< June 14	June 16 >

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

The result was delete. Whether A7 applies, consensus to delete is sufficiently clear.--Kubigula (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam monaco[edit]

Not notable, and contains some nonsense. StaticGull Talk 13:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was brought to my attention by a speedy deletion template, but I declined on that. However, I fail to see the notability of this character who may be real or fictional (I couldn't tell). SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-notable, can't believe it is not a speedy delete. WWGB (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a clear-cut CSD A7 to me. "The central character in the show" seems to me to be an attempt to be poetic along the lines of "All the world's a stage etc." and not a real show. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sorry but I am a loss why this article wasn't speedied.--VS ^talk 02:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn. Also WP:SNOW.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as a bio with no assertion of notability - tagged as such - Peripitus (Talk) 03:12, 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 keep. Sandstein 20:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of asserted psychic abilities[edit]

There is no way that this page can ever achieve WP:NPOV because the most reliable sources on "psychic abilities" agree that none exist. The list should read: "There are no verified cases of psychic abilities ever existing". The only way to have such a list is to use poor sources that are not verifiable such as comic books, television shows, movies, crazed lunatics babbling in the street, etc. Clearly not an encyclopedic enough topic for our use. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete leaning toward Delete:Per Nom. Rgoodermote 00:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title is appropriate for a list of notable subjects such as Telekinesis, Clairvoyance, etc. There is a good article for Psychic that mentions some abilities but does not list them. The article should be completely rewritten with a single lead paragraph that succintly explains the lack of scientific evidence, followed by a bullet-point list of notable psychic abilities. A need for rewriting is not a valid reason for deletion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources determines what is a legitimate psychic ability? How do we demarcate such a list? Where do we draw the line at sourcing? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same kinds of sources that we use to cite Intelligent design, for example. Things don't have to be true in order to be notable and verifiable. Ford MF (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi. There is no need to determine whether psychic abilities are real in order to list them. Given that Clairvoyance and Psychic have articles because they are notable subjects, and the "legitimacy" of the subjects are discussed in the articles, a list of notable psychic abilities is suitable for an article per WP:LIST. The article can mention the discourse over whether the listed abilities are real, in the lead. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So using comic books is okay? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Difficult to source doesn't mean impossible to source. I don't see anything here that can't be solved on the talk page. --Phirazo 01:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into psychic as a list, pure and simple - many of the listed items already have separate articles (Automatic writing, Clairvoyance, +c); those that don't probably should have. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't creating a bullet list of abilities in Psychic, which is a nicely written article, be quite fugly? Psychic could just link to this list under See Also, once this list is improved. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is an anti-science list. There is no scientific evidence that supports the concept of "psychic powers". This list is written from an anti-science point of view. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, that's no more a rationale for deletion than saying atheism-related lists ought to be deleted for having an intractable anti-religiosity POV. Ford MF (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, but any sourcing for this would be in serious POV trouble itself. If the main Psychic article does not list the powers claimed for such things, it should. RGTraynor 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please review the article, I've rewritten it in the fashion that I suggested. This is the Wikipedia article that the title "List of psychic abilities" properly denotes, a stand-alone WP:LIST. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As re-written by Ryan Paddy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whether psychic abilities are confirmed has nothing to do with whether the article should exist. The abilities have names, and they have been discussed academically and popularly. WillOakland (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WillOakland's comments. There exist a set of things that are defined as being psychic abilities. Whether they have ever been observed in humans or are possible according to physics is an entirely separate issue, perhaps warranting prominent discussion in the article, but these do not lead to good arguments for deletion. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename List of psychic powers. Lists and categories complement each other. Whether or not any person actually exhibits these powers is irrelevant when it comes to having a list of them. These topics can still be written about in an encyclopedic manner and the articles can be grouped in a list. Wikipedia is not paper and is not just an encyclopedia of scientific topics. --Pixelface (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Pixelface. Disbelief in the existence of psychic powers is simple positivist bias; the fact that unicorns are unlikely to exist doesn't justify deleting an article on them. Categories do not make lists irrelevant or redundant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What source do we use for what is and isn't a psychic power? If we had a list of unicorn powers, what source would we use for that? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of sources on psychic abilities that definitely cannot be dismissed as "comic books, television shows, movies, crazed lunatics babbling in the street," such as Martin Gardner's Science: Good, Bad & Bogus. So, can you please explain why you think it is such a problem to maintain this article? WillOakland (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and most definitely rename. I think we want something more like "List of paranormal phenomena in which the source of the paranormal phenomena is human". But not that, because that's a horrible title. But what I mean is that when the list says "psychic powers" (since some things on the list are debateably "psychic") what it really means is paranormal things people have been said to do, as opposed to ghosts or aliens or bigfoot or whatever. I can't really think of a good way to phrase this, though. Any help? Ford MF (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about List of comic book superpowers? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're trying to convince me of how biased you are with regards to this article, I was already there. But your input is appreciated nonetheless. Ford MF (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you have to be squinting pretty hard to assume that "list of psychic abilities" denotes anything other than a list of abilities claimed to be possessed by psychics. I don't see why it needs to be purely human abilities either, it could cover the whole "dogs who know when their owners are coming home" malarky too. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are lists of psychic abilities, and you could, for example, use this to source the ability as "psychic." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would mostly agree with you except I think the number of ordinary folks who'd claim to have had an experience with a psychic power or phenomenon vastly outnumbers the number of people anyone would describe as a "psychic", probably in roughly the same ratio as people who believe in astrology : astrologers. Ford MF (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep for many of these abilities it shouldn't be hard to source them being psychic, although the above attempted link by Martinphi is at best extremely POV and would be highly problematic to be used a reliable source under any circumstances. However, I suspect that SA's comments about comic books point to a likely source; there are many secondary sources about comic books and movies involving powers like these. They will often term them "psychic". JoshuaZ (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you going to use as a source for what is a claimed psychic ability? A professional skeptic? Someone who has no interest in psychic abilities, and therefore hasn't written about them? A third party observer who claims that there are claims that abilities are psychic? In such a case where we are only trying to source that a claim was made, the primary source is as good as any other. And a nice list is the cat's meow. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt we should turn to reliable secondary sources and if we use only primary sources it as best very hard to argue that such a list is at all notable. Finally, note that parasych.org has its own biases about what to include or not include. Moreover, many of the items on that list are clearly not generally regarded as psychic such as lucid dreaming. JoshuaZ (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. It's still a valuable source, but it isn't the only one you would want to use. But if you wanted to source, say, PK as psychic, it might be ok. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNeeded as a listing of claimed (real or not) psychic abilities, such as the ability to read minds(telepathy), to fortell the future (precognition), or to move objects (telekinesis). These have been the subjects of academic inquiry or many decades, as well as the matter of fiction. Collectively (and perhaps individually) they are highly encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page was a lot better before people made a bunch of changes to it and made it a list of links, taking all my material out. It cites to several books and there were more cites on the way. It's true that a lot of people believe that psychic abilities don't exist, but a lot of scientists have studied it and claimed to have found statistically significant evidence of it. Many prestigious universities such as Duke have supported psychic research and created sub-departments or chairs for it, and many prestigious scientists throughout history have believed the evidence. There are many articles on Wikipedia about psychic abilities and there is even a Wiki started just to deal with paranormal topics. It's for anyone to say whether this stuff is real or not, but the US government really did recruit and train psychics for over a decade, try to use them to obtain intelligence for the military and other parts of government for over a decade, and congress kept secretly reapproving their funding every year, so congress seems to have been impressed with their results, at least for a while. The government including the CIA leaked and verified to the press that this project was going on, and this is very easy to check out (Stargate Project, leaked in the late '90s). A bunch of people who were involved with the project wrote books on it, including Ingo Swann, Joseph McMoneagle and Lyn Buchanan. Two or three of these people-- as you can expect out of any dozen or so people-- are of poor character or pretty kooky, and the rest appear to be different shades of normal. They are not being really pushy or trying to be smarmy about obtaining notice for themselves. It at least seems possible that they really believe in the stories they've told about the project. Swan Mc (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Swan Mc[reply]
My ultimate point is this: So many people who are otherwise treated as credible have claimed belief in, experience with, or interest in investigating psychic powers, that it's worth knowing about just for that fact. There have been literally thousands of scientific studies, including many published, about the same powers I wrote about in the article. Universities have given scientists livelihoods just off of studying this stuff. Sure there are atheists who don't believe in God, but we still have Wikipedia articles about Christianity and Buddhism, right? I myself don't really believe in psychic abilities at all, but am open to the possibility that evidence could one day prove that very slight psychic powers exist in very few individuals, and I think the reports and alleged evidence of psychic abilities are just interesting to read and know about. Swan Mc (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Swan Mc[reply]
Comment For example, Dean Radin is a Phd who does work, publishes journal articles, and writes books on psychic abilities, and he has done research on psychic abilities for Princeton, Edinburgh University, University of Nevada, and SRI (a really important, prominent American think-tank). He was also one of the scientists who worked on the U.S. government Stargate Project. But there are many others- it's a little field, just like any other in science, that does experiments, refines its experimental techniques, and publishes articles in journals. Even really top-of-the-line journals for disciplines like psychology have published articles or sponsored events and the like for this stuff. Swan Mc (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Swan Mc[reply]
Keep and rename to "List of apparent psychic abilities" or "List of reported psychic abilities"; although many sources may say that psychic abilities do not exist, many people claim to have psychic abilities. Whether or not there really is such a thing as a psychic is for the individual to decide and believe, but there is no doubt that psychic abilities are claimed to exist. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is it not possible to maintian neutrality? The article does not need to, nor should it purport that psychic powers actually exist. Yetas long as there is a widespread interest in the subject across society and throughout history, it is a notable enough to include...and yes, there are reliable published sources regarding psychic powers. These sources do not actually claim that these powers exist, and it is not even necessary that these sources be concerned with verifying or debunking the existence of such powers. All these sources need to deal with is psychic powers as they are percieved in society, because it is a sociology topic, and yes, there are books on the subject (there's an entire decimal for them). So just as it is possible to have reliable sources about the subject of alien abduction, who neither affirm nor refute the validity of such phenomena, and it is possible to have a great deal of information about bigfoot, even though he doesn't actually exist, it is possible to have an article that lists the phenomenon of psychic powers wthout actually claiming they exist. Just remember that we must treat it as a social phenomenon, and not scientific one, and we're good to go. Calgary (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no way that the content of the page can stand as it existed before the AfD started, and as it has been reverted to now. Leaving aside the whole business of it being hugely biased towards a fringe POV, it isn't appropriate for a stand-alone list. There is far too much commentary. Such commentary is not appropriate to a stand-alone list, it's only appropriate for normal articles such as Psychic. Any reliable references from this article can be moved to Psychic. The version I created is an appropriately formatted stand-alone list. The prior main contributor should have a look at some other "List of" articles on Wikipedia and see how they're done, e.g. List of business theorists. However, the fringe POV is just a content issue and doesn't effect the deletion decision. As I've demonstrated, it's possible to write an appropriate article for the title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This is a response to the comment from Ryan Paddy, above. There is no reason why forms should be elevated over substance just for the sake of the forms, when the substance isn't done justice by them. Previously, Wikipedia organizers may have envisioned templates such as for a stand-alone list or for a normal article. They certainly intended these forms as guides for contributors, not as some kind of formula (they cooked these templates up on their own, of course-- ad hoc to fit Wikipedia's need) that must be adhered to whenever someone writes an article to ensure that the content is sound. You might be interested to know that on German Wikipedia, stand-alone list articles aren't even allowed by the moderators! It's just another example that the way(s) we envision doing something are not always or only the best way(s). So, perhaps this is an example of a subject where something between a stand-alone list and a normal article is the best way to represent the subject matter.

I think it is, and I think many people who are interested in the subject matter will find my article helpful and useful. For one thing, the cutting-edge nature of the subject matter may lend it to a little more in-depth description on a summary page like "List of Psychic Abilities" rather than just a list of links to large articles. The "list" page is meant to familiarize people with what's out there as far as phenomena that have been claimed and tested, not to argue or repeat a bunch of (perhpas totally specious, and therefore a waste of peoples' time) claims about one specific psychic "ability" or another. When someone wants to know what psychics specifically have been claiming to do or been tested to see if they can do, they can refer to my page, and this will be the quickest, clearest way to understand this. It's just useful for people who are interested in the subject matter. Deleting the article will be like leaving a book without an introduction, that really does need an introduction for the reader not to get lost and to understand if the book will be valuable to him/her. Swan Mc (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Swan[reply]

- Comment Finally, one more response to the original objection: The article as I wrote it used words like "alleged," "purported," and "claims" or "claimed" throughout. So the original objection did not even apply to the article as I wrote it-- it was indeed an article about alleged and purported psychic abilities, not an article advocating for them, and I included references. Therefore the deletions made to my article for reasons like neutrality and verifiability were completely unjustified. But I think we are over that objection about neutrality, since there have been a bunch of articles about psychic powers on Wikipedia for quite a while, as anyone can check out. Swan Mc (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Swan[reply]
  - Comment 1) I prefer a consistent encyclopedia following common standards, and your content is in too much depth for a stand-alone list in keeping with the English Wikipedia's standards. If there is in-depth material of value on the page then it should be covered in in-depth articles, and there's no use replicating it in this list 2) The existence of well-written, neutral articles on psychic subject matter doesn't make "your" article neutral. It ain't. But that's just content, which can be fixed, so it's not a reason for deletion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just an article about the editors' opinions. Presumptive (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better inclusion criteria can be defined. The list of claimed abilities with all their variants and subvariants and various purported mechanisms (each of which would require a separate entry to avoid WP:SYNTH) is staggering. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, we should take the Ryan Paddy version as the basis for building a list of the most notable abilities that are described as psychic. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable enough in its own right. Care should of course be taken not to imply that the entries exist as more than ideas, but probably not to the extent of renaming to List of abilities which, if anybody had them, some might describe as psychic. I still think list-bloat could become an issue here, but measures other than deletion would seem more appropriate. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we both know perfectly well that everything on this list is bullshit, but it's still a perfectly valid list. Every "psychic ability" on this list is something that a person or multiple people have claimed to possess, and those claims can be referenced to reliable sources, even though their veracity cannot, obviously, since the claims were all lies and/or delusions. --Stormie (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also renaming would be good. Personally I quite like "List of claimed psychic abilities", to make it abundantly clear that these abilities have been claimed, not verified, an also to clarify that the focus of the list should be to record and reference these claims. --Stormie (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is nonsense and pseudoscience, but the topic is valid as an article. Passes Wikipedia:Lists. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Biophys (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- since some of the topics included in this list are clearly notable -- and, indeed, have articles describing them -- it's quite reasonable to have an overview. I have remedied possible WP:NPOV concerns by means of a bold pagemove. John254 02:45, 20 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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box Elder (film)[edit]

No notability asserted; editor has no other substantial edits apart from this article, which may indicate a COI. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN film. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This site demonstrates that the film is at least marginally serious. While IMDB does not itself demonstrate sufficient notability, I feel the links, references, and critical response section I added to the article demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion, as do these two reviews / interviews. I find no legitimate reason for deletion. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This film has nationwide, independent distribution as evidenced by it's screening at the Siskel Film Center among numerous other theatrical engagements in the last 3 months. Reviews added which provide evidence of national film critics. Murtis (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article's sources demonstrate multiple reviews from around the united states.Grey Wanderer | Talk 05:32, 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 Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remote access router[edit]

I nominated this as a speedy A1 but it was declined. Following that I decided to skip prod and bring it here for discussion. The article consists of a single sentence, and it does not adequately explain what the subject is about. (That is, I still don't know how a "remote access router" is different from a router in general). I tried searching for this phrase on google and could not find any specific coverage of this phrase -- most of the links that were returned were discussing "remote access" (remote administration) features of a router, which does not appear to be the same meaning. So, based on a cursory lack of verifiability, lack of context, and no assertion of notability, I am nominating the article for deletion, though if someone can provide more information about this subject I would also support a merge to router. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless some source can be found, in which case Merge with Router. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the single sentence, such as it is appears to have been orignally copied from here -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poorly written but is a real term covered by reliable sources such as noted by Whpq (who wants the article deleted). Presumptive (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, I should have explained better myself better. I am making no judgement on the notability of the subject, whether it is to be a stand-alone article or merged to Router. Rather, what little text there is that constitutes the entire article has been copied and is thus a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Leave a redirect so that maybe it will not be recreated. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:35, 19 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, nomination statement by banned editor discounted. Sandstein 20:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Paige Paterson[edit]

This article should be deleted and merged with her husband. Look at the spouses of governors of other states (Alaska, Florida, Illinois, etc.) and they don't have first lady articles. This article says nothing except that she works for an insurance company and gives her date of birth.

I don't hate her but it was suggested by an administrator that I could start this housecleaning process.

She is not notable and not wikipedia material. FYW09 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lobbyists and ex-lobbyists (such as Michelle Paige Paterson) can be notable if they have significantly influenced legislation. I think the potential for conflict of interest (in the non-Wikipedia sense) when an ex-lobbyist is married to a politician is particularly interesting, even if there has been no actual conflict of interest. I won't argue that every spouse of a governor is notable, but I think this one is. --Eastmain (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources that say that she "significantly influenced legislation."

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disagree with Masterpiece that subject fails WP:BIO: she clearly "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", which is the basic notability criterion for people. Being the first African-American first lady of New York hints of notability as well. Last, the article contains useful information and is well-referenced. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New York is a populous and prominent state and the position of First Lady, while largely ceremonial, is nonetheless influential. This aside, my opinion would be for 'weak keep' except for the fact that she has made herself a public person through regular, formal interviews. Her public admission of an affair was entirely with her direct consent and involvement and is also notable, if only as an unusual way to begin a term of governorship, although it received wide coverage internationally. In addition, the media has covered potential conflicts of interest over her lobbying activities in some detail. Paid lobbying is not simply another job, it is an activity with significant political implications, and there should be no assumed right to privacy for such activities, indeed quite the reverse in a democracy. Debate 木 13:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so keep Todd Palin because Alaska is the biggest state, far bigger than two New Yorks combined. He is also notable as being the first man, just like Peterson is the first African American for NY. A no to racism but yes to sexism is not allowed. Palin and Peterson should both be kept or both deleted. FYW09 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the Todd Palin article is not currently up for AFD, but if it was my opinion would be partially based on the degree to which he had assumed a public persona after the election of his wife, something I haven't investigated since that article has not been nominated for AFD as far as I can tell. The argument is specious, however, per WP:OSE. Each case needs to be considered on its own merits based on a range of relevant factors. Debate 木 00:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Palin. Garion96 (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like it's back then. :-) I can't say if the new Todd Palin is any better than the old one, but it's certainly bigger based on the comments in the last AFD. Regardless, AFD is not a policy setting body and precedent does not apply. As above, each article is assessed independently on its merits and not all arguments are given equal weight by the closing admin. It's hard to determine what weight the closing admin gave to each argument at the old Todd Palin, but my guess is that the lack of content (or at least lack of reliable sources), was a major factor, not simply Mr Palin's status as "first gentleman". Debate 木 07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I see Garion96 was the closing admin. I knew I'd seen that name somewhere before. %^] Debate 木 09:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh... article has been nominated for AFD per User_talk:Garion96#Why and WP:Point. It's all clear now. Move along, move along, nothing to see here... Debate 木 13:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, note that FYW09 (talk · contribs · logs) has been indef blocked for being a sockpuppet of banned Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) so this entire item should be closed. Tvoz/talk 02:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with David Patterson and Sarah Palin. Both articles are just spouse articles and fail WP:BIO. Both aren't really the source of published sources except minor pieces. In Wikipedia, there is great political bias and attacks on editors so we need to act cautiously and in the same way and not because meatpuppets from political campaigns invade Wikipedia. Editors who are in favor of keep one spouse's article but against keeping another equivalently written spouse's article should be treated as meatpuppets of politicians. This AFD is also poorly written because the Todd Palin article is not highlighted the same way as the Peterson article. (partially repaired) Presumptive (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but preferably merge Not particularly notable, but passes the threshold per WP:BIO. I'm not sure she warrants her own article, though. Ani Mate 00:55, 19 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. John254 02:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo species[edit]

