< June 11 June 13 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regnum Online[edit]

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

Online game, only references seem to be the game's websites, a Spanish Wikipedia article (!) and some forum postings. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmina Mukaetova[edit]

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

Not notable; searches only seem to give blog/youtube-style links  Chzz  ►  03:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This Blog claims she's given a concert in Switzerland, for instance. Maybe a Macedonian spelling or something is the culprit here? WilyD 14:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Јасмина Мукаетова seems to be the Macedonian spelling, but it doesn't seem to help much. WilyD 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The policy is that if something is notable anywhere or in any language it is notable for English Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia about the whole world which is written in English, not an encyclopedia only about subjects in English speaking countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Perrone[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable singer/songwriter. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perrone did start with Averi, a successful regional band, but he has now launched a successful solo career, starting with his signing with Chrysalis Publishing, one of the largest publishing firms in the world (http://www.us.chrysalismusic.co.uk/core/roster.cfm?scope=102829&is_writer=1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missingmat (talk • contribs) 05:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that this is a valid stub where the subject is sufficient notable.--Kubigula (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Griscom[edit]

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

For starters, I think this could go under CSD.

  1. It is very short
  2. It is not notable (no secondary sources etc.)

I have a website, but not a Wikipedia article. StewieGriffin! • Talk 15:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete although being short isn't a reason for deletion the does not really assert notability or provide reliable 3rd party references for verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:BIO and WP:N are the applicable policies here, and should probably be understood by anyone participating in this AfD. As this isn't a candidate for speedy deletion, I'm not sure how to interpret your responses. Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I personally think that being covered in the New York Times, among the other lesser sources I quoted above, is definitely an indication of notability. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your comments, and if so, I apologize for trying to "educate" you :-) Tan | 39 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I "voted" speedy delete the article met the criteria (from what I saw). I asked "Is being the founder and CEO of a company automatic assertion of notability" in order to clarify whether my initial reaction was incorrect. Obviously the article has undergone changes and therfore I removed my initial "vote". Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MV3[edit]

MV3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article on three players who were collectively known as "MV3" for a couple of St. Louis Cardinals seasons. However, the article boils down to just stats on the players and a summary of the 2004 season, which can be/is already on the the articles on the three players and the St. Louis Cardinals article. Tavix (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a Cardinals fan who has followed them pretty closely over the years (though I haven't lived in St. Louis or read the local newspaper regularly since 1973), and I have to say that I've never seen this term. Deor (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 2004 St. Louis Cardinals season article would probably be the proper place for this information. Spanneraol (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  18:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fart fetish[edit]

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

Unreferenced, does not assert notability or cite reliable sources, and appears to be original research. An article about the same thing was deleted in 2006 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fart fetishism (2)) however there was a previous AFD with "keep" result. --Snigbrook (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without any meaningful research content, I think it can go.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 02:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster Boy[edit]

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

Delete. A quick google search for "William Kofmehl III" (the subject of the article; searching for Lobster Boy would have shown a lot more results than just this one) showed 24 results, and that's including Wikipedia and related mirrors. There are no substantial links from other pages; just redirects and related etceteras. Basically, I feel that this subject is non-notable in regards to Wikipedia, despite garnering a bit of local press. CyberGhostface (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete. This didn't spur any real controversy or substantial media attention, nor are there any indications it was taken seriously as "performance art". Just another story of someone adding a little color to a college campus. Also, let me point out that the sideshow performer/convicted killer Grady Stiles, known professionally as "Lobster Boy", is much more deserving of the link, considering that he's been the subject of books and documentaries. -- P L E A T H E R talk 07:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Barn of the Naked Dead[edit]

The Barn of the Naked Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable album. Declined speedy (properly so - I thought it was a coatrack article about the artist). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as suggested below. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underestimated-The EP[edit]

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

Non-notable, just released EP, fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect.--Kubigula (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy and the trojan horse[edit]

Freddy and the trojan horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, just released single, fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. and Canadian cities by professional sports teams championships[edit]

List of U.S. and Canadian cities by professional sports teams championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is original research because it is an arbitrary synthesis of data. It awards past championships to a team's current city, eg, the NBA championships of the Minneapolis Lakers are credited to Los Angeles. To my knowledge, none of these leagues have an official stat of championships by city, so there is no standard beyond Wikipedia to decide how these should be listed.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that there is insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Bieser[edit]

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

No reliable sources, only sources are MySpace and/or trivial in nature. Only real claim to notability is that he co-wrote "Baby Girl" for Sugarland. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  18:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate versions of cartoon characters[edit]

Alternate versions of cartoon characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am proposing this article for deletion because it's unnecessary and unencyclopedic. It's just a list of how alternate versions of characters can be created, the more revelant of which have their own articles already, eg. Younger versions of cartoon characters. The other information, such as cartoon characters having pets that look like them, should be in the cartoon character article, not in a separate one. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me Articles touched by my noodly appendage 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). Strictly speaking, this is apparently not a discussion as to whether the article should be deleted but as to whether or not it should be a redirect - which is ultimately not AfD territory. However, there is a reasonably clear view that the subject does not warrant its own article, and thus a redirect to the mainly already given/merged material is more appropriate. WilliamH (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Mass band[edit]

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

Article is about the former line-up of Def Leppard. Despite being quite a notable band, I don't see any notability on their former line-up. Actually, I've been trying to redirect this page to Def Leppard, just as it had been done in Atomic Mass (band), but the creator of the page and some other editors keep undoing it. I could redirect it again myself, but an AfD debate may prove useful in convincing them. There's no need to delete the article, a redirect is perfectly suitable for this situation, and all content featured on this page could be easily taken to Def Leppard's article. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Country (Alabama album)[edit]

Wild Country (Alabama album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources, no chart singles, no reviews, no label even. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines for albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, article already deleted. Sorry. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aprilwugowm[edit]

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

Hoax? Neologism? Doesn't really fit any of the SD criteria, so brought it here. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 21:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 obvious misinformation (WP:CSD#G3). PeterSymonds (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gufibirous[edit]

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

Short article that provides no context, likely a dicdef of a neologism (or possibly a hoax) Calvin 1998 (t-c) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Sarcasticidealist (G3) Vandalism/blatant hoax. Nonadmin close Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Vaca[edit]

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

Failing basic criteria; Can't find any resources to show a boxer by this name either professionally or amateur exists, and claimed friendship with F. Mayweather also does not meet criteria. This seems to be a COI/Vanity entry with no available cite to feed a rewrite EBY3221 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for Speedy prior, but he hung on. EBY3221 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and moved the page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Vaca. No need to call it a second nomination since there wasn't a previous AfD discussion. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete per A7. Shereth 23:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Graham (former Scientologist)[edit]

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

I did some searching but was unable to find significant coverage or discussion of this individual in anything other than the singular source cited. Cirt (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Non-notable possible hoax. Malinaccier (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yanichel Castillo[edit]

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

Self-published author with no third-party references in the article. Deleted twice before because the whole article was copied from the Jane Yolen article, but since the current version has some other stuff, the author could have just used that as a template (even though the claim that he's a "modern day Aesop" is still cut-and-pasted from the other article). The article claims he's won awards from the national scholastic press association, but their website has no mention of him (even though it lists all the award winners). Similarly, the article claims awards from the Miami Herald, but their online archive has no mention of him, and I can't find any other mentions of him online aside from self-submitted pr sites. Since nothing in the article is verifiable, or is verifiably false, it's better off gone (and even if it was all true, winning prices for student writers is a questionable claim of notability). - Bobet 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The defamatory content is now gone, but consensus is that this is still not a notable publisher.  Sandstein  19:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yaoi house[edit]

Yaoi house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Has sufficient context to identify the subject. Even asserts notability. An article can be short and still assert notability. <<sigh>> Dlohcierekim 13:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seem to find anything that could be called an assertion of notability. Please help me out. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"One of the first" asserts notability. Dlohcierekim 12:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"One of the first" out of context doesn't assert notability. What does it publish that's objectionable? Wikipedia isn't a censored encyclopedia. Which users are you accusing of this, or is it just an unfounded guess? --Blechnic (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if it described what Yaoi novels were in the sentence, then the reader could understand this as notability. As it stands it's an insider's article, though. Probably, this sentence, if fleshed out and sourced, could establish notability. --Blechnic (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Anyway, I think that the rush to delete a stub is a little absurd. Give it some time to improve, there is nothing gained by deleting it. It's a real company, so it's notable enough for me (note that WP:N is not a policy, it is just a guideline). The vandalism was reverted and there are no attack issues now. So I continue to vote Speedy Keep. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is I can't find any articles about it, only blog entries. Can you link me to something? I'm generally keen on keeping publishing houses, especially small ones. So, can you show me something, a reliable source, that asserts it is the first, or anything that makes it a real publishing house? My issue now is it seems like a fly-by-night operation, not a real publishing house, since there's nothing but blog entries. --Blechnic (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please strike out one of your votes, voting twice is not allowed! --Blechnic (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asserts notability is not the same as having notability. Seem all of the delte rationales above. Also, you might want to reread Wikipedia:Speedy keep. cheers, Dlohcierekim 22
12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaoi house, mutatis mutandis.  Sandstein  19:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Takenouchi[edit]

Kira Takenouchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There's even an assertion of notability. I think the focus should be on attempting to find verifiable, reliable sources that show the subject meets notability requirements. If those can be found, we can keep the article. Cheers Dlohcierekim 13:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seem to find anything that could be called an assertion of notability. Please help me out. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had a novel series "which gained a worldwide following," asserts notability. Top levels in a specific genré. Dlohcierekim 12:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. No information on subject, not enough information to merge. Malinaccier (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Brazilian[edit]

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

Australian Brazilians are a really small population in Brazil, in fact its only 1,415 people. They have not contribute to Brazil's history and culture, and they are nowhere in Brazilian society. Why is there a page for an unnotable community? This is such a useless page! Lehoiberri (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Portions of this nomination have been struck through by VirtualSteve (VS) as per comments below - please make a nomination on good faith without causing needless offence.--VS talk 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't even assert notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of the orchids[edit]

Clash of the orchids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable? Kivar2 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  18:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Standards[edit]

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

Apparent hoax. Creator registered 10 February 2007, received cryptic warning (aparently about another hoax article the same day, can an admin verify?). 11 Feb, created this article. Posted to talk page addressing the issue at 20:37 ("studied the subject for years", etc.). At 21:26 a "Prof.Wilson" registers, posts to the talk page in support of the article at 21:34, then disappears forever. Another editor (see article talk page) found a reference to a god with this name who was a god of military standards, not technical standards. Seems the god might* have existed, but the editor who studied this for years got basic terminology wrong. *Unable to find any reliable sources for this god. Source found by other editor is speculative, at best. Nothing to keep. Maybe Prof.Wilson and/or Val.policelli will explain what I'm missing? Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The argument about there not being no English sources seems to be moot after Phil Bridger's post.  Sandstein  18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Abyzov[edit]

