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

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumi Hamasaki's forthcoming single[edit]

Ayumi Hamasaki's forthcoming single (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, so going this route. Article utterly fails WP:CRYSTAL. There is no information whatsoever about this single. We need to wait until more information comes out. Even then, it may not meet the notability for singles. Actually, someone may want to look at the singles on Template:Ayumi Hamasaki and do a mass AFD, as most of them appear to fail the notability guidelines for singles. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 11:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally unwarranted per WP:CRYSTAL. tomasz. 12:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:CRYSTAL Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no citations, total original source. per WP:NOT.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. ...subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest... I know a Ayumi Hamasaki fan might yell at me for this but for now, there's no wie interest except to Ayumi's fans and Japanese J-pop and trance fans. Also fails WP:V. ...whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source... I'm in no doubt that the singles actually exist, its just that I have no way of confirming it. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Lady Galaxy 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vethathiri[edit]

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

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No prooof of notability, and completely uncited for years. No-one is interested in improving it, it should go.Yobmod (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Non notable with no reliable sources. There have been years to find sources for this subject and there are none. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article has been around since 2006, and no reliable sources or proofs of notability have been provided yet. BecauseWhy? (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well; i see two orange tags; lots of unsource materials. I do see so sources list on bottom. 3 staff members say delete.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 00:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. google books gives quite a few hits. Seems notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mojitos[edit]

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

non notability of act, local news only, no established sales Mfield (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedily Delete. Nothing to denote notability, Speedy Delete per norm. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, fails WP:BAND. Corvus cornix_talk 23:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have declined the speedy deletion request placed on the article. Notability is asserted in the article (media attention, Battle of the Bands winners, 65,000 votes etc) and whilst this may not be enough to pass WP:MUSIC is is enough to save it from speedy. nancy ^(talk) 08:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable music band. Article also has crystal ball issues. Artene50 (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 13:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is poorly format, and too little details. however; this one still has to go through normal 7 days as normal deeltion porcess.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 00:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Nigro[edit]

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

Contested prod. Subject fails WP:ATHLETE as nothing more than an amateur hockey player, like thousands others. Grsz^talk 22:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Person in question is on a professional team, and that clearly renders him notable per WP:ATHLETE. I also find it troublesome that the nominator removed information from the article[1] before nominating it for deletion[2]. McJeff (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Which professional team does he play for? Has he signed a contract? Has he played a game as a professional? Grsz^talk 23:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Article answers all the questions you have asked, as even a cursory reading would inform you. McJeff (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct your misunderstandings. He was drafted by the Blues. In order to be "on" a professional team, he would have to have a contract, which he does not. And in order to pass WP:ATHLETE, he would have to have competed at a professional level, which, again, he has not. Grsz^talk 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OHL maybe considered professional by NCAA, but the players only recive a stipend rather than a proper salary. Former OHL players don't loose eligibility to play for Canadian universities, and are not considered pros by CIS. Therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. --Eivind^t@c 00:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Previous keep misunderstands being drafted with being on a team. Hundreds of players are drafted and never set foot in a professional league. Fails WP:ATHLETE and to give him an article because he might someday play professionally fails WP:Crystal. He also falls far short of the notability standards for hockey players. -Djsasso (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, once he actually plays for St. Louis then he is notable to have an article. Blackngold29 01:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE and the WP:HOCKEY notability standards. Sixth round picks do not often make the major leagues, and he is unlikely to play at any professional level for at least a year. Unfortunately, we see this syndrome every year, where a raft of junior league players get written up for articles just because they're drafted, and many never see a professional game.  Ravenswing  02:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If he plays professionally or wins a significant award in juniors, the article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability standards across the board. – Nurmsook! (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to a larger article. Too little details and informations, keep this as a isolate article is nt going to help much, plus WP is not a tionary.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 00:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mangojuice^talk 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kairosis[edit]

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

Uncited original research. The quotation about catharsis, kenosis, and kairosis is nowhere to be found in the classical corpus or notable secondary sources. Also, I propose to remove sections referencing that quotation in its linked pages. --Quadalpha (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Quadalpha (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of the other websites I find which reference this contain the same text as the Wikipedia article. The rest either contain "kairosis" used as a username, or people referring to the definition on the Wikipedia page. Ignorance is not proof of absence, however. I cannot claim to know enough about classical literature to know that this concept is not used. So, I stay neutral leaning toward deletion, until some other people change my mind. BecauseWhy? (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the evidence presented below by Quadalpha is enough for me. Delete. BecauseWhy? (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

