through WP:BIO already, and I was sure the criteria was met. For example, it states...
You omit the accompanying notes: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." and "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." None of the sources you quote are simultaneously non-trivial and focused on Richards. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The offline newspaper articles and magazine article is all about Randy Richards.Malakai Joe (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third place isn't an award. Sorry, it just isn't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't they wouldn't call it the "LUMCON Third Place Photo Award". Third place is an award. Its not the best award, but its an award by its very definition. But there is still the matter of his photos on a national tour. As a photographer, you can't get a higher honor than that.Malakai Joe (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do they call it the LUMCON Third Place Photo Award? I thought they called it the Adult Landscape Award, and awarded it to Jill Krzycki, but liked Debbie Stevens' photo almost as much, and liked Richards' almost as much as that. So, in other words, he didn't win the award, and I'm dubious as to whether it's a "significant" award. Ditto the tour - it's being taken on tour by the "Louisiana Bucket Brigade"; hardly National Geographic. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sponsoring organization is not relevant. Its a 23,000 mile tour - hardly small potatoes. An award, third place or not, is still an award.Malakai Joe (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary - it's entirely relevant. The distance travelled isn't what makes a tour significant enough to count here, it's the prestige behind it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the wide recognition here. If he were widely recognised, there would be sources to back it up; the ones in place are at best marginal. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His many local appearances on TV, both in news and commercials should be enough. The other sources are offline. Scanning and publishing them here for you to see might be a copyright violation, but you're being so obtuse I may have to risk it to prove they exist.Malakai Joe (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must ask you again to be civil. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was being civil. I have no idea what you are referring to.Malakai Joe (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me "obtuse" is uncivil, even if you think it's true. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I apologize. It not a word I would consider uncivil. It is simply a descriptive word, like contrary - also not an uncivil word. Must be a UK/US English thing.Malakai Joe (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it must. Calling someone by an unpleasant name, even if it is a descriptive word like "obtuse" or "contrary", would be considered uncivil here in the UK. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal or not, a million tiny ants add up one giant colony. As they say in court, "overwhelming circumstantial evidence". In other words, to quote the criteria, "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". Malakai Joe (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" not "multiple independent sources may be sufficient to prove notability". The article needs multiple, non-trivial secondary sources and so far, has none. You haven't even cited the offline evidence that you claim exists, even though you have been told how. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to cite using the format you suggested, but I could not get the formatting to work. I cited them using text only. Could you point me to a page that explains it in detail? As far as "multiple, non-trivial secondary sources ", I believe I have provided this in spades. Malakai Joe (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are usage instructions at Template:Cite journal. I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the remaining sources, which I think are all either trivial, not secondary or not independent (although they're definitely multiple) and hope that other editors will help us to reach a consensus. While it is not acceptable to canvass for votes in an AFD, would you mind if I asked the editors at the RPG wikiproject to share their opinions here? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To what end? If it is not acceptable to canvass for votes then I would mind, yes. I would prefer if this did not turn into a free-for-all. Its already gotten rather silly, and its just you and me debating - mostly about requiring ten times the normal notability requirements. As to the offline newspaper articles, I am awaiting an e-mail reply to find out what the exact titles are - that could take a day or few. Malakai Joe (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to get a consensus. If you've followed the link, you'd know it's acceptable to inform editors of ongoing discussions so long as you don't try to influence their decision or seek out editors who you believe will have a specific opinion. That's why I've added this debate to the list of game-related debates, and to the RPG noticeboard; I'd like to ask WP:RPG as well as it's seen by more people. I'm afraid AFDs are free for all - any interested editor is welcome to make an argument. So, may I post at WP:RPG? I'm not requiring anything more than the requirements of WP:BIO; you may feel that's excessive, but those are the guidelines, and I don't feel that the article meets them. Nonetheless, other editors may have another perspective on how the guidelines should be interpreted. They may feel that the article meets those guidelines already, or they may feel that it never will. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why bother to ask?Malakai Joe (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because they deserve a say in the matter! The decision on whether to delete the article isn't mine to make alone. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the haters are starting to show up, you might as well go ahead. At least the new people will be editors. And as I said, its your interpretation of WP:BIO that is being applied to the harshest extreme. I could be wrong, but it appears that because of your past experiences with the subject of this article that you can't be objective. User:Malakai Joe|Malakai Joe]] (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a third time, please be civil. Telling me that I "can't be objective" is insulting, and if you're forced to stoop to that level of debate you can't expect to be taken seriously. Additionally, please do not alter comments that I've replied to; that is vandalism. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any changes I made to your edits was not intentional, and I apologize if I did - it was an error on my part. I am getting confused with all the text on this page, and an error can easily be made. Also, I was also not attempting to insult you. The comment was an accurate description. Accusing me of being some other use is insulting, but yet you continue to do it. Malakai Joe (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not an "accurate description" to say that I "can't be objective", and it is uncivil and deliberately insulting to suggest otherwise. Saying you do not intend to insult does not excuse it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. I am not Randy Richards. The biographical information comes from both his message board and website. As to the "self-published" reference I would disagree. Mr. Richards purchased the company 2 years after his book was published. From what I understand from their website they were pretty much leveled by Hurricane Katrina.Malakai Joe (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's rather curious that no record of "Spellbinder Games" exists prior Richard's Dreadmire book being dropped by Necromancer Games for plagiarism.--Robbstrd (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not being uncivil. I did not say anything disparaging about you or anyone -- other than to say that I believe you have a conflict of interest and, despite your claims to the contrary, I wholeheartedly believe this is an autobiography. I also stated that COI is not enough for the delete. However, I stand by that delete based on the other things I've said. Please don't take it personally, Malakai Joe. This is nothing personal against you; I'm sure you are a fine person. We're debating the merits of the article, not you as a person. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you are calling me a liar, so I asked you to be civil. Please keep your rude accusations to yourself. All of this information is available by Google search, except the print articles. If I was Randy Richards, I would NOT have had to keep adding more and more references for the past 10 hours -- I would have just typed it all in one sitting.Malakai Joe (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since Richards has gone on record as saying that he is "not important enough to be on Wikipedia", I think we can deduce that MJ probably isn't the same person. I'm not sure whether or not to believe he isn't User:Cryogenesis, who originally posted this page up in 2006, but I'm not sure whether that matters. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given Richard's history, it's quite likely that he would publicly say one thing while using sockpuppets to push his own agenda.--Robbstrd (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't read him saying that he's not important enough to be on Wikipedia. It seemed more to me that he was taking a serious amount of real-time interest in the goings-on of his articles on Wikipedia, all-the-while feigning disinterest. However, it doesn't matter one whit. The COI thing is completely ancillary to this discussion. I'm sorry I even mentioned it. Let's not get sidetracked by it. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I was reading the wrong posts. I see what you are referring to now. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the first time it was deleted, the reason given was that it was being vandalized too much. Thats hardly a reason to delete it. It should have been edit locked.70.177.43.254 (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper citations added. That should be the end of it. Later.70.177.43.254 (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarcrest (Talk | contribs) (→Works - Removed a book that hasn't been announced yet, per the subject's wishes -- please don't re-list it!)"

