< July 14 July 16 >
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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Me At Six[edit]

You Me At Six (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No external sources. Singles apparently privately released. Fail notability test of WP:MUSIC. Multiple speedies under this article's belt, so let's put it down for good with an AFD. Kww (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tag deleted. It asserts importance (toured with Paramore, etc.), so it isn't A7 material. Unfortunately, notability issues can't properly be speedied.
    Kww (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General Comment Many of you need to reread A7. It reads
  • An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable.
A reasonable indication of why it might be notable is a pretty weak standard, and asserting that the band has toured with notable bands crosses it. Being a lower standard than notability is quite intentional, and Fails WP:MUSIC is never a reason for an A7.
Kww (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose my problem is with what "touring with" means. Does it mean supported or opened for the other band or just that they played at some of the same places? In my opinion the first would be an assertion of notability but, the second isn't. If it's an ambiguous claim an attempt should be made by the includer of said information to provide a credible reference. The attempt itself should be what makes it a proper assertion, otherwise we can create any old rubbish we want as long as we put the right phrase in (which again in my opinion sort of defeats the purpose of the criteria... letter of the "law" vs. spirit of the "law" I suppose. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like it if A7 was looser. I used to do new pages patrol, and got a lot of nasty comments from admins for applying A7 the way you would like to, so now I'm pretty cautious. So far as I'm concerned, "has the word untitled in the title" should be a speedy criterion.
Kww (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Mayan Connection[edit]

Hindu Mayan Connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research, no discernible theme at this time. TrulyBlue (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an interesting topic that has been written about, and articles on the relevant books with summaries of their theories would possibly make the grade. However, as it stands this article seems to me to be a way ofor someone to publish their own research. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion as copyvio. This article was cobbled together from plagiarised bits and pieces from start to finish. You could take almost any random phrase from the article and google it and they were all ripped out of the same three or four documents on the web. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean war crimes[edit]

Korean war crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seriously NPOV violating article based on the creator's political agenda and biased informations. Many of the contents in the article have nothing to do with the main topic: war crimes by Koreans. (ex: recent crimes) So in the last section, Koreans still fight in Korean war????? Besides, the creator blindly referred to his preferred version of the article and refused to discuss the main subject with people at talk. Lack of inline sources make other editors unable to confirm the contents. The title is also misleading that the war crimes occurred in Korean war. Caspian blue (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also found that bogus inline sources on the President Park as below. I think there will be more such things. [1][2]

This is example of how the creator illustrates the topic. Colonial intellectuals who witnessed the stunning successes of the Japanese military in the Asian mainland sought a role for themselves within the rapidly emerging New Order in East Asia (Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere), Japan hoped to integrate Korea into Japan, in terms of infrastructure and bureaucracy.

No apology section is also false. Kim Dae-jung officially apologized, but the creator distorts the info. I don't see what the recent "war crime" is. The section is also false and unrelated info. Political propaganda does not meet to our policy. "Wikpedia is Encyclopedia".

Did you even read the article in question? The current article hold only several in-line sources which turns out bogus sources (dead link/ no mention of the illustrated info) and a lot of unrelated information. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a fairly common fact that Park Chung-hee did serve in the Japanese army. Maybe you are confused with the controversy over whether he specifically served in the Gando Special Force unit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.161.137 (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why verifiablity is a burden of editors. You inserted at least two bogus inline-citations. That is shameful conduct of your own part. --Caspian blue (talk)
I added your 'bogus inline sources. One is non-exist link, the other does not say about President Park and other military people. So I highly doubt that the article is even written by sticking to sources. Besides, Logitech95, just log in. Anonymous IP user is not generally counted as a !voters.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you tell us we should stop "childish" edit warring. So we stop. Then what? See history - this is sock/meat puppets vs. 5 to 6 Wikipedians. The consensus already is that most of the article is fabrication or misrepresentation. The consensus is that those be removed. And I guarantee that when all of the fabrication & misrepresentation are removed, there will be not much left for the article. Why? because there is no such issue or topic called "Korean war crimes". This is something completely new and ridiculous. Then, the topic is insignificant; therefore, the article would eventually have to be deleted. I recommend that you follow the discussion page. (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
For example, the article lists massacres committed during Korean War - but American & UN troops committed them as well. How are they specifically "Korean"? Also, the deal with the Korean prison guards is completely ludicrous. Fine, they committed them, but how can anyone link actions made by individuals working for a foreign government to nationality or government of their origin? How are human rights violations committed by dictator governments war crimes when they were not during a war? (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you. Also, attempts to purge communists are human rights violations, not war crimes. (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The intent behind the topic is not to propose a topic of 'Korean War' crimes.
It is to document, in their full scope, the nature and context for, and popular and academic reactions to, 'Korean war crimes'.
I fully expect, in time, for various new sections to develop sufficiently for their own topics, e.g. the Korean crimes in Vietnam and as a new topic. I accept that it will take sometime to settle down within the Wikipedia. However, the topic is clearly documented by the academic sources including those given precisely as per the topic title.
To exclude Korea and the various Korean leaderships from the roster of atrocities committed against humanity and regional patterns would be naive. Please note that I have stated on the discussion page my POV on the talk page which if I am to be accused of one is a feminist critique of all violent masculinist cultures and not as a critic of a mythical "Korea". Where ever possible I have depended on Korean and American authors with the omission of any Japanese ones.


All though I fear this these points are too subtle for some contributors, I hope this makes matters clearer for others and encourages cooperation and have gone into greater depth about this POV on the talk page. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not decided by !vote count. Closing admins reviews each argument and finally makes a decision. I don't understand what you try to say by this:"I have stated on the discussion page my POV on the talk page which if I am to be accused of one is a feminist critique of all violent masculinist cultures and not as a critic of a mythical "Korea". Where ever possible I have depended on Korean and American authors with the omission of any Japanese ones."--Caspian blue (talk)


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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming with dolphins[edit]

Swimming with dolphins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not really an encyclopedic topic, and written as a personal essay. It's been copied over to the relevant wiki-sister project, and isn't really appropriate content to stay here Ironholds 22:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomislav Pavlov[edit]

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

Contested PROD, non-notable youth footballer born in 1991, with no first team appearances ever as of today, easily fails WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy keep; the nomination is disruptive and the book undisputedly notable-even free newspapers in the UK are reviewing it. Sceptre (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America[edit]

Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I decided this book fails Homotlfqa83 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query why do you think that this AFD is possibly disruptive? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Posts like this make me question the nominator's motivations. JuJube (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed as moot. Title is now a redirect, and nobody seems to be arguing here for the deletion of the page to which it has been redirected. Redirects for discussion are discussed somewhere else. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Delayed Proclivity[edit]

Theory of Delayed Proclivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable, unreferenced potential neologism. Possibly WP:MADEUP. CultureDrone (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing to keep the article (or merge, if there's an appropriate target somewhere), but delete this redirect per my response to Colonel Warden. AnturiaethwrTalk 12:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right... that's no longer the article it was, not even the name. My original !vote now only applies to the redirect Theory of Delayed Proclivity, which doesn't make sense as a name for this phenomenon. I'd be quite surprised, however, if this weren't a merge candidate, say to Sense of time; of course, that's not a matter for AfD. AnturiaethwrTalk 12:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tami Erin[edit]

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

Actress, but doesn't appear to meet the requirements for WP:N. rootology (T) 21:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Roberts (businessman)[edit]

Andrew Roberts (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Roberts Investments Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stefan Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a more elaborate hoax than most - credit to HagenUK for spotting it and doing most of the research to demolish it. A quite pretty but markedly uninformative website has been set up for "Roberts Investments Group", which doesn't give an address or even a telephone number. There are also even less informative web-sites for "Chateau Le Mont", the "Howard Art Gallery" of New York, and something called "Call for Change". None of these gives a telephone number - all invite contact by email only.

When we try to make any independent checks, we get nowhere. Andrew Roberts is claimed to be #184 on the Sunday Times rich list, but a search for "Roberts" doesn't find him. The links provided to Time and Forbes don't take you to any mention of him. A search of the London telephone directory does not find the Group. A Google search for "Roberts Investments Group" finds a couple of others - a real estate broker in Norcross, GA and another in Cedar Hill, TX whose CEO is Tim Roberts - plus some blog-type mentions, but no independent reliable source.

The sole author Fuzzybuddy (talk · contribs) has some earlier contributions, but has worked on nothing but this since May. I can't imagine why anyone would go to all this trouble, but the failure of the rich-list check and the absence of any independent confirmation leave me quite clear - it's a hoax. For what it's worth, an article called "Stefan Roberts" was deleted in 2005 as "self-admitted hoax". Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • And especially since it appears that two of the articles have been deleted four times before, see:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Martin Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Roberts
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Roberts (second nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan David Andrew Roberts, Viscount St Pierre
UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the previous AfDs listed above, it occurs to me that it's a sign of the times that the Roberts family fantasies have moved on from being old-style Debrett aristocracy to being new-style hedge-fund-billionaire aristocracy. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase “I don’t know what their problem is, but is must be hard to pronounce” comes to mind. I think I will patrol Roberts-related entries a lot in future. Maybe he/they do not get the difference between creating a one-off-joke (which can be funny) and being a ongoing nuisance =8-[[ HagenUK (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Whistleblowers[edit]

International Association of Whistleblowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not establish the notability of the organization, instead giving lengthy descriptions of individual whistleblowers and the concept of whistleblowing. The association is not mentioned in the reliable news accounts of Whistleblower week, only in a publication called "Op-Ed News" and the rightist "WorldNetDaily". The author of the Op-Ed News articles is James Murtagh, who is also the creator of this article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acropolis (band)[edit]

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

This is a group which has never been signed to a record label, nor actually has done anything of note. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy Systems[edit]

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

A speedy delete nomination on this COI-troubled article was knocked aside. Nonetheless, it fails the WP:CORP requirements. The three referenced sources do not, I believe, meet the definition of "reliable, independent secondary sources." Nomination withdrawn As the article has been radically overhauled (including the removal of all blatant promotions), it passes notability requirements. I am withdrawing the nomination, and I would like to thank Eastmain and Protonk for their work in whipping this article into proper shape. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nau Gaja Road[edit]

Nau Gaja Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local road. Has been unsourced for over two years. Hut 8.5 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frenchcore[edit]

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

Minor musical sub genre with no assertion of notability or sourcing, all OR. neon white talk 20:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no Knowledge about hardcore dance why bother editing pages on it?????? --Macbarry (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a "keep" vote? If so, add keep in bold to you comment. Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, meaning not delete. Merging is at editors' discretion. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin_College_and_Theological_Seminary[edit]

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

Obsolete. No Content. Already separate pages for Calvin College and Calvin Theological Seminary. Bad geocode location too.


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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW.. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who sunk the Lusitania?[edit]

Who sunk the Lusitania? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a place to put your essays. I would suggest merging this in with the Lusitania article, but that information has already been covered in that article. ----Адам12901 T/C 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nom withdrawn, merged and re-directed per growing consensus. Merge has been done, leave formatting issues to those more familiar with election articles. TCari My travels 14:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharron Storer[edit]

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

There are news stories covering Storer's confrontation of Tony Blair but this appears to be a clear case of BLP1E. She doesn't seem notable for anything else, which the article acknoweledges, and her actions don't seem to have brought about any drastic changes in the British healthcare system. See also WP:NOTNEWS. TCari My travels 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with a caveat) I agree with this deletion proposal. At the time the article was created, BLP1E didn't exist (in fact, I'm not even sure BLP did!). Now that consensus has been established that individual "people in the news" for one-off events don't deserve articles of their own, let's not keep this article. The only question is whether the content of this article belongs as a small item in another article - United Kingdom general election, 2001 would seem like an obvious place. SP-KP (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 2001 election article is structured a bit unconventionally at the moment - it has a very long lead, followed by sections which just contain data tables or links. A restructuring of the article would help us to find a more natural place for the material here to sit. Potential section headings are: Lead-up to the campaign, The campaign itself, Results, Impact of the election. SP-KP (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense and I would agree with it. I'd leave that to someone more knowledgeable on the election to do but would agree with a merge and redirect. If not for the 'keep' below, I'd close this and do it myself but am now willing to leave it open. TCari My travels 13:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budaghers, New Mexico[edit]

Budaghers, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability guidelines on places; it's an abandoned trading post off an american highway exit. Ironholds 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • But even as a previous trading post it is the in-depth subject of reliable secondary sources, which is the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. There's no requirement that any geographical location must be or have been a "town.". A topic can be notable for other reasons. --Oakshade (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WHOCARES and WP:UNKNOWNHERE are not a good arguments to delete an article. How do you know people outside the area won't care? I happen to read articles of localities and/or entities that are 100 years old with great interest and I know I'm not alone with that. You and many other people may not read articles like this and that's fine. This is why Wikipedia has come up with notability standards, to have a uniformed criteria as to what is considered worthy of inclusion. There are absolutely no "People in China don't care" or "Probably won't be interesting in 100 years" clauses or anything like them anywhere in Wikipedia guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. The references given are just sufficient in my opinion to show notability for an indie band. Kevin (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig the band[edit]