καίρωσις is listed in Liddell and Scott (the authoritative classical Greek lexicon) with an entirely unrelated meaning (http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.31:1:11.lsj ). The spelling with an omicron is not listed at all. Similarly, while catharsis is a well-known literary concept, kenosis (κένωσις) does not have associations in classical literary criticism at all (http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.34:4:29.lsj ). While this does not preclude their use in later criticism, the lack of references would seem to indicate non-notability, at least. --Quadalpha (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of references means lack of notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep see listed references: Accepted Doctoral thesis from a credible University, published conference papers, aesthetics blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment recent editing has improved the article to the best it will get during this deletion discussion. Please reread and see if your opinions are changed. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While I have been unable to look at the doctoral thesis since I do not have access to it, I would submit that the other two sources do not constitute sufficient reference for what the article claims. The blog entry can be, per convention, dismissed as a "reliable source." I cannot determine whether the book is self-published since I don't know Danish, but a cursory examination shows that it is the product of the Knutepunkt conference. Althought I mean no disrespect to Nordic role-playing, I do question whether such a community would be recognised with the authority to make such sweeping pronouncements as "as catharsis is to the dramatic, so kenosis is to the lyric, so kairosis is to the epic/novel." Perhaps the reference would be sufficient if the article claimed to represent the field of literary criticism from a Nordic role-playing perspective, but then I suspect it would fall afoul of notability guidelines. In any case, the section about Emma (that is, most of the article) seems to be interpretive as well as uncited, and it is based solely on a statement ("as catharsis is to the dramatic ...") backed up only by an unpublished thesis manuscript, a blog, and a role-playing conference. So I suppose what I am saying is still Delete. --Quadalpha (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brojobidehi Mahanta[edit]

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

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no evidence of notability. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The core issue with this article is its lack of verification to back up its claims. In addition, notability is in question, and without any reliable sources to back up the claim to notability, the article does not meet criteria. If reliable sources are found to verify the article and confirm notability, the article can be recreated. Until such time, if an editor wants the article to work on, I will happily userfy it for him. Just poke me. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swarupananda[edit]

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

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Definitely needs sources and major cleanup.TheRingess (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Not sure that notability could not be established, but obviously needs sources and a rewrite. Perhaps check notability with India/Hinduism project. --Jayen466 22:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Article has no notability or reliable sources. If you disagree, please provide evidence for notability as I have found none. Until there is evidence to prove otherwise, this article is about a non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

• Delete Article makes no claims to notability. Also, there are no reliable sources provided to confirm any claim to notability. If these exist, I am willing to change my vote. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until somebody can provide reliable sources for the subject because at the moment there are none. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He reached the level of sainthood in the Hindu religion. A person is noteworthy simply by reaching that internationally recognized level of spirituality in their religion. Dream Focus (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What reliable sources verify this claim to be internationally recongnized? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It is impossible to say anything, as there are no reliable sources to the claims. Could be anyone under any name. Wikidās ॐ 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment'. The wikipedia has a list of all the saints for each religion. His name is on it. Googling about, I found many sources mention him. I also found his book translated. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=nuHJ88d2FnwC&dq=Swarupananda&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=_lEA6nhDV7&sig=vIxNyaW6MmGfUzhyxKPnjxKZLC0&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPP1,M1 How many here actually doubt the guy existed and was given sainthood? Dream Focus (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone doubts his existence. It's just that the article is in very poor shape. To meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability on biographical articles (see WP:BIO) we need multiple secondary reliable sources that discuss the subject. Notice that simply publishing a book does not confer notability in the sense the community defines it nor does a claim of sainthood with no backing sources. If you feel inclined, you might edit the article to include references from reliable sources, thus meeting the guidelines included in the link on notability.TheRingess (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reason I express the doubt on existence - is because there are a few gurus that I know of, who have the name Swarupananda. Its a popular Hindu name. There is no evidence what so ever that he was given sainthood (I believe he was never given a 'sainthood'), nor is any evidence that he himself is notable. If specific references are given in the article, then we can discuss it further, at the moment the article is not meeting 'the guidelines included in the link on notability'. As per TheRingess. Wikidās ॐ 05:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep on the basis that there is an inconclusive debate on the notability. Proving notability seems to be more fitting for someone from the Hindu project or an expert in the field, I would keep until we reach consensus from there than a nonsensical google competition by us. Rasadam (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Valentin[edit]