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

I suspect this is not notable; speedy was denied because admin couldn't read russian refs (neither can I); admin advised an AfD  Chzz  ►  06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak DeleteNeutral If the references have more documented instances of notability, the article certainly does not reflect it. If they exist and no one who speaks Russian cares to add them, then it is unlikely the article would have survived a PROD. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he were truly notable, there'd be English language references; what is notable in Russia may not be notable elsewhere. Renee (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know whether or not the subject is notable in Russia, but I do know that if he is notable in Russia he is notable enough for English Wikipedia. The "English" in "English Wikipedia" simply means that the articles are written in English, not that there are only articles about English speaking subjects. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article reads like a vanity piece. Maybe create an article on this E4 group and add a small section that doesn't look like a resumé listing the top-level employees instead? Qaddosh|contribstalk 18:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that someone should spend some time on the article, and I would be happy to do so when I have that time, but not with a gun held to my head. The sources I linked to above clearly establish notability of the subject so there is no reason to delete just because it takes much more time for a constructive editor to expand an article than for a destructive editor to call for deletion. If you're really that keen on time being spent on this why not do it yourself using the sources I have shown? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I had time, interest, or subject knowledge, I would indeed. My apologies if that came across as any sort of a threat, or an admonition for you yourself to be WP:BOLD--I really did mean 'someone,' not just you. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What makes him notable isn't "being a leader of a non notable organization". Not yet having a Wikipedia article doesn't make a subject non-notable, so you can't say it's a non-notable organisation, and anyway notability of Mikhail Abyzov is substantiated by the existence of substantial coverage by reliable sources, which I have demonstrated above. If you actually look at the sources I have presented you will see that the subject's notability isn't just based on his present position, but on his senior positions in other organisations going back for 15 years, and his ownership of substantial parts of many energy corporations in Russia and other former Soviet nations. He only very recently became chairman of E4 so that is only a small part of his notability. This is one of the people whose decisions make world fuel prices go up or down. Surely that makes him more notable than a band whose single got to number 34 in the charts or a footballer who once came on as a substitute in a League 2 match? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete due to the lack of evidence in reliable sources that he has played in the Nippon Professional Baseball in order to satisfy the notability guideline. A strict vote count might lead to a no consensus but several keep opinions were based on him playing in Japan which the discussion further on makes clear has not been verified. When/If he does play in that league consensus may change on having an article on him. Davewild (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alvis Ojeda[edit]

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

Never played at the highest level in his sport (never made it to Major League Baseball) and hasn't received significant media coverage, thus not meeting the WP:BIO/WP:ATHLETE notability standard. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that there are quite a number of secondary sources which discuss this player: [8], and he has played for the Navegantes del Magallanes in the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League which is the top league in his native country.[9] Kinston eagle (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What general notability guideline doesn't he meet? "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He meets all that through the articles cited above. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability." He also has coverage from multiple sources - from multiple countries. The fact that he has met general notability guidelines was a given. The only question in my mind was whether he also lived up to the higher standards for notability imposed by the relevant wikiproject. In my opinion he does. Kinston eagle (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked through the secondary sources from Google News that Kinston eagle linked to above, and I think it's a good example of how it can be misleading to rely on counts of hits. I didn't see any sources that provided information that could actually be used to expand the article; they were all either accounts of individual minor league games in which he played or articles with trivial mentions of him in a list of players. (I admit, however, that I was not able to read the Spanish-language articles.) Hence, these are the type of references that WP:BIO discusses when it says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." BRMo (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WikiProject standards (Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players) are not intended to impose a higher or different standard; rather, they represent an attempt to apply the general notability standards to the special case of baseball, which has unique characteristics not found in most other professional sports. In particular, Minor League Baseball consists of leagues that are essentially training programs for Major League Baseball, and hence aren't quite the same as "fully professional" leagues in other sports. The WikiProject standards are based on the criteria that have been persuasive in past AfD decisions. BRMo (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, "bad nom" is not a reason for the procedural close of an afd discussion. Secondly, the "played in a fully professional league" is obviously meant to be understood as connected to the second prong of WP:ATHLETE - "highest level." Otherwise, every single minor leaguer - since they play in a fully professional league - would be considered notable for Wikipedia notability purposes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that it is even possible to read WP:ATHLETE in the way you suggest. It contains 2 seperate and independant sentences - one relating to professionals and one relating to amateurs. And yes, I believe the guideline states that every member of a fully-professional league, including the AHL, NASCAR Nationwide Series, and Minor League Baseball is sufficiently notable for inclusion. I said close because the nom is inproper. Using Major League Baseball as the sole standard of inclusion for professionals is very US centric. I would support deleting if nobody adds reliable sources, as the article does continue to fail WP:V for nearly a year. Jim Miller (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is on their roster. Here is his page on their site: [10] Kinston eagle (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that he was on their roster, but the Hanshin Tigers' roster appears to be very large (~70 players) and I'm guessing that there must be a smaller "active" roster. Appearing on a roster doesn't meet the notability criteria—both WP:ATHLETE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players require that a person actually plays at least one game at the specified level. BRMo (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese League question is really irrelevant since he has played in the highest baseball league of his native land - Venezuela. Players who have played in the highest league of their homelands have always been considered notable on Wikipedia. See for example: Daniel Maddy-Weitzman and Roel de Mon. Kinston eagle (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Venezuelan League is part of Minor League Baseball and he played there while he was under a major league or minor league contract. Hence, my understanding is that he had to get his team's permission to play there and he was subject to the major league team's supervision. That seems more like a situation of training and development (i.e., minor leagues) than a fully professional league. Japan, on the other hand, is fully independent of Major League Baseball. BRMo (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
......and there's no source that he even played in Venezuela. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is. I already gave it above, but here it is again: [11] Kinston eagle (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuelan Professional Baseball League, which apparently is his claim to notability, is the winter league of United States Minor league baseball as the article on the league clearly asserts. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the top-league in Venezuela which satisfies the guidelines. --Borgardetalk 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Top league" was intended for the best baseball players in the country, not for the players that a minor league team in a different country decides to send to Venezuela to see if they can develope a change-up or play left field. This league is clearly not intended for notable baseball players. Why try to make a notability argument when he clearly isn't a notable baseball player?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is pretty much what I was trying to say above, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/snow keep. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivection oven[edit]

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

Not a real cooking device, just a plot element from a sitcom. non-notable outwith the episode itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into what article? Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete per G3; Hoax or Vandalism. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Black Domination[edit]

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

Seems like a hoax, unable to verify any of the claims on the page. I can't find a single source for this. The article is the only ghit and most of the wikilinks point to disambiguation pages or pages that have nothing to do with the article. --Faradayplank (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. There is not a strong consensus that this is a non-notable event. But there's a general impression that the use of this article as an advertisement venue and battleground is costing us more in terms of editor time than we benefit by covering this subject. That's not by itself a reason for deletion, but it tips the scales in this instance.  Sandstein  18:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss_Pakistan_World[edit]

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

Blatant Form of Advertisement and Incorrect Facts Saratahir (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article is a cheap publicity stunt and has no facts to support the statements being made and should there fore be deleted. I nominate it for deletion

This article is a blatant form of advertisement. I have been trying to clean up the article for some weeks now and any fact that negatively reflects it( such as the contorversies it has encountered) get deleted. Even simple facts such as this pageant being unknown to the public gets deleted. Similary facts that were stated by the media regarding the organizers have been removed. I think the article does not reflect an ounce of truth and needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saratahir (talk • contribs) macytalk 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been tagged for the umpteenth time with a notice for blatant advertising. The only reason for that is that this articles seems to promote the subject only and does not do much justice to other points of views. Please regard these terms for content on Wikipedia

Admitted conflict of interest[edit]

See this edit and its summary. It says that one Daniel Thompson is working for the outfit that runs this event and is editing on their behalf. It's quite an edit, and repays examination. I note that Danthompsonjr has also been editing this article under that name. Morenoodles (talk)

Proof of conflict of interest
To summarise the conflict of interest issues, following is a collection of the investigations into the user's and their associates' editing MO.
  • The users Sonisona (talk · contribs), Danthompsonjr (talk · contribs) and Tamara Daniels PR (talk · contribs) are put under scrutiny here.
  • User Sonisona has only ever edited articles related to the Miss Pakistan World pageant or its contestants from the time this account has been created.
  • User Danthompsonjr has been actively uploading pictures for the following articles only, almost always without a license and clear breach of copyright policies and has been warned as well. The user never cares to respond properly.
  • The third user, Tamara Daniels PR made an edit clearly acknowledging that they were hired by the company to edit their articles. This use so far has made only one edit as of this writing.
  • The website URL stated in the above mentioned edit points to the proprietors of the business being a one Daniel Thompson and another Tamara Atzenwiler. Clearly the user Danthompsonjr is Daniel here. The other edit using the other username Tamara Daniels PR was of Daniel's as well if the e-mail address is matched from his edit. It all makes sense.
  • User Sonisona denies the facts here saying their is no Daniel working for them contrary to Daniel himself. This claim is questionable as the PR agency's website features the company's working under their blog entry here. Notice the highlighted words in the address for the mentioned blog entry:
    www.tamaradaniels.com/what-were-doing/mrs-pakistan-2008-proves-progression-still-lives
  • The user Sonisona leaves a message on the talk page at one point. This message can be accessed here. Notice the words: "the team", "our true history", "mix our pictures". This was just after edits by Arunreginald proclaiming the company's associations with the Tamara Daniels PR agency. In this immediate post, these allegations were never condemned rather the user showed that there actually was a team working on the article, neither were allegations stating the user Sonisona to be the president of the company Sonia Ahmed challenged in any way.
  • It was only after the query by user Morenoodles that the user User:Sonisona changed her comments.
This is more than enough proof to state that a serious conflict of interest is being exercised on the article page. Consider these proof, and please take note when voting. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information Removed[edit]

The advertisers of this unknown event removed facts around the high profile pageants that have happened in Pakistan in the past and which continue to happen such as Unilever's "Shine Princess" and Pamolive "Face of the Year".