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

This band doesn't have any independent references to them. They do have several albums out which would passWP:MUSIC#C5, but I believe they have been self published (by Lizardmusic...which I believe is their own company), therefore not counting. It seems to fail other crieteria for WP:MUSIC. Also, the only references noted are their myspace page and the label that produced their album, and I'm not even going to get started on that one. ----Адам12901 T/C 20:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They fail WP:NM. Leonard(Bloom) 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off on deleting the page. I will research what exactly is needed in your calls for Multiple Published Works and other references above and see if I can provide this pages author with what is needed. Thank you. Lizardmcgee (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to WP:MUSIC#C1 Earwig is notable, appears, is mentioned in several reliable newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and has multiple works published from sources other than it's self. -Lizard McGee/LFM Records/Earwig appear in a photo and are mentioned in Entertainment Weekly,– March 17th, 1995 Issue 266 -Earwig is featured with Interview and Photo in The Big Takeover Issue No. 61, 2007 -Earwig CD (works) distributed by Major Retail store Meijer -Multiple Earwig song placements including ABC, Disney/Touchstone Films, FOX TV, MTV & Warner Brothers productions -Earwig songs appear on multiple compilations from, Anyway Records (Guided By Voices, Gaunt, New Bomb Turks and others), 'The Latest' produced and published by Leo Burnett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Burnett_Worldwide , Columbus Alive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Alive (Bands To Watch)

2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. Earwig’s song ‘Used Kids’ is listed at #15 on the top 101 most requested songs of 2007 - http://www.cd101.com/sections/onair/2001tops/requests.asp On radio station WWCD101 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWCD Lizardmcgee (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement for WP:MUSIC#C2 is that it has to be a national music chart. We're talking about a chart like Billboard here, not CD101, which is a small independent radio station in Columbus, Ohio...they're not a national radio station. In regards to being distributed by Meijer, they're found on their "outside the mainstream" page which according to their website just lists local bands in their market area that have yet to be signed. ----Адам12901 T/C 14:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Meijer program does much more than simply list local bands that have yet to be signed. With the Meijer “Outside The Mainstream” program, the chain selects exceptional CDs from regional artists (that must be unsigned) to be distributed and sold in Meijer stores chainwide. The selected artists are also featured in the grocer’s ad circulars which are sent to 7 million households in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky. Also, the popular music blog ‘The Daily Chorus’ www.thedailychorus.com lists Earwig as one of the Top Unsigned Bands in America (#23). The Daily Chorus is based in AZ. and has been referenced as a respected industry tip-sheet online and in Billboard Magazine. Lizardmcgee (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Sita the awesome pawsome[edit]

Sita the awesome pawsome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional wording ("our only female bengal tiger...": conflict of interest?), little if no notability asserted, and other issues plague this article. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was CSDed under criteria G12 - copyvio by User:Orangemike (Non-Admin closure). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omnios[edit]

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

The creator's name is User:Omnios (conflict of interest?). It's also speediable as G11 and G12. It even sounds like a press release! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a1, no meaningful content, WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Eagles Fly High[edit]

Bald Eagles Fly High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL, anyone? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Day Another Dolla[edit]

Another Day Another Dolla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Strongly feel that this mixtape is not notable for inclusion, outside of a single track from it that became a moderate radio hit. Winger84 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment According to Billboard, it is the Tay Dizm version from the album that charted, not the Akron version from the mixtape. Jim Miller (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that would explain why for that last 1/2 hour of searching I couldn't find anything. I was just about to change me vote because of it.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 05:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweetup[edit]

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

More neologism shenanigans. This one had already been speedy deleted, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I beg to differ... this is certainly a valid topic and should not be deleted. Donaldleegraham (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldleegraham (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed (film)[edit]

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

No matches on IMDB for either the film title (and year) or anything listed under Tippi Hedren's page. Nothing found via Google. Possible hoax? Lugnuts (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NǽnøĉÿbbŒrğ VbëřřĦōlökäävsŦ[edit]

NǽnøĉÿbbŒrğ VbëřřĦōlökäävsŦ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The Ultimate Fate Of The Universe‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - album by the above band.

I do not believe that this band passes the WP:MUSIC threshold. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's to huh? Elassint's comment seems clear to me. AndyJones (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as the subject sufficiently covered by other articles. There is no need to fork the content. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation (theology)[edit]

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

This article is a summary of various creation myths (that already exist at creation myth). The intention of the original author was to write a content fork on the theology related to Creation according to Genesis, however the author retired not long after. The article has since been tagged for multiple issues for nearly a year now, and many of the editors on Talk:Creation (theology) have disputed the pages existence.

This article is a bit of a hopeless cause since there just isn't some overarching "theology of creation". Attached to each particular creation myth is the theology, the creation myth isn't attached to theology, and so organisation should be the other way around. This article should be deleted, and the theology related to each particular creation myth should be maintained at the respective creation myth's own page, for example, what is already happening at Creation according to Genesis. If these sections get too long (which I expect to happen for some creation myths over time), they should be spun off into their own separate articles, Creation according to Genesis (theology) for instance, per WP:SUMMARY. Creationism, theology and creation myths as a general concept, should still be maintained at those respective articles of course. Since this article contains nothing not already covered in the respective creation myth articles, there isn't anything to merge either. I've also checked What Links Here and in every case I checked, linking to either creation myth in general, or the particular creation myth (if there was already some context given) can easily be done, or in a few cases, to creationism.

In summary, I guess my point is we have Frogs in popular culture, not Popular culture (animals). Ben (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean the article could link creation and theology? Well theology includes the study of creation from a particular religions perspective, sure, but that study should be included in the particular creation myths article (since the study is dependant on a particular religion), applying WP:SUMMARY and forking off to subpages as necessary. It doesn't make sense to have this article any more than it makes sense to have God (theology), Frog (biology), etc. We have creation myth, creationism, and then creation according to genesis and so on which covers everything. Ben (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare the sections regarding Hinduism in the 2 articles, they aren't written in a fundamentally different way. What is different however is the creation theology article gives undue weight to the Abrahamic tradition, compared to other traditions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Zhang[edit]

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

Person won the Starcraft micro-tournament, but I still don't think that it really makes him all that notable. Only one website lists him briefly, so there isn't much verifiable content, either. ----Адам12901 T/C 18:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He won a micro-tournament...hockey is a national sport in Canada, but a person who wins a micro-tournament in Regina isn't a national sports champion there. ----Адам12901 T/C 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A micro tournament isn't like a lower league, it's just another type of play. This is where you only start out with a few units (e.g. less than 5), and defeat the other player. It's definitely not as notable, but I'm Canadian and don't know much about the US starcraft scene. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go a bit further. Keep, providing that the stipulated media coverage can be found, translated, or demonstrated to exist along with the possibility of translation. This is not a large matter, but it is best resolved quickly when it does arise. The value of a source does not depend on its language. The core principles and notability mention language only once, and then it is to say that English sources are preferable to non-English sources if they're of equal quality and translations should be provided. Doing otherwise would cripple or destroy much of our coverage of non-English (especially non-Western) mythology, culture, geography and even such things as cuisine. The fact that the minority of our traffic comes from natively English-speaking countries makes it clear that this is an international encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia for those parts of the world that happen to be in English. I can fetch the rest of my arguments, but I'd rather go do something else so hopefully this is settled.
    As such, we need to find out about the Korean media coverage to make an informed decision. --Kizor 14:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yahoo Babel Fish translation[13] makes translating a page a 5 second affair. Who knows? There's certainly a valid claim to notability as indicated above. We should jump at any opportunity to move Wikipedia away from the accepted inherent bias towards english speaking subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icemotoboy (talk • contribs) 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a bias issue—let's not confuse the matter. Notability is our concern here. Showing notability with a foreign-language source is completely acceptable, if that is what is needed. I'm not familiar with this micro-tournament. Can someone explain it? Pagrashtak 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A micro-tournament is when each player gets a small amount of units (e.g. less than 5), and eliminates the other team. So its less macro-management, and more micro-management (hence the name) and tatical skill. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pangram[edit]

Trivia galore. This is not an article fit for an encyclopedia by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 4.x[edit]

Windows 4.x (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Windows 4.x" is a neologism, and we already have articles that cover lists of Windows versions. No need to make more of them. Warren -talk- 18:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deleted by someone. I'm house-keeping. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diy tatto[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a "how-to." Rob Banzai (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ethan Haas Was Right. Shereth 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Storm Labs[edit]

Mind Storm Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable company that fails WP:COMPANY. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Tree Friends Arcade Games[edit]

Happy Tree Friends Arcade Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a list of non-notable Flash games that will probably never have the potential to become more significant than they are now. If Happy Tree Friends episodes and characters do not warrant Wikipedia articles, there surely should not be an entire article about minigames. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 17:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — Yes, I have seen that the main Happy Tree Friends has been deleted, so it does make sense that this be, as well. MuZemike (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aaaahh, Shazbot! Maybe it was the wrong article I looked at on the deletion log the other day. MuZemike (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Delete. But I'm still grumpy! (lol) Icemotoboy (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. It reminds me of the infamous Pokémon test. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé Knowles third album[edit]

Beyoncé Knowles third album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No release date, no title, a lot of speculation. WP:CRYSTAL. Kww (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. All the single purpose accounts canvassed to keep the article haven't done much good, but the cleaning up, and further referencing has. Unforunately nobody so far has yet commented on the reliability and the extent of coverage of the French sources. Still a fair number of people believe that the sources that are currently here show enough notability to keep the article. There is no clear consensus to keep, but nor is there to delete the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robotshop[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:CORP notability. Provided references are a Better Business Bureau entry and a press release. Prod was disputed by creator, probably a conflict of interest issue as well given single-purpose nature of account. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the Wikipedia definition of Notability:"

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

· RobotShop Distribution inc. is registered since 2003 under the Canada Business Federation Act : Corporation #6142567 BN #875730509RC0001
· RobotShop has between 10-100 employees.
· RobotShop is a partner of iRobot for distributing the Roomba in Canada since 2003 and is a leader in the industry. See the link on the Official iRobot Web Site to RobotShop under Americas, Canada. RobotShop is also the first company worldwide to repair the popular Roomba from iRobot.
· RobotShop also partners with more than 150 manufacturers (all major leaders in the robotics industry, some of which have a page on WikiPedia).
· RobotShop is member of the Better Business Bureau
· RobotShop has appeared multiple times on TV, in magazines, newspapers, blogs and forums. Here some examples:
- Banc d'essai du Peuple (French interview about the Lawnbott Robot Mower)
- Servo Magazine (RobotShop advertises in Servo Magazine since many years and are often reffered to because of their notable products)
- Toronto Star Article.
- Interview with the president on the blog of Abry.biz
· Google Notoriety:
- 18700 indexed pages, page rank of 5
- More than 60 000 results for the term "RobotShop" and the first spot is for RobotShop Web site.
- More than 492 000 results for the term "Robot Shop" and the first spot is for RobotShop Web Site.
· Recent Press Releases:
- RobotShop is Upgrading (from RobotShop)
- RobotShop is Duplicating (from RobotShop)
- CoroWare Announces Distributorship Agreement with RobotShop (from Coroware on the Robotic Trends Web site) --Jbrunet (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC) — Jbrunet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment You haven't really addressed any of the notability criteria in WP:CORP. Press releases, advertising, etc. do not cut it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about the examples provided such as the Television coverage and the Newspaper Article which seem to be part of "Primary Criterion"? This with a quick search about RobotShop. I am quite certain that many more sources can be found. What about the collective robotics community that gravitates around RobotShop? I do however agree that the press releases and advertising are not addressable as notariety criteria. --Jbrunet (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)— Jbrunet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Blogs are rarely considered to be a reliable source (unless written by a notable pundit, etc.) The Toronto Star source contains only a trivial mention. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The RobotShop page was created following the Wikiproject Robotics Article Guidelines as a company providing both robotic parts and services (domestic robotic repair, troubleshooting and general robotics education). However, I noted that “If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.
Perhaps instead of deleting the page, allow others to add notability and add the heading below. It is far easier to encourage users to add content to a page rather than create a new page entirely.
Cbenson1 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)— Cbenson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Are you (and JBrunet, the other single purpose account) affiliated with the company in question? Honesty is the best policy here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated previously,
If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias.
In this case, both JBrunet and myself are affiliated with RobotShop. Although this is discouraged, it is not grounds for deletion. From what I can see however, JBrunet did not edit the article. The ideal users to contribute / edit information in the Wikipedia knowledge base are those with direct information. This being said, a special point was made to prevent the article from being written as an advetisement or spam. Only the bare minimum of information was included in order to encourage others to participate.
My account was created in order to edit robotic information and the fact that the first contributions were related to RobotShop should not be the issue: Unfortunately the assumption of "single purpose account" is false: being knowledgeable in robotics (as well as being in charge of the RobotShop Learning Center) I had planned to contribute / edit articles related to robotics. Please take note of the Wikipeia Handling and Advicewhich states
If you are in a discussion with someone who edits as a single purpose account: Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time.
The phrasing "Are you (and JBrunet, the other single purpose account) affiliated with the company in question? Honesty is the best policy here." seems to indicate a trap and is not appreciated. One of RobotShop's core values is "Honesty is our best quality" and no attempt was made to cover or change identities.