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

Player has not sufficiently satisfied the notability criteria for football players as determined by WikiProject on Football. He has not appeared in a professional match. GauchoDude (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:Athlete and has no other claim to notability. Vickser (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE criteria of "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league" as he plays in the MLS Reserve Division which is fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You have tried this argument here and no one agrees with you. Reserve leagues are not fully professional. He is not notable as he has not made any notable appearances. Merely being drafted alone doesn't make him notable either. When he enters into a professional game, which he hasn't (and doesn't seem to be close as he wasn't even named to the bench today), then recreate the page. At this moment in time, he is undeserving for the above reasons. Delete. GauchoDude (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think you can use my use of the same argument there as a precedent, given that I made it only 87 minutes before this one, and only one person has commented since. Nfitz (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then use the one here, after which one editor agreed and seven others didn't. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • More than one ... also the question of why this standard is being applied to the fully-professional MLS reserve division when by definition it meets WP:ATHLETE was never addressed (and is basis of pending Deletion Review). Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - The fact that virtually any one can walk onto the team without a contract and play as a "guest player" in your so-called notability reserve games just about sums up the argument. GauchoDude (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - that doesn't change that the league itself is fully professional. Such "guest players" would not be notable (unless otherwise qualified). Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The fact that the league allows guest players proves that it is not a fully professional league - this is exactly why friendly matches and reserve matches in other countries are not deemed to confer notability. Plus the above statement of "More than one" is false - only one editor (Ugen64) agreed. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah - yes only one other editor agreed. Nfitz (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and consensus has long been that reserve matches do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, once again, reserve matches do not confer notability. --Angelo (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it appears very unlikely that the MLS Reserve Division is a fully professional league. That said, if someone can provide evidence that it is fully professional, I'll change my vote. Jogurney (talk) 21:44, 30 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. I have left the history so that relevant, cited information can be merged to the target article as appropriate. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Entwistle[edit]

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

unnotable and we do not cover people because they are victims, this is such bad, unprofessional precedent that it needs nipping in the bud, apart from having been murdered she has 0 notability, evidenced by zero coverage outside the murder. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, tragic but not otherwise notable, sadly. Delete. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge - Merge to Entwistle murder case per WP:ONEEVENT and proposed guideline WP:N/CA. The victim is not notable in own right. Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried moving Neil Entwistle to Entwistle murder case and redirected Rachel there but it was reverted, hence the afd. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & redirect to Entwistle murder case, everything that's remotely encyclopedic is already contained there. Rachel Entwistle isn't notable. Only the sad circumstances of her murder and the subsequent court case are conceiviably so. RMHED (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect is more appropriate as this is a searchable term and yes murder victims can be notable enough for their own article but in this case a merge is probably better. --neon white talk 00:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per neon white. --00:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Entwistle murder case. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I'm not completely sure but I think if any content has shifted over to the Entwistle murder case article that leaves us with certain GFDL obligations which must remain fulfilled. JBsupreme (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & redirect, subject is not notable in her own right. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Entwistle murder case as not notable on her own. I'd also advise to do the same with the article on her foormer husband.--Aldux (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect both this and Neil Entwistle into the article about the murder case, but there's no need to delete here. They are not notable as individuals, only notable as part of a newsworthy and ongoing murder case.--Les boys (talk) 14:53, 30 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 Deleted by Athaenara. Chetblong (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaitscan[edit]

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

Gaitscan was tagged as an advert in Feb 2007. Page was created with text copied from company's website. Page creator's only edits are to this page, all on 8 Dec 2006. No other pages link here. I couldn't find reliable/verifiable info supporting this product from a source not financially linked to it. I came to this page after watching this CBC Marketplace report about orthotic scams [3].

I'm not questioning the product or the company, but without verifiable info this article is just a sales pitch. LuciferBlack (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article creator shares his name with an employee (vice president no less) at the company linked in the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G11 (spam). So tagged. That the article managed to survive for 18 months changes nothing. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:46, 28 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, reads like promotion *and* is a blatant copyvio. Gone. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State Policy Network[edit]

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

• A file of this name was deleted before; and reads like promotion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article establishes no notability and reads like an ad. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:43, 28 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 Snow Keep ((cleanup afd)) has been placed on the article Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darker image calendar[edit]