Controversies Section[edit]

Omg, has anyone read that section. It is such one sided blatant advertisement. There are no sources cited. An incident that occured between the organizers of this pageant and a Major News channel has been mis reported (from the perspective of the organizers) and a propaganda YouTube video made by these organizers has been quoted. This is absolutely disgusting. The integrity of Wikipedia should be maintained and such artciles should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.220.12 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation[edit]

I would ve recommended that everyone make an effort to clean up this entire article. However if you look at the articles history and addition that projects the pageant in a negative light or states any controveries around it from a neutral perspective get deleted and altered. None of the statements made are verifiable or backed by any facts. Its a very hopless situation and i think we are past the lets-work-together-to-improve-this stage so i strongly recommend a deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saratahir (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep : Just clean and add proper information with references. There is no need to delete this. The article would be eventually created and thing would be the same. Assign a task force to keep article up to date. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational accident science[edit]

Organizational accident science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. Google search shows 2 ghits [18]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish bankruptcy auction[edit]

Swedish bankruptcy auction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is entirely original research and, in any case, has no clear point. The phrase "Swedish bankruptcy auction" has been, at best, misinterpreted. It is not a concept that has ever been in use at any level, in academic circles or otherwise, outside of Wikipedia. The references provided in the article do not support the content (see the article's talk page). Note that, for context, a similar article is also currently nominated for AFD, Swedish auction. Debate 木 16:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The references do not support the content, as previously discussed. Furthermore, I get zero hits from both a search of US and Canadian law journals at http://www.lexisnexis.com, and a general search of Academic Search Premier. (Both subscription only, unfortunately, but widely available in university libraries.) Debate 木 02:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Victor[edit]

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

Google search shown 99 ghits [19], but no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. No sign of notability, fails WP:RS, WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Content fork with same information in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Malinaccier (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama caucus and primary campaign[edit]

Barack Obama caucus and primary campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a content fork of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. There is discussion on that article's talk page of creating a separate article for the primary campaign, but if that happens Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 will simply be renamed to indicate that covers the primary campaign. A new article on the same subject is pointless. Loonymonkey (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood my reason for nominating this. It's not for notability reasons, but the fact that an article already exists on this subject. Discussion is taking place on that article's talk page as to whether we should create a separate article for the general election, but currently this article is just a fork of that one. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Loonymonkey's response. A new article for the general election campaign with a move seems to make more sense. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike T Boss —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tag has been added to the article. No need to close/restart this discussion, but the closing administrator may want to take in to consideration the fact that the article went without a tag for a day, and extend the discussion by an additional day if the consensus looks less than clear. Shereth 13:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, it looks like a bug with Twinkle (usually it adds the tag automatically). The notification went through but not the tag for some reason. I agree with Shereth's comment above. There isn't any reason to restart discussion, but enough time should be given for all concerned to weigh in (seeing as how only two edits have been made to the page, I don't think it's really a concern). --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think the topic is big enough for its own article? That way all the details of this part of the campaign don't have to be covered in the main article. I don't see how that would cause any problems. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Looneymonkey's comments. There already is an article on this topic, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. More than 90% of what that article covers is the campaign for the nomination and the newly created article that is the subject of this AfD essentially duplicates that content. It may be that there should be a separate article about Obama's general election campaign. But the solution then is to create a new article Barack Obama presidential campaign, general election, 2008 (or something like that) and to change the title of the existing article Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 to something like Barack Obama presidential campaign, Democratic nomination, 2008. However, it is definitely not appropriate to create from scratch a content duplicate of a previously existing and reasonably well developed article Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Nsk92 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While Monty Python witticisms are not really valid arguments for deletion per se, brothers and sisters, their underlying point is well taken: for all we know, this could have been a committee consisting of one person. Not the faintest hint of notability, in other words, and the "keep" opinions do not address this. The slightly ridiculous name does not help either in establishing that this was a serious organisation (judged by the standards of such organisations, of course).  Sandstein  20:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Proletarian Union" Committee of the Portuguese Marxist-Leninist Communist Organization (in reorganization)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
"Proletarian Union" Committee of the Portuguese Marxist-Leninist Communist Organization (in reorganization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Being Portuguese, I was curious about this article. However, I was unable to confirm notability for this organization Ecoleetage (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AfD ended in no consensus, and I hate to say the Delete arguments in the last round were somewhat stronger than the Keep arguments. It is hard to verify notability in either English or Portuguese. I wish more people would chime in here. Thanks! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:25, 10 June 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 15:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Beach House[edit]

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

This doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an entire article. It aired only in 1993, and could easily be tackled in a sentence or two in the MTV article. DearPrudence (talk) 06:46, 5 June 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 15:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the album article. The single hasn't charted; best to just go to the album for now. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy (Keri Hilson song)[edit]

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

Contested redirect of non-notable song, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:51, 5 June 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 15:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --JForget 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher Park Public School[edit]

Fisher Park Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable School. Fails WP:ORG Delete GreenJoe 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also fails to cite sources. GreenJoe 16:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Things[edit]

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

Non-notable song, didn't chart and wasn't covered in any reliable sources. Another one of Keri's songs was a contested redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't care if it's deleted or not, but if it is, it should be redirected to Good Thing. The title of the page for this song should have been Good Things (song) from the start. If it's kept, this title change should occur.--Hraefen Talk 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC) .[reply]

Keep The film also meets the following principles of WP:MOVIE:

    • General principles
      • The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of film making.

It was awarded the Badil Al-Awda award, a very important and respectable organization and Award.

      • The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

The film was preserved in the Palestinian national archive and Badil Archive after receiving the Al-Awda Award. and if I am not mistaken it was preserved in the Aljazera archive after receiving the Al-Awda Award, and according to Badil website was shown in many Arab TV stations, that means a copy will be preserved in there archive .

Wikipedia will not publicize the documentary; it just gives information about it as it gives information about other Israeli films and documentaries that no one heard about or received any awards. Anyway TV stations will not search for films in Wikipedia, neither people interested in the films. Their source will be imdb or all movies. So you have no excuses now пﮟოьεԻ 57.

91.11.143.201 (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC) With respect[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 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7 no assertion that band is notable, g11 advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krescent 4[edit]

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

Subject has no significant coverage in multiple secondary or third party reliable sources. Google search returns many ghits, [21] but that does not meet the previously mentioned criteria. No hint in google books [22]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the page's edit history, it's clear it was nominated as a speedy, and the author removed the template from the page without waiting for a decision or placing a hangon template on the page or explaining why it was not a speedy candidate. I am re-tagging as A7.Beeblbrox (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Soxred 93 21:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qore (PlayStation Network)[edit]

Qore (PlayStation Network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is not enough notable information on the service to require an article. All the encyclopaedic information is already on the PlayStation Store page and is a good size. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I mentioned above, because there is so little content on the service, I think it should be kept to the PlayStation Store article. If, over time, so much is added that it becomes too big, then this article should be re-created. At the moment, everything noteworthy on the topic is in the PlayStation Store article so there is no need for this new one.ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 06:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no need for a new article" is not grounds for nominating something for AFD, per WP:DEL#REASON. Debate 木 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what I meant. I am questioning the article's notability. I don't believe the service is notable enough to warrant an article. This is illustrated by the fact that the service can be adequately covered in a section on another article. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 07:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A short article is still an article. Once the question of notability is decided the length of the article is essentially irrelevant. Not every article can be several pages long. Regardless, the obvious avenue of expansion is what other people think about the show, therefore reviews about the the success/failure/entertainment-value of Sony's venture are relevant here [23], [24], [25]. It's also an early implementation in terms of the technology as, arguably, a new media distribution format launching on an existing, highly successful platform, the PlayStation [26]. There are also corporate implications in terms of income and advertising dollars generated [27], as well as the reaction of PlayStation owners [28]. I would suggest that these references alone should be more than sufficient, per WP:Web, to support the retention of this as a stand-alone article. Debate 木 08:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't have an article based on the assumption that the service will become more notable at some point in the future. The initial reception of the service is reported in the PlayStation Store article already and the other information you suggest could be included in this article isn't available yet (financial benefit, success/failure, etc). ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no assumptions of future coverage here and I'm not sure how you're reading that into my comments above, which make no such claims. Indeed, all of the links already discuss these matters, in some cases in quite a bit of detail, such as "Sony, Future U.S. Take Advertisers To The Qore" which discusses the advertising model, target demographics, initial sales, etc. Per WP:WEB, "web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria ... the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The links provided above all present analysis of the program far beyond that of simply announcing the program's launch and are more by themselves than many other similar articles have had, and survived, when discussed at AFD. Regardless, the links provided above are not the only ones available, they were simply a selection based on a cursory search. Debate 木 09:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untraceable2U (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The solution has been suggested above (ie merge), but it's a content issue and therefore AFD is not the best place for that discussion. Merger issues are best resolved on the article's talk pages via the process described in WP:Merge. Debate 木 09:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While assuming good faith, I wonder if you have checked the above references since they contain commentary, analysis and criticism without any suggestion of a press release that I can see... Debate 木 09:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Duriez[edit]

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

I can find evidence that this person exists but no reliable sources (or any unreliable ones for that matter) to back up claims of notability enough to meet WP:BIO. [29] [30] [31] nancy (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Duriez is referred to as a "tutor" in the Ptolemy Dean bio (User:PtolemyDean is the creator of the Mike Duriez bio). The addition of Duriez to the Dean bio was by User:Obscure items some of whose edits to that article have been reverted as vandalism, e.g. [38], others are clearly not serious [39] [40], note resemblance of these edits to User:PtolemyDean's [41]. I think this Bio is a hoax, and extension of vandalism/joke edit BSing on Ptolemy Dean.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Not notable advertisement. Malinaccier (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trevelino/Keller Communications Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Trevelino/Keller Communications Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch (and gnews) give lots of press releases, but nothing in the first several pages of hits showing notability. WP:COI issues as well. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SpinetiX HMP100[edit]

SpinetiX HMP100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertising for a commercial product. The product doesn't seem to be notable enough to deserve an article. This page is referenced only in Scalable Vector Graphics, also apparently for advertising purposes. Hajoma (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a G10 - Negative unsourced Biography of a Living Person. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Elliott[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable enough for a WP entry. Bleepergirl (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Archiving[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bands4boobs[edit]

Bands4boobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable charities operating only in Stourbridge and Coventry, England. Raised a non-notable (it terms of wikipedia) amount of money. Only referenced by self published source. SGGH speak! 13:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCA Illustrated[edit]

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

Non notable website SGGH speak! 13:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, but no objection to recreation in future if reliable sources can be found. Bduke (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.P. Road[edit]

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

Non notable street SGGH speak! 13:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 12:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to create an article on wikipedia[edit]

How to create an article on wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#MANUAL. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please take any discussion about merging or renaming to the article talk page. (non-admin closed). GtstrickyTalk or C 14:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming controversy[edit]

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

Completely non-neutral. Anything worthwhile should be merged into Scientific opinion on climate change, because this article is just a POV fork of that article, trying to make it sound controversial when we're supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. Serviam (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Contorversy" is hardly a good name, a rename to something else may be in order, but this needs a rewrite in that case, and that article is also badly named.--Serviam (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you want a page move, not a delete. Raise the matter on the article talk page. Jefffire (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is this article a fork? Yes, but forking of content is allowed on wikipedia. In the main global warming article and in the article about the scientific opinion we don't want to bother the readers with the controversy about global warming that exists in right wing media, the blogosphere etc..
Are there POV issues with this article? Yes, currently this article presents the opinion of a few skeptics as if this has (or should have) a big scientific impact. Now, a legitimate fork that happens to have POV problems cannot be labeled as a "POV fork", because a POV fork is a POV version of an existing wiki article. Count Iblis (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Had there been sourced content, a merge might have been feasible. But I am not going to, and no editor should, merge unsourced content - especially BLP content. GRBerry 20:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Sanders[edit]