Question: the following heading was useful in describing an alternative to deleting the page, why remove it? Is it general policy to remove suggested headings? ((Refimprove)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbenson1 (talk • contribs) 21:35, July 15, 2008 (UTC)— Cbenson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Those types of headers go on the article itself, not in the AfD discussion. And now would be a perfect time to improve those references. — Satori Son 23:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Keep - I'm satisfied that there are enough reliable sources to establish notability. Not a lot but sufficient to clear the notability bar. Other issues are for editting and don't factor into the deletion decision. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the "sources" are either standard government forms, press releases, or blogs. In the two newspaper articles, RobotShop receives a very trivial mention somewhere in the story. I cannot verify the reliability of the producer of the YouTube video, but it looks like an infomercial. Sorry, but not enough to establish sufficient notability. Regarding the canvassing, I assumed that since you and Jbrunet “are affiliated with” RobotShop, you might know who was soliciting RobotShop customers asking them to comment here. Since you don’t know, maybe the person who is doing so will read this.— Satori Son 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you do not understand French does not affect the fact that the video on Youtube is reliable. This is not an infomercial, this is a complete reportage about RobottShop. [14]. Here the official source and very easy to find on Google. The references in the newsletters are more than trivial, they talk about RobotShop, their products and they contain quotes from the founders. Your comments are not objectives. I am sorry.--Cameleon123 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Satori Son, the refferences provided for the History are Federal and Provincial government sources and recognized institutions that are quite reputable and accurate sources of information.Jbrunet (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)— Jbrunet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - They are also primary sources. They prove the organization (and millions of others) exist, but do not demonstrate that it is notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. There is no one who thinks that RobotShop does not exist. Do you honestly think this link shows the company is notable? Or this one? — Satori Son 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. ---- What about references 2, 14 and 15, who are reliable newspaper articles and TV show? You seem to only look at what is negative and avoid what is positive. Why you avoid talking about these references that show that RobotShop is Notable? Please answer, I would like you to evaluate these references and see you say that this is not good references? The fact that the article has some references proving that RobotShop is incorporated is not a bad thing--Cameleon123 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with the text in the discussion section. It seems to me there is a bit of American bias going on here. Things American appear to be automatically 'notable'. To me RobotShop is much more notable than lets say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Drug; however that page doesn't seem to be tagged for deletion. To me RobotShop provides a service and information I can't find anywhere else. --Cameleon123 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)— Cameleon123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist..." — Satori Son 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this...."--Cameleon123 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. AfD listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics. Banjeboi 13:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one !vote per editor please. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the sources demonstrate non-trivial coverage. The Toronto Star article is the closest, but that article is primarily about robotic appliances; it only mentions Robotshop in passing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Here is my analysis of each of the items shown as references.

1. ^ Industry Canada - Corporation

Primary source which confirms only that the company exists.

2. ^ "Robotshop: La robotique à votre portée" (in French), Québec Micro (April 2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Secondary coverage in reliable source, Québec Micro magazine. Not an ad. Scan of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the magazine, but no reason to question its legitimacy.

3. ^ Lapierre, Isabelle. "L'aide du futur" (in French), Magazine Le Village. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Secondary coverage in reliable source, Magazine Le Village. Not an ad. Scan of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the magazine, but no reason to question its legitimacy.

4. ^ Massicotte, Jean-Sébastien (June 18, 2005). "Tondeuses-robots. Des appareils sans fil... et sans pilote ! Newspaper article about RobotShop and its products" (in French), Le Soleil. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

More about robotic lawnmowers distributed by the company rather than the company itself. Secondary coverage in reliable source, a daily newspaper. Not an ad. Printout of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the newspaper, but no reason to question its legitimacy.

5. ^ Quebec Government Company Registry

Primary source which confirms only that the company exists.

6. ETS Centech: September 2002 Bulletin

Primary source which confirms that RoboShop was active as a partnership in 2002.

7. ^ ETS Robotics Engineering Program

University web page. Not a claim to notability.

8. ^ Quebec Government Company Registry

Primary source which confirms only that the company exists.

9. ^ Synnett, Cindy (September 22, 2004). "Robotshop" (in French), Metro Montreal. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Secondary coverage in reliable source, a daily newspaper. Not an ad. Printout of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the newspaper, but no reason to question its legitimacy.

10. ^ 2005 SAJE/CLD 2005 Annual Report

Primary source.

11. ^ RobotShop is Upgrading - Press Release

Press release – not a claim to notability.

12. ^ RobotShop is Duplicating - Press Release

Press release – not a claim to notability.

13. ^ Abry.biz by Vincent Abry Interview with RobotShop's Mario Tremblay

Better-than-average blog, but probably not a reliable source by Wikipedia standrds.

14. ^ CRC Robotics Competition Sponsored by RobotShop

Primary source. Not a claim to notability.

15. ^ Google Scholar: RobotShopRoboGames Sponsorship

Google search.

16. ^ Turrentine, Jeff (May 5, 2005). "Relax, grass-cutting gizmo at work", Toronto Star. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Part of text of article. Main topic is the mower rather than RoboShop as a dealer.

17. ^ Turrentine, Jeff (May 5, 2005). "Relax, grass-cutting gizmo at work" (pdf), Toronto Star. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Scan of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the newspaper, but no reason to question its legitimacy. Main topic is the mower rather than RoboShop as a dealer.

18. ^ "Robotshop: La robotique à votre portée." (in French), Québec Micro (April 2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Same as #2

19. ^ Television report on RobotShop Distribution Inc., NerdZ TV show, Thursday, November 30, 2006, by Jean Fournier

Not broadcast television, but a licensed specialty channel in Canada. The program is listed in a press release from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters "CAB Announces Finalists for 2006 Gold Ribbon Awards". See the listing for the show at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0456243/ Hosted at YouTube rather than on the channel's website, so possible copyright concerns – but still a reliable source.

20. ^ Crowley, Dan (2005). The 505 Weirdest Online Stores: 505 Things You Never Thought You Could Buy .... Sourcebooks, Inc., 64. ISBN 1402203772.

Book from a commercial publisher. Acceptable as a secondary source.

21. ^ RobotShop Learning Center

Primary source, from the company's web site. ---Eastmain (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that membership in a Better Business Bureau does not confer notability. Similarly, advertisements do not confer notability by themselves. --Eastmain (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. AfD listed at WikiProject Canada / Quebec and WikiProject Companies. Banjeboi 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope you've read the version of this article when the article was nominated compared to its current revised, de-spammed version with several additional references. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 01:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that (1) quite a few of the keep votes are SPA accounts (2) the Toronto Star reference is trivial; the only non-trivial references are in French; I don't speak French, so I don't know if the references are non-trivial, or if they are notable and/or WP:Reliable sources and (3) we're talking about a retailer/distributor that sells and repairs robots made by other companies. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to be rude...but shouldn't we be asking someone who actually understands French to verify these references instead of second-guessing and possibly casting doubt on possible good references? I mean I don't understand French either, so I wouldn't know. I've given an honest effort trying to get references for this article, but they're mostly in French. Perhaps a relist with a notice in the translation team? - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And regarding the SPA accounts, I believe there are almost equal amounts of SPAs as real editors with established edit histories. I think the previous discussions and votes should be noted, but not counted, as votes towards the old version do not necessarily reflect the article in its current condition. Also, this will prevent certain SPAs from proper vote counting. Same can be said about the delete votes. A simple delete vote above without much explanation hardly gives meaningful points for further discussion. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • as votes towards the old version do not necessarily reflect the article in its current condition So does that mean that if I didn't reiterate my original !vote, that it would be discounted? No. If an interested party wants to change their !vote, they have that option. It's not assumed null unless re-validated. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone does not retract or change their opinion, that opinion stands. Just for the record, my opinion to "delete as insufficiently notable" has not changed. — Satori Son 21:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping things civil is the first thing editors need to learn and practice, especially on topics such as AfD discussions. I have made significant changes to the article and I believe I voted to keep the article, but yes, I do agree there is still no clear assertion of notability based on English sources. Making a simple request to having someone who understand French review and comment on the references is a by-the-book and necessary call in order to verify and clear the references. This is a open-collaboration encyclopedia, which will entail much work, time, and effort from contributors from all around the world. I'm not discounting Eastmain's contributions nor intentions, but please do not try to personally attack my comment, considering comparing Eastmain's work under WikiProject Robotics with my organization of the WikiProject itself. It is best that if you are seriously letting this discussion cloud your fair judgement in forming civil and constructive comments, to take a break and take a step back. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have said before, and I'll say it again, Wikipedia is a large collaboration from many contributors. While I have not discounted or discredited Eastmain's work, your continued aggressive attitude towards this discussion is not constructive. Asking for other people to cross-check each other's work is commonplace and is vital on Wikis, and it has dawned on me that you're taking this article too seriously to form a productive outcome. I suggest you take a chillpill. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 :KEEP IT Don't demolish the house while it's still being built

man tries to build a house. He has a few of his neighbors come to help. They are working very nicely and organized-like, like you would expect from people who are trying to build a house. Soon, a building inspector comes by. "Those stairs don't look right," the inspector says, pulling out a tape measure, "and by these measurements, they are not wide enough." The builder replies, "They aren't finished yet." The inspector moves on. "This wall isn't supported enough," the inspector says nonchalantly. "Of course not," the builder replies, "We haven't finished it yet."

"And look!" the inspector cries, "There is no ceiling! The owners of this house will be angry indeed when they get rained on." "They won't!" the builder retorts, "Because when it's done there will be a ceiling!" The inspector ignores him. "This house is no good, builder. It must be torn down." The next day he sends someone to demolish the house.

--24.37.209.6 (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moot. Content has already been merged and page turned into redirect. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Konjac Candy[edit]

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

    The article's information has been effectively merged into the Konjac page. Therefore, the Konjac candy page does not need to exist. Coolotter88 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2008 Oregon Ducks football team[edit]

    2008 Oregon Ducks football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is far too detailed for any team, let alone a college team. What's really going on is that someone is trying to use Wikipedia as their team's home page. Let's stop this now before it becomes a habit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Well referenced and many teams have season article so why not this one. Buc (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Per above. --Elassint (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep This article is no more detailed than previous team years from other teams. See 2005 Texas Longhorns football team, which is actually a featured article. These pages provide information on seasons in a much more concise way than official websites. It is far easier to find statistics and game recaps here than at websites such as goducks.com. Aplaceicallhome (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Can't see any reason not to: looks well-researched albeit prolix. BFG1701 (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)— BFG1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Keep - Single Seasons, single games, etc are all considered notable. hands down keep. PGPirate 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Redirected to (Hey Hey Hey under my) Umbrella --JForget 00:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rihanna Curse[edit]

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

    Poorly-referenced and little more than a news article. All content already covered at Umbrella and 2007 United Kingdom floods. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, implemented as protected redirects. I'm trying something slightly new here. We have consensus that these are not appropriate stand-alone articles, essentially for the reasons given in the nomination. But several editors assert that the material could be usefully merged to other articles. I'm a bit skeptical about this (the only sources cited are primary sources) but there are some limited cases where primary sources may be used. To allow for limited re-use of this material (to the extent it is well-sourced and as long as there is consensus for any mergers), I am implementing the "delete" consensus not through deletion but through protected redirection to the respective "list of" articles. The redirects should be nominated for speedy deletion on their talk pages, citing this AfD, if no merger has occurred after several months or so.  Sandstein  06:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Soul Reaper (Bleach)[edit]

    Soul Reaper (Bleach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT. The topic of the various "species" within the Bleach series has not "received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Extremely excessive in-universe article sprinkled with personal essay style "discussion" and OR. Redundant to the List of Soul Reapers in Bleach, which already adequately covers the topic in an appropriate fashion.