Darker image calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A pornographic calendar does not seem particularly notable even if it was one of the first to feature black women. The article is OR, and unsourced. None of the 36 Google hits indicates any notability. Also, could some one take a look at the image, it looks o be improperly tagged but I am no image copyright expert. -IcewedgЁ (ťalķ) 21:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC) [update:] I withdraw my nomination based on the media references listed at http://www.darkerimagecalendar.com/ (go to the tab labeled press), I assume that the lack of web references is due to the fact that this calendar was before the real rise of the internet. I am not sure though, so, continue to discuss. (upon admin consideration my position can be considered a weak keep) -IcewedgЁ (ťalķ) 01:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I also have concerns that there's conflict of interest with the primary editor, since he's representing himself as the photographer/publisher of the calendar. In which case, that adds a layer of original research to the lack of sources. It's not blatant advertising, but it's not an encyclopedia article that's clearly demonstrated notability, either. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC). Edited 02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC); see revised comments below.[reply]
• Delete: In the unlikely event that there are any good references to demonstrate that this is notable or recognised as significant then that could salvage it, but it would still need to be rewritten as its tone is not neutral. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliably sourcedKeep. I think the assertions of notability are sufficient for it to be kept, IF they are documented. Note that the calendar claims to be the first 'swimsuit' (not pornographic) calendar featuring minority models that gained widespread mass market distribution. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Followup: ProQuest has the LA Times text as presented by the author. I can't find the text of the Hollywood Reporter article, but it's such a trivial mention I can't see it being faked. I did tag a bunch of things in the article that were NOT referenced by the cites in question, toned some of the puffery, and added a B+N buyer quote from the article. Overall, it still needs work, but the core elements are sufficiently documented by WP:RS and seem to establish appropriate WP:N. I call it a keeper now. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - First of all, this is not a porn calendar. Look it up on Lexis-Nexis ("ALLNEWS") and you'll quickly find out that that description is completely inaccurate. Secondly, the source of the information in the entry is verified not only by a reputable newspaper (the Los Angeles Times) but also in the "Press" section of the website. You cannot fictionalize the television appearances for the calendar. I think a calendar that received this degree of notoriety deserves an encyclopedic mention. Just because it is not a 21st Century phenomenon does not make it irrelevant. It is particularly relevant in the development of urban model or hip hop model genre. I am the author of the article. --PutneySwope1 —Preceding comment was added at 22:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— PutneySwope1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• So edit those in please. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your reply. Not sure what you want edited in. The LA Times story can only be found through Lexis-Nexis because of its date. (Or, you would have to pay to retrieve the articles mentioned in The Los Angeles Times or Hollywood Reporter.) There is a graphic of the LA Times story on the Darker Image website in the Press section. The television show mentions of the calendar appear in Quicktime format on the Darker Image website, but cannot be linked here because the site is done using Flash. PutneySwope1 (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the latter, include the link on the talk page of the article: that way, other editors can view it. Regarding the former, cite it, even if no link is given in the citation. —C.Fred (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See, LA Times article on Talk page. PutneySwope1 (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• So include a link to the website on the Talk Page? Not a problem but it is listed as a reference in the article, as is the citation to the Los Angeles Times, which conforms to the Chicago Style Manual. PutneySwope1 (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll see if I can't find the fulltext and verify the cite. If so, and it says what you say it says, I'd call this one a keeper. Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Also, see my talk section on this topic.

• Keep, barring Jclemens turning up something odd with verifying the fulltext. I'm going to assume good faith that the reprint of the LA Times article at the Darker Image website is accurate: it asserts that this was the first black calendar to sell in a mainstream bookstore. I'll call that sufficiently notable and verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The LA Times coverage is legitimate; see [4] which has three paragraphs available free. However, the article should be moved to The Darker Image which was the main title as featured on the cover of the calendars. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd been holding off on a move until the AfD was settled; I hate having a title change mid-discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also prefer to wait until the AfD closes to have an article moved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, my thought too. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be WP:SNOWed as keep at this point, so we can get on with that. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for everyone's input. Very helpful. I completely agree with the title change suggested by Metropolitan90. PutneySwope1 (talk) 04:10, 29 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 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Saric[edit]