I tried redirecting this to Taxonomy of the Bambuseae but was reverted, so here we are. This article consists of a lead copy/pasted from Bamboo; a grossly oversized collection of images that have little relevance to the article's topic, since nearly all of them fail to specify the species depicted; and a list that is largely duplicative of Taxonomy of the Bambuseae and the articles linked therein. (The references are also malformed, making it impossible to identify the sources of particular statements.) In short, there seems no reason for this particular presentation of material, for which a structured series of articles already exists elsewhere in Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong KeepOne of the reasons this article should be kept is written in the above paragraph, "a structured series of articles already exists". A series of articles is one reason this article should be kept. The modern human wants to know things, and they want to know it know. Someone is more likely to just 'Ctrl+f' to find something on one page, than have to go to one page, then to another, then another just to find something they could find on one page. Many criticizers of this article will probably say something like "This article is an incomplete list". That is a valid concern. The article is a work in progress, and since there are over 1,000 species of Bamboo, it will take a while. However I have been making sure that I add at least 5 species to the list a day, and I often add more than that. Although it isn't complete yet, in just a month and a half, over 25% of the species were added to the list. Like the above paragraph states, the first paragraph of Bamboo species was word for word from the original article Bamboo. However, the second paragraph of the article, which also appears in the Bamboo article was cut from Bamboo species and pasted in Bamboo. I have changed the first paragraph. Since the second paragraph originated here, I will not edit or remove it from the Bamboo species article. If someone desires they may edit or remove it from the Bamboo article. The above paragraph also states that this article's sources are "malformed" That is because different sources were for different columns of the table. It would be nearly impossible to find a single web site for each row or even a group of rows, which is why all of the sources are at the end of the table, because they contributed to different parts of the table. The images on the right do not correspond to the words on the left, and it is stated that that is so in the article. When I first started the table I thought that it would be incredibly boring, for someone who decided to read the whole article, to just have a long table. That is why I included the images to entertain the reader. Again, it would be almost impossible to find an image, to correspond with each species, in Wikimedia. Most of the articles in Taxonomy of the Bambuseae are stubs, almost none of them tell the reader anything about the species in the genus besides listing their names. Several of the articles are written in a confusing manner, and some of the articles contain information which is not factually correct. Species of Bamboo contains a sentance or two about every genus and almost every species in it. Some people who vote delete for this article might say that several of the species say "Unknown" in certain columns. That only means that it is unknown for that specific species on the web sites I have been using. After I have written down every species with the web sites I have been using, I will try to find other web sites for the unknown information. It is also possible that that information is unknown to human kind. If that is true they will remain "Unknown" for this article.Remilo (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a good practical way to organise an article. In practice, a strict scientific classification isnt necessarily the most helpful way, and an alphabetic list like this has its place also.It wouldbe better to helpsource it than to delete it. DGG (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of bamboo species. Also get rid of the copy and paste paragraph in the lead. At WP:PLANTS we frequently use lists like this. Fully flushed out it could be on its way to a featured list candidate. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only paragraph that is currently copy-paste, was copied from this article and put in Bamboo the other copy-paste paragraph was rewritten. Remilo (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. Another suggestion upon further review would be the italicized comments before the table. I'm not entirely sure they're necessary. Reviewing the list will let any reader know that they're alphabetized, that some have English names while others have Chinese names, etc. And certainly the information about how to do a page search could be browser-specific and really isn't necessary. Just some thoughts. Excellent work collecting all of that information, though. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I have edited them.Remilo (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I was able to fix the article's spacing some, but in the larger sense, topic has real world significance and verifiability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is being filled out, and it is uesful.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:31, 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/Redirect. I'll action the redirect, which will preserve the page history, allowing a merge to take place Fritzpoll (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potters Gate CE Primary School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. There is nothing about this school that sets it apart from others of its grade/form group, and not being a school of the U.S. high school equivalent level, it is not inherently notable. There is no suitable section of the locale article to merge this information into. The article is too promotional in nature, with numerous remarks that are unsourced and apparent personal observations. In short, there's nothing in terms of history or any other measure that sets this apart from other primary schools in this locale. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Potters Gate School is currently the only school in Farnham, Surrey, UK hosting a Sure Start Children's Centre. These centres are an initiative of the UK government to provide "service hubs where children under five years old and their families can receive seamless integrated services and information" - see Sure Start Children's Centre. This sets the school apart from others of its grade/form group. Moreover, in order to allow local families to benefit from the services offered, Wikipedia/web searches on "Children's Centre Farnham" or the like should provide the information necessary to access these services, such as this Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.16.247 (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a place to promote anything at all. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. It is not incumbent upon Wikipedia to "allow local families to benefit." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Farnham#Education. The nomination statement "There is no suitable section of the locale article to merge this information into" is obviously wrong. Further, such promotional content as there was, was an easy matter to clean up. This school has potentially notable features such as the rapid progress it has made from special measures. A primary school to be linked with a university is highly unusual in the UK and decidedly notable. For the time being it should be merged into the locality article to allow it scope to develop. TerriersFan (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Farnham#Education, where it can be discussed in context of other schools in area until it has enough reliably sourced content for a break-out article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There appears to be no discussion of other schools in Farnham, except for a passing mention of this school (added by the original author). That's why I nominated this for deletion instead. A merge of even half the material in this article would have given the school a disproportionate representation in the town's article, and there does not appear to be any real justification for this school to stand out so much from others. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: - we certainly need to expand the coverage of education and this is as good a point to start as anywhere; I have pointed out at least two notable features. If the coverage is disproportionate then the way to go is to extend the coverage of other schools proportionally. If the education content then looks too big for the page then we break it out into Education in Farnham. Adding content not deleting content is the way Wikipedia grows organically. TerriersFan (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Farnham#Education per TerriersFan. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:29, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CureROM[edit]

Utterly non-notable piece of software, no independent coverage per WP:N. Tried to redirect, anonymous user says no, so I say let's kill this with fire unless someone finds the third party sources hbdragon88 (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to software blacklist. Due to CureROM's simplistic and underground nature, mainstream press is unlikely to provide significant coverage of it, which means that it probably can't hold its own article and may warrant total deletion. But I'd also note that CureROM is one of the best-known programs within this domain, and for the same reasons as above, some leeway might be considered in regard to quality of sources (they exist, but may not be strictly reliable). Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. No references or sources independent of the subject. gm_matthew (talk) 17:48, 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 DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return on Investment in Patents[edit]

Original research, neologism. Nothing on Google Scholar for "Return on Investment in Patents". Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:OR. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and lots of original subjective information. Artene50 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that the nominator also removed external links that made manifest that the purpose of the article was advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. And I also removed blatant POV content here. --Edcolins (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no substance to the article, just a terribly long restatement of what is obvious from the title. WillOakland (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Return on Investment. This article is not garbage but a 3-5 sentences can be kept and merged. Suggest that this be done by a knowledgable editor. Can help if no volunteers. Complete delete is irresponsible and loss of knowledge for Wikipedia. Presumptive (talk) 05:28, 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. TigerShark (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sayoni[edit]

Not notable organization DimaG (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, ghits are primarily blogs and directory listings, nothing that asserts notability per WP:ORG. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 22:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 22:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 22:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any evidence of notability on news, books, etc. No response to request for sources on talk page. Given that the group started in 2005 and describes itself as focusing on quiet discussion, it wouldn't be surprising if no coverage exists, although asking on their forum might be the best way to find out for sure. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:00, 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 Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line-of-Sight[edit]

I thought this page should get thoroughly cleaned up, but now it looks like a trivial restatement of the definition of the arctangent function. If this article should be saved, it should at least say that it's important to identify this particular instance of arctangent by this particular name because of its use in some field (navigation, maybe?). In addition

the title should be corrrected, using a lower-case initial "s" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style;
Initial context-setting should be added. "Consider points A and B in two dimensions", without telling the lay reader that it is to be about mathematics, or about navigation, or whatever, is no way to start a Wikipedia article;
The mathematically incorrect formula should be fixed. This third point is where I realized that, after that correction, the concept seems too trivial to be worth an article. The concept of arctangent is already covered in Wikipedia.

If I'm wrong about that last point, explain why below. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already mentioned in Inverse trigonometric function#Practical use - this is, indeed, a rather trivial (and common!) application of the arctangent function. No redirect, as it's pretty unlikely that someone would be looking for this exact term, capitalization, and punctuation. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with the nominator, though this page should have a redirect to the arctangent function, as many disciplines know it by the phrase "line of sight". (I agree with respect to the spelling change proposed as well.) NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are the disciplines that know it as "line of sight"? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Radio/telecom, Surveying, ballistics. Primarily radio in my experience. I don't have a strong preference here; someone who knows "line of sight" is going to know "arctangent", but might first look for the commonly used term "line of sight". Does a redirect harm anything? NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be clear on this: You're saying that in those fields, "line of sight" means angle of elevation from the horizontal (that being the idea contemplated in this article), and does not mean any of the other specific things that "line of sight" means in some contexts? Is that right? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've actually reconsidered; I'm not certain enough to stand by what I said earlier, and in any case, the page may lead to confusion due to the term being widely used in other areas with varying definitions. For the specific uses of line-of-sight as in this article, we can add mention of them if they fit in context on the main pages for those disciplines. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not. Except that we'd need to consider what to do with the line of sight disambiguation page. Probably any redirect should point there and maybe a line of sight (trigonometry) redirect page could handle that. If there are many fields in which the term "line of sight" means what it means in the article we're consdiering here, then maybe an article could treat that and concentrate more on the applications and instances than on the mathematical formula. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This would belong in Wiktionary, or possibly Wikibooks, if it were more defensible; but the term being defined is Angle of elevation, and the definition has an unexplained factor of 2 which looks supiciously like an error. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 20:21, 20 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. --jonny-m t 10:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naoshi Komi[edit]

Non-notable artist. Google search shows 45 ghits, [1], but no significant coverage in multiple secondary or third party reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~16,500 ghits in Japanese, but still appears to fail WP:BIO. tgies (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep locally famous artist. FYW09 (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Locally Famous does not make something pass WP:BIO. Fails WP:BIO. Per nom. Rgoodermote 00:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely fails WP:BIO and only "source"/link is violates WP:COPYRIGHT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Artist has received third party coverage in Japanese. I recall his debut short story creating quite a stir; will check to see if I can find any coverage in national newspapers. Page was badly made and probably premature - Double Arts doesn't even have a volume out yet - but there may be more here than it looked like. Doceirias (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I was right - he did get coverage in the Asahi Newspaper, but the article is no longer online. Oh well. Either way, I think I found enough to justify a reappraisal. What do we think now? Doceirias (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If its only one newspaper, then no, still delete, or userfy until sources can be found. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think number of newspapers is as important as quality of content therein, especially given the total lack of online resources in Japanese. And newspaper coverage before someone has a hit series is almost unheard of. Normally, yeah, delete and create again when/if Double Arts is a clear breakout hit, and the guy meets more standard project notability requirements, but I think actual newspaper coverage is pretty rare, even for clearly notable artists. I'd say it's worth keeping around. Doceirias (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to clarify, it is actually two newspapers - one article is no longer online, but I did find several dead links to it. Don't know how to use that as a reference and not sure how to dig up a two year old Japanese newspaper article to cite the print version when I don't live in Japan, but I think we can assume the source exists. Doceirias (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I happened to navigate my way here and found it useful. HarleyAcres (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation with a properly sourced article. Merely contributing to a magazine is likely to be not enough to meet WP:BIO, and Shonen Jump is certainly a notable manga, but there is very little in the article that sets this person apart from the average freelancer. One specialized award is not enough... even if there were sufficient sources demonstrating the artist's notability (think of the number of American or European comic book artists who don't make the WP:BIO bar, for example). It would be better to put together a more complete, sourced, article and start anew. B.Wind (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: As Dorecias says, this would normally be a delete until Double Arts (or future series) becomes a breakout hit (and from what I've seen and the buzz on fan forums, that certainly seems likely). The award and new coverage are suggestive that the subject has already acheived notablity, but do not to me clinch it; thus, weak delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:52, 23 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 Result was Speedy deleted per G3 - obvious misinformation/hoax. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Served[edit]

Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is near-gibberish and a dicdef at best. eaolson (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only encylopedic content on the page is a poor dictdef, the rest is nonsense and the story at the bottom about "famous serves" is most likely a hoax. - Icewedge (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G3, smells like nonsense/vandalism to me. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:04, 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. --jonny-m t 10:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fredric Lean[edit]

Google search shows only 11 ghits [2], no significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to verify what's on talk, Fragile (2006 film). I'm still looking to verify the other information. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a person who reportedly won a prestigious prize, he is unnotable. Artene50 (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Not notable. Also since his "projects" are in development with "Filmedia" and this seems to be the same name as the creator of, and main contributor to the article, simply smells like self-promotion/advertising. Austin46 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verified Fragile and the author on IMDB pro, the authority for film industry. Fragile is listed and Fredric Lean has been approved by IMDB. His former name was 'Galfo'. Kind of confusing but the info seems legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.240.2 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you mentioned it, I just checked the article about Fragile (edited - perhaps unsurprisingly - by the editor of the Fredric Lean article, Filmedia), and it looks like this 27 minute short film doesn't meet notability guidelines for films so should probably be up for deletion along with its non-notable writer. Austin46 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep found different articles for Frederic Galfo.( changed his name to Fredric Lean) that's why there are few things about Fredric Lean. I searched under Frederic Galfo and found an article in New York Times [3] and an article in Aint It Cool News [4] I am gonna search for some more . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.240.2 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the New York Times 'article' is nothing more than a movie listing. NO one questions his existence, it's notability per WP:BIO _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the very first sentence is "Fredric Lean is a new independent French filmmaker who resides in the US", it's going to tell me that the subject would have great difficulty meeting WP:BIO, and if aintitcool.com is the only source being cited regarding whether or not he makes WP:BIO (New York Times is reliable, but the mention there seems trivial in this case). Even if the article is completely rewritten (which would be needed if it's saved), I don't think it merits being kept. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 01:42, 23 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 DRINK!...er, delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Closed early as a snow job. --jonny-m t 07:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Drink[edit]

Go Drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) As the creator said, speedy isn't appropriate but Wikipedia still isn't for something made up one day in school, including college drinking games. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT and WP:NOTANOTHERUNIVERSITYDRINKINGGAME Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong WP:SNOW delete, unverifiable, WP:NFT, etc. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still think that you're wrong. This game is being played around the country. It is played in NY, CO, CA, FL, and GA. Beer Pong was made up one day and it is still on Wikipedia. _{User_talk:Santorini_Hippie}^{Special:Contributions/Santorini_Hippie} 20:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the references from reliable, third-party sources? --Kinu ^t/_c 21:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid college kids playing stupid college games. Per Delicious carbuncle. JuJube (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for lack of notability, and WP:NFT. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - No notability. This is no Edward Fortyhands. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a game manual. Chimeric Glider (talk) 02:26, 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 Speedy delete A7 nancy ^(talk) 20:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qarla Diokno[edit]

Nominating for deletion as a non-notable or marginally-notable biography Bwrs (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A7, no claim of notability. More than likely an autobiography. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. -Dempkovitch (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 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. WP:BLPs are NOT a vote, and this clearly does not have multiple non-trivial sources on the subject. There's one, arguably trivial, source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Kajzer[edit]

Non-notable NY-area disk jockey, no reliable sources proffered, no elements of WP:BIO fulfilled. Google turns up only 37 hits [5], despite subject's claim to be very well known in the Tristate heavy metal scene, and no sources turning up are indepth and about the subject, as WP:RS requires. WP:COI issues, as the creator seems to be Kajzer herself, as shown by this diff [6]. Fails WP:V, WP:BIO. RGTraynor 19:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Bwrs (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject has been the focus of at least some coverage in reliable secondary sources and garnered significant mention in more wide-ranging articles so notability and verifiability are now largely covered. I have added references, formatting, fixed links, and cleaned up the article a bit so a second look may now be in order. (It could use expansion, especially for her long stint at WSOU rising from student to business manager but that's an issue for another time.) Google turns up just 72 hits for "Jennifer Kajzer" but 240+ for "Jen Kajzer" which is how she was known for at least a portion of her broadcast career and is the name she uses on her newspaper column. - Dravecky (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You've listed eight references. The first is a satellite radio schedule with her name on it (which given that she seemingly no longer appears on that station, doesn't say much for their updating). The second is an article about her college radio station that quotes her twice, among several other alumni. The third is an article from her college newspaper discussing her replacement as business manager for that station. The fourth is her self-written bio on her current station website. The fifth, sixth and seventh cites quote press releases about the hiring of another fellow that mention in passing, among other things, that Kajzer works at that station. The eighth is her classmates.com profile. The only independent, indepth source that's even close to being about Kajzer is the one from her college newspaper. Nor are any other good references in the 41 Google hits I find for "Jen Kazjer" [7] ... I'm not sure how you get 240+, except by not straying off the first place of hits. In any event, WP:V requires "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Without such sources, it would be very hard to argue she clears WP:BIO. RGTraynor 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes, only the one in-depth article truly speaks to notability. I was trying to lay useful groundwork for another editor with more specific knowledge of the subject to be able to expand or better reference the article. Oh, and you're right, it's not 240--it's merely 239 hits on the Google for "Jen Kajzer".[8] - Dravecky (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one indepth article does speak to notability, but possibly not in the way you'd prefer; generally speaking, officers in collegiate clubs are not notable. As far as the G-hits go, you're still showing poor methodology. Don't look at the first page. Look at every page, and you'll find only 37-40 hits referenced. RGTraynor 11:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Article would benefit from expansion and additional sources, which might be possible if AfD was not initiated so quickly after article creation. Alansohn (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD runs, as far as I can figure, for four more days. That is more than ample time to secure sources that pass WP:RS, which so far only one (possibly) does. RGTraynor 06:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are plenty of references, some with dubious importance (first time I've seen classmates.com used as a reference) but WP:BIO takes more than that. No indication that this radio personality is known outside of the New York area. --Rtphokie (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there needs to be serious revamping of the AFD system. Some reporters are kept and are just as notable or non-notable as Jen. This becomes a game of how many fans the reporter or disc jocket has and how many enemies they have. For fairness, a person of this stature should be kept for consistency and because there are a few references for the lady. Presumptive (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Other stuff exists isn't a good reason to keep an article. If there are other articles with similar notability issues, I encourage you to start discussions about them as well. There is a common confusion that AFD is a process which can be defeated by finding a few references in Google news, it's not, particularly with biographies. WP:BIO is looking for significant coverage of a person who is recognized in their field. Awards can really help make the case here. I've not found any for this person. The depth of coverage doesn't appear to be significant. "Insert Name of DJ is working at Insert New Station, they used to work at Insert Old Station" articles are very commonplace and often come straight from press releases from the station, which doesn't help the notability cause.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:BIO. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know I've asked you this question a number of times before, but which elements of WP:BIO do you believe she fulfills? RGTraynor 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple references in diverse sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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." Heck, that would even fail the one quasi-good source we have; it would be difficult to claim that the college newspaper of which Kajzer was the business manager constituted an independent source. RGTraynor 03:29, 19 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 Apparently I forgot once again we can never delete ~~articles~~ resumes on topics Wikipedians like, regardless of the utter nonexistance of sources. --Rividian (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also reply to people then close the AFD to get the last word. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Bell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is an article that's been around for a while and whose subject has edited Wikipedia before, and which was nominated for AFD 2.5 years ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Bell, result was "no consensus"). I think that's all the important disclosures to get out of the way, my apologies if I missed anything. At the time inclusion standards were apparently a bit more subjective, and the key arguments for keeping the article then were that he was involved in the production of some video games and that he published a book. As I understand it now, WP:N and WP:BIO are based more on the existance of sources than subjective claims, and there are no sources cited in this article. Furthermore, I haven't been able to find any. He has a common name so searching for sources is difficult, but I scanned through several pages of news archive results for "Doug Bell" on Lexus Nexus and saw nothing related, and a result of the broader Google News Archive with a specific term yields nothing: [9]. WP:BIO says nothing about authors so we must use the basic criteria, which calls for a person to have been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". That doesn't seem to be the case here, so to keep this article, people should find evidence of such coverage. Rividian (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary he was involved in major video game publishing and authored two books. Just because we can't currently find any WEB BASED refs, does not mean that this article should be deleted. The guy was active far before it became common for every news and magazine article to be archived online and this should not be held against him. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:V the burden is on people wanting to keep content to find sources... note that Lexis Nexis includes decades of newspaper sources, it's hardly just a search of webpages. You haven't produced a policy-based reason to keep the article. --Rividian (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be pedantic, but Notability is not fleeting is a policy based reason to keep the article. He's a published author, which you don't seem to think is notable, but ask anyone that's tried to get a book published by a major house exactly how easy that is to do...twice. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about WP:V which says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It's frustrating that so many people want to ignore this supposedly core policy... it makes it practically useless. You're talking about notability in the subjective sense... I'm just talking about the existence of sources, which is supposed to be important on Wikipedia. --Rividian (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, your "notability is not temporary" link says "If a subject has met the general notability guideline..." this article doesn't meet that general guideline, so the "not temporary" argument is invalid. --Rividian (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being pedantic, but I would be more impressed by your argument that it is hard to get multiple books published by a "major publishing house" if Bell had actually done so. The article plainly cites that the publishers of his two books were JavaWorld.com, for which Bell was working at the time, and IDG Books, which at least has some notability, but just breaking one millionth in Amazon.com sales rank with a co-author credit isn't enough to crack WP:BIO. Make mine Delete. Ravenswing 02:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has written textbooks for Prentice-Hall and at least one book for Wiley & Sons (publishers of the Dummies books). I'm assuming he's not the same Doug Bell as the noted auto-mechanic author of the 1960s. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His work is important. Lets look for sources, not delete. DGG (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This can be undeleted if sources are found... or they can be found before the AFD is up. Just declaring that sources might exist is a poor rational for keeping an article... sources about my cat might exist but that doesn't keeping an article on him for years. Why do you, as an admin, want to ignore a core policy? WP:V clearly states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --Rividian (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This person played a major role in creating the Dungeon Master (video game) series, have a look at that article for a list of articles and reviews on what he created. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those hardly look like periodical reviews... they're all webpages. --Rividian (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Dude, did you notice the long list of awards that game won? Do you seriously think it wasn't heavily reviewed? We can go hunting for more reviews if you really want to contend the point, but the outcome seems certain enough that I for one would rather not waste my time especially given that in that era we're probably mostly talking physical gaming mags. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The line of WP:BIO you mention doesn't mention awards, or gaming mags... just periodicals. But ultimately WP:BIO is a guideline and WP:V is a policy, and WP:V says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". There aer no such sources for Doug Bell located yet. --Rividian (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment A magazine is a periodical. And here's a list of reviews of Dungeon Master published in print magazines. You wanna go double-or-nothing and bet that info on the lead developer of this apparently ground-breaking piece of programming can't be found? Before you lay your money down, you may want to consider that his credits on the books and games in question are verifiable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then find and cite the sources that are about him and provide non-trivial coverage... then this article would meet WP:V. Until then it's just a resume... I thought Wikipedia was not just a resume service. --Rividian (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment You seem to be conflating WP:V and WP:N. His credits are verifiable, non-trivial coverage is not required for verifiability. He is notable according to WP:CREATIVE point 3, so should have an article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely-published author of programming guides, creator of notable games. Not a really high-profile figure and not one who's been active in game design for a while, but we can pass this to WP:CVG. He passes WP:CREATIVE point 3, as well as (arguably) WP:PROF. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without any sources, how is this article ever supposed to be more than just his resume? And the large majority of those books were published before this article claims Mr. Bell was born. --Rividian (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice, on policy grounds per nom and for lack of content. IF this person really is notable, and there are print sources to be found, the article can be re-created when those sources are brought to the table, and nothing will have been lost, as the current article doesn't really tell us anything (and cannot do so without becoming OR). Also, notability is not inherited -- his games being notable doesn't make him notable. This discussion isn't about deleting his game articles, so the contention that his games are great/important is a red herring. Either he is documented in the media or he isn't. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The current article gives us verifiable information about what he has developed and published. He should have an article according to WP:CREATIVE point 3, overriding the general notability guideline. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a core policy, WP:V overrides WP:CREATIVE. --Rividian (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment These dice are loaded! But seriously, see my point further up. His credits are verifiable, verifiability does not have a requirement for non-triviality. That's notability, which he passes according to WP:CREATIVE point 3. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The credits of best boys and gaffers are verifiable... I just don't see how a resume is somehow an encyclopedia article. --Rividian (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Best boys and gaffers aren't major contributors, so they wouldn't meet WP:CREATIVE point 3. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        neither does this guy... you've shown no evidence there's non-trivial coverage about him, merely claimed that it might exist. At any rate, I still think it's talking about scholarly journals, not gaming mags... it puts the periodicals alongside the coverage found in an "independent book or feature-length film". --Rividian (talk) 03:44, 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 Delete --JForget 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AC (Anime Chocobo)[edit]