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

First AfD was in 2005 second was in 2006 and the result was delete, this article has not gained any additional notability since then. Per the precedent set with all recent deletions of losing candidates and local councillors Darrenhusted (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mangosteen. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoteen[edit]

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

Fails WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. There is little will to see this content deleted but there is also no good consensus as to whether it should be kept as its own article or merged elsewhere - discussion to that end can continue elsewhere. Shereth 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants)[edit]

Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable enough in and of itself. Plenty of content already at Patrick_Star#Patrick_Star Ged UK (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The characters of Lost (TV series), Desperate Housewives, and numerous other TV shows have pages; the characters of novels (The Lord of the Rings, A Series of Unfortunate Events, etc., etc.) have pages; the characters of radio programs (Adventures in Odyssey, The Lone Ranger, etc.) have pages; how is this less encyclopedic? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 10:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because they haven't been cleaned up yet, and/or because they already demonstrate notability and/or could easily demonstrate notability. – sgeureka t•c 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a speedy keep reason. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? And which ones would those be? seresin ( ¡? ) 05:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FWIW, a Google search of "Patrick Star" turns up more than 13,000,000 Google hits. He has verifiable third-party references, he is a major character on a major television presentation, seems to pass WP:FICT (after an admittedly cursory glance) and, thankfully, is not a Pokemon, on which we seem to have articles by the truckload. Ditto characters in every anime and manga on the planet. If this were one of the secondary or tertiary characters, I'd agree that a redirect is in order. This character is in every episode I have ever seen. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming there are reliable, third-party sources that grant notability is not the same as providing them. If this character is as integral and notable as you so claim, these sources should be bountiful. Articles need out of universe notability, not in universe notability to remain as an article. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With thirteen million Googles, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.  :) I'll add a couple. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, including Nickelodeon's sites for North America and Asia, an elaborate fansite at [42] and even an Amazon.com link to a Beanie Baby version of the character. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: 8,320,000 Google image hits and was co-star (no pun intended) of a major motion picture as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think the issue with those third party sites was simply that they referred straight back to wikipedia, thus creating a useless circular reference
Respectfully disagree. The character doesn't have his own TV series or a series of theatrical shorts like a Warner Brothers or Disney character, but he is an integral part of the storylines and has been for nearly a decade. By comparison, Warner's Goofy Gophers were featured in a grand total of only nine theatrical shorts...and they have an article. Deservedly so, I might add. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Real place, sourced. Nominator may not be aware of the reasons by which we have articles for places. — MaggotSyn 11:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falevai[edit]

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

No assertion of notability Ged UK (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#12. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from Time and Contingency[edit]

Argument from Time and Contingency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing more than an essay on one users beliefs. SGGH speak! 10:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, the author retains copyright of that blog. Tagging it with a G12 a few moments from now. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amaya School of Home and Industries[edit]

Amaya School of Home and Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability. SGGH speak! 09:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - which is precisely how we do not deal with stubs. We have stubs because existing articles attract editors whereas the concept of keeping articles off Wikipedia until they are fully developed is fatally flawed since it rarely happens. TerriersFan (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant misinformation (WP:CSD#A3). PeterSymonds (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There and back[edit]

There and back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crystal ball article about a Green Day album about which there "is no word on when it comes out". Would have speedied if there were any applicable criteria. nancy (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - blatant spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viva La Unit[edit]

Viva La Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Shereth 20:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mott (a joke)[edit]

Mott (a joke) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. No reliable sources asserting notability or even existence has been provided. Mattinbgn\talk 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think it is clear what the meaning is. I did look for a reason to speedy it and couldn't find one. I PRODded it and it was removed without comment or improvement. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question. WP:CSD#G2 (test page) may be closest, but none fit it perfectly. It was prodded rightly. The author then removed it without comment (cf. Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Unexplained prod removals). I'm glad the the original prodder had the git-up-and-go to follow through here. — Athaenara ✉ 03:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: having found no sources anywhere (reliable or otherwise) ... it might simply be a hoax. — Athaenara ✉ 03:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was a weak consensus to keep. While there was certainly a strong mandate here to keep the article, it is currently unsourced and the problems brought up by the nominator were not addressed, and I wish the close to reflect the fact that the arguments in favor for keeping, while numerically superior, were largely inferior on their own and this article will require proper sourcing to avoid this situation again. Shereth 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftfuel[edit]

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

Google search shows 93 ghits [47], but no significant coverage in reliable sources, google books shows no ghit [48]. Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it fail WP:RS? The PBS article is written by Robert_X._Cringely, who has a column with PBS and other tech websites, as well as having written for "The New York Times, Newsweek, Forbes...". Also, additional articles are now linked in the external links.

It is hard to find more details on the manufacture process and other reliable information on swiftfuel right now, but I think more press will cover it soon, especially since Slashdot just put it on their frontpage. The Swift Enterprises company website is down because of the Slashdot effect, which is why many details aren't here yet.

The first major press release was on June 9th, I think there will be a lot more over the next few weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetpeach (talk • contribs) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company and its product may well become notable in future, but inclusion now when press releases and news coverage are just beginning seems like self-promotion. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I heard about the stuff and came hear looking for information that was not in the company press release. The article can be improved, but I would give it a chance. Xlation (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep This is an emerging issue, and a new product. Google yielded 1400+ hits. Many of them are press releases. I would reopen this one in about a month. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Strong Delete Nothing new with this has appeared in the last few days. This is at best vaporware and at worst a hoax. The company does not have an actual product to market (nowhere are there instructions on where one can buy this product or futures for it), and the only claim to notability is the re-reporting press buzz. This article can be re-created when this fuel does come to market (if ever). HatlessAtless (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is confirmed, but the article needs a good rewrite. --Ecoleetage (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lacking reliable sources is a terrible reason to delete an article, but a great reason to find and add reliable sources! With the recent press, lots of people will want to know whether SwiftFuel can live up to the hype. We need more information about this, not less! OldMan (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here looking for information on this precisely because of today's reference in a significant media outlet. Ergo, there should be an article on it here. Carboncopy (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There should be an article. Here is where people come to find more information than is in a magazine article. @fella that said 'Delete', the article just needs to be non-biased. --Theeldest (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the little I've read, it sounds likely that SwiftFuel is an ethanol-butanol mix. Until the makers either put up a formula or a patent, this trademark is nothing more than hype, and not deserving of its own article. 24.19.238.74 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

: New Article/Merge It may be more beneficial to start a new article for 'Drop-in Fuel replacements' or 'Gasoline alternatives'. Gas prices are forcing innovation of new fuels. There are some already: SwiftFuel, Butanol, Vegetable Oil, etc, etc. I doubt that there is going to be much more information available on each of these in the near future (probably not enough for full articles on each). However, one article with sections for each may be more plausible. --Theeldest (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please only !vote once. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of hype right now and people want a place to read up on the product. If no useful information is added after a month the article should be merged into a list with other alternative fuels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstableBrew (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has very little content, but if it is deleted, that goes to zero. Right now, there are very few sources of information, or even places to go find information, about this topic. If this article is abandoned, it is akin to abandoning the arena to marketing interests. However, if more information is not forthcoming about this topic, I will change my mind, and my position. NReitzel (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SwiftFuel is a drop in replacement for aviation fuel and has no ethanol in it. Regardless, an article is a good idea. The press has picked up this company and I feel we're going to learn more and more about it and it's products in a very short period of time. --SilverhandTalk 21:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs improvement. The topic has been slashdotted, and aviators wish for the fuel (see above). I agree with KevAvatar. At this time, I don't see any better article in to which to merge this information. Right now, Swiftfuel seems the logical place to organize emerging Swift Fuel information. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge - this discussion was flawed from the get-go as this is not the correct forum for discussing potential merges. That said, there is a fairly strong mandate to merge this material, and I will tag it as such - but the final decision as to whether or not to merge should come as a result of a proper discussion, not an AfD. Shereth 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rietti[edit]

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

Merge and Redirect to the Gateways article because he has been its leading lecturer almost since its founding and it his been his base and "claim to fame" so that this article not be a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) as a serious rabbi. Also seems to be a violation WP:NOTADVERTISING. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Suchard about Gateways' founder in this regard.) IZAK (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if all you want is a merge and not deletion, it doesn't need to be brought to AfD. Do the merge and close this discussion. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your heading + vote is misleading. Why are the words merge and redirect bolded in your "heading," and why is redirect capitalized both times? It appears suspiciously similar to how votes appear on article for deletion voting pages -- namely, in bold. Should I embolden and capitalize the word Keep every time I use the word here? Why not simply make your point with persuasive text rather than sensationalistic headings that appear as a vote?
Did I make an article for every Gateways rabbi? No. Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher are giants in their field. Rabbi Suchard founded Gateways, and Rabbi Noah Weinberg, the founder of Aish, has an article. Why don't you recommend merging that? Your logic is flawed, or at least ill presented. Rabbi Rietti is an accomplished author and lecturer divorced from his involvement in Gateways. He wrote The One Minute Masmid, and has about 195 lectures currently available on tape, CD and mp3 format. He is a commonly featured speaker at parlor meetings in the northeast United States and perhaps elsewhere as well. He has advanced training in education and was a teacher/administrator for 22 years. He provides private counseling -- and this is all separate and distinct from Gateways. Did Gateways propel him to further popularity -- probably if not definitely. Is it who he is? Absolutely not! Rabbi Slifkin has an article, even though he wrote a bunch of books and one of his books in particular, The Challenge of Creation, has its own article. He is similarly not his book and his book does not define him. What exactly is the issue other than the inadequately expressed and supported one above that poorly claims that Rabbis Rietti, and Suchard, for that matter, do not merit articles merely because they work for an organization that itself possesses an article? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DRosenbach: I appreciate your sincere concerns but you are veering off into too many tangents. Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher may well deserve full blown articles at some stage, but at this time, all the information in the articles about them, indeed the few "citations" in those articles are just taken from Gateways brochures, so that if Gateways itself feels that it can combine them, and if it does not issue copious biographies of those rabbis, there is certainly no need for Wikipedia at this time to devote separate biographies for them. I am not advocating that the information be deleted and lost but that it be moved to the main Gateways article at this time, because Gateways without Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher is not Gateways. Your comparisons to other noted rabbis do not add up either at this time either. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than argue on your rather subjective points, I will argue on the more objective ones in hopes of settling this argument. I notice a turn in your focus; it is no longer notability concerns but the merit of the articles to deserve existence based on length and bredth of coverage. WP:DEL clearly states that [a]rticles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into a larger article or list. This does not apply to any of the articles in question, as there is clearly more information that exists but has just not been added to the articles yet. Suchard's article is merely 3 days old, and even Rietti's, which is several weeks old, possesses the objective quality of "expandability" - rather than insert information without proper citation and precision, the information provided about his biography is forthcoming and will be added in time. There is no violation in creating a stub for a notable person, and as it is quite evident that the consensus has gathered around a confidence in notability, what sense is there to demand a merge when it is against both policy, and in the consensus opinion so far, common sense. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the creator of the Gateways article it would have been wiser to put in all the comprehensive information into it first, about its founding director Rabbi Suchard and about its two leading full time employees Rabbis Rietti and Becher who work for Gateways and Rabbi Suchard. Then, as the information about them and their whole operation would have beeen expanded with more sources, separate biographies about the rabbis could be an outgrowth down the line. It makes no sense writing one article about a small institution and then creating individual articles about three of its four full time rabbis. Therefore, the current approach of writing up separate articles about the organization and three of its rabbis is redundant, even if the rabbis have a somewhat broader resume, they are presently strongly indentified with, and work exclusively for, Gateways, AFAIK. IZAK (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Objectively, that is not absolute policy, and it is not even a relative policy -- If I believe that they each desrve their own aricle and can back up my belief with sources and citations to that end, then they effectively merit their own articles. What policy does state, ironically, is that articles should not be merged when the potential for expansion exists, as cited above. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per IZAK. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request a Mistrial