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

Young footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league (the Danish 1st Division is not fully pro) and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability (last AfD confirming this here). The fact that he has signed for a Premiership club is irrelevant (see many other AfDs on youth players without a first team appearance: 1, 2, 3, 4). пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Herfolge are a professional side and he has played with full-time professionals at that club. He has made league appearances in a league which has dedicated coverage. He has now signed further professional terms with Liverpool.Londo06 21:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Herfolge are professional is completely irrelevant - they do not play in a fully professional league (the equivalent is players playing for a fully pro team in the Football Conference, which have been determined on many many occasions to fails the criteria as the league is not fully professional). As proved by the links to previous AfDs, signing for a big club does not help him pass WP:ATHLETE either - he must play for the club. Until then, any attempt to claim that he will is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've certainly heard of Herfolge and they are indeed a professional outfit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Come on the Mothers (talk • contribs) 21:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above (twice), the fact that they are professional is totally irrelevant. They do not play in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Saric doesn't pass WP:Athlete, but I think the coverage of him meets the general WP:Notability guidelines, namely "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." On a national/international scaleYahoo! Sport, The Sun, and The Telegraph all had articles that were primarily or exclusively about him, in addition to plenty of coverage in large local papers such as The Liverpool Daily Post. In full consideration of WP:CRYSTALBALL and the fact that he hasn't played for Liverpool yet, national papers running stories in which you are the centerpiece counts as notable for me. Vickser (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any player signing for a Premiership club will have a news report on him. However, as shown in the links to previous AfDs provided above, players who merely sign for Premiership clubs are not deemed article-worthy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, any player who signs for a Premiership club will have some coverage on him, but you'll note that he is the centerpiece of the linked articles. Articles simply mentioning his transfer (as all transfers get mentioned) would not qualify as "significant coverage", articles where he is the lead story, in my opinion, do. For comparison with some of the rightfully deleted players you linked, Jay Spearing got listed with a whole bunch of other boys in a paragraph at the bottom in the Telegraph [5]. Ray Putterill's national paper coverage consisted of a Daily Mail article mentioning his name with 4 others as local youngster's the club signed.[6] As far as I can tell, none of the other players linked were the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and thus are non-notable. For Saric, that's not the case. Vickser (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - the player clearly fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY. As for the notability point above, the player admits himself in the article that he will be playing (at least initially) for Liverpool's reserve team, which is not notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He played for Herfølge, who are a professional side in Denmark. So he does not fail WP:ATHLETE. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above (three or four times), the fact that they are professional is totally irrelevant. They do not play in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I hate to use a cliche, but I think some people are missing the forest for the trees. Every single notability guideline is subordinate to WP:N, which says that notability is defined as "significant coverage by reliable third-party sources" (not an exact quote, I'm going off memory here). On an unrelated note, is the Danish 1st Division definitely not fully professional? Doing a quick survey I notice a few prominent names (especially Silkeborg and AB) out of the list of clubs that participated in that league last season... ugen64 (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked with Danish editor User:Kalaha before nominating this for AfD - he said the division is a mix of fully pro, semi pro and amateur clubs. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Remarks above about needing to be in a fully professional league are troubling. I can find no Wikipedia policy on this; indeed, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability does not mention this and specifically says:

"Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below:

1. Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure..."

which seems to me to cover this. In addition, the Danish 1st Division with 16 teams is the second tier of Danish football, the Superligaen having 12 clubs, making Herfølge one of the top 28 clubs in the country. Now, whether or not this player is notable depends on the level of his involvement in these clubs/leagues, about which I have no knowledge and will leave others to decide, but attempting to delete him on the basis of the clubs/leagues he plays in is wrong. Emeraude (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN has not been accepted by the wider community (as it says on the page itself, it "is not a policy or guideline"), so is irrelevant. I don't see how you have missed WP:ATHLETE ("Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league") given that it has been mentioned at least five times. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep as he is a notability - he is the latest winner of Danish U-17 award. Further there is very few amateur clubs in the Danish 1st Division (one or two, maybe) and most of the teams are fully pro. kalaha 10:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can find no evidence that it is not a professional league. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Numbers57 is invoking Kalaha as his primary defense for nomination, but Kalaha seems to believe the article should be kept. With the award, first team appearances, and the media coverage, I think this is a case where project guidelines need to be subordinated. He has made first team appearances, so he is not an explicitly youth team player, so it makes that argument difficult, even if he will be with Liverpool reserves initially. matt91486 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We need to be careful to follow the spirit of a guideline. WP:ATHLETE confers notablity on Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league. But how fully is fully? And how do we apply this to every sport. In the absence of community-accepted detailed criteria for each sport, we need to be careful how to apply this. If we were to apply the letter of the guideline rigidly, we'd wipe out many, many articles (such as most of those listed in Category:Canadian lacrosse players - for while they are fully professional teams and a league, most NLL players have alternate sources of income. So we have to follow the spirit. In this case a fully-professional player has played for a fully-professional team, in a national league comprised mostly of fully-professional teams. Common sense dictates that under these circumstances the spirit of WP:ATHLETE has been met. Nfitz (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, he passes WP:ATHLETE. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I dont see any reasons why this entry should be deleted. He's a young, coming player, now on one of the biggest teams in England. Why shouldnt there be an entry about himk? Stupid suggetion. --80.203.70.235 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's a blurred line between professional team and league, WP:Athlete is not specific enough. The combination of other notability factors (coverage, etc) suggests this player will pass notability. Rasadam (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think in this case the professional status of the Danish league is irrelevant. The fact that his team plays in that country's top division is notable enough on its own. Perhaps an amendment needs to be made to WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYN to cover this. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 08:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • His team doesn't play in the country's top tier though - the Danish 1st Division is the second tier - ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boy, is my face red. That'll teach me to be so hasty. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Dermott Fictel as a plausible typo. (non-admin closure) ~ Eóin (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dermott Fictell[edit]