Just these guys on deviantart Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be the info page of an online comic created on DA. That's it. =/ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see how it is notable. No secondary sources. No serialization in major magazines... WhisperToMe (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real-world notability indicated. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — does not appear to be notable. --Haemo (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unnotable and likely self-advertising/promo piece considering the edits of the creator. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete appears to fail WP:CSD#A7. If not, then just Delete as it does fail WP:WEB. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay it's technically been published so it's not just web content anymore, thus as far as I can tell, not eligible for WP:CSD#A7.

Delete - non-notable. Mfko 11:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfko (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to Lillie Langtry. Merger already seems to have taken place so will just redirect. Davewild (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Marie Langtry Malcolm[edit]

She cannot inherit notability from her mother Lillie Langtry. (I can't figure out why the link from the article to here is red.) Clarityfiend (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Lillie Langtry. The rumored royal lineage made her semi-notable but she is not notable enough for her own article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lillie Langtry. I agree totally with Dhartung. It makes an interesting addition to the Lillie Langtry article, but doesn't merit its own entry. Austin46 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've merged the info in anticipation. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:50, 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 speedy redirected. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRID (videogame)[edit]

Duplicate article. More complete article regarding same game can be found at Race Driver: GRID - Mearnhardtfan (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone objects, I would suggest a speedy close and redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:27, 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 CSD G11. Nay, Wikipedia 'tis not free advertising for thine own unpublished novel. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jetagsii: The Band of Seven Await in Hell![edit]

Contested prod that appears to be a non-notable novel. The article is unreferenced and Google doesn't return any significant hits. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Also, on the talk page, the author wrote "I object to the deletion of this article because if you check the website, www.freewebs.com/jetagsii, the site is about the novel, and you can read the novel on it, from Chapter 1 - Epilogue. I say that Jetagsii: The Band of Seven Await in Hell! does exist, and don't say it isn't all you f***ers, because if you do, I will be so p***ed at this site, that I can sue you all to hell!!!"--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author has been block for violating WP:NLT. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:01, 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 --JForget 23:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Music Records[edit]

This article is not notable enough forWikipedia. We have a small article for the artist, we can put information there if it is considered notable enough. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 18:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from WP:CORP, there's also some crystalballery in the article - it indicates that she is going to release upcoming albums under this label. That's it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CORP --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP, also i'm pretty sure the artist fails WP:MUSIC as well with a lack of reliable sources or notability Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One hit outside of Wikipedia on Google, and that's a local news article over 5 years ago that may even be a different label. Content of article is almost entirely speculative. Linked website is practically empty. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Very minor article FYW09 (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability and Google reveals practically nothing. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ~~WP:MUSIC,~~ WP:CORP. I guess the assertion of significance that saved it from WP:CSD#A7 was the affiliation with Queen Da Boss? --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:07, 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 to delete as not demonstrating notability or verifiability. Alex Muller 16:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man J[edit]

Unnotable manga title. Not even listed in Anime News Network. Seems to just be part of Spider-Man Family and not an actual separate work per Marvel[10] (which also notes this is not a manga, but "manga-styled"). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This comic, while similarly named, has nothing to do with the Marvel Comics superhero and should be deleted for the reasons put forward by Collectonion above. JBsupreme (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sufficient notability has not been established. There is no evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 14:25, 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 keep.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatoon Club[edit]

Appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable long-established organization and building, designed by a well-known firm of architects and incorporated by a special act of the Saskatchewan legislature (referenced in the article). It is a meeting place for Saskatoon's business and political elite. --Eastmain (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I came here after seeing the AfD first on the list of recent changes while out on patrol. Eastmain makes a nice point, so SchuminWeb, could you go into detail about the steps you took to make sure that it's the topic that's the problem? It would be considerate, since it saves the rest of us some time. Of course, basing AfD nominations and decisions on an article's present state would not be feasible - we'd have to nuke significant portions of the encyclopedia with each major change of standards. --Kiz o r 19:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Eastmain.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable building in the history of Saskatoon. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the tidying and that has take place and the claims made there is no independent, third party coverage of the subject (the club). There appears to be no more coverage of the building even if the subject of the article was to change focus. As usual, I will reconsider if reliable sources are provided. Nuttah (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Created under a special act of the legislature, plays an important role as a venue for political, economic and business discussion in the city. If it is deleted, then all the entries under Category:Private clubs should be nominated for deletion. --M@sk (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:WAX. The status of other articles is irrelevant to this one, and every article is judged independently. Resolute 23:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I am not saying keep this article because there are other similar articles (thought it wold make sense to apply rules consistently and based on clear criteria). I am stating if we nominate this article for deletion, we should also nominate all of the other articles for deletion. I would also propose that a clearer definition of Notable is required, this process is quite subjective. --M@sk (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. GreenJoe 23:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is the article from the StarPhoenix about the club. http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?k=29454&id=3f841654-5aa0-4fd0-aa27-c71bd86ad3f3 --Eastmain (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StarPhoenix story. Created under a special act of the legislature sure makes it unique. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:30, 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 keep. John254 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Jack Brand[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Let's look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria.
  - "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[1] except for the following:
  - Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.[2] Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.
  - Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." (excerpt ended)
- The sources I found are independent of the subject and come from reliable newspapers, the U.S. government, and press groups. The material used to prove notability does not come from the company, nor does it come from any of the suppliers. The proving notability sources are not directories and do not mention shopping hours and the like. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references demonstrate notability. I reformatted the newspaper references using ((cite news)) so as to include the date of publication and the name of the writer, where available. --Eastmain (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only secondary sources other than the Naples Daily News trivial mention that I can access are for a recall of sub-standard goods supplied to a notable store. Seems weird to accept that as grounds for notability whereas other similar suppliers who didn't have problems wouldn't necessarily be notable. Especially as the incident referenced isn't mentioned in the article. -Hunting dog (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used the sources to prove that the brand was being sold nation-wide. And this isn't one "notable store" - this is a notable nationwide major department store chain. One news link says "The recalled pajama sets were sold at J.C. Penney stores nationwide from April through June for about $15." - It was not limited to any particular state. Also, regarding the "trivial" part the article described the brand as part of one trend among T-shirt slogans, so I do not feel that is trivial. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found another press article that is completely about the brand, so I will post it to the article momentarily. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is about a line of consumer products, and has received non-trivial coverage in a variety of independent sources. Being sold by a "monkey with an attitude" confers automatic notability, right? If not, it should. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 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 Delete all. Soxred 93 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garcelle Evans[edit]

I originally PROD'd this, but I think the hoax is more far-reaching than just this article. I can find nothing verifiable on google about this lady, either using this name or her supposed real name of Garcelle Evans-Richards. However the films she has supposedly been in and her albums also appear to not exist, and the imdb links in those articles link directly to imdb pages about totally different productions. Finally the imdb pages of the TV series she is reported to have been in do not have her listed in their extended cast lists. I am therefore listing the films and the albums for deletion along with the actress article in one go. role^player 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have not included Backdown as this is the only film article on the above bio that was not created by Seanmccoy91 (talk · contribs). Note also that there is a Seanmccoy16 (talk · contribs) who has also been editing the articles. -- role^player 16:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Top tip: Go to any article from "What links here" at any of the above nominations, look at the history and lo and behold the link has been added by one of the seanmccoys since the beginning of June. -- role^player 17:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and removed these links. -- role^player 13:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've only personally checked for Garcelle Evans, The Death Trip and In The Eyes Of a Killer. Neither of those 'films' seem to have any press coverage despite supposedly being released by major studios, and Paramount site itself has nothing on Eyes of a Killer. I think your reasoning that this is a large hoax is sound, but it might take a bit of unravelling. Note that the Seanmccoy91 (talk · contribs) has also been adding apparently fake bits of info to legit articles that some of these link to - like Regina King on this diff [11]- (I'm about to undo that one), A Family's Circle of Life was previously deleted as a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunting dog (talk • contribs)

Comment: Taking your lead I have checked the grammy website for her, seeing as the claim in two of the album articles is that they were grammy award-winning; that website has no record of her either. -- role^player 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Obvious hoaxes, no proof of a Grammy or the existence of these films. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all walled garden of weeds of this unverifiable subject. 8 unique Ghits and nothing on imdb. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – I've also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and can find no third-party sources whatsoever about this person. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 20 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. TigerShark (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Bhatt[edit]

Article seems to be about the author User:Gauravbhatt himself gppande «talk» 16:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN, WP:COI, WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 16:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced autobio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No establishment of notability. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a few TV jingles to his credit, even inf WP:COI is not factored in. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:40, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep'. I'm seeing solid policy-based arguments all around. --jonny-m t 07:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Live Steamers[edit]

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Transwiki possible transwiki to Wikitravel but doesnt seem suitable for an encyclopedia. --neon white talk 17:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't transwiki anything to Wikitravel; it uses a different copyright license [12]. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep at the moment books and news results aren't looking promising but I found a couple of museum articles in the ghits that might help establish notability. Will try to work on it this week. Otherwise, request userfication (in case I forget). _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to be notable, IMHO. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this appears to be just one part of a nationwide organization of Steamer clubs and their museums. While none appear to be independently notable, it's more likely that they'd make up part of a larger whole. Unfortunately I will not have time to work on this before the AfD's close. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should it survive AfD, the article should be moved to Los Angeles Live Steamers Railroad Museum as the organization itself is not notable, but the Museum - through its connection with Walt Disney and his much-notable Carolwood Pacific Railroad - is. Keep B.Wind (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe rename and redirect. ("LALS" is the well-known acronym among railfans.) One of the most notable Live Steam facilities in the US, known the world over. It is not "one part of a nationwide organization of Steamer clubs" - it's an entity of its own. Special notability due to the Disney exhibit - see Walt Disney's Carolwood Barn. --Janke | Talk 09:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 24 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 and Redirect to Betta while removing the howto part. Davewild (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betta pellets[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how to guide. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as proposed. The product itself appears not to be noteable. Amalthea (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOTHOWTO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Will never be a notable product. Betta is the appropriate place for such information. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Merge/Redirect to Betta#Food. Removed the WP:NOT#HOWTO (which I will) and you have a notable stub. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a merge into Betta? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Betta#food, NN on its own, but suitable in that section. Otherwise its a how-to with a bit of advertising thrown in. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:39, 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. TigerShark (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Cities Hiking Club[edit]

Non-notable local club. Article does not have any references that establish notability under Wikipedia guidelines, just a single external link to the club's own site. Article is also written somewhat like an advertisement. Though it is claimed that the club has been around for over 60 years, this age alone, especially without valid references, is not a free pass to notability. Hellno2 (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A local hiking club, does not establish notability. No third-party sources and hints of advertising. RedThunder 14:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 16:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability in article and a news search shows nothing; fails WP:ORG. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:17, 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 redirect to Larkin Grimm. giggy _(:O) 08:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harpoon (album)[edit]

Non-notable album by equally non-notable artist who is herself up for AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larkin Grimm). No notable label, did not chart. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Shovon (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Larkin Grimm. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Larkin Grimm now that the latter AfD has been closed as "no consensus". No evidence of the album standing on its own in the notability department save being the first of an apparently-new artist. B.Wind (talk) 01:58, 23 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 Larkin Grimm. giggy _(:O) 08:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Tree[edit]

Non-notable album by equally non-notable artist who is herself up for AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larkin Grimm). No notable label, did not chart. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Larkin Grimm. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larkin Grimm did not result in a deletion --T-rex 18:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the AfD of Larkin Grimm was closed as a "no consensus" and there seems no evidence of independent notability, redirect to Larkin Grimm. B.Wind (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could support that at this point, though I'm still not convinced of Grimm's notability and may submit her for an AfD again sometime down the road, given the no-consensus outcome. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:03, 23 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, defaulting to Keep. Disagreement over whether the sources are sufficient to meet WP:MUSIC. Davewild (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larkin Grimm[edit]

Non-notable musician. Not signed by a major label or established independent. No songs or albums on any recognized chart. Extremely difficult to verify references as only two are in English, and one of them is here record label. Fails WP:MUSIC on several counts. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources. Machine translations of the non-English sources are listed below.

PhilKnight (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The references should not be hidden away on the talk page. Even so, the mentions of her are insignificant and/or trivial — one article only mentions her in passing, and the longest is about three paragraphs (with a somewhat laughable translation attempt by Google). The Yale Daily News article has her name attributed to one brief quote only and doesn't even mention her work — you wouldn't even know she's a musician by this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Reallyhick, if you read the guidelines, they clearly say that machine translations shouldn't be in article space. PhilKnight (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Sources so far arent that verifiable, so notability is yet to be established. --neon white talk 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -There are 5 independent sources cited, and between them, I think it's fairly obvious there is significant coverage, so the topic is sufficiently notable. PhilKnight (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from WNYC which alone is not that good of a source, none of them are that verifiable or have non-trivial and significant content. --neon white talk 18:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem you see with WNYC as a source? --SSBohio 03:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to, there has to be significant coverage in reliable sources, not significant coverage in each reliable source. PhilKnight (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're twisting words here. Trivial mentions in multiple sources does not equal significant coverage. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the notability guideline, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." PhilKnight (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're trying to blow this concept by us: A bunch of trivial mentions is the same as one non-trivial one? That just flies in the face of common sense. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch language reference is a full length article, which isn't a trivial mention. PhilKnight (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anyone who would call five paragraphs a "full-length article." And I think that's the longest of the bunch. I'm a bit surprised that an editor/admin with your extensive experience is trying to do this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a five paragraph article, which clearly isn't a trivial mention. PhilKnight (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be but the site doesnt appear to be a very reliable source. --neon white talk 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it doesn't appear to be a very reliable source doesn't really give any more information to go on. What is it that makes it unreliable as a source to you? --SSBohio 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidence of notability has been provided. Is she very notable? It doesn't seem so. Does she have to be? No. We're in no danger of running out of electrons any time soon, so we can have this article. --SSBohio 03:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She has to be notable according to guidelines. Wikpedia does not need an article on everything and everyone regardless of it's potential to have such. --neon white talk 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, evidence of notability has been provided. She does not need to be very notable to have an article about her. Repeating that she isn't does nothing to advance the discussion. She appears to be notable to me. What are your specific points refuting the notability conferred by the coverage received? --SSBohio 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Artist has published two albums, has had some critical reviews. WNYC has one of the largest audiences in the country. Mattnad (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

audience size of a source has no relevance to the fact that the source is a small paragraph and is not significant coverage. --neon white talk 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errr....how to respond....to this.... OK. Small paragraph or not, audience size is an important element in notability. The fact that WNYC thinks she is notable enough, and has a gigantic audience says something about the importance of that paragraph. I think this is an instance where size (of audience) does matter. Mattnad (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable fails WP:MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.168.216.154 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 209.168.216.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In any particular way? --SSBohio 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since wikipedia isn't paper, the notability bar is set pretty low. There is coverage from multiple sources, though not in English. -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Uuser:Neonwhite's response above about the old "Wikipedia isn't paper" argument. The only one of the 12 criteria at WP:MUSIC that is even in question is the first, which is non-trivial coverage by independent sources. Of course, I feel she has not even met that; others differ, which is why we're here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the prior discussion, and the sources, though not abundant are sufficient. So yes, we do differ perhaps on the interpretation, but it's still "keep" for me. -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realkyhick, Wikipedia isn't paper already extsts as a link to What Wikipedia is not. It says: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. Also, the Wiki is not paper page at meta says that because Wikipedia is not paper, it can provide summaries of all subjects of interest. You reduced Whpq's contribution to Wikipedia should be about everything, then refuted that distorted image of what the editor wrote; It's a form of straw man argument. Whpq has asserted that the article crosses the notability bar, not that there isn't one. --SSBohio 15:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reduce his comments to WP:EVERYTHING, I merely commented on a portion of what he said. I didn't comment on notability because that's a judgment call on which we basically agree to disagree. Don't blow it up into anything more than it is. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:26, 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 delete. Seraphim♥Whipp 22:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cursor Hotspot (pixel on point of mouse cursor)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod was removed. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, information is already present in cursor article, so nothing to merge; title is unlikely search term, so redirecting is unnecessary. Huon (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlikely search term, subject already covered in cursor. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already covered in cursor, not needed. RedThunder 14:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not wikitionary and any information is (good) covered in another articles. Zero Kitsune (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sensible title of Cursor Hotspot already redirects to Cursor (computers). MortimerCat (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 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. TigerShark (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-to-server-peer[edit]

I cannot find authoritative sites describing this term or the technological details. Appears to be software developers' attempt to coin/patent new terms in order to promote their own software. This Google search shows that the term almost doesn't exist outside of the scope of the two mentioned software. Voidvector (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Voidvector said, this looks like an attempt to market a product. A web search also provides no third party sources. RedThunder 14:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This sounds like a buzz-word. What constitutes "peer-to-peer" is extremely diverse, but the general principle is a *lack* of client/server architecture. At most it would warrant a section in the Peer to peer entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoDepositNoReturn (talk • contribs) 07:32, 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 delete - Nabla (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Abu Shandi[edit]