I would like to request a "mistrial" of sorts -- I was under the assumption that articles did not have to added to Wikipedia fully-formed, but that they could be added as stubs and expanded over time -- silly me, I thought that was the point of a wiki. The article has been greatly modified from the content and format that has been voted on by everyone above, and as such, perhaps a new vote is in order, should IZAK still feel that his point is sound. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 05:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

relatively small Orthodox outreach organization
What does relatively mean? I'd say Gateways is very large and rapidly becoming one of the most popular Jewish outreach organizations. They rent out hotels for Jewish holidays and thousands of people visit these hotels each year to spend their holiday with and hear lectures from the Gateways speakers. Then there are the other 6 divisions of Gateways -- hardly a small operation. So it does make a lot of sense to make an article about it and any of their speakers who are extremely notable.
Compared to Chabad, Aish HaTorah and NCSY it is tiny. Just look at its full time staff and see why it's very small. Rabbi Buchwald's NJOP is much bigger and they don't request articles for every last rabbi who teaches for them and there are hundreds of them. Not to mention non-Orthodox rabbis who do not get biographies even though they may lead congregations that numbers in the hundreds and even the thousands yet their biographical information gets mentioned in the context of being the rabbi/s of their synagogues and not as you wish to do here by having separate articles for the Gateways article and also for four of its five or so full time rabbis, which is over-reaching by any standard. IZAK (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject
That's just it. Gateways is but a part of Rabbi Rietti's life. He is has recorded 195 lectures and people through America buy them and listen to them. He has yet to go platinum, but 195 albums is 195 more than I have recorded, and probably 195 more than most people have recorded. He is also an author of at least 2 texts. He has also been featured on a radio show numerous times. Your assertion is incorrect - his article and the Gateways article do not treat the same subject. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 06:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many rabbis record their lectures and they sell them, he is no exception. He goes on some radio shows and many of them are sponsored. It does not make him into a great and notable sage. He is basically a salesman for Orthodox and Haredi Judaism trying to convince people to become religious and his texts are similarly geared. All this fits beautifully with the Gateways mission, but at this time it is hard to see why he should get a full blown biography. IZAK (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
God is in management and rabbis are in marketing; God decided what the Torah is all rabbis market the Torah - that is their job. Salesmen who are notable because they are considered the top salesmen in America are still notable, whether or not you want to buy their product, and "great sagehood" is not yet a criterion for notability on Wikipedia. The disdain exuded by your comments is clouding your objectivity. Are you suggesting that the Beatles article be deleted (or deleted, redirected and moved) because they are famous for doing something that makes them money? And we can't possibly have every band get an article, so no bands can have an article? That seems to be your basis premise, or at least it is now, because your premise continually shifts as the target of your attack becomes sufficiently protected with logic, reason, citation, source and objective fact. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for God by anyone will not help this discussion. This should not get into a theological debate because it is not what this (or any) AfD is about. Noone is debating the roles or powers of God here. But there are certainly different classes of rabbis. Some are great scholars of the law, and others are..., well, preachers, but while many scholars earn their articles by dint of their vast erudition and scholarship that is known to other scholars, the preachers and "salesmen", while they may be well-liked by many people, cannot be classed in the category of notability as great scholars and rabbis, such as rosh yeshivas and Chasidic Rebbes for example. Even in the Baal teshuva world their are standards for greatness and notability, and while not every Chabad, Aish HaTorah and Ohr Somayach rabbis get their own biographies, only the very exceptional ones merit them after careful scrutiny by editors like us. That is why there was once even a project of Wikipedia:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week where such matters we are discussing could be debated, but has been dormant, and the result is that each new biography must be debated on a case by case basis, which is what we are doing here and you need to WP:AGF about that. IZAK (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a discussion about religion and it has never been one. This is a discussion about an article's merit to exist. Rabbi Rietti speaks nationwide and has been cited with sources as one of the most sought after speakers in Jewish outreach. Jewish outreach and their supporters are hardly esoteric, as would be speakers of an underwater basketmaking organization. How can his notability be put into question when there are currently no rules put into place and, as you said, there is no uniform regulatory oversight. To apply arbitrary regulations retroactively is unfair. Who is to say that Rabbi Rietti is ordinary and not extraordinary -- you and the people who vote "per IZAK" because you have swayed them with your claims? I say he is extraordinary and have provided independant, third-party verification. Your assertions that these sources are invalid because they co-sponsor events with Gateways is ludicrous -- the sister organizations, as well as unaffiliated organizations, secure this and other rabbis to speak precisely because the are excellent and exceed expectations, they are not claimed to be excellent because they have been secured and increased attendance is desired. While I have done my best to follow policy and respect the rule of law, you have done nothing but state your personal opinion and violate Wikipedia regulations, including WP:AFD, WP:DEL, WP:MERGE and claims of consensus - this is not even a valid forum within which to put merge to a vote. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does someone have to write an independantly published book to be notable? Rabbi Rietti is a much sought after speaker throughout America, which has been substantiated by articles and press releases put out by almost every Jewish outreach organization in America. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Five independant news outlet citations have been provided to support his notability. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Tanthalas39 (A1) insufficient context to identify subject Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZoX Universe - Space Arena 2[edit]

ZoX Universe - Space Arena 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, almost a speedy for advertising Ged UK (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 while not quite blatant advertising, there was no assertion of notability. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NUUO[edit]

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

A company consists of 50 employees. No award, significant product, no significant coverage in multiple secondary and third party reliable source. Fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just declined the G11 speedy. The advertising is far from blatant, and hardly is advertising at all. It could be fixed, and so is not what G11 is intended to be used for. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Orangemike (G1) Patent nonsense Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Ten Commandments (Yepii Decalogue)[edit]

New Ten Commandments (Yepii Decalogue) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War Symbol[edit]

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

A proposed opposite to the "V" sign for peace. No references - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I would hope that the original author would return to provide an assertion of notability. Nothing related on google for either war symbol or war gesture. Granted I've never heard of it, but I cna't seem to find it either. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Table I am changing my mind per WP:BITE. This is a new account and this is that account's first article. There are multiple edits, and a note on the talk page of the user's intent. I think that the appropriate response in this case would be to point to the notability criterion and reopen this at a later date if the author fails to either produce a useable article or a reasonable starting point for one. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you're not suggesting that an obviously unacceptable article be kept around simply because the author is new, as that's absolutely apalling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given a combination of three factors, that's exactly what I am doing. 1) The author is new, and so should be given a guidance rather than thwomping. 2) The author and the article have been on wikipedia for less than 14 hours as of this posting. Rushing to close an article with a responsive author within 24 hours without postings to the article or author's talk page is a bit premature. 3) The author appears to have been responsive to the AfD posting. However, given the length of the article and the ease of recreation, I won't shed any tears if it goes away. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Not notable. Notability is not contagious. Malinaccier (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Mollica[edit]

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

Not notabile. This is a high school film teacher who happens to have known Larry David at some point. Notability is not contagious. --Selket Talk 05:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Selket Talk 05:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Rob Zombie. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Montgomery[edit]

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

The subject is not independently notable (notability is not contagious) and no reliable sources. Perhaps merge with Rob Zombie. Selket Talk 05:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 18:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romancing SaGa characters[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of plot and character information that belongs in the Romancing SaGa article. As it asserts zero notability on its own, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--PeaceNT (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Chi Rho[edit]

Lambda Chi Rho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This local sorority has 42 Google hits, 11 Google news hits, and 4 Google Books hits. None of these do anything towards notability (one of the Google books hits is an example in a grammar textbook, many of the Google News hits are society pages or obituaries). Prod tag removed. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Carolinas[edit]

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

poorly referenced article consisting mostly of original research and of questionable notability. Last AFD resulted in keep largely because editors had heard of the term "the Carolinas" yet verifiable 3rd party references have not materialized since then. Rtphokie (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: per the message on his user page, user Mr. IP (talk · contribs) is also the IP user 65.190.89.154 (talk · contribs), which is dynamic.