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

These two articles are the exact same:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermott_Fictell

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermott_Fictel

The second one should be the only one used. Tm1000 (talk) 20:38, 28 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic (comic)[edit]

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

Contestes prod. Non notable self-published comic by two otherwise non notable authors. James Abrams plus Archaic gives 68 distinct Google hits[7], and Brett Marting plus archaic gives 60 Google hits (mostly the same as the other search, of course). Neither produces a Google News hit. Was nominated for the Golden Chazzies, a completely unknown award that gets a grand total of 33 distinct Google hits and no Google News hits[8]. So the only potential source we are left with is a mention in a list from Wizard Magazine. Fails thus WP:NOTE. Fram (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTE, unless a better solution is suggested. Seems a shame to just toss all that information. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, utterly non-notable, self-published comic. Get rid of it and the pages of the authors. Wizard magazine and Internet fan sites like Silver Bullets are not enough to justify notability requirements. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. When talking about specialist literature like comics, Wizard and Silver Bullet are the New York Times and Washington Post. Receiving an accolade like the #4 indie comic of the year should be accolade enough to establish notability. I've added some refs which should additionally demonstrate the subject's encyclopedic notability. Ford MF (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Ford's reasoning and efforts. McJeff (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to refs from wizard.Yobmod (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Sambey[edit]

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

Speedied once under A7, and nominated for PROD a second time. Speedy challenged at User talk:SchuminWeb#why delete my page?, where author admitted their conflict of interest in creating the article about themselves. Article was recreated by the original author, and nominated for PROD by another editor who was unaware of the earlier speedy. The PROD text was, "Subject of article does not appear to be notable per WP:PEOPLE". I have challenged the PROD per the earlier fuss being made, and therefore take it to AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- The article fails to explain the notability of the subject. The main claim to notability appears to be that Stanley Sambey was a founding member of the Federal Marijuana Party however I can't find anything regarding this on their website. I can't locate any reliable sources which verify the content of the article. Nk.sheridan   Talk 20:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - yup, I forgot the WP:COI issue! btw, I'm the editor mentioned as nominating for PROD. Nk.sheridan   Talk 20:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable article, conflict of interest. Chimeric Glider (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a notable subject. The main writer is the subject himself, which likely results in a conflict of interest. Additionally, the article would need significant rewriting to meet Wikipedia standards. And since the person is non-notable, it'll be next to impossible for anyone but him to do so. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, appears to be a self-promotion article, little verifiable info. -Toon⁰⁵ 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete according to nominator, per WP:PEOPLE and WP:COI, Postoak (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and WP:SALT possibly if things become problematic. JBsupreme (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The person hasn't been elected to any public office. Article has no reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Creating editor (User:Stambo2001) has challenged deletion at my talkpage. I've directed him here per this Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the two listed by the nominator. The others did not have an AfD tag on them, and will need to be nominated separately. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maidstone United F.C. season 2008-2009[edit]

Maidstone United F.C. season 2008-2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Precedent here and here has established that football clubs which play below the professional leagues do not merit articles on individual seasons unless the club achieved something truly remarkable. Obviously by definition the club has achieved nothing remarkable in a season which has not yet started. For the same reason I am also nominating Maidstone United F.C. season 2007-2008, in which the club also achieved nothing especially remarkable ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both I don't believe teams outside fully professional leagues deserve season by season articles. I would also suggest deleting Eastbourne Borough F.C. season 2007-08 and Eastbourne Borough F.C. season 2008-09 for exactly the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all four per above. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 22:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Undeserving of season by season articles barring something particularly exciting, which happened in none of these cases. Vickser (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. GiantSnowman 01:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Maidstone United and Eastbourne season 2007-08, keep Eastbourne 2008-09, I thought the criteria for seasons articles were for teams in a national league making Conference National teams seasons valid. Therefore this seasons article for Eastbourne meets notability.--Jimbo^[online] 09:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case then I'll change my vote to match yours. Could you provide a link to this policy/guideline/discussion? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 13:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a look but can't find anything to support my claims. I guess the following should be included in this AfD too. --Jimbo^[online] 15:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Aldershot Town F.C. season 2007-08
• Woking F.C. season 2007-08
• York City F.C. season 2006-07
• York City F.C. season 2007-08
  • Comment Surely Aldershot returning to the Football League is worthy enough? Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maidstone United F.C. season 2008-2009. None of the others are currently AFDs. We should discuss each separately - there may be merit to one of them. Nfitz (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maidstone United F.C. season 2007-2008 is also an AfD, as I nominated the two articles together...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, they're all regarding teams who did not play in a fully professional league at the time. --Angelo (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd have to agree with deleting the non-league teams. However those Conference teams are well publicized and those York articles have really good citation, so I don't think they should be deleted. Govvy (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - he made his official pro debut on July 1st thus it meets WP:ATHLETE --JForget 22:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Wileman[edit]