A clearcut case of WP:ONEEVENT - a Palestinian deported from Canada as a security risk. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT doesn't seem to link anywhere particular, just Biographies of living persons. CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless this has established case law or other policy it is NN. Thetrick (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This might be what Clarityfiend was aiming for wp:BIO1E.. L0b0t (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A deported security risk. Although sources are provided, does not establish notability. RedThunder 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is not tagged for deletion. RedThunder 14:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is now. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:30, 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 KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Court usher[edit]

Little more than an unsourced dictionary definition that hasn't been expanded or improved since tagged over 9 months ago. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Would suggest merging and redirecting to Courtroom unless someone can find some reliable sources to improve the article. Davewild (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Keep per the sources found by Phil Bridger which do offer the potential for a good article to be written. Davewild (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge possibly to courtroom. If more information and sources can be found, the information would likel fit in. Otherwise, Delete. RedThunder 14:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jury trial. I was going to try and rescue this, but it's essentially a ceremonial/administrative position, albeit one that's in fairly widespread use across a variety of jurisdictions, including most of the Commonwealth, parts of Europe and the International Criminal Court. Still, after a bit of a dig around various sources I'm getting the impression that anything I could put together would be on the wrong side of OR. Although there are a variety of nuances, the position is most likely going to be encountered as part of a Jury trial and therefore that's the best place for a mention in my view. There is quite a good grab in Jury (England and Wales), but the position is used in a much wider range of jurisdictions than that, hence Jury trial. In my view courtroom is a little too general to be a useful redirect. Debate 木 23:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article per Phil Bridger. Hopefully he uses those thousands of links for good and not evil. Debate 木 13:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Trust me. I know what I'm doing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a dictionary definition as it describes a role rather than a phrase. Any possible merging is really a matter for the article talk page rather than AfD, but a merge to Jury trial is certainly not the way to go. My one and only court appearence was in a magistrates' court where there is no jury and I very clearly recall there being an usher there. If you want the article sourced then why not put in a reference to the very first hit from the Google search which should have been done before even considering nominating this for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we disagree about what constitutes reliable sources. In my view court info pages, or position descriptions from commercial (job-search) websites don't cut it. nb. a search of quality academic and legal databases turns up nothing significant. Debate 木 01:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you expect references in academic and legal databases to an administrative position? It's not the sort of thing that invites academic research. If we insisted on academic sources we wouldn't be able to have all those Pokemon articles, and then where would we be? Anyway I've put references in the article to a couple of these 1780 Google Books hits, which also include this entry in a paper encyclopedia. I've also removed the word "British" from the article because it's clear from scanning through those Google Books hits that this position exists in many parts of the world. One of the references I added also confirms that this position exists in magistrates' courts, so a redirect to Jury trial would certainly not be a good idea. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 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 DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar Agnihotri[edit]

I can not find Arun Kumar Agnihotri having received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, thus the article fails WP:BIO. Membership in organizations (which are not proven) do not establish notability, and the author's (aka Arun Kumar Agnihotri) own geocities page is the opposite of a relieable source. The newly added reference after the proposed deletion has not changed this. Delete. Amalthea (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in third-party sources, fails to establish notability. Also unreferenced. RedThunder 14:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only claim of notability is founding the Internet Journal of Medical Update which, on top of having an ungrammatical name, is hosted on geocities.com rather than its own or an academic web site. I suppose it's too late to add the journal to this AfD so I'll open a separate nomination for it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO --gppande «talk» 15:23, 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 Keep, consensus is that the article does meet the WP:MUSIC notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatz (band)[edit]

No reliable sources to establish notability or verifiability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C5. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, with multiple releases on Lookout Records. Lugnuts (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the article is of poor quality and contains largely original research the ban appears to be notable. The article needs to be cleaned up and possible stubified to concentrate on essential info. --neon white talk 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Meets 1 of the criteria set out at the relevant notability guideline (WP:MUSIC) but contains unverified information that needs reliable sources to assert that it's not original research and meets WP:NPOV. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:51, 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 redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters#Dylan Michalchuk (John Bregar); content may be merged from the history to the extent consensus allows. Sandstein 07:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Michalchuk[edit]

This is an article about a fictional character from Degrassi: The Next Generation, not a primary character just the brother of a primary character who is rarely seen onscreen in the past couple seasons. No sources other than primary material, no assertion of real-world impact or notability. L0b0t (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to !vote in your own AfDs. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (As stated above,) not only does this article not assert notability (which I believe all television characters must because it is so easy to merge them), but it is not notable (thanks, Google). –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT badly, and is unlikely to ever pass WP:N, as he is a non-main character. The LoC already summarizes him. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I do not know the series, it seems from the article that he is a significant figure for at least some of the series. Thus he is appropriate for an article. DGG (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard for separate articles on individual TV show characters is sourced and referenced notability outside the fictional universe of the TV series, not significance within the TV series. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. It may be possible to have an independent article on this character in the future but it needs independent, reliable sources and I don't see the possibility of that in the short term. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 23:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Very few, if any, characters from this series have enough out-of-universe notability to have their own separate articles, actually. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. We should establish redirects from article titles of all characters to this list to pre-empt the creation of such articles. (I know, wishful thinking...) Mind matrix 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. No external notability. DigitalC (talk) 00:40, 19 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. --jonny-m t 10:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yekishim[edit]

Declined proposed deletion. Article appears to be a combination of original research, a dictionary definition, spam and a religious essay. The title attracts two (excluding wikipedia) google hits, nothing in books or scholar searches - Peripitus (Talk) 12:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the nom reasons. Non-notable. All g-hits are wiki pages. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all reasons stated above.Unschool (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent "hodge"+"podge" of original research of a neologism. The staggering two Google hits are enough of an indicator of the lack of coverage by independent media/sources. I've removed at least five signatures of IP editors from the bottom of the badly malformed article. B.Wind (talk) 02:06, 23 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. John254 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Larson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable person. Read article Talk Page. Proxy User (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has received plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources establishing notability per WP:BIO. This coverage is still continuing now - such as this and this which shows she has been signed up as a model by the fashion designer Christian Audigier. She is thus notable for the coverage in reliable sources and for more than one thing so not a WP:BLP1E. Davewild (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Still getting considerable press for events after her breakup from Clooney. Looks like she'll be around for a while. Easily notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability doesn't expire. Once someone is notable, they stay that way. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but just because of the peoples magazine article. (rant on) Just because our wonderful press decides that the love life of our celebrates is somehow important I strongly disagree that it makes someone notable. (/rant off) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Bwrs (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep once notable, always notable ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davewild's remarks. Cleo123 (talk) 04:06, 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 an apparent keep. Cleanup, rewrites, and stubbing should be handled through the normal editing process--feel free to be bold in the future. --jonny-m t 07:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering of Israel[edit]

Subject is notable, but the article is mostly original research, with text incorporated from this source of questionable reliability. The article freely associates biblical stories with modern events such as the Balfour declaration and the Six-Day War. A merge with The Return to Zion has been proposed, but I'm not sure how that can be done. Nudve (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Return to Zion. Hellno2 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, although Gathering of Israel might be a more appropriate name than The Return to Zion for this subject. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Return to Zion currently describes the return from Babylonia and construction of the Second Temple under Ezra and Nehemiah two and a half millenia ago, while this article describes contemporary events in the context of a religious perspective connecting them with Biblical prophecies. The subject matter -- claims that the contemporary return of Jews to the Land of Israel reflects Biblical foreshadowings and has religious significance -- is certainly a notable one, and the subject is different from the previous return in the days of Ezra and Nehemia. In addition, the generally Christian perspective the article reflects is also distinct from the subject matter of Religious Zionism, which reflects a Jewish religious perspective on the religious significance involved. At first blush the subject-matter appears notable and a reasonable candidate for a stand-alone article if the title were changed to reflect what seems to be its scope, Christian perspectives on the religious significance of the contemporary return of Jews to the land of Israel. Of course a merger could be argued for, and I agree that the article could be better sourced. It might for example present a more balanced approach to different Christian views. In its present state it might be better off stubbified unless it can be substantially re-written. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment - One suggestion would be to have a brief, general summary article on the religious significance of the contemporary return of Jews to Israel with links to more specific articles including the Religious Zionism article, the Haredim and Zionism article, one or more articles on Christian perspectives, etc. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, and then merge what is not into The Return to Zion and/or create Christianity and Zionism per Shirahadasha's suggestions above. No need for duplicate articles. IZAK (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and write to so to indicate the perspective. There is more than one possible way in which the religious significance can be seen,and thisis one of them. In practice it will be best to keep them separate to avoid confusion. One article trying to explain them all is probably beyondwhat we canaccomplishclearly. DGG (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it is agreed that article's subject should be the perspective, I would definitely change the title to refer to the perspective, e.g. Christianity and Zionism, Return of Jews to Israel in Christian theology or something similar (perhaps an even narrower title if only a particular Christian perspective is being covered). An article with a general subject title that is actually describing only a single perspective would be inapporpriate, unless the title is a phrase closely associated with the perspective in the public mind. I don't think that's the case here. --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to The Return to Zion per IZAK. Culturalrevival (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write (Kibbutz Galuyot - is the most popular term - see Google). The reason given for the merge was a lack of reliable source. Well, merging to different topic-article isn't going to improve the reliability of the sources. Add more sources to "Gathering of Israel" or re-write a new article of "Gathering of Israel" that does have reliable sources.

Second, the article "Gathering of Israel", though an interesting one, does not focus on the content of the real issue of "Kibbutz Galuyot" - what Moses said, what the Rambam said etc - as the Hebrew article does. It needs to be re-written, in order for people to understand what this "gathering of israel" is all about. I don't think the current article (that is not focused on the issue) is good enough for anybody to determine anything on the subject of "gathering of Israel".

--Shevashalosh (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far I like Shirahadasha's suggestion best. Unless someone can rewrite the article within the next couple of days, I think stubbification to one-liner is the thing to do. -- Nudve (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to rewrite the artice, as Shirahadasha and Nudve have suggested. But it will take me a couple of days to so. I'd like to translate this from the Hebrew wikipedia article that has been there for a while and is considered to be a good one. i'd like to rename the article "Kibbutz Galuyot" that is the most popular term of use on the subject (see google) as well as to match the content of the article I will write about.

I'm new here, so somebody needs to tell me how to I get a permission to do so? Is there any administrator that can give me such permission? What is the process ?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's the spirit! What I would suggest is that you start working on the article in your Userspace. Meanwhile, when this AfD expires, we'll stubbify the article. Then, when your article is more or less complete, simply rewrite it by cutting it from your userspace and pasting it unto the article. -- Nudve (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nudve! I'll start working on it. If I have any further questions - I'll turn to your talkpage and post my question there.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend against using the Hebrew title; this is the English language Wikipedia. Unless you've confirmed that that title is the most common usage in English language sources, you should use an English title. Using Google's advanced search allows this restriction; I get about 44,000 results for "gathering of Israel" versus 6,500 for "Kibbutz Galuyot" or 4,000 for "Ingathering of exiles". GRBerry 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'll use the English title "Gathering of Israel", as you have mentioned it to be the most popular use on google.

By the way, how do you use this "advanced search"? How do you get those numbers? - I'd like to know so I could determine on future articles that that will write about?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en is my link. In English, the link to the advanced search page is immediately to the right of the search box on the main google.com page. Google books, google news, google news archives, and google scholar all also have advanced search pages as well. Precisely which advanced search tools are available varies from version to version, for example google scholar has filters by broad subject categories. Be careful with using the google search to determine the most significant topic for a given set of words or title for a given topic, we've seen elsewhere while trying to sort if a given topic was the predominant result for a given name that with essentially simulataneous searches it can give US users very different results than UK users with both different from Australian users. GRBerry 16:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you GRBerry.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 16:57, 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 --JForget 23:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Birighitti[edit]

Contested prod (by IP, no explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Sunderland06 (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 12:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Proxy User (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero appearances. —97198 talk 14:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 01:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nomination is solid - and I concur with reasons. --VS ^talk 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, player has yet to play at the top level, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Can easily be recreated if he gets a start in the A-League. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete with the option of recreation on the event of a debut in the A-League. Five Years 13:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Five Years. Moondyne 02:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh If you are going on a deleting spree you should do it properly. Delete Daniel Mullen (footballer), Scott Jamieson, Andrew Redmayne, Laurence Braude and Jason Naidovski amongst a few more in the A-League I have no doubt. All these players have no A-League appearances so are no different than Mark Birighitti Anonymous 5:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.139.6.51 (talk)
Delete EVERYTHING Agree with Mr Anonymous delete the above as well. Found others that fit this no A-League appearance, Everson Arantes de Oliveira, Ben Kantarovski, Ben Sigmund - Scott 220.233.95.226 (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ben Kantarovski has been prodded, but the other two qualify - one has played in a pro league in Brazil, and the other is a full international. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per reasons at WP:Articles for deletion/Jason Naidovski Jared Wiltshire (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No justification for retaining until he has first team appearances with the A-league club. Murtoa (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pro appearances and not otherwise notable. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 17:32, 19 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 all the articles were speedy deleted as attack pages using normal speedy deletion procedures. -- The Anome (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crime chiacig[edit]

Disputed PRODs. A bunch of unsourced articles from the same author about a Mafia crime family that cannot be found outside Wikipedia. They lift heavily from the Genovese crime family history. Note: According to the Google cage, Don Enrico used to be Giovani chiacig before he was speedily deleted. It all fails WP:V • Gene93k (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Speedy Delete all as vandalism. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:36, 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 it's snowing in June, aka Keep on the grounds of established lineage and more than enough RS coverage. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark[edit]

Person is not notable. Notability is not inherited, Wikipedia is no directory. Iago4096 09:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep has external sources, passes WP:N ...and he's a prince = ) --Cameron (T|C) 11:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC) (last argument is not to be taken seriously)[reply]
Keep. Proxy User (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is automatic, given his title and who his father is. -- role^player 17:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Easily passes the threshold of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--Peter Andersen (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Royalty, established accordingly. 'Nuff said. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think WP:NOTINHERITED was ever meant to apply to literally inherited recognised titles such as royal lineage. -Hunting dog (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Like it or not notability of royalty is inherited ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we call WP:SNOW yet? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:28, 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 (G7) by DGG. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fingernail image diagnosis[edit]

Allegedly from ancient Chinese folk medicine but refs are a bit thin. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs a lot of work and as it is, is very POV. But it's a well known idea. Proxy User (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is used as spam, see here. The method of diagnosing via fingernails might be noteable ([13]), but not under that name (seems proprietery to fidhealth), and it would need a *complete* rewrite. Amalthea (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid concept. Article just needs improvement. Hellno2 (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I want to stress that the article says that [Fingernail image diagnosis (FID)] is completely different from conventional fingernail diagnostic method - I agreee that the latter warrants an article, but the former is a non noteable spam article: google has one hit besides Wikipedia, so it fails WP:NOTE. Also note that I suspect strong conflict of interest of the author: his username is Wlactcm, the contact e-mail adress given on http://www.fidhealth.com/contact_us is wlactcmyahoo.com Amalthea (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable in medicine, topic doesn't deserve an article under that title, spam, conflict of interest. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like the !voters are confusing two different concepts. The concept of this article does not reliable sources backing up its claims. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amalthea et. al. This article makes it pretty clear that it's not referring to the classical Chinese medical technique (which I couldn't find an article on - someone should either write it, or add it as a link on fingernail!), but to a contemporary technique created by Wen-Hua Wang. COI all over the place, and "FID" doesn't appear to be a notable technique (four Google hits on the phrase, two of them from Wikipedia). Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable sources found after a reasonable search. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WhatamIdoing . Edison (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apparently it has been speedily deleted, supposedly because the author blanked the page [14]. http://www.fidhealth.com/what_is_fid has consequentally lost the "See more on Wikipedia" part. :| Amalthea (talk) 09:17, 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 redirect to mKR (programming language).--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MKE (my Knowledge Explorer)[edit]

non-notable program whose article creator appears to be in conflict as its likely programmer ju66l3r (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MKR_(programming_language)

The deletion of mKR and mKE seems to be one issue. I will post all my comments on the mKR deletion page. Rhmccullough (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Proxy User (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per my comment on the MKR (programming language) afd, mostly gibberish and no sources that seems reliable. Rehevkor ✉ 00:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mKE. I don't like it myself. Rhmccullough (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mKR. I think it's better already, and I'm getting good advice from NoDepositNoReturn re further changes. Rhmccullough (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot very clear. Author himself seems to be in two minds about this. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mKE. After giving it some more thought -- it would be good to have a very short mKE (like what's there now) to point mKE/mKR users to the "right" place -- mKR. Rhmccullough (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A redirect would serve that purpose. If the language page is kept, then this page could be turned into a redirect that points to that page easily enough. ju66l3r (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I hadn't thought of that - sounds good. Rhmccullough (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: You have voted one delete, and two keeps. Please make up your mind, you only have one vote. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 16:54, 19 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; article kept. Conflict of Interest is not a good reason to delete an article about something notable. Article has been tagged with ((COI)), and should be cleaned up. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MKR (programming language)[edit]

non-notable obscure programming language whose article creator and major contributor is a WP:COI problem as the source of most of its references ju66l3r (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the related discussion at AfD for MKE (my Knowledge Explorer)

I do not feel that I have a conflict of interest. My primary objective is to advance the state of the art for Semantic Web. All my software is freeware; I get no money for anything. In spirit, mKR/mKE is very much like Notation 3 (aka N3); it attempts to provide users of the Semantic Web with an easy to read presentation of propositions. I think it's only a matter of chance timing that N3 is so popular and mKR is not. I do feel that mKR has something valuable to offer the Semantic Web community. I would be happy to edit the mKR and mKE pages to get rid of any appearance of conflict of interest. As soon as I finish this note, I intend to look carefully at my references. Off the top of my head, I would say that the only reference of mine that ought to stay in is the original 1997 announcement of the existence of mKR and mKE. I can look for someone else's post from the W3C & Yahoo archives to replace mine, or I could just delete those two posts of mine. I certainly welcome any comments from Wikipedia's staff re: what might be considered a better presentation than the present one. I certainly will not do anything to "hide" my pages, or in any other way, to avoid this issue of deletion. Rhmccullough (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - COI is no reason to delete something - though it is something that rhmccullough should bear in mind. As the creator you are inherently biased in favour of the language - that's not a flaw in you, just the way humans work. In terms of notability this seems to be on par with many of the other programming languages I've seen here and it's certainly going to be more widely used than all the esoteric languages that are included (though I appreciate that this is not a strong argument). The article could do with some expansion, particularly in the History section; the definition section could be expanded into a paragraph of prose for use as an introductory paragraph. The information is clearly verifiable, and the article is well cited, so I see no reason to delete. Conrad.Irwin (on wikt) 12:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Clear WP:COI issue, non-notable obscure programming language. Proxy User (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Proxy User: From the way you talk, you seem to imply that my conflict of interest has surely caused me to make false statements on the pages that I prepared. I thought, in America, you were innocent until proved guilty. Rhmccullough (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't America.. and so:

Delete. Sources are all debatable, none seem notable. Very little content an outsider would understand. Rehevkor ✉ 00:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While COI is not a deletion criteria, it is something that may cause an article to be too skewed to be savable in its current form. However, lack of notability is a deletion criteria and I can not find reliable sourcing on this software. The cost of the software or intent of the creator are also not valid reasons for having an article. There are websites for software listings, downloads, and descriptions. This isn't one of them unless the software meets the software notability criteria and I do not see how this software does. ju66l3r (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest giving Rhmccullough some time to develop this article some more, after comparing it with other programming language pages on Wikipedia (perhaps the RDF or OWL pages aren't the best; Python's page is a fine example, though.) Note the info-boxes. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the History section, including references, to show how mKR fits into the bigger picture. Let me know if you think further references are needed. Rhmccullough (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article still needs work -- it's barely Start Class -- but there's enough here to build from at this point. I have more comments on the talk page. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have comments re: status on mKR talk, and mKE talk. Rhmccullough (talk) 16:22, 19 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 --JForget 23:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Tucker[edit]