I have left a second message on the nominator's talk page in an attempt to work this out. Mr. IP (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator, I cant delete anything. This is a discussion, that may lead to a deletion but not necessarily. Please take a look at WP:AFD, which describes the process in full.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand - I've been at Wikipedia for years and participated in dozens of AFDs. What I'm wondering about is why you wouldn't respond to my notice on your page after the prod before going to AFD. The article has issues, but they aren't insurmountable. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To ensure that everyone who is interested can participate, discussion needs to happen on the article's talk page or here in this AFD, not my talk page.--

Rtphokie (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I do appreciate replies and attempts to work on an article before going to AfD. It's probably just my wiki-mentality, but I always, always want to work with people on improving an article before I go into the big ol' XfD queues. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that since making this comment, I have continued to improve the article's sourcing. I would urge everyone to give this article a chance to continue getting better. Mr. IP (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking it personally - it's not an article I worked on until recently, so there's no WP:OWN issues here. I just don't understand why the day you would nominate it is the day I started adding refs! 65.190.89.154 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that the article could be quite useful if improved rather than deleted. "The Carolinas" is a real grouping that is regularly used in speech and thought, and many people from outside the region may be interested to understand the similarities and differences between the states in a way that is best addressed through an article on the grouping rather than the individual state articles. Further, there is precedent at The Dakotas. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information about the geographical grouping "The Carolinas" is more appropriately held in an article of that name. There's a good bit of information unifying the two states that would have to be duplicated in the two articles, also. I feel that any issues with this article can be addressed without deleting it. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any geographical information in the article, unles you are suggesting that "The Carolinas is a term used in the United States to refer collectively to the states of North and South Carolina" is geographical information. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about cultural info. The grouping is geographic and cultural. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Where is this cultural or geographic information in this article? Point it out please. I frankly have no clue from these two replies as to what your main argument is for keeping this as a separate article, when it duplicates information from the three more relevant articles, or otherwise contains trivia. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the previous Afd, I'm amazed that was ever closed as a keep. The one valid opinion to keep as a distinct article was a weak keep from Mandsford (talk · contribs), on the basis it was currently rubbish but might expand. All others were basically, 'I've heard of the term', or bizarrely, citing the name of the Carolina Panthers, or merge/redirects. The existence of the article seems to me to be mere convenience, just because it is used in everyday speech when referring to both states, in the same way as The Dakotas, which is an equally poor article with some extremely weak references, that was Afd'd at the same time, and closed as keep by the same admin. Just having heard of a term is not the standard for inclusion in wikipedia as a separate article. This is exactly what disambiguation and redirection was invented for. I challenge anyone trying to improve this article to produce a source that treats this term as anything more then a mere convenience to avoid having to say "North and South Carolina", or information that cannot be included in N/S Carolina or province articles. Keeping this article just so you can compare the two states on political/social grounds is extremely pointless, and possibly even a violation of not using wikipedia to make a point. If it is a meaningfull term beyond the convenience explained above, it really can't be that hard to add some usefull content, but the length of time it has stayed in this form suggests not. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, while I respect your opinion and the valuable context you add to the discussion with the information about the parallel Dakotas article (I didn't know the history there), I must continue to disagree. I have no idea what the situation with the Dakotas is, but the Carolinas are a distinct region within the South in the minds of many (most?) living here, and this is something that will be established with sources. What's more, the article is already significantly improved over its condition two days ago, and efforts are ongoing. I agree that a portion of the original content was OR and possibly had been intended to make some sort of point - though frankly I can't tell what point that was, so it wasn't that egregious, I don't think - but I'm coming to this article with a fresh perspective. Mr. IP (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I await these sources, and a concrete reason why any information presented doesn't belong in the other three articles. The Dakotas appears to be a carbon copy of this debate, i.e. the fact that the phrase appears in Google means its a notable concept/term/subject, rather than something a weathergirl would say to save her 3 seconds of air time. Frankly, that the term somehow 'resonates' with the local residents is somewhat irrelevant, and quite counter to the other information that goes to great lengths to assert the two states are different politically and socially. I'm seriously wondering what makes these comparisons special compared with comparisons of N/S with other neighboring states. In fact looking at what you've added so far, it either forms historical information pertaining to the historical province, or contrasts the difference between north and south, pretty pointless when there is no argument being made that there is any close connection between the two where differences become notable, giving the impression the only reason the contrasts are being made is because the states share the same name, contrary to the principle of not using an article name to make other irrelevant statements. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment', the phrase doesn't resonate with locals either. In my 15 years living in North Carolina and travels in South Carolina, I've never heard a real person use the term, just corporations or weathergirls (as you say). People don't say they are from "The Carolinas" they say that they are either from North or South Carolina. You will hear "Carolina" but that refers to either North or South Carolina but not both. In collegiate athletics, each state doesn't really acknowledge the other. Sweatshirts with "Carolina" exist in each state, in North Carolina they are white on baby blue in South Carolina they are black on garnet. On occasion when you do hear the term "Carolinas", it's someone trying to sell you something. Examples: Your Carolina Ford Dealer, The Carolina Hurricanes, the Carolina Panthers. South Carolinians have no special sense of ownership for these sports teams because of the generalized "Carolina" in the name. Yes they follow the teams but it's because of proximity not naming, just like many in North and South Carolina follow the Atlanta Braves. I'd venture to say that North and South Carolina are even more different than North and South Dakota topographically, economically, historically and especially culturally. North Carolina BBQ is different than South Carolina BBQ so they really dont even share much culinarily either. Lumping them together just doesn't make sense. It makes more sense to lump North Carolina and Virginia together and South Carolina and Georgia together. (not that I'm proposing that as solution).--Rtphokie (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the sports issue, which is why I haven't restored that section. I think it's OR and un-referenceable. However, I disagree with you strongly on the lack of similarities, the lack of subregional identification and connection, and so on. I would observe that the similarities between the states are very strong in their eastern portions, and that they decrease as one goes westward. It is precisely this complex relationship of residual connection and similarity, stemming from a shared history, that this article is needed to cover. That, and the article's continued improvement in recent days, are the primary reasons we should turn away from deletion. Mr. IP (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our argument isn't based on the Google search which turns up countless instances of the term - it's based on the importance of illustrating the historical and cultural relationship between the two closely-connected states for the benefit of non-Americans and other outsiders. Anyone unfamiliar with the region is likely to be very curious indeed about what these two states with the same name have to do with one another, and whether they form a grouping - information that is somewhat out of place in either respective article, and can be covered easily in this one. When you add to that the fact that the two states are indeed perceived as a distinct subregion by both residents and close neighbors (and we do have articles on regional groupings and subgroupings), it makes a lot of sense to have an article about that subregion. The article about the original colony can reasonably cover the initial history, but cannot cover any of the residual ties and connections, which are just as important. That is why this article has existed for several years now, and that is why someone is bothering to significantly improve it now. The article is currently undergoing major changes - changes that started just before the deletion efforts, not after - and this is a very bad time to kill it. This article is already much better than it was two days ago, and it can be much better than that. Give it a chance - I am. Mr. IP (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, articles aren't deleted because of a lack of quality, they are deleted for a lack of notability. This article could be improved to featured article quality and could still be deleted if it's on a non-notable subject.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got the same impression from the previous AfD. Sometimes admins do no more than mark it as "keep" or "delete" because that's all the rules require. However, there was not a consensus to keep as-is the last time through. There has been no improvement on this article and two months is long enough to show that nobody cares enough to improve it. The Dakotas were more recently a single political entity, and share more cultural similarities today, yet that article is also very brief. For an example of a good article on a minor geographic-cultural grouping, see Pacific Northwest. North and South Carolina have fewer similarities than Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, within a similar population in a smaller area, hence aren't all that unified. Of course, if someone can find material for an article, they should write it. There's just no evidence for that material as yet. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Culture, Economy and Politics sections have been added, but they highlight the longstanding differences between the states. What gives? Potatoswatter (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found that a little odd too. Differences would be more appropriate in the individual North Carolina and South Carolina articles. Also, I see that the opening paragraph has been reworded but is essentially brief summary of Province of Carolina rather than offer anything new on the topic as it relates to this term. Though there are some good references in the historical section of [[The Carolinas}] which might improve Province of Carolina which currently has no footnotes. Also it's worth pointing out again, that timing of AFD and any improvements in the article doesn't matter, consensus on the notability of this topic does.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where, though, would the differences and similarities between the two states be included in the respective articles, and how would the divergence between the two states since the split be included in the Province article? There's no reasonable way to include this information in any of those, so the information would simply be deleted and lost. When that happened, any outsider looking to understand the relationship between these two similarly-named states with a shared history - and the subregion that they form in American cultural geography - would have absolutely no information available to them. A better solution is to provide such information in a well-referenced article called The Carolinas, linked from the articles of both states...especially since this is a very real term and a very real grouping about which much information exists. It's going too far to delete it, especially when we all know the information will never be merged into anything. For example, while overlooking the history of this article, I saw that the Cackalacky article had been deleted and merged into it...only to have every bit of content gradually stripped away (including the last bit by yourself!) so that the encyclopedia no longer provided any information whatsoever on the term, which is relatively common. In a similar manner, any and all information that this article contains - and which this article could contain if expanded - will be lost in the process of "merge and delete", especially since there is no good vessel for it outside of this article. Deletion here is a bad idea. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need a separate article comparing N and S Carolina as much as S Carolina to Georgia or N Carolina to Virginia. Notable differences and events can go to Southern United States, South Atlantic States, or the historically appropriate subject. "Cackalacky" doesn't need to redirect anywhere in particular because WP:DICT. It could go to Southern United States. If it's a name for N and S alike, mention in both those articles. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a comparison article, though - it's an article on a subregion. As part of describing that subregion, it discusses differences between the two states. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is all it does do, making it a clear violation of creating an article to make a point, there is absolutely nothing here worth recording that actually documents what The Carolinas have in common (aside from obvious duplication). MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the same, they were unified, they share a history, they form a subregion, and they are referred to collectively - and not just by weathergirls and such. An article discussing their relationship and the subregion that they form is useful and important, and deleting it would be a mistake. An article on the history of relations between Virginia and West Virginia would be equally useful, in my view, although putting it under The Virginias would be dubious, as such a term is not in widespread use.65.190.89.154 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virginia was founded in 1607 and split in 1863. That's 256/401 years vs. 60/366. The entire matter of previous unification and shared history is covered by Province of Carolina.
  • (I am Mr. IP) The entire matter of previous unification is covered by that article, but not shared history. The two states have an ongoing shared history as a subregion which is not covered by that article. 65.190.92.233 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potatoswatter (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the same time, it's pretty much a keep vote and certainly not a delete vote. 65.190.92.233 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an invalid vote, we don't have 'sort of' disambiguation pages, its either a db page, or an article. MickMacNee (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reason is "poorly referenced article consisting mostly of original research and of questionable notability." If you disagree with that, you should validate your WP:VOTE by saying so. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • like I said no valid reason given for deletion.
Speaking for myself, then--I was clearly giving my quick summary of what I regard as the essential issue--it is a notable grouping, widely referred to as such, and therefore notable. That's how I interpret the sources and the debate. I see no point in repeating all the good arguments already presented. Incidentally, I don't vote here, but discuss and give my opinion. Nobody has to take it, but it represents my view of the issue. I sometimes give rather long comments at AfD, but not when it's as clear as this to me. DGG (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First, they all mention the division of North and South. However, the main thrusts of all the articles discuss the Carolina’s as one, not two separate and distinct entities. Two, I did not say every one of the articles, and for a sake of argument lets say 98% are totally bogus, were based on the Carolina’s That still leaves well over 300 Google Scholar hits. Now let us just take a look at the first page that deals with the Carolina’s in the context we are discussing in this subject. Now remember, we are just on the first page of hits. We have cites in the Ecological Society of America – Modern Philology – Smithsonian and National Academy of Sciences. To me that is impressive. Oh and by the way, none of the articles discusses barbecue sauce or unemployment. Now let us review your rational of a “…run around argument’’. I believe Cackalacky does not have a separate article here on Wikipedia! Does the term Cackalacky redirect here to the The Carolinas yes. But what does one have to do with the other? Or are you just talking to me in Klingon and pulling my leg :-). ShoesssS Talk 00:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just research the history of the Cackalacky article. And honestly, if you can provide any scholarly article that deals with the two states as a distinct area over and above a convenient linguistic device, then I'm all ears (look at the current article, is it anywhere near giving any information of this form?), otherwise, it just looks like you are using an extremely dumb tool to make an extremely smart point. MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentLet me start with providing an article dealing with the “Carolinas’” as one entity, rather than two, just to satisfy your request, for just one significant citation. How about this one [51]. As you will note it is from Pediatrics an extremely well respected and verifiable medical journal. Regarding the Cackalacky piece, I still cannot see what you are driving at? Can you explain further. Thanks. Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 01:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopoedia, not a dictionary. I did not ask for a use of the name in a title, that frankly proves nothing beyond its use as a replacement for 'North and South Carolina', which is the exact phrase used further down the page. So if you can, please explain what the compelling reason is that pediatrics in the Carolinas 'region' is any more important than any other arbitrary region. Is there some historical or cultural reason for this, that is worthy of documenting in an encyclopoedia? Or is it not true that this is just a linguistic convenience when considering both states together. MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the user going by Mr. IP in the earlier debate. I think that what MickMacNee is referring to is the fact that I first found and began repairing this article through a search for the word "Cackalacky". That article had been deleted and redirected to The Carolinas, so I ended up there. I searched this article for the word "cackalacky" and found nothing, whereupon I checked the talkpage and saw what had happened. I went through the histories, restored much of the information from that article, added citations, and then went about repairing the rest of the article. It was around this time that the deletion nom came in. I have no strong feelings about the term "Cackalacky", as I live in the state and feel that it is a dumb (but real) nickname. I can state categorically that attempts to repair and keep this article have nothing to do with some sort of end-run around the deletion of the "Cackalacky" article. I had no prior involvement with either The Carolinas or Cackalacky, and if I were going to try to resurrect the latter, I would do so directly. Either this is a misunderstanding of my history with these articles by MickMackNee, or it is an accusation that I'm lying and am involved in a secret effort to resurrect the Cackalacky article by way of The Carolinas (which would possibly be the dumbest secret conspiracy of all time). Even if that's what he's saying, I would appreciate if he would take this up with me directly rather than by proxy. 65.190.92.196 (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, oh, I vote for the conspiracy theory! --Blechnic (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scrolling through the list of ghits, they almost all refer to larger geographical groupings, eg "Carolinas and Tennessee," "Carolinas to Maine," etc. Almost all of them deal with ecology and use the plural term to describe wildlife ranges. That's not the subject of this article. Potatoswatter (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Shereth 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Taylor Bass Style[edit]