This speaks volumes; Malakai Joe modified her page for this point alone, then copied the page over to Wikia as well, and kept adding it back when it was removed. Again, very few people knew about this, I discovered it before and in talks with Elizabeth she removed the info from her blog. BUT. She never posted the title of the book, revealing that this must be Randy as he is the owner of Spellbinder by his own admissions. Quode (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This may bring into question the article's origins but it has nothing to do with notability. 72.207.222.224 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people and information listed as part of the World of Greyhawk Fan Club, “which once claimed to be "the largest Greyhawk fan organization in the world." The organization claimed among its members such luminaries as Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Rob Kuntz, Frank Mentzer, Len Lakofka and Jim Ward. In 1998 Randy sponsored the "Celebrity Greyhawk Dinner" and "Greyhawk Celebrity Panel Seminar." Has left no record, is never mentioned by any of the listed people shown or part of the shared 30 year history of Grayhawk. In fact all of Randies involvment with D&D and Grayhawk seems to have ended 10 years ago. Also, as an auther his 2 works are again seperated by 7 years with no detail as to what he has accomplished in the hobby during the lull. He did try to get his book published by Necromancer games, who rejected the manuscript. He then had rewritten the book, as noted when I sent a copy to NG for review and self published the work through his company Spellbinder.Quode (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Richards is not the only alleged liar: http://dnd.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Randy_Richards Is the gaming industry full of loons and haters? 72.207.222.224 (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forget WP:SNOW, this thing is two days overdue already. It should have been closed on Tuesday. This is one of the nastiest AFDs I've seen in a long time and the sooner an admin closes this thing (preferably by deleting it then salting it) the better. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nasty is right. And paranoid. They can't all be Randy Richards or his puppets. 68.11.140.249 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
Ummm... yes... they all can actually. Every IP edit here comes from the same Cox Cable netblock originating from Baton Rouge or Chalmette, LA (save one which came out of Miami, FL). This includes the "I'm not a puppet" one the posted right below this one. Please don't play us for fools. We aren't stupid and I, personally, have very little tolerance for these kinds of games. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment THAT is the key piece of information i needed. i promised myself i would stay out of this fracas because randy richards belongs to my science fiction group. i got here by following the trail of links. someone from the d&d wikipedia e-mailed randy a link to the same article over there. then he posted it to the star one delta yahoo group. i followed a link from there to the spellbinder games message board. from there it mentioned this article and its deletion discussion. there was no link so I googled it and found this. the s.o.d. group is based in baton rouge. it makes sense to me that most of the ip's would be from the same general area. it doesn't prove anything but it makes more sense than randy as a master hacker. 72.151.2.155 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment getting members of his science fiction club to votespam here is forbidden by WP:SOCK just the same as doing it himself. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of War[edit]

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

Unsourced and likely unverifiable crystal balling. MER-C 09:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should say why I believe this to be a hoax? If you look the creator is Jackob. There is a Jack O'Brien listed as a main character along with a several other of the O'Brien clan. A cast list that reads like family and school chums along with a possible candidate for class teacher (Mr. Cook). This was something obviously thought up in the computer room at school one day. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Dal Santo[edit]

Ivan Dal Santo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability. Soccer Base notes "No games played by Ivan Dal Santo in 2007/2008" [29] Also no links and no content. Unimportant player who has never played for an important team and is now apparently out of the game. Sensiblekid. (talk) 09:14, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horse sales[edit]

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

This article was nominated for deletion around a month ago; the conclusion was generally to keep the article pending improvement promised by its author.

However, in the month since then, there's been absolutely no improvement in this article, besides the minor edits I made to remove the most obvious of the advertising content; the original author has disappeared. I'm not competent to write an article on the history or practice of horse trading, and the current article is - at best - a skimpy "how-to" for a new horse buyer. Moreover, if someone wanted to write an article on horse trading, they'd be best off starting from a clean slate, rather than trying to turn this pig's ear into a silk purse. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment' Horse trading is the British term; logrolling is the American term. (Of course, Americans use it informally as well, but it tends not to have the political connotations.) --Dhartung | Talk 10:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that, there is of course Horse fair, which is a notable event in the annual gypsy calendar. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sony Computer Entertainment. JERRY talk contribs 05:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICE Team[edit]

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

Non-notable group or company. Fails WP:V Wisdom89 (talk) 07:37, 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; this is a borderline case, and some good arguments have been put forth about the notability of the animal covers, but ultimately the problems with copyright (the engravings are public domain, the whole covers are not), the lack of notability of most of the candidates for the list, appear unsurmountable. The cover concept is notable, but well covered by O'Reilly Media book covers. — Coren (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of animal illustrations featured on O'Reilly publications[edit]