    I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail the same guidelines and are redundant to their respective lists:

    Bount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redundant to List of Bounts in Bleach)
    Hollow (Bleach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redundant to List of hollows in Bleach)

    -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7) (author blanked page) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shawnglish[edit]

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

    More neologism shenanigans. This was already Speedy Deleted, but now it is back (if not by popular demand). Ecoleetage (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

     —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Consensus, at least to the extent the contributions are based on applicable policies and guidelines, agrees with the nominator and Sephiroth BCR. A merger has also been proposed, but it remains completely unclear what could be merged where and why, so this is not really an actionable option. If consensus is established later on an appropriate talk page as to which material should be merged where (to the extent it is sourced!), a history restoration is not out of the question.  Sandstein  06:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Zanpakutō[edit]

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

    Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT. The topic of the "fictional type of magic sword" known as Zanpakutō from the Bleach series has not "received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No need. Just merge each individual weapon with their corresponding character, bring back Jirobo and the others that got the boot, and do the same for notable Bakkoto. StardustDragon 17:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Snow delete. TCari My travels 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lacuna Coil's forthcoming studio album[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Lacuna Coil's forthcoming studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    poorly sourced and unnamed per not a crystal ball neon white talk 14:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep. As below, quality sources provided, no need for this to run any longer. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sister Nancy[edit]

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

    This seems to be an article about a non-notable musician. Doesn't provide any sources. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    James Follett[edit]

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

    The article's claim of Follett's being one of the 400s most-lent author is unverified (and I cannot find a source). Furthermore, considering the notability criteria for "creative professionals":

    So it seems to me that Follet meets none of the relevant criteria. MatthewVernon (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    EchoNYC[edit]

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

    Apparently non-notable chat forum. Yes, it's been mentioned in the New York Times and the New York News so technically does pass the "multiple independent" bit of WP:N. However, I can't see anything to distinguish this relatively small forum (3000 members) from any other, and there's no encyclopedic content that I can see in the article itself other than a date of founding and name of the founder – none of the "describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known" that's required under WP:WEB.  – iridescent 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Doesn't seem notable despite references. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dee-lete. Non-notable. Madman (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, redirect. it is definitely a notable bbs/web site in terms of early Internet history, but i'm not interested in early internet history and simply wanted to add some information about it somewhere. so a redirect is perfect.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 new references found, and apparent notabiltiy beyond her familial notability. I fully expect the article to reflect the references found and linked here at AfD to be worked into the article. If they are not, I fully expect a re-nomination for deletion. Keeper ǀ 76 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nancy Walker Bush Ellis[edit]

    Nancy Walker Bush Ellis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable presidential relative who fails to meet WP:BIO. I've certainly nothing against Mrs. Ellis (her late husband was my first wife's boss, for what it's worth), but her claim to notability rests solely on that her brother and son are notable, and notability is not contagious. There's a near-complete lack of substantive material about the subject, and it's telling that a significant fact in the article involves the important people present at her wedding.  RGTraynor  14:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Certainly not to this article, in any event. I've no objections to a merge.  RGTraynor  07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The Time article has the same problem that is the same in each and every citation: it is not about Nancy Ellis. It is, in fact, about expat voters, and Ellis' sole mention in it is trivial: "Bush adviser Karl Rove, the President's aunt, Nancy Bush Ellis, and former Vice President Dan Quayle have all hit the European trail as part of the re-election campaign." That's it, and I think better of Time magazine than to believe that'd be their definition of notability. WP:BIO specifically enjoins against trivial mentions, requires that cites not be a press release, and that cites be both substantive and about the subject in question. The cites listed in the article are, in order, (1) a press release, (2) the obituary of her husband, (3) an article about a Missouri gubernatorial race, (4) a newsletter, (5) a genealogical chart, (6) a board of directors bio from one of her charities, (8) the aforementioned Time expat voting article, (9) a charity website listing her as an "honorary director" and nothing more, (10) an annual report listing her name among hundreds of others as a donor, (11) doesn't mention her at all, and (12) likewise doesn't mention her at all. The exception is the Kitty Kelley book, which may have substantive information about Mrs. Ellis and reasonably would at least mention her, but so far no evidence of the same has been provided, or any information as to what Kelley actually did write about her, if anything. So far, not a single substantive source has been provided.  RGTraynor  10:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete.  Sandstein  23:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strategic Public Relations[edit]

    Strategic Public Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unsourced, perhaps unsourceable OR; spam for named firms. AndrewHowse (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete.  Sandstein  23:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Scot Brown[edit]

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

    Subject does not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people). No evidence this associate professor has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, published sources. Contested PROD, so comes here. — Satori Son 13:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    could you perhaps explain this cryptic remark? DGG (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.

    I discounted some opinions from either side who did not address the problem at issue here (notability) or who gave no substantial reasons at all for their opinion (yes, Grsz11, you do need to bother explaining why). This leaves the community still about evenly divided about the notability of this family, with a slight tilt towards "keep."

    As far as I can tell, neither side has obviously stronger policy-based arguments. The "delete" side argues that the family as such has not received the level of coverage required per WP:N and that notability is not inherited. Meanwhile, the "keep" side points to the media attention given to the individual members as evidence for the public interest in this family, and they argue that the article is really a summary style spinout of the article about the very notable politician. I'm not sure whether I can agree with these arguments for keeping the article, but they are at least defensible under the applicable guidelines, and this means I can't discount them. So it's a no consensus outcome for today. (Note: I have removed the fair use soundclip previously inserted at the end of this discussion, per WP:NFCC.)  Sandstein  22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Obama family[edit]

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

    This is a collection of non-notable individuals, many of whom have previously had articles about them deleted or merged into Barack Obama for notability reasons after extensive discussion. All of the same arguments apply here. The only notable people in this article (such as Barack Obama and Michelle Obama) already have extensive articles written about them. For the others, notability is not inherited. Their only notability is their connection to someone notable. Further, notability is not cumulative. If they are not individually notable, how can they be considered notable as a group?

    Note that this article was previously deleted after an AfD discussion. This version is not substantially identical to that version so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. However, the title and subject matter are identical, so all of the arguments from that AfD discussion are applicable here. Loonymonkey (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm having difficulty here assuming Looney's good faith in desiring open discussion of this matter. Eg (more precisely than his statements) commenters in the Malik Abongo Obama AfD----and a subsequent discussion on the article's talkpage----did not determine where exactly to merge its contents and moreso suggest merging it to a new Obama family article than into Barack Sr.'s, in fact that's what ended up being done, by that article's principal writer, Wikidemo; furthermore, some commenters in the previous AfD said their recommendation would be different if this former version had had more than two family members covered----their arguments, as one major example, cannot be part of any offhand suggestion that all arguments there are applicable here. And lastly!--------Looney simply deleted not only my interspersed interjection but also one comment I made after his, both in violation of WP etiquette and protocols, harrumpf!   Justmeherenow (  ) 17:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please try to remain civil in this discussion. It's a little early to revert to personal attacks. I did not delete anything. What I did was move your comments to the discussion section after you altered my AfD rationale, splitting it into two separate comments with your comments inserted. This is completely non-standard, against protocols and frankly very rude. Please discuss the deletion rationally in the discussion section without altering others' comments. Also, both etiquette and protocol dictate that new comments should be placed at the bottom of the discussion. I'm not sure why you feel that your comments belong at the top (or even within the rationale itself) regardless of when they were made. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't label me as attacking you personally, Looney. I'd described my impression I'd received only of your actions after seeing my comments had been removed. Only after I'd typed and submitted it did I notice that you'd moved my clarification of your statements to the bottom of the page, so I withdraw that particular part of my allegation regarding your problematic behavior.   Justmeherenow (  ) 17:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, you may want to strike your comments above. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss it. Feel free to comment on my talk page if you still have issues. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That argument seems to be a variation of the Notability is inherited argument. You're essentially saying that this article should be kept because of its association with someone so notable, but that if Obama were not the presidential candidate (or were to lose the election) then the article wouldn't be as notable. Notability, however, isn't inherited, no matter how great the notability of the related article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in spite of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'd say the "Obama" family in this context doesn't meet our notability criteria for inclusion in the same way as the "Ford" and "Carter" families don't meet our criteria for inclusion. They have notable members but, are not notable as an entity in an of itself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability isn't conferred through google hits. I get thousands of hits on my own name, but that doesn't mean I can start an article about myself. As for the article being a useful dumping ground, well, yes. That's one of the problems. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What other dumping ground would you propose, or are you trying to eliminate information about Obama's family from the encyclopedia entirely? Notability is demonstrated by sources, which are often accessible via google. That search result (39,000 hits for me[26] and 8 news hits[27] shows some interesting results, although it is far underinclusive due to its precise wording. All appear related to the subject though as usual the reult contains lots (though less than usual) of stray results. Wikidemo (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would propose that Wikipedia isn't the place for dumping grounds of non-notable information. And again, google hits are not a measure of notability. There are millions of hits for Barack Obama, many of which are going to discuss his family background in the context of providing biographical detail about him.--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently editors interested in the well-known families of namesakes that aren't blue-blooded don't contribute to articles on the topic, only tack things on to them. We don't move a file elsewhere, only deposit it. We don't merge various members' of such families' biographies, only commingle them. What's to be learned from this? That such information as

    Jean Ann Kennedy and Stephen Edward Smith had four children:
    Stephen Edward Smith, Jr.
    William Kennedy Smith - 1991 rape acquittal, physician, activist against land mines
    Amanda Mary Smith, married Carter Hood, one child
    Kym Maria Smith, married Alfie Tucker

    ----when drawn from wide media coverage given the Romneys (and Rockerfellers and Vanderbuilts, per another comment below) is encyclopedic but when folks receiving wide media coverage are of less noble lineage, it's cruft.   Justmeherenow (  ) 01:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or the McDucks (motto " FORTVNA · FAVET · FORTIBVS ," see Clan McDuck#Family tree), whose patriarch's worth was listed in 2007's "The Forbes 15" at $28.8 Billion.[28]
    ----I narrowed the family relationship chart. (Much less wide now than that at Bush family#Family tree.) ( checkY )   Justmeherenow (  ) 06:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if it were simply a list of relatives of Barack Obama (and not biographies), it would have a much stronger rationale for being kept as an article. Then it would be in the context of biographical details about Barack Obama (which is the only reason any of these people are being mentioned) and not pretending that they are uniquely notable. But as it is, this article is simply a coatrack on which to hang a bunch of biographical articles that have previously failed notability after extensive deletion discussions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...As is the case with lots of list on Wikipedia. If you think the article is getting too far away from its status as a subtopic of Barack Obama, fix it: we all know that's the main topic here. And the article does acknowledge that, in the lead. It is irrelevant if individual entries have been regarded as not notable enough, and if any of those entries are too expansive, they can be reduced. As a topic, this is just fine. Mangojuicetalk 03:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. If the result of this discussion ends up being "Keep" with the rationale that the inherent problems can be fixed through editing, it would be great to get some guidance from the closing admin as to what the apparent problems are and what the limits of the article's scope should be. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually we do. Wikipedia was much smaller in 2004, and Bob Kerry's family is not a group of Africans and expatriates. Nevertheless, we do have Dudley–Winthrop family, Forbes family, Cameron Kerry, Julia Thorne, Teresa Heinz, Alexandra Kerry, Vanessa Kerry, Rosemary Forbes Kerry, Cameron Kerry, James Grant Forbes, Robert Charles Winthrop, and Francis Blackwell Forbes. Many of those articles have lists of family members in turn. Wikidemo (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure of the applicability of celebrity children are to Presidential candidates' families but there is in fact extensive discussion of the children in the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie articles. Notability, obviously, is inherited in that way. There is no "on their own" standard on Wikipedia. The standard is worth noting, as evidenced by coverage in multiple reliable sources. There is no consensus for refusing to discuss Obama's family members in the encyclopedia. The result of the other two deletion discussions was to merge, not delete. So the information was merged into the most logical place. If that article is now attacked to get rid of the information, where else would it be merged? The main Obama article is not appropriate - it would be of undue weight there. The article about Obama's father isn't a terrible place but what's the point of moving the information from here to there? All this does is to create a procedural mess. Wikidemo (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my point exactly. The children are discussed in Pitt and Jolie's articles because it a biographical detail of those notable people. But the newborn twins do not have their own article. The reason they don't is because they are not independently notable (and trust me, if such an article were allowed on Wikipedia it would not only exist but would have been edited furiously the past few weeks). I haven't bothered to check the deletion logs, but I'm willing to bet such an article was deleted in the last couple of weeks for notability reasons. This is the "on their own" standard (that really does exist on Wikipedia.)--Loonymonkey (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of actor families----as well as charts scrolling off way right in the browser, check out Barrymore family#Family tree, a problem contributors @ Coppola family (que music---& Cf. Corleone family#Family tree) solve this way: Coppola family tree.   Justmeherenow (  ) 20:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability now established by cited sources. (non-admin closure by nominator). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dawn of the Black Hearts[edit]

    Dawn of the Black Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:MUSIC: bootlegs are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Claire Sutton[edit]

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

    Being a QVC presenter does not provide inherent notability and that appears to be the only thing she's known for. Without the qualifier there are only false positives for the wrong Claire Sutton. TCari My travels 13:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Not notable, per the Google hits. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wayne DZ[edit]

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

    Non-notable radio program on a community radio station. It claims to be the longest running show in sydney, but I can't find anything to that effect in locations other than the article itself. Ironho lds 13:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    dear, Ironholds i'm new to creating additions to Wikipedia, and would appreciate some help, as im trying to understand why this post may be open for debate and deletion.. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was created to share information, similarly to the radio program that is being discussed. Not all community shows are "my spaced" and referenced all over the internet, especially underground music radio shows... as you dismissed contacting the station, myself or linked sources of interviews, i cannot comprehend what your code for inclusion is...? let me know what the issue is more clearly please.. so we can ammend this... regards, niepce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niepce (talk • contribs) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't "dismiss" anything, was I contacted about it? :S. Wikipedia is created to share information yes, but not indiscriminantly; we can't include everything about everything. We have a set of notability guidelines found at WP:NOTABILITY which govern what is and is not a notable page for field X. The general guideline is that if something has two or more independent, notable coverage, it's worthy of inclusion. Taking google hits for "Wayne DZ" as an example (although ghits are not on their own considered a reason for delete/keep) you find the page on the radio stations website about it (from which most of the article is copied) and a load of unrelated myspace, youtube and facebook pages. Ironho lds 15:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    dear, Ironholds, thanks for your detailed reply, as i said i am new to placing additions and appreciate the time and comments, i know your doing a good job keeping illegitmate posts out, and i respect that thouroughly, now that i see the rules that dictate your comments, notability clause and Taking google hits etc, but i cant understand how you could dismiss a university run station and what is sydneys longest running underground radio show, with international filmakers, artists and musicians contibuting to it for the last 24 years..?