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

No reliable sources exist to show notability. While searching for sources, I performed a google search which resulted in only one hit (and I bet you can figure out what that one hit is).[52] Prod removed by an editor who cleaned the article up a bit. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starckdeutsch[edit]

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

made-up language, probably not of enough note for inclusion. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Keep as notable and reliably sourced I had asked User:Dorftrottel to translate the German Google hits as my German was 30 years ago and he is pretty good at it. His reply allays any concerns I had. It is mentioned in four books by linguists. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor joke or not, it is notable enough to have been mentioned by several high-profile German linguists. dorftrottel (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioned in passing, perhaps, but in the sources cited I see no evidence of it being discussed by them in any detail. Still not notable enough for an encyclopedia. —Angr 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia and Ava White[edit]

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

This is a case of toddlers filling a character role with little actual acting, in tandem between them. They do not continue to act as a collective nor will they do so in the future. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've also reviewed the first deletion debate and in my view the keep arguments there are pretty weak, particularly those based on the Google Test, which throws up no significant, reliable sources that I can find. Debate 木 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge with Home Alone. Davewild (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home Alone House[edit]

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

Not reliably sourced, not really claiming notability, not really worth an article! Privatemusings (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry that your first effort is up for deletion. I'd be absolutely happy to help you get Home Alone House up to Wikipedia standards. Leave me a message at User talk:Jclemens. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source, added it to the article. Note that in Danish the location is included in the home alone article itself, although appears to be only sourced to IMDB. There are a couple more sources for the location, but several of them look non-RS. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, consensus is that they are not notable. Davewild (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett, Spencer and Mitchell Gray[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Garrett, Spencer and Mitchell Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable: toddlers filling roles on soap operas in tandem are not notable in absence of ongoing career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a case of toddlers filling a character role with little actual acting, in tandem between them. They do not continue to act as a collective nor will they do so in the future. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fails WP:NFF. Malinaccier (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idhu Malai Nerathu Mayakkam[edit]

Idhu Malai Nerathu Mayakkam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice to recreation upon confirmation that shooting has begun, as per guideline. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Shereth 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roboticizer[edit]

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

This article was prodded for a lack of notability per WP:N. The prod tag was removed, and so the article comes to AFD. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) by Jonny-mt per CSD G11 as blatant advertising. WilliamH (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinu Patriciu Foundation[edit]

Dinu Patriciu Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A fairly clear case of self-promotion. Not only is this the author's only contribution, the tone is anything but neutral. The fact that Patriciu runs a charity is notable, and is mentioned in Dinu Patriciu. The charity itself is not notable, or if it is, the article on it should be entirely rewritten in neutral fashion. Biruitorul Talk 03:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  18:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2008 broadcasting rights[edit]

UEFA Euro 2008 broadcasting rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We have a lot of rather inconsequential sports articles, but this is a bit much. How is a list of TV stations that are broadcasting a single football tournament even remotely encyclopedic? Delete, per WP:IINFO. Biruitorul Talk 03:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good reason why we should not have this list as part of an article on these broadcasting rights. It does not fall into any of the sections within the WP:NOTDIR policy or the WP:IINFO policy (there is now explanatory text to provide context for the reader) that you have quoted above. There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources which establish the notability of this topic - many of the individual television deals have articles written on them as well as coverage generally on the broadcasting rights as a whole. Davewild (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging and deleting is not allowed under the GFDL license. Davewild (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Umi1903 (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Shereth 19:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Star Ocean: The Second Story[edit]

List of characters in Star Ocean: The Second Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of character information from the game article from which it comes mixed with trivia. It is therefore duplicative and unnnotable on its own and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of black characters in videogames[edit]

List of black characters in videogames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unnecessary unencyclopedic list. Completely OR. Who cares if a video game character is black. The list includes Will Smith ,50 Cent and "Zombies in Resident Evil 5". All put together in a list even though that have nothing to do with each other. This is a collection of unsourced trivia.--Coasttocoast (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely useless delete vote. Going through AFDs, your votes tend to add nothing to the discussion and intend only to troll the contributors of the article. Please have at least some respect for this site's processes. SashaNein (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD G11, blatant advertising; and A7, no indication of importance or significance. A buzzwordy article about a neologism for a vague philosophy about managing computer programmers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Developer 2.0[edit]

Developer 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Total neologism. Article is just promoting someone's blog. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (excluding single purpose accounts, who at any rate have made few if any policy-based arguments) is that this is not a notable Linux distribution.  Sandstein  18:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulteo[edit]