List of animal illustrations featured on O'Reilly publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable list. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Undeath (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The animal engravings are public domain - that's one reason they were chosen. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The animals are PD but the book cover itself isn't perhaps if you could get (or crop) the original engravings and have third party reliable sources, then the List would be feasible.--Lenticel (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not practical? The article already exists and pretty much writes itself. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, was not clear. I mean the copyright issue makes keeping the article impractical, not that the article is itself impractical.Sensiblekid (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't quite get what you mean. Can you clarify please? Sensiblekid (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The search indicates that the animal illustrations are often remarked upon. We don't have to reproduce all the illustrations here - a list of the titles and corresponding animals would be fine, with just one or two covers as examples. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would support Keep on that basis.Sensiblekid (talk) 17:00, 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 Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ytri Dalur[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE -- (I have already tagged same article with another name) Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:17, 25 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) 06:19, 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 Delete CSD A7 (Group) by John Reaves. Non-admin closure RoninBK T C 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coorparoo Kings[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE. I tried to find some citation as well but failed -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:20, 25 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) 06:18, 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 Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heimari Dalur[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:15, 25 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) 06:04, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tina (music)[edit]

Tina (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; lots of productive discussion going on; im sure this can be solved without an Afd hanging over its head. John Vandenberg (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harlequin (color)[edit]

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

Non-notable color name, not supported by the cited sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my recommendation to merge based on Wrad's comments below. I don't believe it is notable enough for it's own article, but a shades of green article makes sense. PaleAqua (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The shades of green in that second article almost appear to be based on Template:Shades of green, specifically look at this old version. Notice the entries at the end are in the same not-quite alphabetical order. PaleAqua (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm! Good point. I missed that. Also need to watch for the old trap of references that are derived (but not obviously) from WP. Might change my vote, but want to research it properly first. Will hit the refs when at the library tomorrow if I get time. Sensiblekid (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Keraunos, you've made a big deal about "color wheel" colors in many color articles, but your observations remain unsourced. There is nothing in the cited source about a color wheel, or about it being exactly halfway between those. Amber at least has the property that people recognize it as a color name and have some idea what color it is; certainly not the case for Harlequin, a color name that was in use in some field between 1923 and 1930, but it is not used today, as far as we know. Alternative names include green-yellow and yellow-green, as you can find by googling the hex code. Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The colors "green-yellow" and "yellow-green" are specific web colors. They have nothing to do with the color harlequin, except that they are all shades of green. Keraunos (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, there are named colors yellow-green and green-yellow in some sets (both green-yellow and yellow-green are X11's YellowGreen accordiing to wikipedia. And I think I mispoke and meant to be commenting on the unsourced remark that was there that Charteuse was a color previously called yellow-green; whatever. But there is no harlequin, or other nameed color for that matter, between Chartreuse or yellow-green and green. You had to dig pretty deep to fill in what you thought was a gap on your color wheel. The underlying color wheel that you base so many color articles on is itself not documented any place I can find. Presumably you're using the Hue numbers from HSV and HSL as your basis and looking for color names you can distribute around it; is there any source for such a set of color names? If so that would be defensible, whereas your own version is not so. Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has had over a year to develop already. I pruned it back to what was sourced or sourceable, after I got hold of the one book that it appears in, and I think we should just put it out of its misery now. Dicklyon (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing known about it is that it's listed in a 1930 book that says it was first used in 1923. Not notable. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, There already exists an article Variations of green. But I agree that Shades of Green is the best article name for where to put Harlequin and other greens that would not merit an article. PaleAqua (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“Variations” (or similar) is a better name than “shades”, because “shade” has a separate, technical meaning, making the phrase “shades of green” ambiguous. --jacobolus (t) 10:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the one of the sense of shade is the darkness (or sometimes lightness to darkness) of a color. The problem for me with variations is that it implies that variations say of green aren't really green. If we are to avoid the term shade varieties might be better. Though this discussion probably belongs back at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color#Various proposals pertaining to the Shades of ... templates & categories. PaleAqua (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point. I second the varieties of green suggestion then. :) --jacobolus (t) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the merge votes are suggesting a page be created for less notable shades of green. The page name Shades of green would be a logical name though the Variations of green page already exists. If the shades of green name was used for such a page, it would be logical to move the hotel page to Shades of Green (hotel). Considering that there is already a Category:Shades of green (as well as one for other major colors) and a Template:Shades of green so it would be make sense to use the name Shades of Green. PaleAqua (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, with Biographies, you have to have 2000 references to yourself to get a page. Harlequin as a color has about five, if you're generous. It doesn't deserve its own page by any stretch of the imagination. It needs to be merged into a page like PaleAqua and I have suggested. Wrad (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, my bad, as you are absolutely correct, PaleAqua. Somehow I missed the parenthetical phrase (Right now it's a hotel page, but that should change.) And yes, if this were to merge, your suggestions on article/category naming make sense, although the defenders of that military resort article might object. As far as sources: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, but this is is not an extraordinary claim, it's just a color. The notability, although not very strong, seems sufficient, given the arguments so far, especially the 1930 book. And I might point out that the various colorspaces, color charts/tables, the various color profiles, standards, and color coordinate systems are technical and complex and may not make sense to many readers or editors. Also, commercial color names are marketing driven, much like typographical font names, which add confusion to any color naming system. I oppose both merging and deletion. — Becksguy (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to merge it at first, and maybe work to improve a varieties of green article to see exactly how that would be structured at a high-quality level. If that doesn't work, then I think we should delete it. It's hanging by a thread either way, but I'm not willing to cut the thread until we've tried fixing a varieties of green article. Wrad (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear to me that there's a consensus to delete. The only argument in favor of keeping was from Keraunos, who created it, who says it's important because of "the fact that it is a color on the color wheel between X11 green and chartreuse", which is a fact taht he made up. There are no sources for this color other than one squared label by this name in one color dictionary from 1930; there's no evidence that it has used since then, and evidence that is was not used much before then. It's a blip; nothing; nada. Delete it. It can be mentioned in one of the one articles as another name one used for a green variant; that's all. It's certainly not notable on its own. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are five editors in favor of keeping with arguments, as well as three for merging (which are not delete !votes, and should not be weighed in with them). That hardly amounts to a consensus to delete. I agree with Aleta, it seems like no consensus to me also. — Becksguy (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While my opinion is merge, my opinion is closer to the delete camp than the keep camp. I think the color should possibly be given the benefit of the doubt and included in a shades of green article, but that it doesn't deserve it's own page. As for tallying up the !votes, the deciding factor should really be the arguments presented. PaleAqua (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. The supporters of the "keep" position have still given no reasons why this is notable. --jacobolus (t) 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Correct, this is not a vote, which is why I used the word "weighed" rather than "counted" referring to !votes. There are several strong keep arguments given by various editors above. And merge reasons also. Just because someone doesn't think the reasons are important or doesn't like them, doesn't mean they aren't there. Granted, notability is not very impressive here, but it's sufficient. (1) McGraw-Hill is a very respected technical publishing house and is an unimpeachable reliable source. Their 1930 book alone would be a sufficiently RS, as this is not an extraordinary claim. (2) The fact that this color has historical roots is a major reason (if not the major reason) for keeping it, as notability is not temporary (per Aleta and guidelines/policy). And that's what makes WP a great encyclopedia. (3) That the color is still being used is evidenced by the two refs from Sensiblekid. (4) This color was being used before color TV became common, obviously before the web based color models, mapping, and colorspace systems, before high speed web newsprint 4-color (CMYK) printing processes, and before still or movie color photography (Kodachrome in 1935) and (Technicolor in 1932) had much impact. (5) The first major serious mathematical based colorspace system was the CIE 1931 colorspace, after the color Harlequin was already in use. (6) One can not always easily map historic colors into modern colorspaces or models, and that is not a disqualification for notability. (7) The color is listed in the Template:Shades of green, and has been since it was created in June 2005. And as an article since September 2006. (8) And finally, based on the arguments here from Wrad and PaleAqua, I've relaxed my opposition to merging into Shades of Green, as a fallback if Keep fails. But I still strongly oppose Deletion. There's too much information that's worth saving. — Becksguy (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these arguments are based on fallacies. The color's "historical roots" consist of one mention in one source, which source seems to have made it up arbitrarily. The name doesn't seem to have been used much before (apparently at least once in 1923, woo!), and didn't stick. Given that this is essentially a dictionary definition, I checked the OED, where there is no mention of harlequin having anything to do with a particular color (instead it seems to mean, in one of its senses, "partly of one colour and partly of another or others"). What the hell does color TV have to do with anything (i.e. points 4–6 make no sense). As for 7), the shades of green template has been stupid since 2005, but this hasn't been changed because no one cares enough to change it—that hardly implies notability, and should have no bearing on what the proper course of action is today. There are many word definitions which are used once, by a single source, and then never adopted more broadly. Given that such utterly non-notable items don't even fit in the scope of a dictionary (which requires more than one use before inclusion), why are they supposed to fit in Wikipedia? Finally, you haven't pretended to address the objections based on WP:NOT --jacobolus (t) 09:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the color is being used today, as noted above. The continued existence of the template and article implies consensus, and not caring enough to change something is consensus by default. What specific objections based on WP:NOT do you have in mind, as it covers many topics? Also, Harlequin can mean a color that appears to be different colors depending on how the light reflects from it, as here, or this paint vendor here, or from PPG paint here for example. I am suggesting that there are several meanings to Harlequin in it's color aspect that can be developed. My comments about color TV and colorspaces is to show that much of the technical research in color occurred after the color was first in use during the 1920s. This would help explain the difficulty in mapping that color to modern systems as an unreasonable rationale to delete. This article still seems to be sufficiently more than just a definition to me. — Becksguy (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those links are reliable sources. We can't just put everything every paintshop in the world says about every single color. They all have different ideas and none of them are authoritative. Wrad (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming those links are RS, they are just there to additionally show that there's more to this article than just a simple color definition, which seems to be the claim proffered for deletion. And as to the paintshops, I said just about the same thing in my original comment about color names being marketing driven, so we agree on that. However, the McGraw-Hill book from 1930 is authoritative. — Becksguy (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense. You can't use unreliable sources to prove anything. That's why they're unreliable. You can't use them to "show that there's more to this article than just a simple color definition." It's just ludicrous. That's why we're saying no links have been provided to show that this is any better than a dictionary definition. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