    btw... 2 contributors, Richard Kuipers, Brendan Walls, work for Australian tv stations, and are both documentary film makers, and supporting this program and underground experimental music..

    if you want to search them out feel free, and i would also appreciate any help with tidying up the page, as it is new to me. regards, niepce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niepce (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Flattery will get you everywhere :P. Again, university-run is not a notability clause. There aren't any specific notability requirements for radio programs, so we have to follow the standard ones. If you look at the article on BBC Radio 1, a station that's been running since 1967, you'll note that even there they don't have articles on every single program regardless of how long they've been running. You might want to include it in the radio stations page instead. Ironho lds 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. It consists of original research and synthesis, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yugoslav Patriotic Songs[edit]

    Yugoslav Patriotic Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    List article about a topic of non-documented notability and unaccounted-for inclusion criteria. Unsourced, OR introduction, uncategorised, misspelled title (it's not a proper name, the article author just means "Yugoslav patriotic songs" as a descriptive phrase). I was going to merge into Popular music in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but then I saw I couldn't do even that without sourced confirmation that these are in fact a representative sample of notable songs, and not just the article creator's personal favorites or the ones that simply first came to his mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A bad article in dire need of a rewrite; but a rewrite is what it needs, not deletion. The subject obviously has scope for notability. Keep. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for failure to meet WP:ORG. Danlev, the time to establish notability would have been now.  Sandstein  06:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    K2GXT[edit]

    K2GXT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Disputed PROD for a student-run amateur radio club at Rochester Institute of Technology. This club fails WP:ORG for lack of 3rd-party WP:RS coverage. The article is written by the club historian, hence a WP:COI problem. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Article already has multiple sources outside RIT or the radio club; that's WP's definition of notability. The original nomination was for lack of third-party sources, which have since been added. If the above comment about it being an important communications link during the Grenada crisis checks out, that also makes it notable. Finally, because the club operates a station with internet-linked repeaters and packet digipeaters, it is part of the communications infrastructure of the Rochester area. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are 14 references, 7 are primary sources (from university publications, websites, or a press releases), 1 is from the FCC (which doesn't do much to establish notability), 3 don't mention the subject of the article at all, and 1 is from a self published hobbiest website (which doesn't establish notability). The link to the American Diabetes page does establish that the group provided support but I don't know how much that does to establish notability here. The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle article is the one reasonably good verifiable 3rd party reference though it doesn't mention the subject the article either. The the only reference for the Grenada claim is above and that's to a self published source which doesn't help either. If this organization is notable, certainly there are better references than these.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The 3rd party references are 3rd party references, that is fulfilling what the complaint was, a lack thereof. Ok we are working to correct that and have made progress, do we need more, certainly, but it shows that something is forming. The Grenada Incident that I have mentioned could be checked out. As I clearly stated, I asked if anyone can help look for references to the claim. As for the self-published hobbiest website, amateur radio is a hobby and there certainly will be websites by other groups or organizations. Why would it not be a legit source? Technically, a professors personal website would have lack of validity in that case... even if considerable research was done, I would suggest making statements about references such as this more clear in the future. If references do not have a title, why not help and fill in the missing information? As I clearly stated on the talk page, I am new to this and any help is welcome. KB1LQC (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are three more references under the "references" header instead of "footnotes", which don't have inline cites. They are two issues of QST magazine and a newspaper article. All three are secondary sources. ( To the above poster: ) yes, primary sources and self-published sources by experts are valid, but this debate is about notability, and secondary sources establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    References[edit]

    1. ^ Famous Hams KA2ORK Details
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. To facilitate matters, I've discounted all comments (in roughly equal parts from either side) whose mangled English, excessive use of exclamation points and/or generally rambling style indicates that they are motivated more by their writers' ethnic background than by Wikipedia policies.

    I've also discounted several blanket assertions that the subject is unsourced. These are perplexing assertions because even the nominated version features a direct quote from what appears to be an academic work by American scholars (The Library of Congress World War II Companion by Kennedy et al.) describing the knife and its use; in view of this, the sourcing issue would have needed to be addressed in more detail by such "delete" opinions.

    The opinions that remain indicate a rough consensus that, based on the sources cited in the article, a type of knife called "Srbosjek" is adequately documented as having existed in reliable sources (as the nominator has to his credit acknowledged). Insofar as doubt remains as to the extent it was used by whom on whom, where, when and why, these are issues that can be addressed through editing.  Sandstein  23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Srbosjek (knife)[edit]

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

    Right to the point: ever since this article was created by not-so-unbiased User:Joka, all sources presented by him in this article have been proven false, while the only evidence for the existence of this "special German Serb-killing knife" currently comes from two sources violating both WP:NPOV and WP:V. The first is the Serbian historian Bulajić, most notable for his genocide denial rhetoric concerning the Srebrenica massacre of the recent Yugoslav Wars. His statement does not in any way provide references to actual historical evidence concerning the alleged existence of this knife. Neither does the second "source" we have been provided with, namely the "Jasenovac committee of the Holly Assembly of the Bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church". The very name of which speaks of the level of its professionalism and objectivity in historical/archaeological research pertaining to the killing of Serbs. Apart from that, it also does not meet the requirements of WP:V. As for the image of a glove knife allegedly depicting a "Srbosjek", one may entirely ignore it in these considerations as this claim is entirely unsupported. In short, this entire article is a gussied-up attempt at depicting a post-war myth as actual historic fact, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not what you'd call a sore loser ;). In light of all the sources brought forth here to support the existence of the knife, I withdraw my vote (and the nomination). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think what you said reflects reality of the situation. Books by respected members of academic comunity (like Colic, Dedijer) that mention the knife hardly amount to "total lack" of reliable sources. Moreover, the fact that article was deleted once bears no weight on current discussion, since the issue has been fixed since, and previous deletion proposal has failed. It seems to me, rather, that the article was proposed for deletion for purely political reasons, i.e. to serve the POV of those who deny the atrocious use of this knife in the Jasenovac death camp despite the references provided (that were at some point even removed from the article before deletion proposal). Joka (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not fall under "recreation of a deleted article" policy, because, per wikipedia rules, the article that has a problem fixed does not fall under this, moreover, second deletion proposal failed. As for reliability of the sources, much has been said about this and some of the removed refereces have been put back in. To say the least, the very wikipedia rules are against deletion of material that has scholarly sources such as those that are now provided, so what you said has been refuted and even the person who proposed deletion has honourably admitted that and retracted his vote. Joka (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --J. A. Comment (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please take note of the previous deletion discussion. The sources (that misteriously are missing in the present version) were given prety convincingly there, together with text from google books. I dont have much time now, but I will certainly return later today - my suspicion is that there is something fishy with nomination here - where are books by Nikola Nikolic, Vladimir Dedijer, ICTY proceedings etc. Terse (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that the person who nominated the article first time (it was deleted despite the majority KEEP votes) agreed to the references given second time, and didnt dispute the article subject existence. So according to wikipedia policies, that it was deleted once bears no weight here, as the concern was fixed; the article exists on wikipedia for something like 5 years now. Terse (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "The new article has scholarly references provided, and external links are added to ICTY trial in which this specific knife, used by Pavelic government in NDH, was called Srbosjek, as well as the dr Bulajic, president of the genocide research foundation in Belgrade and one of the most quoted authorities on Jasenovac genocide referring to this curved blade, used at Jasenovac, as "srbosjek".

    As seen in the previous vote (majority votes was keep), local people are quite aware of the existence of the srbosjek knife, which was one of the most memorable exibits in Jasenovac museum most school people visited on excursions in the 80s. The scholarly references include book by dr Nikola Nikolic, holocaust survivor from Jasenovac, a Croat and medical doctor - his book is from 1948, in book by respected historian dr Mladen Colic (his full name is Mladenko Colic, he is one of the foremost authorities about ustasha military, a titoist, works at Belgrade Vojnoistorijski institut, and his book is often used in academic teaching at Zagreb university) from 1973, and in book by Vladimir Dedijer from 1986 or so. There are also some mentions in the english books by foreign (out of ex-yu) authors in the 80s. In the books I mentioned, the curved knife is described, as well as its origin, Vladimir Dedijer mentiones one being captured by the partisans. He also includes the account of 50 killing methods by Nikola Nikolic in his book. The knife was an exponate at Zagreb city museum, and the photo of the knife was one of the most memorable museum exibits in the Jasenovac museum in 80s and Titoist era. The knife is widely known as srbosjek (the name is used at ICTY, in press in 90s, it was translated to english as cutthroat or something like that).


    For your convenience, I here list the books:

    the last book is also translated to English

    Here is the part of the last book, which mentions the knife, and is in the part of the book scanned by google, so you can easily look it up: [[52]] In English, there is a book by Howard Blum, Published in 1977 by Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co. ISBN 0812906071, which also mentiones the knife, and the part that mentiones it is also available from google books [[53]]

    Part of book by Nikola Nikolic are available online at jasenovac-info site. For instance http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/vecni_pomen/atanasije_en.html Notice the word "cutthroats" there. More parts of the book might be available online in Serbo-Croatian if you google it.

    Finally, the photo and the sketch are available online from archive of Republika Srpska official site (most exibits from the old jasenovac museum were removed to Republika Srpska during the 90s wars)

    http://www.arhivrs.org/jasenovac6.asp

    the last two pictures of the srbosjek (exibit at Jasenovac museum, which I remember personally seing some 20 years ago, and also the sketch of the srbosjek knife).

    You can notice that on the sketch, there is a writting "Grawiso" on the knife. The knife was produced by Solingen factory, which exist even today [[54]], and produces various knives.

    Here is a more extensive part of the book by Howard Blum:

    http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/artukovic/aa0006.html

    Also check out this discussion from the Serbian wikipedia: [[55]]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terse (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1) The website presented by User:Terse is using data from the profoundly biased "Jasenovac research institute" [56], a Serbian organization who's goal is, quote: "To mobilize the Serbian people, and all progressive political forces worldwide, in a political struggle to end the war currently being waged against the Serbs" [57], hardly NPOV.
    2) The second source is a state archive of a Serbian political entity held guilty of genocide by the UN, namely the Republic of Srpska, and is not based on any particular professional research. The state's position on WW2 Axis crimes is generally inconsistent with the historical consensus, and is always in the extremes when it comes to Serb victims. For example, the state's position is that there were 700,000 victims in Jasenovac [58], which would account for well over half of the total death toll in WW2 Yugoslavia (about 1,200,000). If we take into account the fact that there was an extremely bloody guerrilla war taking place, we can understand the audacity of that claim. On the other hand the USHMM and the Jewish Virtual Library came up with a figure of circa 100,000 [59], while the highest international number of Jasenovac victims is claimed by the Yad Vashem center (600,000) [60]. This lengthy explanation was necessary for the clarification of the reliability and verifiability of this state's official stance.
    3) As for Bulajić, outrageous claims like this are hardly new for him. As was mentioned earlier, he is the author of a genocide denial "theory" concerning the Serbian massacre of Srebrenica [61].--Rjecina (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make a few things clear: My post QUOTED part of discussion from previous (unsucessful) deletion nomination, where the name srbosjek as well as references were discussed at length, and it was hence not mine original post.
    Secondly, references there are NOT serbian wikipedia discussion, but a couple of books, one of which (by Dedijer) is still in the article (the serbian original clearly avaiable from google books quote speaks of this item), the english book. Other BOOKS (by Nikola Nikolic most notably, a Croatian doctor who spent time in Jasenovac I think), were removed from source list. This nomination is hence dubious, and to say the least there is a misrepresentation of references, which conclusively are proved (by google book quotation that can be clicked) to talk about this knife. Terse (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide a link to a scholarly source proving the existence of this thing, if it is not that much of a problem. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep repeating that there are no reliable sources. That is conclusively proved to be wrong, as books by Dedijer etc contain info about the knife, evident from given google book quotations. That you dislike Dedijer and other does not mean they are unreliable, as there are objective wikipedia rules of what constitutes a respectable source; Mladenko Colic is a university level expert in Ustasha military, another source that meets wikipedia criteria, and so are other outhors. You may claim that they are biased, though sources are varied, but you have no right to claim that they do not give a verifiable and reliable source info on the knife per wikipedia rules. You might as well deny holocaust based on claim that Jewish sources are unreliable, and you would probably be laughed off. University professors certainly meet the scholarly level requirement not met by many other articles that still merit a place here, and this important topic has scholarly, eyewitness, various nationalities etc. sources that prove the knife existence and use in Jasenovac. Joka (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your qualifications are, to say the least, wrong. Sources are from respected historians, university professors, books used in academia even in Zagreb [62], and are "verifiable" as any book can be. It is not task of wikipedia editors to determine weather they are right or not, as you seem to think, this is OR, but only to check what sources contain (and they clearly speak of such a knife, proved here by google book quotations among other things), and that they meet certain objective standard - being widely accepted in academia (like Colic book), by respected members of academia, should suffice, even if you think authors are somehow biased, the topic merits an article, and POV issues are to be adressed there. You cannot just delete article since you personally dislike or distrust a source, that is otherwise a professor who held chairs say in UK and USA, as Dedijer, or a foremost expert in Ustasha military whose books are used at Zagreb University [63], as Colic. Joka (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you base your claim that sources given are "unreliable sources and blatantly false and abusing"? Are history university professors in USA and UK unreliable? Check Vladimir Dedijer, one of the sources whose book contains description of the knife use in Jasenovac, as proved by google book link given by other users; Note that Mladenko Colic is also University professor, expert on Ustasha military whose book is still used at Zagreb University as suggested literature for postgraduate research - i.e. Croatian academia clearly thinks him a scholarly source - see Deletion 2 discussion for much more details proving you wrong. Joka (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that you are deliberately repeating your false claims, despite all the evidence given, for rethorical effect. How are the sources "unverifiable" when they are from books available in many libraries, with even parts of them on google books proving conclusively they speak on the topic and mention the knife and its use in Jasenovac? How are they "false", or unreliable, when their authors are well respected members of the academic community? If you keep repeating these accusations I will begin to think that what you are doing is in bad faith, as you are ignoring the overhelming evidenca that 1. books contain information about the knife and its use in jasenovac 2. books are sources accepted in scholarly discourse (Colic's book used in Zagreb as suggested literature [64], see deletion proposal 2 for more details and links). Joka (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the one who recreated the article and added the references last year, and I was appaled to find out it was up for deletion again. I think arguments are what matter here, and I find dismissal of editors like that a bit offensive. As for your request, fortunately, google books has sometimes parts of books scanned and so you can for example instantly check that book by Vladimir Dedijer contains info on the knife [67]. Also, it is evident that Jasenovac museum had as an exibit photo and sketch of the knife (see link from the main page to photos; the site is part of UNESCO archive) - as many of the people from ex-Yugoslavia who visited Jasenovac on school excursions in the 80s vividly remember. I urge you to rethink your vote in light of the evidence, as DIREKTOR already did. Joka (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar my earlier comment please do not write false statements. Jasenovac museum is in Croatia and not in Republika Srpska which is not known for NPOV policy about Serbs and other nations. If knife is real why has USHMM deleted picture and all comments about knife (if this has ever been on USHMM site)
    If Dedijer is good source why his book is published outside Jugoslavija by publishers which are publishing intolerant and aggressive nonsense and person which buy this book are buying books:
    To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia by Michael Parenti, Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, Nato, and Western Delusions by Diana Johnstone and Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia by Barry M. Lituchy. Because of all this reason book can't be accepted on wiki.
    It is funny that user come back to wikipedia only to enter deleting discussion. Your only edits are things about Serbs and war so it is not surprise that your last edit has been defeated by RFC--Rjecina (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad hominem attacks by Rjecina (who seems to be chasing quite a few editors who he is engaged in edit wars with) aside, just a few points about this. Jasenovac museum has been devastated by Croatian forces in 1991-95, and most exibition items have been moved to Republika Srpska before the 1995 Bljesak operation in Western Slavonia. Some of the material from Jasenovac museum, exibits available in SFRY there (srbosjek photo has been one of the more memorable items, a couple of editors pointed out this fact that they remember it from the exibition in the 80s, see previous AfD discussions) is posted on the RS archive page for that reason. From RS, some materials have been given to Holocaust museum in Washington, and has controversialy been returned to Croatia recently [68], causing controversy in RS [69]- the museum in Jasenovac itself has been closed in the 90s and was reopened recently. The new exibition is understating extent of the atrocities and has been much criticised for the fact that, among other things, killing items (srbosjek, malj - mullet etc) are not part of it