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

Player has not sufficiently satisfied the notability criteria for football players as determined by WikiProject on Football GauchoDude (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are, um, pretty unclear criteria. I interpret point one as being someone who plays for a professional team which competes in a national-level league, on which basis he seems to qualify - I don't understand the American system very well, but FC Dallas seems to compete in the top-level league there, which is what it's asking for. What is a "FPNL club", anyway? The only reference to that on google seems to be the deletion criteria and discussions of it.... Shimgray | talk | 19:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It basically means he has to play for a professional team, which he does in FC Dallas, however moreso the fact that he has to appear in a competitive fixture to become notable, such as a league match or the US Open Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GauchoDude (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly concerned over whether we keep this article or not, but please next time try to give your reasons for listing it for deletion rather than just vaguely invoking a page without explaining why it qualifies. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time for us all. Shimgray | talk | 13:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The player's MLS profile confirms he hasn't made any appearances, so fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 01:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he has now made his pro debut, as per JonBroxton below. GiantSnowman 16:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since he hasn't made an appearance yet for FC Dallas he fails WP: Athlete. Vickser (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice and recreate if and when he makes an appearance. --Jimbo^[online] 09:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Note to nominator - WP:FOOTYN has not been accepted by the wider community and should not be used in deletion debates. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE criteria of "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league" as he plays in the MLS Reserve Division which is fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as per the discussion at WP:FOOTBALL, reserve leagues are not considered to be a "fully professional league." GiantSnowman 18:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not aware of any WP:FOOTBALL discussion that discusses MLS Reserve Division, but rather discusses the less professional European reserve divisions. Nfitz (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - You mean a league less professional than the MLS Reserve Leagues, where you can have "guest players" walk on to the team to play, having no connection to the team whatsoever? From here, "A guest player with a reserve division team may be eligible to appear in a reserve division game provided that he is properly registered and all necessary paperwork has been completed and confirmed." I also seem to recall one team had to call down people from the press box to come play to field a full squad, which was mentioned on Fox Football FoneIn. GauchoDude (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's actually true - Dan Cerwinske, who is a member of Galaxy's back office admin team (albeit one who was once a college soccer standout) played for Galaxy in a reserve game this year. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • New evidence shows he has played professionally - July 1st 2008 Nfitz (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reserve teams are not first team, so playing for one of them should not be considered as a notable event. --Angelo (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Wileman has now made his full professional debut for Dallas, completing full 90 minutes in a US Open Cup game against Miami FC. [9] --JonBroxton (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close this discussion please - JonBruxton is correct, he has indeed made his pro debut. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 08:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Blaque[edit]

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

Non-notable songwriter, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. No notable references. No references in the artcle, external links point to MySpace and Discogs. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC as stated and WP:BIO due to an outright lack of reliable third party publications about the subject. JBsupreme (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 11:12, 30 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. Kurykh 20:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward P. Felt[edit]

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

Edward Felt is notable only for making a call from United Airlines Flight 93, which is something many passengers did. As quoted in WP:ONEEVENT: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. VegitaU (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT. Making a 911 call, no matter the circumstances, is not a notable activity. There is no indication of other basis for notability, unless one counts having a building named after you by your company, which again does not seem to be a basis for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain — I created the page because I thought Ed was notable for having made (possibly) the last call from the plane before it went down. Others apparently felt so as well from the previous discussion, as well as there being mention of his call in external sources. However, since he was an associate of mine, in the interests of fairness I have chosen to abstain from participating in any decision about deleting/keeping the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: CeeCee Lyles also made a call at the same time (09:58) on her cell phone to her husband and she does not have an article to her name. Even having left a recording from a previous call she made. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable outside the 93 flight to warrant a Biography. He was part of a notable but one time event, which fails WP:BLP criteria for article creation. Rasadam (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Doherty[edit]