I'm not exactly certain that we need articles for every random radio skit character in a Grand Theft Auto game. Notable game? Oh, heck yes. Notable character? Not remotely. Moving to AfD since PROD was implicitly contested. Vianello (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or merge back into GTA III article. I can't see how this will ever become notable. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure if the character's really noteable enough to warrant even a merge. If there were a section on the radio skits specifically, or something else to offer precedent, maybe then. - Vianello (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, as notability is not asserted. Also per WP:V, as the "sources" are just footnotes that don't link to anything. This almost seems like an autobiography.... Happyme22 (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't played the game, but I really don't think it's apt to be an autobiography. The material presented sounds pretty typical of the GTA radio skits. Maybe I'm wrong. - Vianello (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable character, dare say not even notable for merging to GTA III article. Sunderland06 (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:N and WP:COI. Make it go away. Proxy User (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It isn't a notable character at all -- Saggod (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly. :P I seriously doubt there'd be even a single reliable source for this. Rehevkor ✉ 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some charachters should have Wikipedia articles, like Mario. But not one-off side charachters. mattiator (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable character, although the game is. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back to the main article, unless someone can find some sources that demonstrate external notability. I doubt it though. Ford MF (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real world significance or notability. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 14:24, 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 Speedy delete A7 (non-admin closure), deleted by DGG (Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance). - Mithent (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Elliot Boutté[edit]

This page does not conform with WP:BIO Halifax Nomad (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is about a non-notable person and contains no links to any secondary sources about the individual. Despite being well-written, it is more suitable as a personal homepage than an encyclopedia article. Halifax Nomad (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are badly-formed references there, but of six, at least 2 are SPS and 2 are blogs. Reserving judgement for now. Jclemens (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This biography is about a non-notable person. Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously this "article" is a joke of some kind. Proxy User (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable in spite of its hilarity. —97198 talk 14:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No actual claim to notabiity. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as speedy--clear A7 the best refs are merely to a press release about his parent's company giving him a scholarship. DGG (talk) 17:00, 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 merge to Gateways as an acceptable compromise between deleting the content and maintaining a separate article. Shereth 16:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai Becher[edit]

This is the third of three new biographies [15] [16] [17] about the small full-time staff of an Orthodox Jewish organization called Gateways that has about four or five full time rabbis working for it. The article about its founder was nominated for deletion for not being notable beyond creating the organization. Another article about one of its rabbis was then nominated for deletion for Wikipedia:Content forking, failing Wikipedia:Notability (people) and a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. The same goes for the present article because it's about an Orthodox rabbi who is advertised as being "notable" having served in the Israeli army and is a popular speaker among the newly-religious. These criteria are not enough to establish notability. To his credit he has written a few books geared to newly-religious Jews, but such literature is also very widespread and such authors are not regarded as notable writers as these writings are mostly collections of their pep talks. This biography, like those of the other two rabbis, should be part of the organization (Gateways) that these rabbis have for many years created, served, and will be serving, as matters stand, and the biography/ies should be deleted and all their content merged into the main Gateways article. (Note, Wikipedia does not have and has avoided having "biographies" about every last outreach rabbi associated with Chabad, Aish HaTorah and Ohr Somayach all of whom can be "cited" as doing the exact same things Rabbi Becher does, and he is no exception.) IZAK (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect and move all material to the main Gateways article. IZAK (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep
- Gateways is an organization. Rabbi Becher works for Gateways. Gateways employs less than 50 full-time professionals and staff members. So yes, Rabbi Becher will be at the forefront of Gateways. However, Rabbi Becher exists independantly from Gateways, as do the other rabbis whose articles are being questioned on the basis of frivolously false assertions and subjective, disparate remarks. He is the author of, as cited, critically acclaimed, wildly popular texts and lectures that are delivered throughout the United States and internationally as well -- this is not forking of a single unit but elaboration of two separate, distinct and substantial entities.
- Citations have been provided for Rabbi Becher being world reknowned, internationally popular and having written critically acclaimed, instant hit texts - he is clearly notable.
- This is not advertising any more than any other article of any other celebrity who is famous because something he or she writes, says, fabricates, manufactures or thinks about has been put into commercially viable "packaging" and sold for profit.
- Your premise for this AfD is similarly invalid -- Delete, redirect and move is incomprehensible. If we delete and redirect, what are we moving? You mean to merge this article, for which this is an inproper forum. This is for deleting articles that do not merit existence based on violations of Wikipedia policy, such as lack of notability, lack of encyclopedic content or copyright violation. None of these apply, and your very admission that you recommend redirect attests to your lack of precision in generating this AfD.
- To his credit he has written a few books geared to newly-religious Jews, but such literature is also very widespread and such authors are not regarded as notable writers as these writings are mostly collections of their pep talks

Do you have citations to support your subjective assertion that this type of writing is widespread, and so widespread that authors are not notable even when they are the most sought after speakers in Jewish outreach? Do you have a source to support your subjective assertion that these writers, who are so sought out to be considered the most sought out in the country, are not notable because their writings are merely collections of their highly inspirational talks? Your disparaging remarks and poor use of words to describe both this and the other rabbis and related items is evidence of your lack of sensitivity for the subjects and topics covered by these articles -- perhaps you should refrain from making statements about them or recommending them for deletion, or deletion and redirection or even deletion, redirection and moving (whatever that means).

There are no "disparagements." Stick to the arguments. The fact that he writes some texts for ArtScroll is proof enough for you and anyone, since almost all of their non-textual Judaica in English is for outreach and the newly-observant. IZAK (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's not a criteria for notability. --neon white talk 17:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi neon white, my response was directed at User:DRosenbach who wanted "proofs" that "this type of writing is widespread, and so widespread that authors are not notable" and my reponse to him was that since the author writes for ArtScroll he is not necessarily notable. IZAK (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The clever inclusion of information regarding other articles and other people is a deliberate scheme to tie all articles I have recently started together to substantiate deletion or merge of one based on the merits or lack thereof of another. The excessive bolding of words used primarily for voting can be interpreted as a clear violation of unspoken voting rules, with the potential of overly affecting the votes of future voters by falsely giving the impression that there is more substantial support for a particular type of vote based on the times the bolded word appears in the vote discussion. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no scheme and no extra voting and my Wikipedia writing style is fine so kindly lower your tones and accusations and of red herring arguments and stick to the discussions at hand. The fact remains that you chose to create four articles for one subject (Gateways) when one (Gateways) would have sufficed. The fact that right off the bat you chose to create separate brochure-like articles about a single organization and its three top rabbis, all of whom either founded and have worked full-time for that organzation for well on a decade, runs smack into problems of violating WP:NOTADVERTISING; WP:NOTMYSPACE; WP:NOT#WEBHOST and also WP:NPOV since you seem to be focusing on their work which you regard as important without providing any alternate and critical views at any time, and it may be, but to create four articles about one organization that then forks into articles about its three top rabbis reveals a clear problem of a POV slide in their favor. Therefore uniting all four articles into the one main Gateways article is the logical and balanced solution at this time. IZAK (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided all of the alternate/critical views available -- apparently, no one but you and the people who agree with your assertions after having read them on this page seem to have anything criticla to say about Rabbi Becher -- so there is no violation of WP:NPOV. As this and other recent articles I have started are notpromoting causes or events, they are not violations of WP:NOTADVERTISING. I do not assert, nor have I ever, that these articles are "my" articles, or that this is "my information" -- they are primarily biographical articles of notable Orthodox Jewish rabbis who are heavily involved in kiruv and Jewish outreach. They are not merely the Chabad rabbi down the block -- they are nationally or internationally known for their riveting lecturing abilities, producing books and audio media that are critically acclaimed and/or wildly popular, they are sought after throughout the United States and they are giants in their field -- hardly non-notable. There is similarly no violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE, as not this, nor any of the other articles under discussion, are anything similar to: my personal web page, a file storage area, a dating service or a memorial -- it's a wonder how this and other violations, or should I rephrase, non-violations, were mentioned without substantiation. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the principle of notability. The relevant guideline is here WP:N. Notability needs to be established with coverage in reliable second party sources, it differs from fame and success. We cannot accept your personal views of a person as grounds for notability. It needs to be verifiable and above all neutral, which this article has major problems with. Please remember to assume good faith and do not take an afd personally it is merely an editing process. --neon white talk 17:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Olden Polynice, Jim Farmer, Jeff Nelson, Mark LeVoir, and a thousand other individuals featured with articles? Most people probably don't know who they are, and they didn't do much other than their job, which was to play basketball, football or another sport for whichever team paid them to show up. But they are notable because not that many people get to play professional sports and thats why they have an article. In much the same way, Rabbis Becher, Rietti and Suchard are notable because they are leaders in their field. They may not make hundreds of thousands of dollars or write books or give speaches that are read of listened to by hundreds of thousands of people, but they are leaders in their field and are appreciated for it by the many thousands of people who do know who they are, do listen to their lectures, do read their books and do think they should be featured by articles because of the notability generated by these feats. These feats, and the associated notability, are well documented by the multiple sources provided. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid arguement for keeping an article as it presumes every article on wikipedia is perfect. Individuals who play professional sports are inherently notable, unless the person in question has then that is irrelevant to the discussion. You will need to provide evidence that he is considered a significant figure in the academic or literary world. None of the sources in the article currently do this. A person may have achieved alot but if it is not noted by second party sources then they cannot be said to be notable. --neon white talk 01:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you should bring up WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because you failed to recognize that I only included a discussion of various other dubiously meritorious articles after other editors compared both this and other rabbis with the vast majority of rabbis who do not have articles -- to state that these rabbis don't deserve articles because those other rabbis don't have articles is a clear violation of what is written in the aformentioned policy. My statements in reference to these professional sportsmen do not constitute the bulk or even a major portion of my argument -- they were merely a rebuttal of the suggestion that these rabbis cannot have articles because not every Jewish outreach rabbi can have an article.

There are also 4 third party citations (Jewish Press, Texas Jewish Post and two from Jewish World Review) substantiating Rabbi Becher's notability, so your assertions that the article does not "do this" is incorrect. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a well-written biography. The only problem is Mordechai Becher is non-notable person. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he is -- as cited by multiple sources establishing both his noted popularity and the demand for his works, both written and spoken. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Gateways. Culturalrevival (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As i have said many times, a person is not notable simply for doing his or her job. However this person has published works but so far i cannot find much second party coverage. --neon white talk 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per nom. Rabbi Becher doesn't seem to be notable at this time. When he becomes notable, he should have an encyclopedia article of his own. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am inclined to think of publication by one of a small number of well-known religious publishers like Artscroll and his status as a commentator in the OU as as representing a reasonable gatekeeping criterion for notability in the religious Jewish world. My difficullty with IZAK's view is that it leaves me with criteria which seem to be entirely subjective, while the difficulty with acepting only publication in academic journals and the like is that it prevents what are really very notable religious perspectives from being reliably represented. It seems to me that relying on accepted gatekeeper institutions who have a reputation for reliability in the religious world involved represents a reasonable application of the core Wikipedia policy principles to the particular context. Of course one can always disagree with Artscroll's decision to publish certain authors, just as one can disagree with any source's decision to regard a particular individual as notable. But at least by relying on well-known institutions we are relying on sources that have a well-documented degree of acceptance in the community, not ourselves, to make the decision. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of that really guarantees notability. According to WP:CREATIVE, we are required to show that he is either an 'important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors , is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique or has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work. I cannot find evidence that any of these is true. --neon white talk 01:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's a religious figure, not an artist or academic. I believe WP:CREATIVE aren't the relevant criteria, applying them would be something like claiming an academic isn't notable because he hasn't won any league championships or starred in any academy-award winning movies. The community hasn't agreed on specific criteria for religious figures, so the general notability criteria for people are the relevant ones. These criteria are simply multiple WP:reliable sources. The relevant issue then becomes what constitutes a reliable source to identify who is notable in the Orthodox Jewish religious field. This is the issue I am addressing in my previous comment. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is also an author and an academic which come under WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACADEMIC criteria, i believe that is the only chance for notability due to the lack of second party sources needed for WW:BIO. --neon white talk 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it required that there be a book written about Rabbi Becher? There are no books written about more than half of all professional American sports figures, yet they have articles. Clearly, the criteria you are demanding are not being applied across the board, and constitutes discrimination by being applied strictly here. Citing 20 sources that substantiate that he is well known enough as a superb and leading member of the Jewish outreach movement should suffice for notability. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRosenbach, the problem here is that the community has agreed to specific notability criteria for athletes(WP:ATHLETE), creative professionals (WP:CREATIVE), and certain other classes of people that give them a kind of "free pass" from the general notability criteria, on grounds that if one has had certain kinds of major accomplishments in ones field one is very likely notable. However, the community hasn't agreed to similar criteria for religious figures, so there's no general agreement that certain kinds of leadership positions or accomplishments in the field of religion make a religious figure automatically notable. I myself once proposed a set of criteria, and other people have as well, and so far they've all been voted down. See WP:Notability (religious figures). So yes, sports and religious figures are treated differently. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why this unevenhanded strictness with religious figures? Every professional athlete can have a page, while professioanl rabbis must have published a book? If a rabbi is touted as "one of the most prominent Jewish outreach speakers in America" and as being "internationally reknowned," why this unfairness? While I disagree that a person is not notable for doing his job (every POTUS, VP, Secretary of State, Manager of the Yankees, etc.) these rabbis are not ordinary -- they are extraordinary! And while that is my opinion, this opinion is based on the fact that they are heralded as such. Why is there so much contention? They are notable, as cited by the sources provided. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simply answer is that religious figures are not as widely recognised as sports figures, actors etc. It isn't 'strictness' the general guidelines apply. However if this figure is recognised as a renowned professor, author etc we would need a second or third party independent source that says that. So far we don't have that. --neon white talk 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is not invited to speak in so many places for any reason other than his being notable. That is also why he has his own radio show as well as 3 cable television programs. There are now multiple citations provided from legitimate third-party journalistic sources. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many people invited to speak at non-notable and many shows on small cable channel and radio stations, none of this a criteria for notability nor is it proof that he is recognised as renowned. see WP:SYNTH. No sources have been presented so far. --neon white talk 13:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would prefer a different approach to the current one. Some inconsistencies are inevitable in a decentralized decision-making system. I've personally been unhppy that there are special notability criteria for (for example) pornographic actors, but not for (for example) philosophers and inventors (unless they happen to be academics, which many philosophers and inventors weren't). I personally think many kinds of people without special categories have made a much greater contribution to knowledge than many who have them, and I personally think the list of categories doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia's seriousness as an encyclopedia. (It's one thing to allow popular culture trivia, it's another thing to give it preferences and special passes). But so we have it. --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak keep. Unlike some of the others involved with this organization, this individual has a number of publications which I think gets him over the minimal threshhold of notability. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to guidelines. Writing a book is not a criteria. It has to be a significant work. --neon white talk 13:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be taken as a sign of weakness or censession to what I see as the unjustified, quite popular opinion, but if the regulations are unclear and there can really be so much back and forth without so much as a sway of anyone's convictions, perhaps this is being blown way out of proportion. Why can't you ignore what you see as a potential violation, of what may appear as an article without merit being allowed to continue to exist. The inclusion of this article presents information on an individual who many people deem notable and popular, even if you do not feel this way. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think having article on every single person is improving wikipedia, there has to be a 'cut-off' line. The relevant info in this article can easily be merged. --neon white talk 15:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say your objectivety has, unfortunately, disappeared some time ago. You argue, but you do not take my responses into consideration -- I haven't written an article on every single person. I have merely written articles on three individuals I find to be notable and that I could substantiate as being notable to many people, yourself and people of similar mind excluded. The very fact that you still contend that everyone can't have an article demonstrates that you have lost touch with both the spirit of this debate as well as the purpose of Wikipedia. This debate is not on whether or not I can write an article for Mordechai Becher and my mom and my mailman and my dental assistant. I, too, believe it or not, agree that not every single person should have a Wikipedia article -- and I have never suggested such a thing. But that is a far cry from writing an article on Mordechai Becher, an outstanding and leading voice in the fight against assimilation of nonobservant Jews in America who has gone out on a limb and authored books, hosted radio and television programs and traveled the country -- nay, the world -- to further his fight against losing Jewish souls. There is no relevant and irrelevant information in this article -- his notability has been established by the many independant news outlet citations, and the remainder serve to inform the reader of Rabbi Becher's various endeavors, both serious and liesurely, as does the content of any other celebrity article, such as that of Tom Cruise or Will Smith. All worthy, available information is to be incorporated into this article so that it can be the best source of verifiable information about Mordechai Becher. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little cool might be in order. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shirahadasha that you (User:DRosenbach) need to tone down, especially when using words like "nay" it sets off the wrong buttons. Just calm down please. While Rabbi Becher is indeed a wonderful and idealistic rabbi, YET he is no different to thousands of others like him in the modern world who work in the field of kiruv ("Jewish outreach") as do all the thousands of Lubavitch Shluchim or Shlichim today and while they all do great work for Orthodox Judaism all over the world in very unique ways with constant public lectures and seminars all over, radio and TV shows, any other PR, and many with books and columns that they publish, yet they are not all on the level to qualify for biographies on Wikipedia and they never will be because Wikipedia is not chabad.org and neither is it "gateways.org" so please do not make this into a personal campaign. Noone is eliminating him when his bio can easily fit in the main Gateways article, which is a lot better situation than the no mention that the bulk of kiruv rabbis the world over do not get on Wikipedia. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:58, 20 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. TigerShark (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanlal Trivia[edit]

The subject and their career are already covered in some detail in Mohanlal and Mohanlal filmography, trivia sections are generally discouraged and this article cites no sources for verification. Important information about the subject should be covered in the main article with sections split off if necessary. Guest9999 (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an inappropriate article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All sourced information belongs in Mohanlal and Mohanlal filmography. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is like a Ad...Naveenpf (talk) 13:23, 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 delete. Shereth 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technology and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Seems like an unpublished synthesis of published material. Essentially just a list of quotes for and against technology by LDS sources, no actual prior research on this topic is quoted. See prior discussions on Talk:Technology and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Technology_Merge_proposal. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an inappropriate article. This type of articles shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I participated in a similar discussion regarding technology and Islam not too long ago, and have reached the same conclusion here as I did there: delete because pointing out specific examples of technology relating to the LDS is potentially WP:POV. Happyme22 (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYN per nom. Among the sources, none are dedicated to addressing this topic directly. Essentially a collection of quotes about the subject cherry picked from official and semi-official LDS Church sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Trödel 14:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trodel (talk • contribs) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything is referenced and the article looks as WP:NPOV as possible. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please see WP:SYN, part of the long-standing policy against original research on Wikipedia. While the article may meet the criteria of NPOV, this is not enough to justify inclusion.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I saw that, and the statement "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing" is what convinced me. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - You can't tell me this sentence is not blatant original research that sets up the whole article for synthesis: "The evolution of the relationship between technology and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has evolved over the years, like many other organizations, to play a prominent role in how the organization further its message and work in TV, books, Internet, etc." (Which by the way is the only sentence in the whole article that gives it any context).--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article is (I think) mistitled and should be The Attitude of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Technology. A synthesis of this kind is potentially encyclopaedic, even without the synthesis appearing elsewhere, provided everything used is adequately cited. However, the whole article is extremely mundane, and I am far from convinced of its merit. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This article should have been deleted long ago - the article is obscure, orphaned, and relies almost solely on information from the LDS church itself. The information in entire article could be summarized in about two sentences on the main LDS page.--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going on move to what Peterkingiron said, but weakly so. It comes off as an essay. If anything, a transwiki or transplant to Wikinacle might work better. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of source material with significant discussion of the topic is convincing to me. This is basically original research by cherry picking quotes, that can't achieve a neutral point of view unless others have researched and written on the topic as a whole. GRBerry 15:36, 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 Delete per WP:SNOW as wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Davewild (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Driveway Pong[edit]

Per WP:NFT. Was de-prodded by an IP. Fraud ^{talk to me} 06:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the very definition of WP:NFT --Closedmouth (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pour down the drain. Yep, NFT. There isn't really any explicit claim here that anybody but its creators have played this game. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but consider content merge into WP:SILLY if it were still accepting new material. Jclemens (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per WP:NFT. macy^talk 12:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Utter nonsense. WWGB (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid. JuJube (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: I would suggest just a plain delete on the basis of WP:NOT#HOWTO unless this could be fixed, but I am upping it to speedy because it is a description of the works of non-notable people who are named by first-name only. Hellno2 (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up one day, and is a a how-to guide to play this non-notable recently madeup game. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:13, 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 Nomination withdrawn, see last comment Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 13:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Biddle[edit]