    [70]. The photo in question is indeed part of the original Jasenovac exibition (from the time of SFRY). Croatian policies in regard to Jasenovac included such scandalous proposals as that of Franjo Tudjman to burry ustashe next to their victims [71] (quote "hteo je da miri antifašiste sa fašistima tako što bi im kosti pomešao u mikseru i sahranio u Jasenovcu"), and hence this is hardly a surprise, but the photo is part of the original Jasenovac exibition. As for Dedijer's book, original (in Serbian) is published by Deltapress from Belgrade, and what Rjecina is talking about is the publisher of one of the TRANSLATIONS (the book has been translated to several languages), and bears no weight on the original book merits, or indeed to credibility of Vladimir Dedijer. Joka (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many people who are voting here doesn't know or doesn't want to know what was post WWII atmosphere in communist Yugoslavia, which is very important for this discussion.
    Although the antifascist partisan movement was started in Croatia and then rapidly spread to all region, there was also NDH - Nazi puppet Croatian state. The largest part of the Croats in the NDH territory didn't perceive it as Nazi in the beginning, since NDH gave them opportunity to live out of Yugoslavia, people were afraid of possible communist totalitarism, so called "the dictatorship of proletariat", which meant losing of their properties and ruling of the class of the workers and peasants. For the same reason the Serbs were massively mobilized to Chetnik forces, a royal Serb army, which collaborated with Nazis until 1943/44. They were largely indoctrinated by "Greater Serbia" ideas and there was a lot of the war crime committed by them in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by killing and torturing the non-Serbs, the Croats and the Bosniaks. In the same time the Croats mobilized in the NDH Ustashe committed a lot of war crime in Croatia by killing and torturing people from the "lower races", the Romes and the Jews (Nazi indoctrination) and the Serbs (revenge for Bosnia - people usually forget that there was a huge portion of the Bosniaks-Muslims mobilized in Ustashe, not only the Croats!). In 1943, after German loss in Russia, the Chetniks were massively changing their uniforms for the partisan ones, so in 1945 it appeared that almost all Serbs were the antifascists and not pro-Nazi Chetniks. In the same time Croatia was heavily bipolarized between the anti-fascist supporters and the anti-communist supporters. However probably the most part of the civil population in Croatia, not directly involved in the war, was more neutral and rather against the both ideologies. The Croats were massively escaping to the west in time period 1945-48 because of the massive communist persecutions of the Croats. In this period the partisan forces transformed into Yugoslav army massively persecuted the Croats and committed a lot of the "war" crime (war already ended). For example, in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, there are a lot of the mass graves with the Croatian civils (the mostly civils, per some evaluations a few tens of the thousands) killed by the Serbian partisan battalions (ex-Chetniks) - they victoriously entered in Zagreb in 1945 and obviously revenged for the Ustashe crimes. So, although the anti-fascist movement was started in Croatia in 1941, in 1945 the half of the Croats were treated as the losers in the war. All Ustashe crimes were proccesed in the post-war Yugoslavia, while none of the partisan and the Chetnik ones. What's more, there was widely spread anti-Croat atmosphere pumped up in Serbia and by the Serbs, also the communist authorities created a huge political machinery and secret police agencies (OZNA) to secure their ruling position, the communist success was glorified to the stars, while Ustashe were the main monsters in the whole story, it all reached mythical heights. On every corner there was "Tito, partija, demokracija" (partija referring to the Yugoslav communist party), but no real democracy at all. The Croats were once again massively persecuted in 1971, since Croatian politicians and students supported democratic political system instead of one-party communist totalitarian system.
    Serbian nationalists were taking advantage of their position in Yu society and exaggerated many numbers like the victims in Jasenovac. They claimed (and still claim!) that there was 1.000.000 of murdered Serbs, while in the official lists there were max 40-50.000 of the Serbs, Jews, Romes and Croats. "Srbosjek" is just a part of this propaganda story. It's possible that such knife was really found in Jasenovac, but there are no real evidences that it was called "srbosjek", that it was serially produced etc... It's all in the air, nothing really materially. If it really existed it was more likely a handmade tool used by some monster, maybe even nicknamed "srbosjek", who knows, lately utilized by OZNA agents for creating propagandistic platform. An atmosphere of fear is always easier to maintain if there is some materialization of it and a knife that killed thousands of people is perfect materialization for such purpose.
    All discussions like this one should be placed into the proper period of time and relating occasions and this one case smells too much like propaganda. I mean there is not even one piece of it, just a photo and a story, the same in the sources as in this article? And 1.000.000 Serbs was killed in Jasenovac by that knife? Or by a photo? How many people can one monster kill using a knife in one day? How many such monsters must do it every day? How many knives is needed for doing it? How many knives was found? Just a photo? So 1.000.000 Serbs were killed by a photo? Are we all crazy here? Zenanarh (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming from Croatia, your POV is somewhat understandable, but bear in mind that while you might personaly have an opinion about this knife and its use or even existence, wikipedia editors are not supposed to be the judges what is the truth (that would be OR and obviously could create many problems and many edit wars on controversial issues), but to REPORT in NPOV way on what has been said by relevant sources. Therefore, as scholarly sources that mention the knife and its use in Jasenovac have been established beyond reasonable doubt, so much that even the person who proposed deletion here admited that and retracted his vote, there is little choice but to follow wikipedia rules, that do not allow deletion of sourced material about items that clearly are documented just because some editors do not like it. Joka (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm coming from the planet Earth. I believe my comment was pretty NPOV. There are no the good and the bad guys in my comment. Just political and social environment of that moment. Problem is that you're talking about the "reliable" and the "scholar" sources, but possibly written by highly indoctrinated authors for particular purpose. Zenanarh (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, scholarly authors in history are not free from bias, and wikipedia editors have their own POV, influenced by many things, origin not being the least in these matters. Indoctrination goes many ways indeed. However, what matters here are wikipedia criteria, and the POV issues are dealt with according to standard policies, and deletion is not the way to go. As for what you say, please look at the sources and note that they are varied ideologically, and nationally. Nikola Nikolic was a Croatian doctor and eyewitness who was persecuted by comunists. Vladimir Dedijer was a disident (he fell with Djilas), Mladenko Colic a Titoist. So certainly there is no SINGLE pov from which these testemonies are coming from. No one would be taken seriously here in trying to deny facts about Auschwitz based on claim that Jewish sources were biased and Jewish professors indoctrinated, though thats what many holocaust deniers were doing in disputing their claims. Wikipedia is not supposed to side with anyone on do its own research but to report based on sources, which indeed confirm existence of such a knife. Joka (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny :) Nationalistic SPA account is speaking about bias ond POV--Rjecina (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Serbian mythomania? Nikola Nikolic was a Croat, medical doctor who was in Jasenovac, and his book (a source cited) gives one of the strongest testemonies about the knife. Other non-Serbian sources are also provided, and Jasenovac museum in the times of SFRY was governed from Zagreb, Croatia, and had srbosjek photo as one of the exibits in weapons used in Jasenovac section. Mladenko Colic's book is used as a recomended book in Zagreb University in Croatia even today. Your claims are unfounded. Joka (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wagner et al. promote "Serbian Ustashi mythomania"? Christopher S. Stewart promotes "Serbian Ustashi mythomania"? The US Holocaust Museum promotes "Serbian Ustashi mythomania"? Let's keep the rhetoric under control. Let's not deny the horror of Jasenovac. Imagine the (rightful) outcry if someone declared the gas chambers to be "Jewish Nazi mythomania"! I see no difference in this sort of Serbian genocide denialism. Biruitorul Talk 19:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I never stated that any of them "promote it", as you deviously impute it to my behalf, nor was denying the horror of Jasenovac itself, but was referring to the article itself, namely the legend of srbosjek which has absolutely zero (0) firm supportive evidence, and a plenty of highly disputed and dubious ones. Your holy Stewart quote has in itself "..according to local legend.." which you can translate plainly as: "according to the myths promoted by Ustashi-obsessed Serbian historiographers". It wouldn't be the first nor the last Westerner that has fallen for 200-years perfected Serbian mythomania. Moreover, being a "Western source" makes him even less credible (with respect to this particular matter, not generally) since he's just translating some second-hand source. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    0 evidence? Other than documented eyewitness reports (by Nikola Nikolic, Croatian doctor etc), scholarly work (Dedijer, Colic), exibits from Jasenovac museum; maybe you would like to propose to erase article Jesus Christ claiming that there is 0 firm evidence that he ever existed, and disregard the works of historians and scholars who had published works claiming that Christ was a historic figure, disqualifying their research as Christian mythomania, disregarding the fact that they are not even all Christians. Joka (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My earlier comments have been show me USHMM Srbosjek internet link and I will change my vote. Now I will say show me link towards any respected Holocaust international institution which is speaking about Srbosjek and I will change my vote. If not 1 Holocaust international institution is not having Srbosjek and if Britannica is not having Srbosjek there are only 2 solutions: Srbosjek is myth or everybody is POV about Serbian victims.--Rjecina (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was no consensus to delete. Sole delete preference was WP:PERNOM and is discounted. Editors interested in reaching consensus on merging the article are invited to do so on the relevant talkpage. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 01:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Silesian alphabet[edit]

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

    There's nothing like 'one Silesian alphabet" - the language is codificated in 10 different ways, besides the article does not cite any resources since September 2007. It's not neutral showing three codifications (I know only the first one, I haven't even seen the rest of them although my Silesian is pretty good and I often read the Silesian web pages. I think each major codification should be described alone. Timpul my talk 10:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I've added tags for WikiProject Linguistics, and put a language writing system stub template on the article. Hopefully that will help it grow. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mixtape Metro[edit]

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

    Seemingly non-notable group. Prod removed by anon with message that group is notable "because of the regular rodio play it recieves and it's affiliation with other notable bands (namely Superchick). However i respectfully suggest that neither are enough per WP:MUSIC, the radio play being a single station and the "affiliation" with Superchick being limited to "a sweeping endorsement". tomasz. 10:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:HEY. Both delete preferences ("spam" and "sources do not appear in articles") discounted as irrelevant to the deletion discussion per WP:PROBLEMS. There is unanimity amongst the remainder of respondents that coverage of the topic in reliable sources is sufficient for the Heymann Standard. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 01:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sophie conran[edit]