247virtual[edit]

247virtual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Based on this search, I'm not entirely sure whether it's more of a) Wiki is not a dictionary or b) WP:SPAM issues. Travellingcari (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commentit appears as if this move has already been done (including the link to the company's site) by bot rendering this discussion moot. I do agree with the others here that this wasn't really the best move since it doesn't appear to be a word in frequent use. Travellingcari (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Response I'm not sure what undo protocol is when it comes to undoing bot moves to another Wiki and I don't work on Wiktionary at all. Perhaps someone else will suggest what, if anything, needs to be done. I think we all have our oopses in life. Travellingcari (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Kallmeyer[edit]

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

Non- notable artist - searching doesn't turn up much in terms of outlet coverage. Wisdom89 (talk) 05:37, 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 John Vandenberg (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dextrapodophobia[edit]

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

Fails all notability criteria. Probable vanity. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:36, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Life Communications[edit]

Family Life Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It may be notable (I can't tell if the article is about the entity or the person (Warren as mentioned in line 1) but either way it wreaks of WP:SPAM Travellingcari (talk) 05:33, 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 Delete CSD A7 (Bio) by John Reaves. Non-admin closure RoninBK T C 07:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen kramer glickman[edit]

Stephen kramer glickman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An actor/singer with a couple of credits to his name. Originally prodded for lack of notability and inability to verify the content but the prod was removed hence it is now here. A couple of sources have been added but this actor still does not meet the criteria for Entertainers or WP:NOTE more generally. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:08, 25 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) 05:30, 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 Keep. Fram (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Men of Stone[edit]

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

Book does not meet book notability guidelines. AUTiger » talk 05:29, 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 all John Vandenberg (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Network Manifold Associates[edit]

Network Manifold Associates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
ZSENTRY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zmail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable company and products; all articles created by company founder and CEO. Can't find any reliable sources for either the company or products. I have access to the acm.org paper cited for ZSENTRY and it has only a trivial mention of Zmail. Jfire (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All three articles were, and as such clearly identified, created by this editor. Not mentioned in the comment above, but a positive point, the articles do not read like an advertisement. The articles are recent and I was hoping that other editors would add more material, rather than continue to do so myself. Given the request in my talk page by Jfire, I'll add more reference material for notability. Edgerck (talk) 19:48, 25 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) 05:27, 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 delete no assertion of notability. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Social Path[edit]