The author (Clinix1 (talk · contribs)) contested a seconded PROD for failure to meet WP:BIO criteria with sufficient WP:RS ... the author also appears to be a WP:SOCK of the subject (Stephanie biddle (talk · contribs)), who has ~~extensively~~ also edited the article. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tried to clean the article up and remove the possible copyvio text. I think the references (sometimes embedded in the text in the form of excerpts from reviews) are enough to establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have had coverage only in local newspapers, but as they are from multiple locations, she seems notable enough. Epbr123 (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteable according to WP:MUSIC, WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BIO. The references in the text are in parts to music and festival pages, only one to a newspaper, where she is not significantly covered. The mentions of the Miami Herald and the Montreal Gazette are not proven, and I couldn't find mention of her on those pages. Amalthea (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A notable North-American english speaking musician should do a lot better in terms of media coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is blatant vanispamcruftisement that violates WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:COPYVIO ... it's a copy&paste from the subject's own website, and it was added by the subject of the article ... Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:COPYVIO. GreenJoe 23:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyvio text was removed a couple of days ago. Epbr123 (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable, her credits are for small-to-middle parts in generally small productions, and her musical credits aren't enought to convince me to keep the article, either. There are other issues as noted in previous comments, too. PKT (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC criterion #1. The article "Biddle bit of... a superstar" (South China Morning Post, Oct 12, 2005. p. 2) says, "The Montreal native appeared with Bruce Willis and Matthew Perry in The Whole Nine Yards, sang with Vanessa Williams in a TV version of A Christmas Carol and starred in a West African movie based on the opera Carmen." There is also a full-length (1100-word) profile of her: Perusse, B. "Stephanie Biddle carries the torch", Montreal Gazette, 30 March 2003, p. B1. There are also plenty of minor mentions of her, for her work in the film Karmen Gei, including the Vancouver Sun, the Globe and Mail and the Chicago Tribune, all in 2002. I will add these references. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please do add them, as these could very well allow her to meet WP:N. A google new search for her name doesn't appear to turn up such sources. DigitalC (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the reminder. I've started, and will add more later today. But anyone who has access to archives of these newspapers is welcome to help out. :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The article has shown significant improvement since I initiated this AfD 4 days ago (including removal of the COPYVIO material), so I guess that it was ultimately a Good Thing ... I hereby reverse my opinion, and I withdraw the nomination for deletion. :-) — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 22:33, 19 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 13:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Light Junkie[edit]

Neologism of no notability. No sources, and google hits do not show this usage for this term Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. In the absence of sources to the contrary, this appears to be a purely local non-notable description of the phenomenon. – iridescent 04:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems very original research to me, not just because of the lack of sources, or the use of words such as "many", but because if it is indeed a colloquialism (or neologism) of limited use (as the article purports) then I doubt such sources would exist at all. Calgary (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the most this would be a dictionary entry. I notice that the article is about the expression, not about the "red light junkies" themselves. The info, which I am sure is true, should be mentioned in Volunteer firefighter. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the content of the article is already at Volunteer_firefighter#Emergency response and that which is not already present yet reliably sourcacble--which in my estimation probably does not include the term itself--would indeed be more appropriately included there. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Apparently a lot of the material is already present inanother article, too. Happyme22 (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:55, 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 merge to Ottawa municipal election, 2003. While there was no clear and obvious consensus to redirect, the fact that there was a rough split between keep and delete tells me there is some weight to the argument that she is somewhat notable but perhaps not enough for an article - thus merging seems to make the most sense. Shereth 16:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Upson[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Fails WP:BIO. She's a failed mayoral candidate. Not at all notable. First nom. Delete GreenJoe 03:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, I don't see how there's substantial coverage in enough depth, detail, or quantity to establish notability. If she hasn't done anything notable, and she hasn't recieved significant coverage by multiple independent sources, then I don't see evidence of notability. Calgary (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Failed candidates at the civic level are not notable. Reso lute 04:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Resolute. Fails primary notability, news coverage is not in-depth, nor is it widespread, certainly not enough to mitigate failure at WP:POLITICIAN. Franamax (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Donna is certainly not a likeable person, and her percentage of the vote was about enough to suggest that the only people who voted for her were blind or accidentally filled in the wrong box. Still, despite being a fringe candidate, she was obviously a controversial figure during the Ottawa city elections in 2003, and she was written up in "higher-level" sources like the CBC. I think the article deserves to stay. Halifax Nomad (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that she isn't notable. WP:POLITICIAN says that any candidate can be notable, so long as he/she meets the WP:N criteria. This person certainly does, as notability is asserted and is backed up with reliable, third party sources. Happyme22 (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. She is a failed candidate at the civic level. She is not notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a minor candidate but she received a good deal of press coverage when she ran. - SimonP (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the primary notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Amalthea (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Ottawa municipal election, 2003 per WP:ONEEVENT. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This issue has already been settled in the past. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One AFD does not permanently settle inclusion for all time; any article can be renominated at any time if there are legitimate reasons to revisit the issue. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that is true, notability doesn't expire. If an article was on a notable subject at one time, reliably sourced, etc., it's improper to remove it based on some idea, as I see here, that the subject is a "failed candidate." She *was* notable, so she still is. On the other hand, if she wasn't notable then, and the AfD was essentially a mistake, then it's proper to repeat it. The "failed candidate" argument is, however, the reason given for deletion. I've convinced myself, now I'll make a !vote. --Abd (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article wasn't reliably sourced — it didn't contain a single source until a week ago Wednesday, and even the sources that are in the article now don't really make all that compelling a case for viewing her as anything more than a minor footnote to a more notable topic. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Ottawa municipal election, 2003. I think the sentence where she is mentioned in the Election article is sufficient for this person. PKT (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as above, this person is not notable enough for their own article. -Djsasso (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Running for office doesn't automatically make you a politician. IMO, not notable. Suttungr (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect, like Brewcrewer and others have stated.--Boffob (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I voted to keep in the original AFD, three years on I now feel that I and other people confused current news with long-term notability. She was a relatively current news story at the time, but that doesn't make her permanently notable — it just makes her a failed mayoral fringe candidate whose 15 minutes of fame ended years ago. There's little need to keep this permanently; in hindsight she's nothing more than a minor local historical footnote who's notable only for one event, and thus merits one or two lines in Ottawa municipal election, 2003 at the absolute most. Merge or delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This woman has been connected to the Klan and the National Socialist Movement in Canada, and was in national press when she ran into a church with a Black congregation and began screaming slurs. She's a psychotic "politician" who is certainly notable (albeit for all the wrong reasons). Frank Pais (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But she's not a politician. Registering as a municipal candidate in Ontario does not make one a politician, it makes one a fringe candidate. The article subject has done nothing of a political nature before or since, thus, hardly a politician. Franamax (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping an article just because we think that the subject is psychotic is almost certainly a wild WP:BLP violation. Bearcat (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per the reasons expressed by Frank Pais. I think it is very important content for this encyclopedia, especially for anyone who may begin researching (anti-)racism on wikipedia. wiki is not paper. --Mista-X (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:BIO1E covers this sort of issue.--Boffob (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There has been news coverage about her well before her candidacy: There are two distinct newsworthy incidents listed on Donna Upson before the election in 2003, one in early 2000 and one in mid 2001. If all those articles were just fallout from the "one event", the election, I might agree that WP:BIO1E covers this case, but that's not how it is. Amalthea (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without her candidacy for mayor, the article wouldn't even be here, because the other events would never have gotten her an article on their own. So WP:BIO1E certainly does apply here, because the mayoral candidacy is the one and only reason she even has an article for AFD to discuss. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:WP:NOTNEWS. Those other two incidents do not have "significant lasting and historical interest and impact" either.--Boffob (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2000/2001 coverage is really a single incident, crime and punishment. Further, the 2001 incident is left at "allegedly assaulted" - the followup doesn't seem available (unusually for CBC). We can't leave an article with an allegation, surely that's a BLP problem - if we can't provide the resolution, we shouldn't have the allegation either. So we're left with an incident in 2000 and a municipal candidacy, which almost anyone can do, if they have the $200 [18]. I'm not seeing how this adds up to notability except by the standards of "let's have an article on every single racist we can identify". Now, I'm all for making those identifications, but how about by referenced list format? There's not enough here for a standalone article. Franamax (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Last place candidate from a municipal election 5 years ago is not (any longer) notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP doesn't say innocent until proven guilty, except for racists. We have a description of unresolved criminal charges, old enough that the case certainly ought to have been resolved by now, without a conclusion. That's just not material we ought to include at all. Absent that, the only remaining information is a trivial result as a minor party candidate in a single municipal election. Fails Wikipedia:POLITICIAN? I think so, pretty much for the same reason I oppose referring to high school shooters as gunmen: some boys hunger for manhood of any sort, no matter how destructive. Let this fade into the same obscurity as other fringe also-rans. On all other merits it's worth deleting, and an equal playing field for political obscurity discourages acting-out. Durova^Charge! 07:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Durova DigitalC (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article didn't currently exist, would anyone desire to create it? Franamax (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability doesn't expire, even if the interests of most editors move on. (However, Merge and Redirect may be reasonable, for efficiency.) I doubt that anyone "acts out" to get a Wikipedia article! --Abd (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that Notability doesn't expire, but I also feel that WP is not news. I think she may have been "notable" in a newsworthy sense, but not in an encyclopedic & historical sense. DigitalC (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, actually notability does expire. The pressing issue of this particular today may be the afterthought of tomorrow. That's not necessarily due to the moving interests of Wikipedia editors, more to the perspective and wisdom that only time can bring. In the particular case, we're looking at a marginal-BLP that exists only to proclaim "she's a racist! Look, we found one!". An illustration of the sad state of humanity, of course, a subject worthy of an encyclopedia, paper or infinite? Why? Deletion is the best response, not even worthy of our thoughts here. Franamax (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you just ignore them,they go away, right? --Mista-X (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. Ignore the concepts they present, and they become irrelevant. Pay attention or be hysterical about it - now you've brought the debate exactly where they want it to be. "Never do battle with fools. First they'll bring you down to their own level, then they'll use their superior experience to win" (from a wiser person than I) Franamax (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's suggesting that we delete articles about notable figures in the racist movement. But what exactly does it accomplish to keep an encyclopedia article about a trivial figure whose most notable accomplishment was a single fringe mayoral candidacy which garnered only slightly more votes than John C. Turmel, and which nobody ever took all that seriously in the first place? How does it serve the interests of anti-racism to keep encyclopedia articles about non-notable and completely unimportant people just on the basis that they're racists? I haven't honestly seen a case being made that she's actually encyclopedically notable — I'm seeing "we should keep her because we kept her before" (to which the answer is that consensus can change) and "we should keep her because she's such a horrible nasty racist piece of work" (to which the answer is that while that's true, it's a blatant WP:BLP violation to keep an article on an otherwise non-notable person just because we want to publicize how slimy she is.) Bearcat (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Durova et al. Not notable. --Killerofcruft (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep as an important source on a figure who seems to emerge every year in Canadian politics and cause a stir. Her involvement in founding arguably dangerous white power groups is also a cause for people to be informed about her. There has been heavy television coverage on Upson. A lesser degree of Internet sources should not invalidate how noteworthy she is. Cornflakes-are-great (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC) — Cornflakes-are-great (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

When on earth has she emerged in Canadian politics or caused even the most minimal stir since her mayoral candidacy in 2003? She gets zero hits on Google News, and even a regular Google search doesn't bring up a single news article about her that isn't a piece published in 2003 about her mayoral candidacy — and there aren't even very many of those at all. Almost all of the actual Google hits about her are public archives of e-mail groups, which aren't valid Wikipedia sources. There hasn't been heavy television coverage of her; that would show up on Google. She absolutely, utterly does not register on the news radar outside of the context of the 2003 municipal election in Ottawa, and even in that context she was an inconsequential blip. (Plus I'd be remiss if I didn't also make note of the fact that this !vote is Cornflakes' first-ever Wikipedia contribution apart from their own user page.) Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 20 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 all. There may be some merit to the discussion regarding renaming these articles or redirecting/merging them elsewhere but there is certainly no consensus to delete the material. Shereth 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1801 California Street[edit]

Also similar articles:

Five very unremarkable stubs. Reminds me of WP:EVERYTHING. Same info is included in List of tallest buildings in Denver so stubs can be re-created as notability comes in. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Amazingly unremarkable buildings that don't have any info for them besides the fact that they're buildings. Deathawk (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete all - the only argument to keep is that they are tall. But List of tallest buildings in Denver looks to have that covered --T-rex 03:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The historically-tallest buildings in a major US city should be considered notable. Even if it turns out these articles can't be expanded (which I doubt is the case), we can still convert these into redirects, so no deletion tools are necessary. Zagalejo^^^ 05:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does being US matter? Denver is the 26th largest in US, pop 566,974. It's known for high altitude and remote location, not tall structures or overall size. Redirect conversion is not a keep argument, and these are all orphans anyway. Potatoswatter (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't orphans. Besides, an article's being an orphan does not preclude turning it into a redirect. (Of course, they don't need to become redirects at this point, thanks to Raime's hard work.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The building don't even have names and the articles are one-sentence each! They don't deserve anything more than one line in a telephone book let alone their own full page in an encyclopedia. Halifax Nomad (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Many important buildings are known mainly by their addresses. (10 Downing Street?) That's not a valid reason for deletion. 2) Stubs have always been allowed. We have thousands of them. I've added references verifying that each of these buildings was once the tallest in Denver, so each has a legitimate claim to notability. Zagalejo^^^ 08:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair to compare these buildings to Downing Street , because in essence, that is it's name rather than just a reference point, as can be verified by searching through multiple secondary sources that refer to it as such. As for the buildings listed up for deletion, if all these buildings were at one time the tallest building in Denver, perhaps one article with all of these buildings listed would better suffice, unless there is more to write about them than just one sentence. Halifax Nomad (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: For now, delete since they are covered in List of tallest buildings in Denver . If they warrant an individual write-up later, then do it then. Halifax Nomad (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - These building articles could easily be expanded, particularly 1801 California Street, the second-tallest building in the city that once was home to the brightest lights in the world. The other buildings are also notable, as they all at one time stood as the tallest building in Denver. I will work to expand all of the articles in a few hours. Cheers, Rai•me 13:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reference to "brightest lights in the world"; I can't find any reference to Denver ever having the brightest lights in the world. Even if it did, there is no obvious correlation between the tallest buildings and the brightest lights. By that logic, we would have to have an article about the second-brightest light in Kuala Lumpur, because that city used to have the world's tallest building. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See these pages: [19], [20], for clarification. Both of those references are now used in the article, and there is an entire paragraph on the lights. Sorry, but I don't understand the second part of your statement; height doesn't play a factor in this aspect of the building's notability at all, it is just the fact that the building was home to the brightest high-rise lights in the world, visible over 70 miles away, that is notable. What does Kuala Lumpur have to do with anything? Cheers, Rai•me 20:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of when this AfD was posted, there was nothing in the article about 1801 California Street itself having the brightest lights in the world, and I hadn't been able to find anything about the brightest lights in the world being anywhere in Denver. That's why I misinterpreted your phrase "the second-tallest building in the city that once was home to the brightest lights in the world" to mean that the brightest lights in the world had been somewhere in Denver, but not necessarily at this building, and the analogy I constructed based on that was inaccurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right... brightest commercial sign in the world is very different from brightest light. In any case, the source is not WP:RS for that kind of thing. They simply present an anecdote about how it was "stupid bright" and residents complained, so this record-setting, if valid, was short-lived. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course I'm aware these are former tallest buildings in Denver. That is simply a non-notable distinction. Denver has never had a tradition of tall buildings—very few cities do. A series on Denver registered landmarks would make sense. This doesn't. Please read WP:EVERYTHING before participating here. And on the other hand, please don't ask to delete on the basis of little content in the article. That hurts the cause. Potatoswatter (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the city is home to 190 high-rises, was home to one of the first skyscrapers west of the Mississippi River, the Daniels & Fisher Tower, and currently has the 16th-largest skyline in the US. So, I don't think it is true that "Denver has never had a tradition of tall buildings", and the title of "tallest building in Denver" isn't exactly a "non-notable distinction". I don't think that my argument amounts to WP:EVERYTHING at all; I would never argue that all high-rises in a city should have an article, but ones that formerly stood as the tallest in a very large city that has a history of skyscraper construction (not as large as that of Chicago or New York, but a history nonetheless) do have claims of notability. Cheers, Rai•me 20:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge all into a single article. Hellno2 (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of tallest buildings in Denver per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now based on the improvement to 1801 California Street. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but these articles need infoboxes and properly formatted refs. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 18:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have substantially expanded the 1801 California Street article, adding 4 references and an infobox as well. At the very least, this article should not be deleted/merged, as the building is very notable; it is not only the second-tallest building in the city, but also the 101st-tallest building in the United States, the and the subject of reliable secondary sources (see this article, for example). I will now work on improving the other 4 articles. Cheers, Rai•me 20:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me that this building should stay, but I think the article should be renamed to Qwest Tower, if that indeed really is the building's name and not just a nickname. Halifax Nomad (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a nickname. The building that was formerly officially known as "Qwest Tower" was 555 17th Street. 1801 California is only known locally as Qwest Tower due to its glaring blue Qwest logos. Cheers, Rai•me 21:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now done with 707 17th Street. It is now also substantially long, is notable due to its distinct "setfront" feature (explained and referenced in the article), and is also the subject of relaible, secondary sources such as this article. Next I will improve 555 17th Street. Cheers, Rai•me 23:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you found lots of facts, but nothing interesting or notable (in the traditional sense of the word, not WP:N which requires nothing more than WP:V). It was tallest in Denver for only two years. Constructed and occupied by a huge company which later went bankrupt. Left largely vacant until the office space was discounted to a major hotel chain. You've proven that this mundane subject can be researched, but is it better to spend your time on such an article or to delete it with no prejudice on a later rewrite? Who will ever care about this information? Should you spend your time and skills trying (apparently) to frustrate me and this process, or helping with WP:REQUEST? Potatoswatter (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrating you or this process was not a goal of mine at all, and I am sorry that you feel that way. The facts may be uninteresting to you, but there are readers who do not agree; Leitmanp stated below that the articles "provide notable content", and I suspect that this usage may refer to the traditional sense of the word as well. WP:N may require nothing more than WP:V, but that is the policy used to determine whether a topic should have an article or not, so it should not be disregarded here because you feel that the information provided in the several reliable, independent sources is "uninteresting." The "Wikipedia sense of the word" is all that matters here. I do feel that it is better to spend my time researching and improving articles about topics that I am interested in and do not believe should be deleted. Cheers, Rai•me 03:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be better to delete this? Zagalejo^^^ 05:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point of the process is so that it can be frustrated when articles that should be kept are proposed for deletion, and I applaud User:Raime for putting in the time to enhance these stubs. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article says "brightest high-rise signs in the world" (used to be). That is a good reason to keep. FYW09 (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Erm.. can you point us in the direction of the policy or guideline that expresses Wikipedia's policy of "brightest high-rise signs in the world"? Rehevkor ✉ 00:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be an explicit policy that states that the building with the brightest lights in the world is notable, but there is a policy, WP:N, that states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Given that the 1801 California Street article has 4 such reliable independent sources, I believe that it meets these criteria. Cheers, Rai•me 02:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. To make this super black and white: WP:EVERYTHING/WP:IINFO say that such a single piece of trivia does NOT result in a whole separate article. That is my whole point. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVERYTHING clearly states that "the most basic threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The verifiability requirement alone would prevent writing about every particle and limit the information that could be included on every person. Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what should be kept." These articles are verifiable (citing several reliable sources) and meet the notability guidelines, so I don't see how WP:EVERYTHING is a valid argument for the deletion of these articles. I also don't see how WP:IINFO is a valid argument, given that the articles are in no way one or more of the five things listed there. Cheers, Rai•me 03:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update on article progress: I have now finished improving all of the articles. I believe that 1801 California Street, 707 17th Street, and 555 17th Street are all sufficiently notable. 633 17th Street and 621 17th Street are alo notable, but as the buildings are in the same complex, it would make sense to merge those two articles into one article titled First of Denver Plaza, which is the name of the two-building complex. At present, although several sources are listed for each building, the information is very repetitive. Cheers, Rai•me 02:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all; after the expansions to all the articles by Raime, I feel they are well sourced and provide notable content. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per User:Leitmanp, though I'd like to see infoboxes on each one, and they should probably be renamed to "1801 California Street (Denver building)", etc., to avoid headaches later if there are name-space collisions. That will happen eventually. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an infobox to each article. And yes, should there be any name-space collisions, I agree that the buildings should be moved (just the addition of a "(Denver)" to the title would be the norm for naming skyscrapers, i.e. Republic Plaza (Denver)), but until then, they are probably fine where they are, as there is no need for such disambiguation at present. Cheers, Rai•me 11:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for suggesting adding the disambiguation now is for pages that might link to these; if the disambiguation happens later, they'll all have to be updated to avoid a disambiguation page. I don't actually expect a lot of pages linking to these articles, so it might not be an issue, but if they were likely to get lots of inbound links, you'd be saving a lot of work by providing a unique page at the start. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely see your point. But these articles each only link to about five articles each and they aren't likely to get much more than that (probably 20 at most). So, it isn't really much of an issue. If disambiguation is needed in the future, the pages could easily be moved, and the 5 to 20 links could easily be repaired. Cheers, Rai•me 02:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Arguing for deletion simply because they are stubs is lame. Besides, I looked at some of the articles, and they don't look to be stubs. Someone might have added content between then and now, but regardless, that's what stubs do: they grow into non-stub articles. — D. Wo. 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it hard to imagine that a building that was the tallest in a major city for even a brief while is not somewhat notable. Everyking (talk) 23:00, 19 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Curve (shopping mall)[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability Mardetanha ^talk 01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep one of the most noted shopping malls in Malaysia. Its neighbours like Ikano Power Centre has an article. 1 Utama a shopping mall nearby also has an article. Gavatron (talk) 01:48 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It opened in 2005 and only reference is link to its homepage. Preceding argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF plus the word "strong" tacked on. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A mall of this size should be notable. The article does need more sources, but I can assume that they can be found, however given the common word, and a foreign language it's a bit hard to check. Still it looks doable [21] --T-rex 03:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a mall this size is surely notable. JJL (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Nominator may want to review searching methods. Sources indicate notability, and there are a lot of them. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's searching capabilities is not and should not be part of the discussion. Please refrain from making pseudo-personal attacks. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't intended as a personal attack, and I'm sorry that you see it as one. Unfortunately, the searching capability of the nominator is extremely relevant, both to this AfD and to any other; nominating something whose notability can be shown by a few well-defined searches doesn't help anybody, especially not the project. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Strong hypocrite" - thanks for posting irrelevant links and not summarizing them. What in your "sources" confers notability? Potatoswatter (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same things that confer notability to anything. Non-trivial mentions in multiple independent reliable sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete if it is notable, add the reliable, third party sources to the article. Happyme22 (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, the independent sources provided by Celarnor show some notability - Dumelow (talk)
Keep per the sources provided by Celarnor. I hate to argue WP:NUMBERWANG, but I would imagine that just about any mall with 250 stores is likely to be the subject of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though the article lacks references and uses the mall's own site as its lone external link, it obviously appears to be an important place in the region, and the article should be kept, while those familiar with the location make improvements. Sebwite (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The official source in the article claims [22] "net lettable area of 660,000 square feet" Per the "rejected notability guideline" for malls, WP:MALL, the ICSC, which is the governing body for malls, considers a mall of 400,000 to 800,000 sq ft a "regional mall" in the U.S. In Malaysia, one of 660,000 sq ft is probably quite a big deal. Malls of less than this size which have been kept in Afds include Dufferin Mall , Wenatchee Valley Mall , Westgate City Center , Forum Mall (Kolkata) , Brighton Mall , Karrinyup Shopping Centre , Hyde Park Village , Greensborough Plaza , Waitakere Mega Centre , Westfield Manukau City , Manukau Supa Centre , Southmall Manurewa , Brighton Mall , and The Mall at Partridge Creek , although some larger malls have been deleted for whatever reason. Edison (talk) 04:39, 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 delete as non-notable. Alex Muller 16:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outwit[edit]