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

    I removed a speedy from this page as the article does assert notability. However I'm not sure if she is notable enough to warrent an article Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm over the moon she collaberated with her brother. The only potentially notable bit is having written ( well, possibly written ) a cookbook, with a nice advert for that. The rest of it is a MySpace CV... with notability assumed to have passed from parental DNA. Given it was created by someone purported to be the subject, it's nothing more than an advert/blog/resume... Minkythecat (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Winning Edge[edit]

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

    This is an article regarding a website which is relatively not significant. The edits seem to be made by the owner/officer of the corporation. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cryme Tyme Cenation[edit]

    Cryme Tyme Cenation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The is most definately a non-notable wrestling stable. -- iMatthew T.C. 10:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I know this is odd, since I nominated the article for deletion, but I have a better idea. Why not just merge this article with Cryme Tyme? -- iMatthew T.C. 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete per WP:CSD#G4. –LAX 11:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Korpela[edit]

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

    It's Just a copy of the other article that got deleted Adster95 (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    REEB[edit]

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

    A research project. Not much clue to who is running it or where. And absolutely no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. John254 00:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of fictional vehicles[edit]

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

    Unreferenced list with no clearly defined criteria for inclusion. What makes a vehicle fictional? Ecto-1 from Ghostbusters is listed, but that is basically a Caddilac hearse, so what makes it fictional? -- JediLofty UserTalk 09:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Addionne (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation covers it nicely. TCari My travels 13:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shane Jalkson and the Molexes[edit]

    Shane Jalkson and the Molexes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This has been here more than a year, but it's a HOAX. Congratulations to BNutzer for spotting and tagging it. Evidence:

    The author Sdjalk87 (talk · contribs) has no constructive edits, and no edits since this article. In the article history one can see that anonymous IPs have twice replaced the article with "This article is fake, it shouldn't even be on Wikipedia" or words to that effect, but have been reverted. I think they were right. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy delete as vandalism (deliberate hoax). Stifle (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Philippine supermodel search[edit]

    Philippine supermodel search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Revived hoax article of Philippines' Next Top Model, Cycle 2, only this time written under a different title. Starczamora (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dark Wax Radio[edit]

    Dark Wax Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    orphaned article which does not establish the notability of the topic. No 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment the link you mention appears to be a forum as well. Aren't there any better sources? If it's notable, certainly it's been mentioned somewhere, sometime in a newspaper or magazine review at the very least.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bduke (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC) --Bduke (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was No consensus. Ty 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New Epoch Notation Painting[edit]

    New Epoch Notation Painting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability issues for over a year. So listed DimaG (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bduke (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC) --Bduke (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Age archive is theoretically searchable to 1990 (http://newsstore.theage.com.au/ ), although you do need to pay, but the results of a search on references from the article do not reassure me... (nor do the comments below)
    1. The art of painting in numbers, The Age 25 May 1991
    • No reference found.
    2. Heathcote, Christopher Dr. Harking back to Romantic spirit, The Age, 6 August 1993
    • Abstract: David Strachan, 1919-1970 (Ballarat Fine Art Gallery, until 5 September); Peter Graham: Central Australia, 1954-56 (Lyttleton Gallery, until 21 August). THE ROMANTIC SPIRIT has been passing through a bad spell in recent years. Contemporary artists have begun to realise how flexible the term i The Age 05/08/1993 Cost - $2.20 984 words
    I would suggest to user:Newepoch that a condensed version of the material would better sit within the Peter Benjamin Graham article, and this would not trigger the same notability requirements associated with creating an entire article. Debate 木 13:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nanda Kishore Samal[edit]

    Nanda Kishore Samal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable. <humour> Is the height of the template messages an indication of it's lack of suitability for inclusion in WP?</humour> -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 he is elected in 2010, a new article can be written then but at this point he doesn't appear to be over the bar of WP:BIO#Politicians. Sarah 02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    George Colbran[edit]

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

    Failed election candidate with no other notability. It had a prod template which was removed, with the editor citing "his business and how powerful he is". Owning a business in Townsville doesn't establish notability as far as I'm concerned Frickeg (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If that were true then we'd have kept Corey Delaney/Worthington, but we didn't. Also, other failed candidates also have news articles, as they were just that, election candidates, but they're now failed candidates. They still have news articles don't they? The presence of news articles does not establish noteability. Timeshift (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure we should the fate of this article based on previous similar articles - that is against WP:WAX. Addionne (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't twist what is said. My point is that news articles in themselves do not establish noteability and gave an example. Timeshift (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a source can be found for this and the article amended I would change my opinion to keep --Matilda talk 02:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ABC 2007 ... but that is in the context of the election - I would like something to say it was notable at the time--Matilda talk 03:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when are "community leaders in their local area" noteable? Timeshift (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Strong Keep 23rd most powerful Townsville person (excluding parliamentarians and media personalities). Andrew Lau II (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC) blocked vandal WWGB (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I hope nobody takes the above vote for real... this really is pathetic, the guy fails noteability on all fronts. This is a textbook case of non noteability. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not POV, simple fact. And just because one page exists but shouldnt, doesn't give precedent for just as other non noteworthy pages. Don't worry, we're right, it's a textbook case, and it's only a matter of time before this article is gone. Timeshift (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which he doesn't meet. I also take note that the article's creator has just noted here that they have no problems with the article's deletion. Timeshift (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sooner you stop thinking people have something against him, the better. I've come across many AfDs like this before, it's a textbook delete, you just have invested emotions in the article. I don't. That's why i'm a Labor voter and want this page gone - HE IS NOT NOTEWORTHY! But as i've already said, don't worry, this will all be over soon enough, with the page deleted. Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't WANT THE PAGE GONE... I want NON-NOTEABLE TEXTBOOK CASE ARTICLES GONE which has happened for ages on wikipedia, and will continue to happen for ages on wikipedia. This page is just one of many soon to be sucked in to oblivion for clearly being non-noteable. And what political preference? I'd never vote Lib/Nat, Labor always comes first, and regardless I don't let it come in the way of my edits, your attacks on me make no sense. He is non-noteable and will soon be gone. Enjoy. Timeshift (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    — 202.168.11.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The True Patriot[edit]

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

    Unnotable book; fails WP:BK -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    English Learner's Online Collaborative Dictionary[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    English Learner's Online Collaborative Dictionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article should be deleted because:

    1. It lacks notability, see Wikipedia:Notability.

    2. The article was started by someone close to the business, which violates Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. BrainyBabe (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyvio. TCari My travels 13:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Palisades Federal Credit Union[edit]

    Palisades Federal Credit Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (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 Delete --JForget 23:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shit on your neighbor[edit]

    Shit on your neighbor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Card game that is close to made up one day. None of the external links work, [158 google hits] none of which appear a reliable source. May be a variant of Sheepshead but I cannot find any reliable sources to make a redirect make sense Peripitus (Talk) 04:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eden (machinima)[edit]

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

    Non-notable entry. Cited references are either self-published source or unreliable forums. Delete --PeaceNT (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've read them both many a time, and they're both wrong. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to know your opinion on this, but I think we should continue to follow the community-guided policies at WP:N until an absolute inclusionary stance is taken in Wikipedia. Addionne (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Do you not realize that these so-called "policies" are in fact merely reflective of what's already going on in the trenches? This means that the proper way of changing them is to do what I'm doing--make my effort in the trenches, and work to get others to do the same. If that happens, then these so-called "policies" will be changed to reflect that, because that's all they are. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Good luck with that. o_o JuJube (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete per WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NOR. The "keep" opinions emphasise that sources exist showing this is a notable genre of music, or scene, or something. That seems to be not very much in dispute and as such, I suppose that an article could be written about it. However, the current article (in either of the versions being edit warred over by Cosprings and JBsupreme) is not it. In the longer version, it is an assortment of unverifiable and unsourced claims about the merits of individual scene members, and in the shorter version, it is a equally poorly sourced brief account of various people being involved in acts of violence. Because in either case most of the article makes controversial claims about living people, and no version in the history appears to comply with the requirements of the policies mentioned, the article is deleted to allow for a rewrite from scratch that complies strictly with WP:BLP and WP:V.  Sandstein  07:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Detroit hip hop[edit]

    Detroit hip hop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am challenging this genre as not being valid. If there are no reputable sources to substantiate an article about "Detroit hip hop" then we shouldn't have one. End of story. JBsupreme (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RFerreira (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Red Sector Incorporated[edit]

    Red Sector Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The creator is User:Redsectorincorporated. WP:COI? I don't see any notability. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 03:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. It appears that not enough is known about this period to make such an article verifiable or not original research.  Sandstein  06:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unknown ruler of Persia[edit]

    Unknown ruler of Persia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The claim of an "unknown ruler" may not hold up. Most of the Net research I've uncovered places the reign of Orodes I through the period given to this anonymous man. Here is an example that supports Orodes' reign being longer than the time that our articles have alloted him: [88]. Any Persian history scholars are welcome to chime in and establish notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment on comment Well, this is getting to be the Persian equivalent of Rashomon. Your Unknown King II reference places our anonymous monarch on his throne from 80 BCE to 70 BCE - which throws the proverbial monkey wrench into our earlier research by extending his enigmatic reign for seven more years (to 70 BCE rather than 77 BCE). I agree that a new article may be in order. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment3. The reign is stated as "c. 80 - 70"; c. stands for circa, or about; it flags that these are approximations and further flags that exact dates are unknown, not that he ruled during that entire period. So, I'll see you one Rashomon and raise you a Kagemusha:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Either that, or substantially rewrite the existing article to cite the rival historic claims to Persian leadership in this period. That would require a sense of boldness that you would see in Yojimbo (gotta keep the Kurosawa references flowing). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Is it an issue of rival claims or just not enough evidence? My search suggests the latter. There seems to be nothing stating his date or that of Sanatruces (sp?). A couple of other sources [91] [92] - both look reliable as sources, just not definitive. Doug Weller (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Specialized_Pitch_Pro[edit]

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

    This page is contains information about a bike that is not historically notable, and does not warrant merit a separate entry. Josephus78 (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Unanimous vote MINUS the socks --JForget 00:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Most Great Name[edit]

    Most Great Name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Authors User:Ahwa85 & User:SecretChiefs3 are known POV-peddling sockpuppeteers. The article has one English-language reference that does not necessarily support the subject. This is supposedly a Islamic occult symbol, so why is its only source a book on Babi rituals? Appears to be WP:OR. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional Criterion Looking at what links to this article, it's certainly WP:NN. If there's a place for the material that's actually verifiable to be merged, I'd be happy to see that. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Does not appear to be referenced or notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Insufficiently referenced. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This article provides all necessary references. No valid reasons for deletion have been provided. Nur110 (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC) — Nur110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    'Do Not Delete' I am here to lend my support in keeping this article. The article needs expansion not deletion. Please keep it and provide additional information about the symbol. This is what wikipedia is supposedly here to do is it not? JohnDanielHammond (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC) — JohnDanielHammond (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do Not Delete: I am a Researcher of Middle Eastern Spirituality. I have read all the cited sources, both the English and non-English sources. They are authentic. Those who wish to delete this article have not done the appropriate research to back up their stance. There is also blatant dishonesty on the part of some editors here, who are deleting the sources, and then claiming that there are no appropriate sources to back up the article. NO ONE should have a monopoly on Wikipedia! The article is a valid and appropriate contribution to the subject matter and the author has done the necessary background research on it. Fatimazuhra786 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC) — Fatimazuhra786 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. * This user is a legit user. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do Not Delete: I too am a researcher. The article is fine and requires additional information to boost it. There are far worse articles on wikipedia requiring a nomination to delete. Definitely not this one. I vote to keep it. Priestofshangrila (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC) — Priestofshangrila (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment It's interesting how many self-proclaimed researchers with no previous edits are showing up for this Afd. Edward321 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment What is even more interesting is that the parties who nominated and then supported the article for deletion possess a certain sectarian rivalry, shall we say, with this symbol and seemingly are acting as if they are on a religious crusade on wikipedia against it. New or not, no one other than the Wikipedia corporation holds any entitlement to wikipedia or its articles here. This is supposedly a community effort - however much certain religious sectarians are continually gaming the system here to stamp wikipedia with their own peculiar slant - and is open to anyone with an internet connection. So kindly assume good faith and stop acting as if you own this place. You do not nor is it any entitlement exclusively belonging to any single editor or administrator! Nur110 (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentPlease note that none of the procedures or protocols for nominating an article for deletion were observed here. The article was arbitrarily gutted of all content and then nominated for deletion. This violates NPOV and also does NOT follow assumption of good faith protol. Given this the very reasons for its nomination are invalid. As such the tag should be removed. The parties should then come back there and discuss the reasons, whys and wherefores for wishing to delete this article and then renominate if the issues are outstanding. Nur110 (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Three notable Western language academic publications reference the device, one as recently as 2004:

    One editor removed all references and citations to the article and then nominated the article for deletion reverting it to its first version. This is not assuming good faith and is not a valid reason for nominating an article for deletion. As such I have removed the tag. Nur110 (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Wow! Am I sick and tired of people who apparently aren't familiar with WP:Policies flinging accusations agains WP:AGF. WP:V includes an entire section on non-English sources (WP:NONENG). I deleted these perforce — note that I left the English language further reading alone — and what's left is MacEoin's reference that doesn't support the subject. At that point an AFD is obvious. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    CommentBut here is the thing, your perforce deletion of the non-English *references* had nothing to do with the main body of the article. The non-English sources were in the references at the bottom of the article. Here is what the policy you invoke actually states,

    Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

    This states nothing about non-English sources not being allowed at all, especially as it pertains to further reading references. What you did was vandalized the article and then nominated it for deletion without any discussion whatsoever then calling out your friends to come and support you in your actions. I have quoted the wiki criteria for deletion below. The article does not meet those criteria, and you have not even expressed your reasons for your deletion nomination. And here is where further the issue of good faith comes into play: instead of polishing or expanding or augmenting the article (or putting up a tag for expert input) you perforce took out all content, vandalized it then nominated it for deletion. Nur110 (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I stated in the discussion page of the main article, as an academic, my own approach to the issue is that the sources cited (English or otherwise) are both findable and available (I have checked both internet purchase and library sources). It would not be difficult to acquire the relevant sections for thorough translation, especially, as I previously stated, considering its importance in the body of work to which this symbol is central. Assuming good faith means that if I go and get these sources translated, I am not going to find that the general references made in the article are misleading, but rather helpful to the greater understanding of the topic area. This can be confirmed as far as needs by by citing the other scholars who have used these sources. For example, Adadm Gacek from the Islamic studies department at Mcgill University cites the Anawati article in his paper entitled "Ownership Seals in Arabic Manuscripts" (www.islamicmanuscripts.info/reference/articles/Gacek-1987-Ownership.PDF), alongside the Al-Buni articles:

    (footnote 7)

    "The word Huwa is often seen in Shiite manuscripts. Some Muslim theologians believe that this word is “the greatest name of God” (al-Ism as Azam) and is to be found in the Seal of Solomon (al-Khtami al-Sulaymani). See e.g. G.C Anawati. “Le nom de supreme de Dieu’. Atti del terzo Congresso di Studi Arabi e Islamaci, Ravello 1-6 settembre 1966 9Napoli, 1967), pp.10-11; J. McG Dawkins “The Seal of Solomon’.. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1944), pp. 145-150; Ahmad ibn Ali al-Buni (d.622/1225), ‘Sharh al-Juljulutiyah al Kubra’. in Manba Usul al-hilmah lil-Buni (Beirut, . n. d. ) pp 171-182."

    I would also cite the following article in English which clearly identifies the symbol in question:


    http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PAPERS/GREATEST%20NAME/CHAPTER%20FIVE%20-%20SHAYKHISM.htm

    Dr Stephen L Lamden, also clearly displays the symbol here:

    http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

    and quite clearly refers to the same non-english language sources as the ones in dispute in this page.Truegardenvariety (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC) — Truegardenvariety (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


    I’ve just been going through the edit history for this page, noting the disagreements, and noticed a few serious discrepancies that suggest that the AFD should be very seriously considered for removal. I agree with the other editor that the protocol for removal has not been properly followed. I’ve cited the relevant Wikipedia policy on this as far as possible.

    1. What appears to be the major issue here is that the AFD tag was attached, then the disputed parts of the article deleted BY THE SAME USER immediately after, and before recourse to ANY other measures which may have been helpful in making this a better article. I have examined the edit log for this page, and saw that editor MARusselPESE cited the article for deletion, then 7 minutes afterwards, deleted the sources they had issues with:

    1. (cur) (last) 03:02, 15 July 2008 MARussellPESE (Talk | contribs) (2,040 bytes) (Delete foreign language sources. Delete stale "citation needed" statements.) (undo)
    2. (cur) (last) 02:55, 15 July 2008 MARussellPESE (Talk | contribs) (3,280 bytes) (AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Great Name) (undo)

    Se also:

    Comment Wow! Am I sick and tired of people who apparently aren't familiar with WP:Policies flinging accusations agains WP:AGF. WP:V includes an entire section on non-English sources (WP:NONENG). I deleted these perforce — note that I left the English language further reading alone — and what's left is MacEoin's reference that doesn't support the subject. At that point an AFD is obvious. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


    How can the reasons for placing the AFD tag on the article then simply be validated by the subsequent actions of the same editor BEFORE any POST AFD notice discussion begins? The editord has simply made the case for nomination based on the changes they themselves made Doesn't this invalidate the AFD policy?

    As far as further factors in deciding when an AFD should be applied are concerned, I’ve read through the policy, and placed notes in bold underneath.

    Editing

    If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. These are listed here. Some of the more common ones include 

      cleanup for poor writing
  expert-subject for pages needing expert attention
  notenglish for articles written in a foreign language
  npovfor bias
  stubfor a short article
  verify for lack of verifiability
  merge-for a small article which could be merged into a larger one.

    Pages with an incorrect name can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Disputes over the name are discussed on the talk page, or listed at requested moves.

    Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.


    Why did the editor who cited his page not put up a VERIFY tag instead if they considered the sources questionable, especially considering that the high standards of the original references (perfectly verifiable, library listed, and referenced in other English texts with just a small amount of searching) made them prime candidates for verification, not deletion?


    2. Consider also, wikipedia policy on deletion which states:

    Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.

    How many attempts have actually been made by the editor to locate reliable sources if they believe the other ones to be inadequate? They have simply blocked out the ones in question.NB. It was actually these removed sources that, through some basic searching, initially lead me to more material on this subject with available English language references.

    Also, deleting disputed sources/references 7 minutes after the nomination for deletion flies in the face of implementing fair discussion, as well as for implementing WIkipedia’s own policies!

    As per the Wiki deletion policy:

    Discussion

    Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. Likewise, disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.

    The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.


    Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.


    Do you know the subject matter? Rather than trashing it, go out and find sources. If not, look for someone who does know the subject matter. Or, if you're feeling particularly daring, go and research it, and become an expert on the subject matter yourself, so that you can find those sources much more easily.

    What exactly do the editors know about this subject and how hard have they attempted to verify it? There is more than enough very valuable information on this page, that can no doubt be usefully expanded, and some of which has prompted me to investigate more extensive translation options for the cited foreign language sources. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the case for deletion, especially after some of the ways certain editor/s appear to have neglected the very policies on applying an AFD tag would seem highly questionable. Truegardenvariety (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The question remains as to why Deletion was the first recourse, and the protocols for nomination were not followed, when there were/are so many other valid recourses for the inclusion of this article? If the article is sloppy or needs verification, surely there are other ways of addressing this, especially since the very cited resources were deleted so soon (7 minutes!) after the AFD tag was placed there.And again, why is this article a candidate for deletion when the possible links to other sections, invaliadating the WP:NN claim, including Wikipedia's own entry on Al-Buni, the Names of God in the Quran, which refer to the 100th name/Most Great Name of God and support the verifiability of the sources (I mean, Al-Buni is HUGE in the area of study in question), have been overlooked when editors taking issue with the contents have investigated this article?Truegardenvariety (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    'Keep' I have stated my views above. Keep the article. Priestofshangrila (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment' Please only !vote once. Edward321 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 23:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sex and The City 2[edit]

    Sex and The City 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    failed deleted w/o discussion prod: violation of WP:CRYSTAL and this one-liner "announcement" is also a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete, as a non notable band per WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My Parents Favorite Music[edit]

    My Parents Favorite Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I believe this fails WP:MUSIC. Prod was contested, and I held off on the nomination for a while, but author has failed to produce reliable sources, and an anonymous editor removed the notability tag w/o explanation. RayAYang (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete per WP:SNOW --JForget 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jealousy Curve[edit]

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

    Non-notable band Fails WP:MUSIC Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Denver, several states away from my computer. At any rate, I fail to see how somebody else's incivility in a completely different conversation justifies incivility here. Just be polite, no matter what you think of another editor's behavior. — Gwalla | Talk 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Keep It.....Jealousy Curve has had airplay on 93.3 WMMR in Philadelphia, has a song listed on the Dane Cook Tourgasm Soundtrack http://www.soundtrack.net/albums/database/?id=4350 They won the Zippo Hot Tour contest to tour with All American Rejects in late fall/winter 2005. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/11/prweb309003.htm They were also interviewed by Matt Pinfield at the Dewy Beach Music Conference in early 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrG06e0qonE And the local Fox affiliate did a Bio type piece on them back in March 2006. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4ZT5px4gSg The thing with the Cruel Intentions 3 "soundtrack" is a bit wrong, their song "The World is You" was played in the movie, but I do not believe an actual "soundtrack album" was released for that movie. Why is this even being questioned? They are one of the best known local bands in Philadelphia right now, and their fanbase is growing every day. Their two albums are self produced because thats how you have to get started in the biz today. But I would think the Tourgasm release and winning the Zippo Hot Tour should suffice for notoriety.--Gordo (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge (non-admin closure) with Garib Rath Express . Ruslik (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Garib Rath[edit]

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

    does not assert notabilty; unsourced; style not consistent with WP tradition Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 02:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's a reason for article improvement, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Constance Billard School for Girls[edit]

    Constance Billard School for Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unnotable fictional school with no extensive coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:NOT, WP:PLOT, WP:N. Failed PROD with prod removed with reason of "will need afd, since it will probably be contested." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. John254 00:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Whitrick[edit]

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

    Considerably less notable than other people we don't have articles on, such as Corey Delaney. Fails WP:BIO1E, quite simply. Setting a record for being the first person in a certain country to commit suicide on webcam (there's no need for Anglocentricism - he wouldn't be less notable if he was the first person in Kazakhstan or Bolivia to have killed himself live on webcam) is not a real claim to notability. Meets verifiability, but ultimately it's more of a news story than an encyclopedic topic. Lulzislife (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete per unanimous vote --JForget 00:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Back Off the Wall (Family Force 5 song)[edit]

    Back Off the Wall (Family Force 5 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article has been prodded, but prod was contested (actually, it was mercilessly removed by anoter editor who didn't express anything at the edit summary), so I'm creating an AfD for it. The song fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL, because it is an upcoming non-notable song. Victor Lopes (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 03:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Evan Brunell[edit]

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

    Article about Evan Brunell was created by him; see . Represents a conflict of interest. In addition, sole possible reliable source is Telegram and Gazette, while other sources are directly related to him (his blog, his website, and his LinkedIn profile). Also has tried to create Most Valuable Network, but it was deleted as advertising. Basically, the figure does not seem to establish notability. Goosfraba (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Soxred 93 04:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David J Parks[edit]

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

    declined prod. being named "top forty under forty" once by a local chamber of commerce is not a sufficient claim of notability, nor is being on a board of regents at a university. likely vanity article (first campaign for public office is just starting), no notable achievements, never elected to public office. Anon2060 (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Luka Magnotta[edit]

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

    Non-notable model/porn actor. Has appeared in a low-circulation local gay magazine and a few porno films. No reliable sources could be located except for the magazine he appeared in; however, he is the subject of rumours that link him romantically to a notorious serial killer, which means hundreds on hundreds of gossip sites and blogs. Risker (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Armagh ladies hockey club[edit]

    Armagh ladies hockey club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable local sports club. No evidence is presented to justify its importance within Eire's sports world. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ar.Co[edit]

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

    Being Portuguese, I can't say that I am aware of this school's local notability back at home. Online research doesn't seem to support its cause. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant copyvio by User:PeaceNT. Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arabian Reseller News[edit]

    Arabian Reseller News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable niche trade journal. Its influence, both as tech media and Middle Eastern business media, is not obvious. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete.  Sandstein  23:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Portuguese epic poetry[edit]

    Portuguese epic poetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Being Portuguese, I am sorry to nominate this for deletion. The article fails WP:RS and the sloppy, historically inaccurate writing mucks up its clumsy attempt to suggest notability. (For the record, each culture in the Luso world has its own poetic traditions.) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that so few of the entries have articles, the consensus is that more is needed to avoid having the list be a mere linkfarm. As Sosh was making progress, I make an offer to move this to his userspace if he wants to continue working on it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of mobile banking vendors[edit]

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

    A linkfarm with 10 vendors and their respective websites. PhilKnight (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment List now includes country of origin/HQ for solution vendor, and also the type of platform that is supported (SMS/Browser/Installed client etc.) - hopefully more soon. Sosh (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry Boffob, but you still have not convinced me regarding how you define which mobile banking vendors are notable. Why do you think two of them are? Because they have wikipedia articles for themselves? Actually two of the market leaders in this field (Monitise and Firethorn) do not have articles! I can assure you they are very notable, but sorry, I don't have time to create the pages for them. Sosh (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Page has been updated with additional information since nomination. Sosh (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list has been updated by at least four different registered users on occasions
    • It was intended to grow to include all vendors in this field
    • I had expected that more information would be added to the table as time went by (such as platform support, geographical market in which vendors operate, Number of banks etc.)
    • This is a subject that many of us are interested in, why are the vendors that are operating in this area not useful information?
    • Similar articles are deemed acceptable: List of ERP vendors, List of ERP software packages
    • There are a limited number of vendors in this space - the list will not grow to very large proportions.
    • Purpose of this list is to try and provide a table of the solutions in this field in a comparable way. (This information has not been collected together anywhere else on the internet to my knowledge).
    Sosh (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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