A Social Path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability - all references are blog related and fail to establish the importance of the band. Wisdom89 (talk) 05:17, 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 delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Eirest Green[edit]

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

From the article itself "Being fairly new, The Eirest Green is not a large forum in members, posts or boards. It has has few members, but all are active and the number is growing steadily. The Eirest Green is also still under construction, but it is open. It will be finished soon." There is no notability. search returns precisely 0 ghits. Travellingcari (talk) 05:16, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Book (Event Industry Directory)[edit]

Black Book (Event Industry Directory) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be in direct violation of Wikipedia:SPAM#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles Travellingcari (talk) 05:09, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Las olas[edit]

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

Seems like thinly disguised ad for surf shop (all three links are surf related) that doesn't meet notability. First sentence is a dictionary definition and the second. Well yes it's a main street but I don't see this article evolving to encompass the road (no comment on its notability). At first I thought it was a disambig page, but there's nothing else with the title showing in search Travellingcari (talk) 04:54, 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 by SGGH. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick F. Leonard[edit]

Patrick F. Leonard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

His work has appeared in the sources mentioned in the article, however nothing appears to meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals as there doesn't appear to be anything notable about his role in the fields of poetry/sentence writing. Yes, it's a fairly new article but based on the work he's done, I don't think that even with work it will meet the standards. Travellingcari (talk) 04:17, 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. Fram (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay MacFarland[edit]

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

The subject of the article fails both the basic and additional criteria for notability under WP:BIO.

Beyond listing her as being in several films, I could not find any reliable source material about her. In the previous AFD, editors, who were likely her management company, claimed that the material in the article could be verified from Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. In Daily Variety, she was only mentioned in two listings of actors currently filming the film E&A. In The Hollywood Reporter, she was only mentioned in three listings of actors currently filming the film Spin.

The additional criteria of WP:BIO includes: "With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." She does not appear to meet this. She appeared uncredited in an episode of the television show Close to Home. She appeared in the films A Lot Like Love and Lucky You. I could not find any reviews of her performance in either film. BlueAzure (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

have also been deleted by AfD as NN personalities (they both included the same image) ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 12:37, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi5.ro[edit]

Hi5.ro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB, also obvious WP:COI. Nothing to back up notability other than a few random traffic stats which don't satisfy web. Speedy declined, here we are. Crossmr (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and a lack of anything notable. Travellingcari (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment copied from the talk page: Hi there, I am the one who made the page for hi5.ro . I am new on wikipedia and I find the whole mechanism very hard to use. I cannot even find out if here is the wright place to answer to the deletion proposal of my article. I found out that some user proposed: "Delete per nomination and a lack of anything notable" As I understand there is some problem with the nomination... I don't think so! How can I speak about hi5.ro without pronounce HI5? This is the title of this website and is real! It was established 4 years ago and it has some history back... This website exists and this is a good reason to enter the greatest "pedia" in the world. Wikipedia is the greatest "thing" about EVERYTHING! Who is the GOD on Wikipedia? Who can tell if some existing thing is or not enough important for other readers? And after all, hi5.ro is important for 100,000 romanians and europeans. Please check out the List of social networking websites ! Here you will find some social networks with less users... You know what I think? I think the user who proposed for deletion the article about hi5.ro has his own reasons or interests. He is not a good wikipedian. That's what we are thinking, me and other 100,000 users of hi5.ro . Thanks for reading this.

Catalin Stancu (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Travellingcari (talk) 11:46, 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 I Speedy-deleted this under WP:CSD#G12, as a word-for-word copy of NOSTRADAMUS, COMET PLANET 2012 AD, which bears licensing: "COPYRIGHT © 2002 - 2005 HARRY WALTHER & SATANSRAPTURE.COM ALL RIGHTS RESERVED". Incidentally, to the nominator: this was not nonsense, it was very well written, and extraordinarily understandable. This was the subject of a 3-hour special on television last week. I hope that somebody does make a Nostradamus/2012 article someday, without violating copyright. JERRY talk contribs 04:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradamus doomsday[edit]

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

Contested speedy (by author), then contested prod (same). Page is nonsense & pure original research. Even if the author could provide citations, there's still no notability. Gromlakh (talk) 03:20, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peta-Maree Rixon[edit]

Peta-Maree Rixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is about a non-notable actress who's only credited movie role is that of an in-suit actress in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. The voice of this role was provided by a separate actor and the costume in question covers the entire body. JPG-GR (talk) 03:15, 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 No consensus John Vandenberg (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gossipreport.com[edit]

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

Contested PROD, a likely non-notable website, although sourced, smells very spamy to me. Mr Senseless (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment-it does sound kinda spamy, but to have publicity as being on the Dr. Phil show makes it some what notable. Also has third party sources, and with better wording and renaming, it could probably remain, but still sketchy about it.--TrUCo9311 03:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment-Could you help me understand what needs to change on that page to be "noable"? And I'm not sure what "smells very spamy" refers to? Are you flagging the site because you believe it's not a real website with tens of thousands of users? Look at Alexa, look at the references I added to the site, look at the site itself. I looked at a dozen other social networking sites on wikipedia and they all had basically the same information that I included on this page. Thanks for your help. Mak62555 08:51, 31 January 2008



  • CommentGossipReport.com is innovative and significant because it is breaking new territory in the collection of social history. It may seem trivial to some, however the long term implications of being a reverse of Myspace could have a huge impact on society. A site where you don't control the totality of your online persona is significant and gaining in significance on a daily basis. This site is growing at such a fast rate to pass it off as insignificant, especially in light of the other social networking sites that are still considered viable entities on Wiki and to even delete this site from that list seems unreasonable. Gossipreport.com is fully CAN-SPAM compliant, is fully funded, and is an up and coming entity. The site has had more than 5 million hits since the appearance on the Dr Phil Show and I will agree that all sites have a ranking on Alexa, a ranking as one of the top 50,000 sites in the US recently and 900% growth is significant. Gossipreport.com is backed by significant funding and is not some garage created site held together by duct tape and bailing wire that may be gone tomorrow. GossipReport.com deserves to be a Wiki entry.