Non-notable software/technology, could not find secondary references online that verify notability - contested Prod. Somno (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero sources, reads like an advertisement with POV issues. Is a lot of gibberish, to me, someone with little understanding of the subject. Rehevkor ✉ 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The creator of this page also added Outwit to screen scraping, but it was added to other pages by different users. (See the "what links here" page on outwit.
Weak Delete. I can't find a single source for this other than copy that looks to have been all taken from the same press blurb. When it's notable, recreate the page (as Outwit (software), please.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoDepositNoReturn (talk • contribs) 08:25, 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 delete. With phrases like "Handicapped forced to mendacity, minors pushed to delinquency, young girls subject to prostitution." and "Also Romanians are mostly the ones who will rob a not so attentive pedestrian on the street.", I was inclined to speedy this as an attack page. Neıl 龱 08:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian crime in Europe[edit]

Original research, basically. Imagine articles such as German crime in the Middle-East, Czech crime in the British Isles, or Irish crime in Russia. Francis Tyers · 15:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all this is not an original research, as almost every sentence is quoted with a reference to a verifiable serious source. There is a lot of statistical data in the article, and it all comes from official police reports. Secondly, the parallel with examples like Irish crime in Russia and others cannot be drawn, as Romanian crime in Europe has a mass effect in numerous countries of the European Union under different forms: from organised crime (UK, Italy, Spain, probably other EU countries touched by this phenomenon as well) to rape (Italy), murder by Romanian migrant individuals (Italy) and to credit card forgery (Spain). The EU Ministers of Home Security have met to decide and the solution is still pending in the EU instances for whether to reinstall border checks for Romanian citizen.--Moldopodo^talk 15:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Daily Mail is not a "serious source". At least in the UK, most of these articles are written by sensationalist, probably borderline xenophobic journalists. For comparisons, how about Polish crime in Europe, there are plenty of sources about that, including some from the Daily Mail. Also, before writing this I wonder if you think that UK tabloids are seriously able to distinguish between Moldovans and Romanians... - Francis Tyers · 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i agree the Daily Mail's extremist views on this subject is well known. Articles cannot be written based on the opinions of one source. It would need to be established that this subject is covered in depth by multiple sources. --neon white talk 18:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the "not so clear faith" editing of user Francis Tyers ·. First he nominates the article for deletion, then adds ocntroversial info about Moldavians. [23]--Moldopodo^talk 16:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the page was already deleted from italian wiki and it's going to be deleted in russian wiki. the author was in every page Moldopodo. The references like this doesn't say anything about "romanian crimes" --Ignlig (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian wiki is irrelevant, just as others for English Wikipedia. Please state the true reason why it was deleted from the Italian wiki: because the article was improperly translated. The same reason was invoked on the Russian Wikipedia.--Moldopodo^talk 19:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the sources, there simple is little evidence that the subject itself is notable. Article is highly POV and reads like a political soapbox, it's primary claim that this is a 'wide phenomenon' is entirely unsourced. I have doubts that this can be salvaged and the neutality issues dealt with. --neon white talk 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be deleted. We can't make articles about the crimes commited by some members each country's population. Not to say that Romania itself is located in Europe, so it would mean that the crimes commited by Romanian citizens in Romania should be mentioned too. Furthermore, the term "Romanians" can reffer to 1) the Romanian ethnic group or, 2) the Romanian citizens and the article doesnn't mention which one of those meanings of the term he refers to. Besides, the article is obviously an original research. Moldopodo's anti-Romanian attitude is obvious (a look to the list of his contributions says a lot in this sense). Besides, I'm pretty sure that he can't speak Romanian even at the level of a beginner (despite of that what he pretends of the babel of his talk page). --Olahus (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be kept. There is only one POV so far in the article[24]. Argumntation of User:Neon white seems contradictory: first he states there are not enough sources (which is not true, just have a look at the sections references and links), then he states regardless of sources. User Francis Tyers · has cited an article, but it does not say anywhere in the aforementioed article what the user wrote in the Romanian crime in Europe article regarding Moldavians' implication in the crimes committed by Romanians. That is a classcal example of WP:OR. Besides the same user ctiricized the very same source he cited himself and had initially filed this deletion log. So I really doubt whether all of this is really constructive. Anyway the article is about Romanians, but certainly, should a precise quote be properly found about, it has its place in the article. Unless then, this remains original research. To the contrary, I recuse accusations of POV from my side, as each of my sentences, can be reconfirmed by clicking on, the appropriate citation referenced link, and there are plenty of them (and wil be certainly more, once we'll start to dig in for info in Italian, Spanish, German languages in plus). User:Olahus' attitude is openly anti-Moldavian, it is simply enough to check the editing story of the user. Anyway, this kind of argumentation is first of all irrelevant here. User:Olahus, please remain civil as per Digwuren arbitration.--Moldopodo^talk 19:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. bogdan (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Major claims remain unsourced. This is mostly a work of WP:OR. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic of Romanian crime in a European context is certainly notable since we have multiple reliable sources such as the EU, BBC, The Times and The Economist writing about this. We don't have comparable articles about Irish crime in Russia because such other topics would be fantasy unsupported by similar reliable sources. We're just following the sources and this is neither original research nor a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources on Polish crime in Europe, should we create an article on that? - Francis Tyers · 20:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, remain civil and do not try to deviate the subject of the discussion, which is Romanian crime in Europe. You are free to create whatever you want, as long as you have it all properly sourced. If you do so, please do it as thouroughly as I did, quoting almost every sentence in the article.--Moldopodo^talk 20:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and remain on topic and do not make personal comments about other editors, it is considered bad taste in most internet encyclopaedias. - Francis Tyers · 20:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For an idea of how reliable the Daily Mail is, I was just forwarded this hilarious piece, "turning dried cannabis leaves into heroin."... Haha!! -- Francis Tyers · 20:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Daily Mail is not known for its fair portrayal of non-middle class ethnic British middle-aged conservatives, so I wouldn't say it was the best source for an article of this sort. Also, this article is somewhat racist, and suffers from BLP problems. As already said, we really don't have the infrastructure for articles of this sort, original research is rife, and this pretty much defines a POV fork. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, using tabloids as sources, you can reach the conclusion from the first sentence, but this doesn't mean it's the truth: for instance, it's contradicted in the United Kingdom by a police study: Guardian: "Migrant crime wave a myth - police study"

A wide-ranging police study has concluded that the surge in immigrants from eastern Europe to Britain has not fuelled a rise in crime, the Guardian has learned.

The report finds that, despite newspaper headlines linking new migrants to crime, offending rates among mainly Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian communities are in line with the rate of offending in the general population.

bogdan (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AfD argument has been invalidated, since the article is not WP:OR because even nominator has changed his or her argument to find fault with The Daily Mail. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense. - Francis Tyers · 20:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tyers ·, please decide what are you voting for - delete or keep the article. As of now, I see that you are rather for keeping the article, judging by the number of continuous edits[25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30],

[31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. Please, change then your vote to "keep" consequently, so it will be clear.--Moldopodo^talk 00:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis is welcome to edit the page but still believe it should be deleted, don't be ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact there are sources doesn't mean that there is not a lot of original research and synthesis in the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, please, go ahead and provide a diff with original research in this article. Why just write for the sake of writing? Where exactly do you see the original research? Are you interested in the deletion or in improvement of the article? May be you mean the original research where Francis Tyers · wrote out of nowhere that Moldavians may be related to Romanian crimes (providing a false reference which does not say this), just basing on his own conclusions/inventions? I would like to note that I did not delete this invention, but simply requested a source citation for it (for now).--Moldopodo^talk 00:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Article with plenty of reliable sources. Any concerns about POV can be best addressed on the talk page. Crimes committed by ethnic groups are of encyclopedic interest when handled in NPOV terms. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For such a controversial article, we need either a neutral article, or no article. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that as an impartial user you are properly entitled to delete the unique images available from Daily Mail (showing Romanian immigrants in the UK, pictured from their back and totally anonimously) and Le Parisien [36] (showing Romanian immigrants, again in low resolution (which does not allow to see who is a man and who is a woman) training in a suburbian Parisian camp next to a highway at an improvised camp site, learning how to pretend being handicaped and beg for money in such a way in France) from the article. Having this privelege of deleting images in a totally discretionary way (and engaged, since you have mentioned your Romanian friends), I do not see how do you constructively contribute to improve the article, saying that you have Romanian friends and then baldly stating these images are replaceable (how???)... I repeat the images are unique and totally irreplaceable[37] and they are certainly necessary to imrpove the article and illustratiosn to it. But then again, since you vote to delete the article, why do you care to remove the images from the article. Is that how one improves articles' quality on Wikipedia?--Moldopodo^talk 00:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your failure to understand our non-free content criteria and your choice to completely ignore my explanation has nothing to do with this AfD. If you wish to address that issue, do so on the image talk pages or on my talk page, not here. Also, congratualtions, I never once said I had Romanian friends, only that I know of some ethnic Romanians in my area. You will also note that I have not deleted any images relating to this topic. I am here to improve the encyclopedia as a whole, and that does not mean I have any interest in improving this article- instead, I want this offensive and badly research POV fork to be deleted, I want images blatantly contrary to our goal of being a free encyclopedia deleted and I want you to stop being so confrontational so that we can have a civilised discussion about the topic. Finally, repeating your opinion over and over, then ignoring the most basic of counter arguments, is not going to get you anywhere. J Milburn (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil and do not address me personally first of all. That's what the basics of civility are. Secondly, it is useless to justify yourself with so many empty words. You said these images are replaceable. Please, go ahead and prove your words by uploading exactly equivalent images depicting the same thing. What are you waiting for? --Moldopodo^talk 19:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the right place for a discussion on the images- if you want to discuss the images, go to the image talk pages or our own talk pages. And yes, I will continue to address you directly- I'm talking to you, no one else, and addressing someone directly is not uncivil, at all- you seem to have a very warped view of civility. Furthermore, as I have explained, and as you would know if you had actually bothered to read our non-free content criteria as I recommended, non-free images need to be deleted if they are replaceable, not replaced, meaning that I am under no obligation to provide a free alternative. J Milburn (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a right place, why bother answer me here? Anyway, all you have done is just filling the talk page, but you have never explained how these pictures were replaceable? I have directly asked when you removed the pictures from the site how these pictures may be replaced, provide a justification for your consideration of them as replaceable. Show me an example, replace them - replaceable means: one can be able to replace them, since you decided so, you are rather the one who can replace as well, go ahead, show how the imegaes are replaceable, please!--Moldopodo^talk 20:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering the purported numbers, Romanians appear to be less violent than the native inhabitants of their host countries--hardly the fodder for a "crime" article. "Romanian presence in Europe causes per-capita decrease in crime" might be more appropriate. This article smacks of "I don't like Romanians" and, moreover, is completely unencyclopedic in purpose. What will we have next? "List of Bank Robberies by Poles"? This is litle more than ethnic baiting. —PētersV (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no evidence that this is any more notable or any less POV than any article titled "crimes by random nationality". As far as i know wikipedia doesnt have any article on 'crime in europe' let alone crime in europe by a particular nationality'. --neon white talk 00:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this post[38], unfortunately User:Rezistenta keeps removing it from this disussion. The numbers shown and the number of EU countries touched, biggest countries of the EU in terms of population, police and administrative authorities reports stating that in certain categories the number of crimes committed by Romanians outnumbers the number of crimes committed by local nationals (75% of crimes are committed by Romanians in Rome), headlines of Spanish press: 200, 300, 400 Romanians arrested per arrestation!!!!, 86 servers with child porn are located in Romania (next 32 are in Russia and three servers in other European countries), political speeches by highest rank officials of respectively touched countries, disussions at the EU Commission, at the House of Commons, at the Italian Parliament... all of this makes it notable. Moreover, no other country can boast the same statistics in Europe, no other! That is why the article is notable and at the same time it does not create a precedent, as the unprecdented rise of Romanian crime in Europe has nothing to compare it to--Moldopodo^talk 14:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your POV. This article does not smack anything at all. Every sentence of it is based on the provided sources. Now, you have not provided any source to support your thesis or original research, call it as you wish. The numbers are not purported, but official drawn from police reports. The Spanish surveys clearly say that a certain point Romanian crimes per category (organised crime as far as I remember) outnumber even local Spanish crimes, and compare to crimes committed by other foreigners, there is an increase of 80 and something per cent for Romanian crimes in Spain.--Moldopodo^talk 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole premise of the article seems based on a personal view rather than a notable subject. Some of the source make some claims that should definetly exceptional. --neon white talk 00:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the article and re-check every source provided. There is not one sentence of my personal view in the article. You are grossly mistaking. The subject is more than notable, just have a look at Spanish and Italian numbers of Romanian crimes, compare to their own Italian and Spanish respectively crimes, have a look at a fierce debate that took place on the level of European Commission, on the measures Italian LEFT!!! government was thinking to implement (goes without saying, what measures plans to apply right-wing Italian government), take the note of the scale of the phenomenon, and the duration, as well as all different types of crimes committed from rapes and robbery to organised crimes and forgery, 400 Romanians arrested at a time in Spain, then 200, then 300 (exact numbers are in the links section of the article), I mean this is quite notable, you would not consider Romanian people - a less notable subject, would you?--Moldopodo^talk 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldopodo, if you wish to spend your time tearing down ethnicities or nationals you consider to be other than your own, then please consider a more appropriate venue--perhaps your own blog--and expound however you wish. An encyclopedia written by editors of good will is no place for such baiting. It doesn't matter how many statistics you quote, the subject is editorially inappropriate. —PētersV (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from italin wiki it's true that it was deleted becouse the incorect traslation.. but you can be sure: this kind of razist article can't be stay in italian wiki.. i'm sure also in english wiki. --Ignlig (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an essay, biased to a particular POV, not an encyclopedia article. Gotyear (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a diff with a biased POV info in this article.--Moldopodo^talk 00:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire Original research (those who claim reliability of the sources as a means to "validate" the topic should read WP:SYNTH and memorize it), POVed title for a subject that stinks of national/ethnic/racial branding, slippery slope at best. Dahn (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your unsupported POV. Please provide a diff with exact POV. Otherwise it may be very well considered that you call the rest of Europe POV, when describing and govong exact statistics on Romanian crime all over Europe. This article does not smack anything at all. Every sentence of it is based on the provided sources. Now, you have not provided any source to support your thesis or original research, call it as you wish. The numbers are not purported, but official drawn from police reports. The Spanish surveys clearly say that a certain point Romanian crimes per category (organised crime as far as I remember) outnumber even local Spanish crimes, and compare to crimes committed by other foreigners, there is an increase of 80 and something per cent for Romanian crimes in Spain. Just look at the "Links" section fothe article: titles "200 Romanains arrested", "300 Romanians arrested", "400 Romanians arrested" - all in Spain speak for themselves. In Rome, according the mayor of Italian cpaital '75% of crimes are committed by Romanians, in Denmark 86 sites - were domains caught in the Danish child-porn filter placing Romania as the country with the most domains caught in the Danish child-porn filter - 86! U.S. has 43 domains, Russia - 40 and the otherwise very controlled China - 23 domains. Other Euroepan countries have three. And as we are discussing whether to keep this article, here are some updates Italy Arrests Hundreds of Immigrants 18 May 2008 and Gypsy encampments torched near Naples: agency, 443 Romanians arrested in Spain for forging thousands of credit cards, and Almost all 300 arrested for participation inthe organised crime are all Romanians, A band of 297 Rumanians was stopped in a historical blow to the organised crime, Arrested in Spain 99 members of the network which was falsisfying credit cards. Now, if you find anything similar regarding crimes committed by a particular country in Europe, yes, most certainly an article should be written on it. But I doubt there is any other of such scale as Romanian crime in Europe. --Moldopodo^talk 10:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are evidence of notability, they are simply news reports and are not evidence for the claims in the article. --neon white talk 15:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article would create an extremely bad precedent for other articles to be created. As the nominator pointed out, imagine some of the other pages we might have if this article was kept. Totally unencyclopedic, and totally original research. Khoi khoi 06:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redact. I think this is notable, but that the article is unacceptably biased in tone and premise; I suggest reducing it to a stub and building it up in a NPOV way, with the NPOV guideline box present. Accurate statistics for crime by any major demographic is, imo, notable and also useful for dispelling a lot of misconceptions. There should be nothing wrong with an article that presents facts in a non-biased manner. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independently of the outcome of the AfD, I will shortly speedy delete the current article for blatant copyright infringement, because almost all passages I've looked at are literally lifted from their sources and constitute plagiarism. I recommend nevertheless letting the AfD run its course in order to determine whether and under what terms to allow recreation. I wouldn't out of hand dismiss the feasability of a proper article, as organised crime by Romanian gangs has indeed been a topic of some reliably sourcable public discussion in the country I live in, but the current text is certainly not going to be its basis. And, truth be told, I doubt whether any text written by a committed anti-Romanian POV warrior like Moldopodo is ever going to be the basis of a proper article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal accusations. This is irrelevant, moreover uncivil and may be also qualified as vioaltion of [Digwuren arbitration enforcement - general restriction. I honestly think that calling users with names (moreover with no justification, as I have never edited one single article on Romania, except this one) gives neither you as a person, nor your argument much credibility.So now it's "blatant copyright infringement", funny, couple lines before it was "POV" (seems irreconcilable, doesn't it?), how will it be qualified next, interesting, another argument on "my good Romanian friends" may be? --Moldopodo^talk 10:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The research is originale and POV becouse you collected olny some news ignoring other news (crimes committed by other nationality) but there aren't studies that prove what you wrote .. in the same way I can collect the news from italian newspaper talking about nigerian (or moldova or italian) prostitutes and then say that the prostituion in italy is fault of nigerian (moldova, italian..) girls. It's incredible that you still defend this kind of article. --Ignlig (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a GROSS LIE. It's enough to click on provided references on Italian, Spanish, German, Danish links - all of them make a comparison with other countries, inlcuding their own countries, Italian and Spanish come to the conclusion in their reports that in ceratin categories, Romanian crime outweighs by far the local national crime (75% of all crimes committed in Rome are committed by Romanians), which goes without saying other foreign locally committed crimes. There are studies, take a look at the Spanish extensive criminal report made by the Instituto de Estudios de Policía, by Óscar Jaime Jiménez with very well made comparison tables. Other references do not necessarily compare Romanian crime in their respective European country, as there is nothing to compare in Europe the unprecedented raise of Romanian criminality in major populated countries: Italy, Spain, UK, Germany, France and even Scandinavia--Moldopodo^talk 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. The sources highlight instances of crimes committed by Romanians in various countries but do not assert a Romanian crime wave spreading through the continent. Toliar (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The given sources clearly show how big the rise of the Ropmanian crime rate became since 2002 - free Schengen movement of Romanians in Europe and how it accentuated from 2007 - membership of Romania in teh EU. Please check the sources, I have references every of my sentences in the article.--Moldopodo^talk 14:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are academic sources on crime in south east europe and the enlarged eu [39][40][41] that are alot more reliable than right wing newspapers known for their extremist views. I suggest that an more balanced article could be written about "south east european organised crime" or "crime in the enlarged eu' based on these sources. --neon white talk 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there isn't or it's not known organised crime in romania as we know in south italy like "mafia" (cosa nostra) or "camorra" and so on .. your links are old [42] .. there was transborder organized crime , now it's not necessary becouse Est europa is in European Union. If you want talk about transborder organized crime you should talk of Africa and so on.. but why don't talk also about the level of corruction in Italy or how many mafious there are in sicily o in newyork? I mean: with the selection of only some article from newspaper you can wrote about everything, saying all or the opposit of all. --Ignlig (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as its got loads of covergae from loads of media (old and new) outlets, i remeber watching a peice about it on BBC News 24 aswell. Its a valid article and sets no precedents, why not just delete all the other articles detailing regional tensions/crime??? ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this joke of an article should really exist by absurd it can only stand under the following form ..somewhat like "Citizens of Romania commiting crime in Europe" and aimed into the same direction because in all the articles cited over here by this anti-romanian pro-russian POV propagandist cites that the subject is more specifically aimed towards the Roma people also known as gypsies and not about the romanian ethnic group. But how on earth we would want to let such a racist person spreading nazi propaganda through the most popular and neutral online encyclopedia ? The answer is only one, delete this horrible nazi article Rezistenta (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, remain civil. Certainly it is about citizens of Romania and not citizens of any other country. The police from the respective countries, when it expells Romanians, this police expells Romanians namely back to Romania, and this is certainly done after checking their home address. The police does not expell Czech, Bulagarians, Albanians or Polish to Romania, the police expells Romanians back to Romania. Why is there such a detailed description of pimps as representing the major lucrative occupation in Cernavoda? What about all the Italian and Spanish as well as German and English reports? None of them speaks of gypsy, except some references are made in the article on Finland in written in Swedish. That's the only one for the whole sources. Why does Romanian Minister of Interior travels all over Europe and very often to Italy as well as to the European Commission? - because of the unprecedented rise namely of the Romanian crime rate in European countries. There is nothing racist about it, it is openly discussed and studied in universities (see the Spanish report) and at the EU level, as well as at the level of national governments and even simple people. What other nationality in Europe can boast the same rise of crime rate on European level? Do you know of any other nationality on which such numbers of arrested at once are given - 200, 300, 400 per arrestation in Spain? Do you know of any other nationality in Europe which provoked citizens, for example of Italy, to organise and head in a mob formation onto Romanians in Italy, burn their campings, etc? These are all the reasons why this is notable and not comparable to any other nationality, so it does not make a precedent for creation of other such articles, as there are no nationalities doing the same all over Europe. I agree, writing this may offend Romanians, that's why we should closely stick to the sources. But it is useless to say that Wikipedia is a free place and this article is racist (which it is not). Yes, this article might not please certain Romanians, but there is no rule on Wikipedia that articles should please Romanians. It's about truth, and so far the goal is accomplished.--Moldopodo^talk 20:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Please, do not delete my comments[43]--Moldopodo^talk 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transform in depth. Weak encyclopedic interest. Apparently Romanians are mixed up with Roms? --Jessika Folkerts (talk)