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

The current version of the article was rewritten by user Getupstandup1 (talk · contribs) and is substantially different from the version which was deleted after the first AfD. Note: as per the recent Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 8#Ulteo discussion, this nomination does not promote a specific outcome. — Athaenara ✉ 01:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just Another Linux Distro. They proliferate like tribbles. --Thetrick (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying. — Athaenara ✉ 14:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but you _just don't know_ what you are talking about. Ulteo have three main products, including a full desktop that runs within a web browser, and a virtualized system that runs on Windows. So that's Just Not Another Linux Distro. Vautnavette (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The SPA (single-purpose account) tag is not used to disregard opinions, but is used to help the closing admin. Keep in mind this is not a vote. I found this discussion because I was browsing contribs of newly created users. It is suspicious and a sign of a possible sock/meat puppet when a user is created and immediately voices an opinion in an AfD. swaq 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you just wrote, this is not a vote. Actually I don't see what's suspicious if some users are creating a wikipedia account to participate to this discussion. Or are you claiming that different accounts have been opened with the same IP address? Vautnavette (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that they are the same person or someone who was asked to voice a certain opinion. It is also possible that several independent people just happened to come across the article immediately after it was tagged for deletion, noticed the tag, and decided to create a new account to ask to keep the article. swaq 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles are not kept for being "fair and balanced", they must show notability. swaq 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and Ulteo meets Wikipedia criterias for notability Vautnavette (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPath this wikipedia article, the Ulteo article has a lot more valid references. So how come the rPath article isn't up for deletion, when it is taking precedence over an actual (far more notable) rpath linking computer term???? Some bias / motive here against Ulteo??? Wikipedia is a reference, Ulteo is obviously a notable and becoming more notable on a daily basis solution, especially with highly visible open source people like Gael Duval behind the project!. I think you need to explain why you think its not notable?
  • http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/ulteo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buswellj (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ulteo.com - not independent
  • distrowatch.com - not significant coverage, not independent (linux site)
  • linux.com - not independent (linux site)
  • fosswire.com - self-published (blog), not independent (open source site)
  • downloadsquad.com - self-published (blog), semi-independent (technology)
  • polishlinux.org - self-published (blog), not independent (linux)
  • arstechnica.com - low coverage (more on OpenOffice than Ulteo), semi-independent (technology)
  • news.cnet.com - blog, not significant coverage (short), semi-independent (technology)
  • ghacks.com - self-published (blog), semi-independent (technology)
  • slashdot.org - not significant coverage (summary of other articles), semi-independent (technology)
  • virtualization.com - not significant coverage (short), self-published (blog), not independent (Linux/Open source)
  • linux.sys-con.com - not independent (linux)
  • computeractive.co.uk - not significant coverage (brief summary), semi-independent (technology)
  • crn.com - semi-independent (technology)
  • channelregister.co.ux - not significant coverage (mentions Ulteo in passing), semi-independent (technology)
  • blogsearch.google.com - not a source
swaq 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, are you on some kind of power trip? Based on your logic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_rooney this article on Wayne Rooney (famous football player) isn't notable because all the references are by SPORTS MEDIA! You can't say that the open source / IT media sites are not independent sources because they are linux sites!! Same goes (using your logic of classification above), that this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears is invalid, because the references are all ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA sites, and by your logic, not independent! I think you have the wrong idea of what independent means, should be (via common sense), not an Ulteo, or Ulteo employee's site. But ruling out technology meia for a technology article is just biased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buswellj (talk • contribs) 17:14, June 12, 2008 (UTC)
  • "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective" (Wikipedia:Independent sources, see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Regarding your Wayne Rooney and Britney Spears arguments, I would recommend reading the "Individual merit" section of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. swaq 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The individual merit section doesn't apply, you might want to re-read it yourself. It doesn't apply because I wasn't commenting on the content of the other articles themselves but on the logic being used to disregard the resources used to substantiate the Ulteo article. The logic is flawed. My point was that if you disregard technology media for technology articles, the same would apply for sports references to sports related articles, which is absurd. You want a reference in a Home and Gardening magazine on Ulteo? Its a bit odd too that nobody has mentioned why the rPath article isn't up for deletion?? It being less notable and having less references?? Buswellj (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are cherry picking the definitions of independent source to fit your argument. The full text states : An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective. For example, in the case of a website, an independent source would be newspaper coverage of the site rather than the site itself; for a recording artist, an independent source would be a review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release. This is not to disregard the role such primary source material can play in writing an article, but serves to ensure an article can be written from a balanced viewpoint. It also ensures articles can catalogue a topic's worth, its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing. The idea is that articles which don't reference outside sources be placed in clean-up via an independent sources template, and if there ultimately prove to be no independent sources, the article may be listed for deletion."
  • This description indicates that an independent source would be a third party coverage of Ulteo, and not a press release, the site itself or an employee. This *INVALIDATES* almost all of your "not independent" comments above, giving Ulteo plenty of valid references. Lets play with some common sense here. rPath article though isn't valid by this . Buswellj (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do. Based on your logic we can do the same for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_supra right? All the references there are from either toyota or car focused sources (not independent by your logic). Right?? Buswellj (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you include the ones I listed as "semi-independent" (the technology ones), there is only one (crn.com) that doesn't fail the other tests (reliable, significant coverage). The notability guidelines call for multiple independent reliable sources. swaq 18:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've already shown your logic is very flawed. All of the references with the exception of ulteo.com are valid ones, you are again cherry picking. Dunno what your beef is with Ulteo, but if this article gets deleted the Toyota Supra one needs to go too. Which we both know is absurd. Buswellj (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, I think you are misinterpreting my logic. Being independent is only part of a reference that shows notability. The ones I listed as semi-independent are a bit of a gray area but I wouldn't say they don't qualify as being independent. Others fail significant coverage and being reliable (personal blogs are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards), with the exception of the crn.com one. I do not have a beef with Ulteo. I hadn't heard of it until today. I am an avid open-source user and have used several different Linux distributions, so I have nothing against Linux or open source either. Just out of curiosity, why did you pick the Supra article to mention? swaq 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your logic is *VERY CLEAR* I'm not misinterpreting it at all. Above you have listed all the various references. Beside Linux.com (feature article by a journalist), you have not independent. You clearly have this logic of linux / open source site equals not independent. This logic is WRONG per the plain example in Wikipedia's own guidelines. If it were correct, then all the Toyota Supra references are NOT independent, and that article should be AfD'd. So if you still think Ulteo article should be deleted on that logic, you should submit the AfD for Toyota Supra. You won't because your logic makes no sense. All of those references are fine, and Ulteo is notable (not just by independent references, but my complaint is that you have said Linux media sources are not independent, which would be like me saying Car and Driver is not an independent source for information on cars!!). Thats nonsense. The problem here is you have misinterpreted the meaning of disinterested perspective, read the Wikipedia link you posted, check the example, then re-example each of the Ulteo sources. You will see that they are by independent third parties, and are not reprints of PRs or documentation. I'm sure we both have better things to be doing here, so please indicate whats wrong with the Linux.com article. Buswellj (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed your comments you mixed in with mine. Please discuss each link in your own comments to make it clear who is saying what and for readability purposes. I also don't appreciate the personal attack. See my reply to MahasonaLK below on my reasoning for my logic on why I don't think linux/open source sites are independent. You obviously have some personal agenda so I won't argue any further with you. swaq 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My question to you, Swaq, is: what do you have against the Ulteo project? What you are writing is really quite odd. I mean: Ulteo is a project that 1) has been supported by a number of users for a long time 2) has released several products in the past 6 months that catched much attention and tests from IT press 3) gets 600,000 entries in Google 4) has entries in other languages (Ulteo is global, I can even find articles in Russian and Chinese about it!). So where's the problem about notability? Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_OS - nobody complains about it. You don't. And it's just a very early-stage project. Vautnavette (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing against the Ulteo project, as I have already stated. 1) Number of users does not necessarily make something notable. 2) I'd like to see another independent reliable source or two with some significant coverage, something other than blogs. 3) Number of Google hits does not make something notable, see Google test. 4) I'm not sure what the other language Wikipedias use for inclusion criteria. However we can't just say that Wikipedia in X language has it so Wikipedia in Y language should too, that can quickly become a circular argument. Browser OS has a "may not meet the general notability guideline" tag at the top of it, so I don't see how you are saying no one is complaining about it. Each article should be considered against the guidelines/policies, and not compared to what other articles exist, see: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I'd like to state again that I have nothing against Ulteo. It seems like a neat little OS, and I'd happily change my mind if I saw some more reliable sources on it. swaq 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swaq wrote: "blogsearch.google.com - not a source": frankly, do you want me to copy-paste all the _independant_ entries from blogsearch.google.com to the Ulteo article on Wikipedia? Vautnavette (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of websites is not really a source. I doubt you will find many, if any, non self-published articles using a blog search. swaq 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading all your comments, I understand that you have nothing against the "candidate for deletion" article, but you are just against an article about Ulteo in Wikipedia. So you would vote for deletion for any article about Ulteo because you think that it's not a notable project. At the same time, when you answer John about the "Supra" article you are arguing that there are "semi-independant" sources that can be considered as independent sources (quote: "The ones I listed as semi-independent are a bit of a gray area but I wouldn't say they don't qualify as being independent.") So I understand that when you are supporting a project, you have not the same way of thinking about Wikipedia guidelines. But when reading again Wikipedia's definition of notability, I understand that Ulteo meets each of them, or we don't understand things the same way. So please give the new Ulteo article a chance to live. Even if it's not perfect, it will improve with time, for sure. Vautnavette (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swaq : Here is another independant reliable source : [53]. By the way, did you read whole arstechnica.com coverage? It's not about "openoffice.org", it's about "online openoffice.org". Regarding your "not independent - linux" argument, when wikipedia guidelines say "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable", subject here is "ulteo", not "linux". MahasonaLK (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link, that looks fine. I did read the whole arstechnica.com article, and I did notice that it was talking about online openoffice.org. However the subject in question is Ulteo, not particular aspect of it, so I don't think that can qualify for establishing notability. Still a good source though. My opinion that a linux site is not independent is because I think they are still too close to the subject and are likely to mention almost every distribution, whether notable or not. I'm changing my vote to neutral. swaq 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swaq: I would suggest you refrain from engaging in reviews of Open Source, Technology or Linux related articles on Wikipedia. You clearly have some bias against open source focused media outlets. Your logic can be applied to Edmunds.com, or Car and Driver about cars. These sites are going to look, review and cover what they feel is of interest and notable to their readers. Just because a media outlet is focused on Open Source does not make it more or less a resource. I apologize if making comments about the Toyota Supra felt like a personal attack, I was simply putting things into a perspective you might easily understand. Buswellj (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing against open source. I use open source software almost exclusively at home. I did not say that open-source/linux sites are not valid references, only that they are questionable as independent, disinterested sources. I was not referring to your comments about the Supra as a personal attack, and I don't understand why you think I care so much about that article. I was specifically referring to this edit where you said "this guy is on crack". swaq 15:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that the current article is so poorly written that it doesn't make a case for notability. (It is hard to determine that Ulteo solves a generally-agreed-upon problem, and confirm that it does so from reliable sources). If we already *knew* that this was a notable topic, then obviously rewriting rather than an AfD nomination would be appropriate. The large number of blog references suggests that if the article were given a proper source cleanup, we might not be left with much reliable material that wasn't self-published or written by people hoping to promote the system.
Vautnavette, thanks for your recent improvement to the lead. I still don't believe that what's in the lead gives us a reason to think that Ulteo is an important product. Do you think that the following is a claim to fame? Ulteo is exploring new concepts such as mobility, and therefore can be seen as an exploratory project. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry EdJohnston, but please focus on your point... Regarding the "poorly written" aspect, first of all it's your opinion, second, in this case the Wikipedia policy recommends writing improvement over deletion. Regarding notability, I think it has been proved the other discussions. I have checked all Wikipedia criterias for notability and Ulteo meets them all. Vautnavette (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn by nom, has since been redirected. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie P. Stewart Elementary[edit]

Jennie P. Stewart Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Most of it is unencyclopediac, with the listing of people that have attended it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per the consensus and snow. — MaggotSyn 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny[edit]

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

This article is essentially a description of a flash animation that fails to establish any real-world notability and instead relies on unreferenced trivia--the fact that I was able to find only one news source online speaks volumes.

Truth be told, I was halfway tempted to speedy the article based on its current state and the fact that the last two discussions (the most recent of which was over a year ago) ended with no consensus based on WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, but since other options exist (such as redirecting or merging to Neil Cicierega), I thought it best to bring it here for discussion. jonny-mt 01:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect and merge suggestions were alternate suggestions (hence the phrase "other options"), and the only one of those sources to actually mention this specific animation is the Boston Globe article. The Toronto Star article is about animutations in general, and the Dayton Daily News article is part of a "Seen and Heard" column that just talks about whatever seems to catch the author's fancy ([58] [59] [60] [61] [62]).
More to the point, a speedy keep should only be used when you have reason to suspect the nomination was in bad faith. That being said, feel free to oppose the nomination. --jonny-mt 13:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Daemon Tools. Malinaccier (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y.A.S.U.[edit]

Y.A.S.U. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No independent third party sources to speak of. Utterly non notable. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Greeves (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Jacobs[edit]

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

Article does not make the notability of this radio personality clear. He's worked at several stations but so have 10's of thousands of others. Zero 3rd party references in the article. The references I've found mention him but only in passing and are all local to the LA market. Nothing that meets WP:BIO's call for the person to be the subject of secondary source material. Is this person really notable or is this article fan cruft? Rtphokie (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should stay. I added a lot of the information to the article originally, but just as far as some biographical information (mostly from his bio from the station's website), but others have added information such as his unabashed cheerleading for Kobe Bryant and the Lakers, which is what Jacobs is mostly known for nowadays. Checking your profile, you're obviously not from the Los Angeles area, otherwise you would have a better understanding about Jacobs and his shtick. Personally, I think Jacobs (or rather his act) is a buffoon and an embarassment to sports radio in this area, but that sort of what makes him more interesting. You (or Wikipedia) take his article off, then you should do it for everyone else. ShawnHill (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Where I'm from is immaterial though I'm originally from the LA area and travel there still for what it's worth. Either this person is notable and sufficient verifiable 3rd party references can located and added to the article, or they aren't and the article needs to be deleted.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Halo[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:N to me. SeizureDog (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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