  • Comment

http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=6968948
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20070717/NEWS/707170381/1004
http://www.ehow.com/how_2184477_use-gossip-report-gossipreportcom.html
http://trends.vuaw.com/gossipreport.com-1200963463.html
http://www.digg.com/people/GossipReport_com_You_Might_Already_Be_a_Part_of_It
http://www.wwaytv3.com/video/gossip_web_site_debuts_in_wilmington_legal_questions_surface/07
http://www.wwaytv3.com/what_do_you_think_about_wilmingtons_new_gossip_website
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20080131/NEWS/801310334

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mak62555 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Significant coverage" (By Wikipedia definition) means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. There is more than a half dozen sources listed above that address the subject directly in detail.
I can not find any Wikipedia inclusion definition of "Spamy". I can reiterate the comment posted above that GossipReport.com is CAN-SPAM compliant.
As far as "Sketchy", I also can't find any Wikipedia inclusion definition for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mak62555 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — Mak62555 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Two Comments: First of all, CAN-SPAM compliancy has nothing to do with Wikipedia articles. CAN-SPAM is a US Federal Government act intended to reduce unsolicited email. Spam for the purposes of Wikipedia is an article that is written either blatently as an advertisement, or is written subjectively about a company and/ or its products. Additionally just because a website is featured on Dr. Phil does not automatically make it notable. In what context did Dr. Phil feature Gossipreport.com? Mr Senseless (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahek Modha[edit]

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

A suspected hoax. The article makes a series of unlikely claims that when considered together seem to me implausible. There has been no sources of any kind given to support any claims made Mattinbgn\talk 03:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No don't delete this I'm a modha and we had an uncle who was apparently very famous in zambia an thanks to wikipedia i got to hear mroe of him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.199.240 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother in the Nude[edit]

Mother in the Nude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is an an episode guide of Mortified already at List of Mortified episodes, this is the exact wording from the summary from the list. Doesn't need an article per that. TrUCo9311 03:05, 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 delete per WP:CSD#G12 Blatant copyright infringement from here and here . Mattinbgn\talk 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Lutheran Church[edit]

Faith Lutheran Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church. No reliable sources asserting notability have been provided and this appears to be a typical non-exceptional church community Mattinbgn\talk 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-fails WP:N and only records I see in a search on the web are a map and phonebook. --TrUCo9311 03:12, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack travers[edit]

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

Non-notable teacher and author. Mattinbgn\talk 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this article should be deleted, as previously there was a article of the same man that was deleted because of continuous, inappropriate editions. I took it upon myself to recreate the article, as it was a disappointment to many when the article was removed. I shall watch the article and delete any editions that are not appropriate for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psm2420 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 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. Lara❤Love 18:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary's Paradox[edit]

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

Prodded, prod disputed by an IP who is probably the creator. It's OR and, well, this. Delete. UsaSatsui (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you view this article as silly shows that you are a mediocre mind. Perhaps if you thought about it more deeply you would see the relevance and truth in this article. This article explains more about existence itself more than any other article listed on this web site regarding the matter and if you still do not believe this rational message then you can personally verify my claims by comparing other articles consisting of this matter to this article. AnaxMcShane (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This paradox proves the big bang could have never occurred the way it is currently explained and that black holes do not function the way they are currently explained!

The article is notable, published and cited and your mediocrities for deleting this article will not go unnoticed. AnaxMcShane (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has? Where? --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The work has been published here ... yesterday! WWGB (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion does not count as a notable source for the purpose of you personally asserting that self assertions are not notable. You contradicted yourself by writing what you wrote, Maxamegalon. AnaxMcShane (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To: JuJube, this coming from someone who favors Yu-Gi-Oh over truth!

You seem to embrace the publishings of menial things such as irrelevant movies and movie plots which are seen as menial by the vast majority of the scientific populace over this article?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnaxMcShane (talk • contribs) 07:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the scientific populace, has this paradox been cited in any peer-reviewed scientific journals? It looks like you posted it to your own website, but please understand that Wikipedia is not a place to advance new ideas or research (we're more geared toward presenting general information regarding ideas and memes which are already established and known). You're free to post on your website and pursue this hypothesis as you like, but please note that Wikipedia is not your website, and does have standards for inclusion. Those standards may include elements of popular culture, but I don't see how that's relevant here -- again, Wikipedia's articles, in particular scientific articles, are not a good place to advance fundamentally new thought. This is not meant to imply that you or your work are at all less important or meaningful than topics which we do cover, only that we are geared in a different direction than you may have anticipated. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are standards which are double-standard and many of you seem to break the 'standard' rules that Wikipedia has set. AnaxMcShane (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To: Ronabop, your opinions are your own of course, but can neither be proven or verified. You have written your opinion of my 'poor grasp', but it is only your opinion and perhaps it is you that does not grasp Kurt Godel's theorems. "When arguing with a fool be sure he is not similarly engaged." AnaxMcShane (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You are right. Closed reason and logic systems cannot be proven, or verified, within themselves. That's the problem with the article's foundations, and the last ~100 years of work on this topic. It's pretty much Jr. High Philosophy 101. If you re-read Gödel, or maybe Hofsteader's work on the topic (it's a bit more accessible) perhaps you can find some new and interesting boundaries which are not already known and published. Once they are published in credible journals, I'd love to see them here! Ronabop (talk) 08:22, 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 - no assertion of notability Gwernol 03:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cow-Mo[edit]

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

I get a big zero (of hits that are actually relevant to the alleged subject matter) on google. Looks like a prank to me. —Noah 02:54, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Chase[edit]

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

Unotable UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 02:47, 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 Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hard Way (Owsley album)[edit]

The Hard Way (Owsley album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonsense UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 02:38, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stratford[edit]