Certainly it is about citizens of Romania and not citizens of any other country. The police from the respective countries, when it expells Romanians, this police expells Romanians namely back to Romania, and this is certainly done after checking their home address. Why is there such a detailed description of pimps as representing the major lucrative occupation in Cernavoda? What about all the Italian and Spanish as well as German and English reports? None of them speaks of gypsy, except some references are made in the article on Finland in written in Swedish. That's the only one for the whole sources. Why does Romanian Minister of Interior travels all over Europe and very often to Italy as well as to the European Commission? - because of the unprecedented rise namely of the Romanian crime rate in European countries. There is nothing racist about it, it is openly discussed and studied in universities (see the Spanish report) and at the EU level, as well as at the level of national governments and even simple people. What other nationality in Europe can boast the same rise of crime rate on European level? Do you know of any other nationality on which such numbers of arrested at once are given - 200, 300, 400 per arrestation in Spain? Do you know of any other nationality in Europe which provoked citizens, for example of Italy, to organise and head in a mob formation onto Romanians in Italy, burn their campings, etc? These are all the reasons why this is notable and not comparable to any other nationality, so it does not make a precedent for creation of other such articles, as there are no nationalities doing the same all over Europe. I agree, writing this may offend Romanians, that's why we should closely stick to the sources. But it is useless to say that Wikipedia is a free place and this article is racist (which it is not). Yes, this article might not please certain Romanians, but there is no rule on Wikipedia that articles should please Romanians. It's about truth, and so far the goal is accomplished.--Moldopodo^talk 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know if you do it on pourpose or not ... romanian are not romà only some romà people have romanian nationality.. what was burn was a romà camping .. you are not able to distinguish between them. I didn' now that romanian minister come often in Italy .. is unbelievable that you know about italy more then me. Go on man, if this is your view of wikipedia .. may be you should open your own blog. Regards --Ignlig (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, re-check all the references, none of them speaks of gypsys, except the last one in Swedish. And even that one refers both to Romanians and to Romanian gyspsys.--Moldopodo^talk 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It amuses me your self-created vague impression which probably makes you think if you'll write the same crap allover the place you could actually fool anyone or you will make the essence fade behind your fog of propaganda and lies. Those article clearly state like I mentioned and proved upper in the page that the subjects are about the ROMA PEOPLE aka gypsies not about ROMANIANS, the nomad style of travelling is part of the tradition of Roma people (gypsies). What do you actually want to prove because I don't understand ? Rezistenta (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's the main point: in italy journalist and people are not able to distinguish between romà people and romanian.. you are not helping saying that "onto Romanians in Italy, burn their campings" .. in this sentence you don't show the knowledge of the difference .. you are taking a mix of news trying to say that a great % of crimes in italy is committed by romanian ... i'm sorry for you. It's not true (first there is sicilian mafia, then camorra, then 'ndrangheta, then a lot of drug dealer are from albania, nigeria and prostitution from moldova, romania, nigeria.. and so on ..) .. then , try to read different newspaper. Thanx --Ignlig (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I wipe the floor with your refferences,(actually 1 refferenece because all others cites what I said earlier) . If you actually want or need encyclopedic refferences I'll give you but till then I tought I should give you another chance of acknowledging your mistake, which is my way to respond with tolerance to intolerance Rezistenta (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. All the references provided in this article clearly refer exclusively to Romanians and not to anybody else. This is a mere WP:OR to try to say something else, what references do not say.--Moldopodo^talk 22:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Toliar. Some of the facts are reliably sourced, but they do not support the article's claim that Romania's 2007 entry into the EU has resulted in a massive increase of crime disproportionate to Romania's population or crime in general.

Also, the facts presented for Spain are for 2001-3, comparing with only the other Balkan countries. The article's quote "The main responsible of the crime increase in Spain is without any doubt, the crime committed by Romanians, what represents the 80,1 % of the crime coming from the Balkan Countries" begins "In spite of the fact that all countries, individually considered, show an increasing trend".

The ones for Germany and France are more general, the one date being 2002, and I can't understand some of the sentences, ie. "Hadicaped forced to mendicity, minors pushed to delinquency, young girls subject to prostitution."

The second half of the UK section is almost entirely word-for-word from refs 10-12, with only one sentenced acknowledged as a quote. I also question using the Daily Mail as a primary source for that section, for this controversial topic and that paper's anti-immigration editorial stance. (I haven't found an unimpeachable source that it's anti-immigration, but it seems likely.)

The Italy section is significant and subsequent to Romania's accession to the EU, and the BBC & IHT are reliable sources with a balanced editorial policy.

However, the article as a whole attempts to synthesize that since Romanians are/have been shown more likely to commit crimes, it was a mistake to admit them into the EU. But none of the sources state that, and the balance of the sources do not support that. Hence, WP:SYNTH applies. TransUtopian (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And nowhere its says so in the article the article as a whole attempts to synthesize that since Romanians are/have been shown more likely to commit crimes, it was a mistake to admit them into the EU. This is your own inetrpretation, nothing like that is writtent in the article.--Moldopodo^talk 22:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, not directed at any individual, but remember to disagree with the ideas, not attack the person presenting them, no matter how strongly you feel. I'm trying to convey a reminder from a peer, not condescension, but if I come across as the latter, I'm sorry. TransUtopian (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the phrasing earlier of (in bold) "What other nationality in Europe can boast the same rise of crime rate" rather makes the point the editorial POV of the article is that Romanians are, indeed, a crime scourge on Europe. —PētersV (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every country would probably have her nationals commiting crimes in other countries, Wikipedia isn't the place to document all of them. Chimeric Glider (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. Exactly. The opening statement is "Romanian crime in Europe has increased in the countries of the European Union (EU) since Romanian membership of the organisation." But you'd need to show an overwhelming increase for it to be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. What you have are scattered news articles and presentations documenting specific incidents and increases. "In spite of the fact that all countries, individually considered, show an increasing trend" means that Romania is not alone in increased crime (and that's just among the Balkans from before EU membership). The sources do not mention a continent/EU-wide increase of Romanian crime vis-à-vis other countries' citizens. Toliar (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's also important to note that:

"Industry would close without them, especially the Romanians and especially small and medium firms," said Antonio Ricci, an immigration specialist at the charity Caritas/Migrantes in Rome. "Business owners are really worried about this campaign because they need this workforce - they are good workers.

"It will be a big problem if Romanians start feeling unwelcome in Italy and go to the U.K. instead."

Also:

Also Thursday, the Italian police announced that they were in the process of breaking up immigrant-operated criminal rings of Albanians, Chinese and Moroccans dealing in commodities from trash to drugs to arms.

International Herald Tribune's other article on the matter:

The focus of Italian concern about immigrant crime are the Roma, known here as "nomads", who come mainly from Romania and other Eastern European countries.

In League-run Verona, Mayor Flavio Tosi said his city had the biggest Romanian community in Italy. "There are 7,000 of them, working as builders, artisans and domestics. And they themselves say the Roma are a problem," he said.

So this one seems to be exaggerated a bit. Squash Racket (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the problem is aimed to the Roma people holding Romanian citizenship, not towards Romanians, this is a gross attempt of anti-romanian propaganda Rezistenta (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this AfD there is no distinction. Please refrain from commenting any more along these lines. - Francis Tyers · 10:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment was not aimed at me. I only cited two relevant articles from the International Herald Tribune, a newspaper of record. Squash Racket (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tyers I agree with your views about this topic and i'm on the same side but please don't teach me what I'm allowed or not to say, keep your advices for those who need them, and my comment came only to confirm Squash Racket's article from International Herald Tribune Rezistenta (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was unnecessary and unproductive. People can read about anti-Romaism on the part of Romanians in other places in the Wikipedia without having a live demonstration here. - Francis Tyers · 13:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also modified my comment (that could make others think it had been me who wanted to emphasize that part of the quote) and completely removed another one. Squash Racket (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was speedy deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia, some of the comments:
- Bórrese Hacer un articulo agrupando los crimenes cometidos por miembros de una comunidad o grupo etnico no es neutral, ya que la idea es en si misma xenofoba y conlleva abrir un peligroso campo para crear articulos del tipo "anexo:asesinatos cometidos por negros".XQNO Raccontami... 17:07 15 jun 2008 (UTC)
Delete To make an article grouping crimes comitted by members of a community of ethnic group is not neutral, as the idea is in itself xenophobic and sets a dangerous precedent for creating articles such as "Murders committed by blacks".
Aye. African-American murder in the United States is still unwritten, same with Jewish financial fraud in Europe and British drunk-driving in Spain. bogdan (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bogdan hits the nail on the head. An article such as the one being discussed here does nothing but create and promulgate negative stereotypes. —PētersV (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bórrese El artículo es tendencioso: se afirman muchas cosas, por ejemplo sobre la pertenencia de Rumanía a la Unión Europea, sin probarlas. Es decir: además de lo referente al tema, contiene juicios de valor globales sobre Rumanía y su situación actual, siempre de tono negativo.--Irus (discusión) 08:51 16 jun 2008 (UTC)
Delete The article is biased: it states many things without testing them, for example about the membership of Romania in the European Union. It also contains value judgements about Romania and its current situation, and always negative ones.
- Bórrese ...es el fenómeno amplio que ocurre principalmente en países de la Unión europea desde la calidad de miembro rumana de la organización en 2007... a mi eso me parece muy tendencioso. Srengel (discusión) 13:48 16 jun 2008 (UTC)
_quotation_ this seems to me very biased.
- Francis Tyers · 10:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question, why not to copy paste all answers, including mine from the Spanish Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldopodo (talk • contribs) 14:15, 17 June 2008

Because your opinion has already been well rehearsed. - Francis Tyers · 15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What was said on the Spanish Wikipedia (or any other Wikipedia, Wikimedia project or any other site at all) is irrelevant, just as what conclusion other AfDs came to is (mostly) irrelevant. Please can we keep our discussion to the merits of this article on this project. J Milburn (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish AfD is relevant to the article as it discusses the article, as it is relevant to the deletion process as it discusses the deletion process. It is also relevant to the deletion process of this article, as it discusses a translation of this article. - Francis Tyers · 16:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Discussions held on other Wikipedia projects and decisions made there hold no bearing here. Different projects have different policies, standards and norms. 90.242.102.24 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of transparency, 90.242... was me. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The reasons presented *may* carry less weight due to differing policies, but they can also be valid due to similar ones. I find To make an article grouping crimes comitted by members of a community of ethnic group is not neutral, as the idea is in itself xenophobic and sets a dangerous precedent for creating articles such as "Murders committed by blacks" a compelling argument. Toliar (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, I see where you are coming from there. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Bogdan. WP:SOAP hatchet piece that has no hope of being converted into a neutral article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just two questions please: what exactly is not neutral in the article as it stands today, and what can you suggest to improve the article if you think it is not neutral? Thanks in advance for your answer.--Moldopodo^talk 12:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the focus on the criminal activities of a specific ethnic group that is not neutral. You could not edit the article to correct this, just as the article on Murders by African-Americans could not be improved to have a NPOV. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is precisely, no African-American were arrested by 200, 300, 400 per arrestation per day in a European country (like it was in Spain with Romanians), no raise of crime rate by African-American was ever talked about by the European Commission (like it is the case with Romanians), no African-American had a report written on them by a Police Instutute that pointed out that they commit more crimes in in a country than the country's nationals (like it is the case with Romanians in Spain in teh category of organised crime). Do you know of a European city where 75% of crimes are committed by African-American (like it is the case in Rome with Romanians)? Did any European country arrest at once 2000 African-American like it was in Spain with Romanians? Which other country in Europe has 86 child porn servers (Romania)? (and you know that the rest of European countries have 3 servers per country on the average)? Did any natonals of a European country attack in an organised mob African-Americans, burned their homes (like it was in Italy with Romanians)? Did any EU country think of closing its borders against African-American (like it is for Romanians, with the notorious Italian Expulsion Decree and Eu safeguard mechanisms), etc, etc, etc - did African-American do at least something simlilar in Europe and did Europeans have the same problems with them as with Romanians, are African-American a centre of criminal and illicit immigration debate all over Europe? I think you know the answer - it is NO. That's why I humbly submit that it is impossible to compare the context of unprecedented Romanian crime in Europe to anything else, as there is no precedent, unless you find one--Moldopodo^talk 17:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no encyclopedic interest --Bluehunt (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly "no necyclopedic interest"? - this is one of the major European problems and debates on all levels - from most read Euroeepan press up to almost litteral fighting between EU Commissioners, investigations at the House of Commons, works published by Police Institute of Spain, declarations of politicians and consequent urgency legislations, local population' uprisal... Are you really serious that all of this has no encyclopedic interest?

Comment - you have just put your finger on the problem. Wikipedia is definitely not the place for righting the world's wrongs. Encyclopedia articles must be neutral overviews of verifiable facts, not opinions or calls to action. If you can find widely accepted research that shows that Romanians - specifically because they are Romanians - are significantly more criminal than other ethnic groups then you have the basis of an article about the "Romanian problem". Or if it's a definable sub-group of Romanians then you could write an article like Mafia (which by the way is not about the criminality of Italians in general) andy (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a diff where thsi artciel is "opinions or calls to action". Well you have this research - it is Spanish research by the Police Instutute it shows you all the comparative studies and explain sin plenty of pages and tables how Romanians lead over other coutnries. You have English police reports, you have Italian police reports and political declarations as well as application of the respective legislation. You have EU legislation on safegyuards. Did you really check the references provided in the article or you are simply saying this blindly? "If you can find" - it is found and tehre already. Do you think I have invented all those numbers and table in the article? --Moldopodo^talk 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, non-neutral and unencyclopedic. It reads like a tabloid newspaper article not an encyclopedia article: long on opinion but short on verifiable facts. Would this be of value to a researcher? No andy (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article "short on verifiable facts", if litterally every sentence is sourced. You have plenty of official sources, research, declarations, legislation, police reports - how can you call this "short on verifiable data", "original research", etc. Honestly, I have basicly reformulated the original sources to avoid copy-paste accusations, and have certainly not added any personal input. You are welcome to improve the article, it's not mine, nor yours, it's the one of the community and everybody is justly entitled to make her or his input in the spirit od healthy constructive collaboration. Saying blindly "original research", "no verifiable facts" is not convinving, without any diff provided. What exactly is original research, can you say please? What exactly is unverifiable? Please answer. You are most welcome to improve the article by editing straight ahead.--Moldopodo^talk 17:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the amount of sources, it's the quality and the way they are being used. It's synthesis to promote a political point of view. --neon white talk 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire (I hope that wasn't copyrighted). It's WP:SYN, it's POV, it's unencylopedic -- and in some articles those can be fixed, but in real life not this one. But much worse, it is racist (thinking about it, particularly racist if there are no comparable articles, what a nightmare!), it is ethnic baiting (and may well end up in the media if it stays), it will be a battleground, it will bring Wikipedia into disrepute, and it will be a precedent for other articles.

I think you've voted once already, didn't you?--Moldopodo^talk 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think we're voting? Doug Weller (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[ removed random pasting from the twat-o-tron - Francis Tyers · 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Comment - I've raised Moldopodo's increasingly disruptive edits in this debate, particularly the most recent which has now been reverted, at WP:ANI. andy (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Weak Keep. There's a notable topic hiding in there: there's a lot of concern in western continental Europe about crime perpetrated by Romanian gangs, and it's a commonly discussed in the media (especially the tabloid press). So it's a notable topic by virtue of the attention being paid to it, whether or not the claims reflect actual reality. But the article itself has serious POV issues, and the cited references (at least the ones from reputable sources, among which I don't include tabloids like the Daily Mail) generally don't back up the claims in the article. So this really needs a lot of work to turn into a decent article, with the focus changed so that it's a NPOV discussion of the allegations and the surrounding controversy rather than a repetition of tabloid fearmongering. Klausness (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I was, when I voted redact a few days ago. Reading the discussion, though, makes me think that the primary contributor to this article is unable to avoid NPOV issues, and perhaps it needs to be rewritten from the ground up. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least in its present incarnation, as a violation of WP:SYN and WP:SOAPBOX. The phenomenon has received attention, but this tabloid-like piece is not the proper venue for treating the subject. And by the way, Romania is in Europe, so the title is misleading. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the many arguments already posited-- can't really add more that has not already been said. It is perhaps a not so veiled attack on Romanians-- laying so many of Europe's ills at the feet of the Romanian immigrant population. Keep arguments just are not convincing. Dlohcierekim 03:47, 19 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.