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

Another footballer who has yet to make a professional appearance and so fails WP:BIO Peanut4 (talk) 02:24, 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 Redirected by nom.; good call. John Vandenberg (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Celtic music[edit]

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

article is on a non-substantiative, poorly defined term that is not in common usage. I cannot find references to support it, and so as an attempt to create a previously undefined genre of music, it qualifies as WP:OR MatthewLiberal (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just redirected it to Celtic music, which seems to be a good solution. --MatthewLiberal (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Vandenberg (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Welbeck[edit]

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

The criterion for notability is appearance in a competitive match Kevin McE (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Seems to meet notability standards. --Solumeiras (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he hasn't played for the senior team that doesn't mean he shouldn't be listed: no, but it means that there is not necessarily the requisite level of notability to have an article; otherwise most articles in the MUFC Reserves and Academy page would be deleted: thank you for drawing attention to them. I'll have a look. Kevin McE (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the first team squad having recently been given a squad number. Also in the manchester evening news article (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/manchester_united/s/1033887_fergie_backing_for_welbeck) Ferguson states that he thinks he will be involved in first team affairs once or twice this season. Surely this is notable, especially given his youth international appearances. James (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a squad number does not meet the criteria. Whoever makes predictions, it still comes under WP:CRYSTAL. Youth internationals do not confer notability. When/if he plays, the article gains its validity: until then, it lacks it. Kevin McE (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok im not used to the discussions and already established rules but in the notability guide it says that althletes must play a competitive game before an article is created. Has it yet been established if youth tournaments and under 18 football is a competitive game? James (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Vandenberg (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viruses in the Resident Evil series[edit]

Viruses in the Resident Evil series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is just plot repetition from the plot sections of the various Resident Evil articles, which explain each of these viruses in appropriate detail. There is no assertion of notability independent of the games, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The sources provided above seem to evidence ample proof of notability itself. As the one who rewrote the article (and rewrote it as someone who's not played the games), it doesn't contain any substantial plot info that should be in the individual games' articles (most of the plot info is background-related - there are few if any "during-game" bits), and from reading some of the articles, this seems to be the case; for example, the Resident Evil article basically only says "there is a virus that turns people to Tyrants". Also, much of the info from the different games would be extremely hard to understand taken from game to game, since the info really only comes together from its multiple parts in the games.
If it would serve any better to have a "Universe of the Resident Evil series", like we are doing for Zelda and like has been done for Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts, that should work. But personally, it was hard enough to understand the info from what I've heard of the series until it was all amassed together and integrated.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles, even though they were merged here, eventually have to be of good quality, and assert notability through referencing. If it had at any stage, it would not be here, and that's all there is to it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notable plot elements are essentially subarticles when there is enough material, which certainly is the case here. Do you think there is material for more than the bare name? where should it go? you have removed it from everywhere else, including the main article. DGG (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into parent article and redirected. This seems to be the best way of keeping relatively useful information without having non-notable mini-articles springing up everywhere. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 14:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie State University, Department of Public Safety[edit]

Note to closing administrator: there is some discussion on the talk page which includes material removed from this page, including one !vote. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie State University, Department of Public Safety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Small (14 officers) campus police department with no independent sources given. Appears to be non-notable according to WP:ORG. L. Pistachio (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The existence of any other article that may warrant deletion is not relevant to this discussion (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). It is solely about the merits of the article at hand. This does not have as much right to exist on Wikipedia as NYPD or LAPD because those are very large, notable agencies, and this is not. This information belongs in the article on the university. --L. Pistachio (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At what point is a police department too small to be notable? Per Dhartung's department, the only reason there is no article is because no one has written one yet. There was no article for the Prince George's County Police Department (of which there are over 1400 officers) or the Prince George's County Sheriff's Office before I created it. Because they didn't exist, would that make them not worthy of an article. If we delete the BSU Police Department, then all other departments that are on the any of the list of's should be deleted...because they are not worthy enough. Wikipedia's criteria is simple...have references and third party sources, of which the BSUPD has. Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill here folks! Free the BSUPD! Thanks! Sallicio (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio[reply]

As far as I'm aware, there isn't set criteria as of yet for police department size. I'd think that 14 is too small, though. matt91486 (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- :*Perhaps. But consider this: Look at all the list of's. Someone looks into the encyclopedia because they want to know a certain thing about a certain subject. We are not here to dictate what people can and can not see/or know about. The guideline is for notability is referenced and third-party cited (yes I know it's not set in stone but it is there for a reason). Beyond that it is just personal opinion. Are you now going to go into my list of creations and start speedy deleting all those that you don't think are valid? The main thing to consider when editing is to look at the content and the criteria. Leave one's opinion out. Let others decide what they want to look at. Perhaps I am in left field here. I have never understood why people spend so much of their wiki-time debating over trivial stuff when there is actual vandalism going on, patent nonsense articles being created, etc, etc. I am not oversimplifying, I'm being a realist. Let the article be. Thanks. Sallicio (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio[reply]

  • You state, "The guideline is for notability is 'referenced' and 'third-party cited'. The article in question is neither. That's why we're having this discussion. My opinion has nothing to do with it. --L. Pistachio (talk) 07:46, 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 Keep. John Vandenberg (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laukkai Drugs Elimination Museum[edit]

Laukkai Drugs Elimination Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. No sources. Nothing to assert notability. Undeath (talk) 01:53, 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 transwiki and delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Advance Wars COs[edit]

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

This article is currently--and, from what I can tell from watching it/checking the history, has always been--little more than a collection of fancruft related to the Nintendo Wars series of games. As such, it violates a number of policies, chief among them notability and no original research. Wikipedia is not a guide, and so I'm nominating it for deletion or possible transwikiing to StrategyWiki. jonny-mt 01:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy - "On the battlefield, his units have no strengths or weaknesses. His CO and Super CO Powers, Hyper Repair and Hyper Upgrade, restore health to his units, while Hyper Upgrade also increases the firepower and movement abilities of his units."
Jake - "His CO and Super CO Powers, Beat Down and Block Rock, give movement bonuses to his vehicular units, range bonuses to his indirect-combat units, and even greater attack power on open plains."
Sami - "She specializes in infantry units; as such, they have higher attack power, and can capture properties more quickly. Her transport units also have increased movement. However, her non-infantry direct combat units are slightly weaker. Her CO and Super CO Powers, Double Time and Victory March, give her soldiers extra movement and strength. Victory March also gives soldiers the ability to capture a building in one turn regardless of health."
And so on. I think you'll find that after removing this stuff, there really isn't enough material for a standalone article. --jonny-mt 04:11, 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 speedily deleted (G12) by GlassCobra. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Whyte[edit]

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

Biography UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:42, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Town[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE. No evidence of widespread distribution, no reviews, no awards or otherwise. In addition, none of the individuals or companies involved in the film are notable, nor does this film does not seem to have any sort of cult following. The IMDB profile is essentially empty, and searching for news (let alone reviews) turns up nothing. It looks entertaining, but sadly that's not allowable as a criteria for inclusion. jonny-mt 05:55, 22 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, BLACKKITE 01:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mtihomevideo.com/mti/Zombie%20Town.htm

Per the page above, it was scheduled for release in November, but I only got my review copy through this week, so may have been delayed. For the moment, it seems eminently qualified for inclusion here. Of course, my opinion might change after I've watched it. :-) Jim - TrashCity.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.82.213 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WXHQ-LP[edit]

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

Article is about a low-power radio station which does not assert its notability. JPG-GR (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a Part 15 operation, and the FCC's service-area map shows that its signal reaches basically all of Newport, Rhode Island, which is not exactly a "small neighborhood." Deor (talk) 01:57, 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 Keep (closed by Non-admin) RMHED (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WBLQ-LP[edit]

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

Article is about a low-power radio station which does not assert its notability. JPG-GR (talk) 01:32, 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. Fram (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patchin's School[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable junior high school, relatively few google hits, school does not appear to exist any more. Roleplayer (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a site for information gathering. There are many schools that are also not well known on this site. There are also a lot of famous schools that do not have accurate information. This site is for information gathering, and Patchin's, though small, has its own story to tell. If this page is deleted then this site will not be truly for sharing and spreading information but a site that oppresses and erases that history of those articles that are not "important" enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchinsalumni (talk • contribs) 04:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: This isn't about other schools. They are getting cleaned up. The big problem here is a lack of independent published sources to verify what this school was. A Wikipedia article about a school needs more than just alumni tradition. I'd support a keep on principle if sources could be found. • Gene93k (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see K-12? I see Junior High, which is something much different. As far as I'm aware, there is no assumption of notability for elementary and junior high schools. Pairadox (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-RS quality source (Tripatlas for Martinez, CA) suggests it was. Whatever this school was, it appears to be real enough for a merge/mention into Martinez, California#Schools, but there seems to be an edit war over that. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A circular source, since the small print at the bottom of that link indicates the info came from Wikipedia. Pairadox (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a few sources out there that at least mention the school (such as this one), so I suspect it's at least real. It's more that the author is trying to invent notability that clearly isn't there, and so he's making stuff up to essentially pad the school's resume. It definitely needs to be salted, though, based on the call to ignore consensus and keep putting the article back up. Gromlakh (talk) 19:44, 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Chester[edit]

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

the standard at WP:BIO is playing, not merely being in a squad Kevin McE (talk) 21:55, 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 John Vandenberg (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Séan Evans[edit]

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

The standard at WP:BIO is playing, not merely being in a squad Kevin McE (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where? Paulbrock (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Art's probab;y referring to the debate over Gavin Hoyte......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And on what grounds was Hoyte reprieved? His article leaves him short of the threshold. Kevin McE (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the discussion. Rules aren't everything. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This section made me smile: Gavin_Hoyte#Arsenal career statistics. It'll be a shame if/when its symmetry and general perfection gets ruined. --Dweller (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm: he seems to have been resurrected on the ground of having been in the squad, and a write up of his games with England U17. Application of WP:BIO#Athletes seems to have changed rather in 3 months. Kevin McE (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Bird Gardiner[edit]

Asa Bird Gardiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The reason is evident from the article. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Sorry for the lame reason. My keyboard is not working o I was avoiding long descriptions. The reason I put it up was that it is an unotable biography with no encyclopedic content whatsoever. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Also, a case he argued, People v Molineux, led to an historic decision by the state Supreme Court of New York that was later the bases for the Federal Rule of Evidence.[43] --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 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

Sam Hewson[edit]

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

Renominate: the standard at WP:BIO is playing, not merely being in a squad Kevin McE (talk) 21:51, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lamjung Campus[edit]

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

Not a notable place. Should be merged into a relevant article. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:11, 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 John Vandenberg (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New Jersey Song[edit]

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

Unotable UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. The song is quite popular in Haddon Township and some surrounding areas due to its display in the MarsRed Music Store.

thanks --Jeffhardywhyx (talk) 13:01, 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. There's no need to drag the discussion any further, this single should have been procedurally deleted as part of the delete closure for the band. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fer Sure[edit]

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

This article was already bundled in with an AfD for Medic Droid, the band who performed the song. The result of the AfD was "no consensus" but on further review that result was overturned and the decision to delete was made due to notability issues. However, when Medic Droid's article was deleted this article was missed. This article has already been chosen for deletion by the review committee. -- Atamachat 00:43, 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 Keep (non-admin close). RMHED (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Schaub[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Article was an overturned speedy from DRV. It is unclear if the article passes WP:PROF. No sources at the moment. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, one of the reasons her nomination is controversial is precisely because it is a very major position, and her credentials are somewhat on the low side for it--thus giving some discussions of the possible basis for the nomination. I assume this will be discussed further in the article; it applies to several other recent nominees to the BC as well.DGG (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial appointments tend to create controversy, and a quick check on Google news archive confirms her appointment was discussed in the media. So I think we're in agreement here -- while the inclusion criterion for most academics is merit, there are cases where inclusion is warranted regardless of their standing in the academic community. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; this closure is in no way influenced by my own !vote, but rather by the obvious consensus here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WEGI[edit]

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

Couldn't find a CSD criteria for it. Lacks references and isn't verifiable. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 00:23, 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.
More