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

Non notable. Five years on Wikipedia and no reliable sources. Non notable author. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - an article on a person at the center of a religious controversy that has all these links is at least as notable as characters in some video games
  • Acharya S
  • Dan Brown
  • Docetism
  • Doherty (surname)
  • Earl (given name)
  • George Albert Wells
  • Gospel of Thomas
  • Historical Jesus
  • Historicity of Jesus
  • Jesus
  • Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
  • Jesus myth hypothesis
  • Josephus on Jesus
  • Ki Longfellow
  • Lee Strobel
  • List of books about Jesus
  • Robert M. Price
  • The Bible and history
  • The God Who Wasn't There
  • The Jesus Mysteries
  • The Jesus Puzzle
    • There are 20,000 google hits for <"Earl Doherty" Jesus>. I am no fan of Doherty or his thesis, and the article does need some sourcing, but the relevant deletion that should happen is this proposal for deletion instead --JimWae (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After being on Wikipedia for 5 years alows a lot of time for adding many links. Also, there is no substancial independent coverage. As is, this article lacks notability and reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wikipedia links aren't evidence of notability. We need substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Five years and no reliable sources. Also, author of a non notable book. As a non notable person with no reliable sources to establish notability, this page should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - with reservations, and possibly with The Jesus Puzzle merged into this article. The subject does not seem to be directly notable in his own right, but the numerous ghits for both him personally and for his work I think merits having a page to at least discuss The Jesus Puzzle and his other works, and an article on him as an individual is as good a place as any for such content. And the book is I think notable as this review from American Atheism's online edition seems to indicate. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The review also appeared in the print edition: vol. 39, no. 1 (Winter 2000-2001), pp. 43-45. That's one reliable source; we generally want two or more. Are there more out there? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep-Regarded as one of the ="pillars" of the modern Jesus Myth concept. A merging with The Jesus Puzzle is definitely warranted as there really is not enough there for two separate articles. As for the second source how about the peer review journal the original The Jesus Puzzle appeared in? If that is not enough I found him, his book, or web page referenced by Zuckerman, Phil (2003) Invitation to the Sociology of Religion, Ricker, George A (2006) Godless in America: Conversations with an Atheist, Gibson, Stephen L. (2007) A Secret of the Universe: A Story of Love, Loss, and the Discovery of an Eternal Truth, and Bennett, Clinton (2001) In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. George Albert Wells includes some critical comment on Doherty in an article published in New Humanist. That and the American Atheist review cited above imply Doherty's notability at least as a popular atheist/humanist author. The article should probably be merged with The Jesus Puzzle, and could possibly be merged into Jesus myth hypothesis if that article were organised differently. EALacey (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The problem with specialists in a niche field is that very few people outside of that niche have ever heard of them. The real question here is: "Is the Jesus Mythist theory notable enough to warrant an entry in Wikipedia?" If the answer to that question is "yes", then this article on Doherty should remain, because he is generally considered to be the leading exponent of the Jesus Mythist theory. Unlike most who advocate the Jesus Mythist position, Doherty does get some of his material published in academic journals.jonathon (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is clearly notable, as anybody familiar with the Jesus Myth theory would know. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His book was reviewed in Free Inquiry (Unpacking Christ's case Robert Price. Free Inquiry. Buffalo: Summer 2002. Vol. 22, Iss. 3; pg. 66, 1 pgs-- Full text available on ProQuest) Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources about him can be found, ironically, on the websites of his philosophical opponents, of which there is no lack. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per above -- deletion vote seems to be for POV-pushing reasons. Those voting keep here may also want to vote on Acharya S, which was also put up for deletion and has even more reason to stay but has not been getting as many votes. DreamGuy (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I have my own misgivings about the sudden deletion vote for Acharya S, Doherty, and the The Jesus Puzzle all on the same day (the last also needs help BTW) the criteria for living persons is so high (much of it for practical reasons) that the narrower the field people cover the more likely they will get axed regardless of how publicly known they are.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I would argue that the field of the historical authenticity of Jesus is not a narrow field. It may seem narrow to those who do not question certain beliefs from birth, but is not so narrow to a growing body of Biblical scholars. And no matter how unknown to the general public, it has far-reaching implications. The only vote here to delete comes from the same source, and repeated. I suspect this is a vote to delete that is not based on notability or cited sources, but on emtotional reactions to the subject matter dealt with by Doherty, who has become the leading voice for this interesting position. As someone said somewhere, we allow comic book characters space, and characters in sitcoms, but get feisty when serious research is put into investigating our religious beliefs?JiggeryPokery (talk) 20:19, 29 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. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus Puzzle[edit]

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

Non notable book with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This book is notable enough to warrant attention from this, this, and this site, all of which tear it apart piece by piece. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Commet Those are websites, I do not understand how they can pass as reliable sources that establish notability. Is the book published by a major publisher and does it have reviews from scholars in notable journals? There is a need for reliable sources that confirm notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The fact that the philosophical opponents of the book have taken notice of it in order to refute it is prima facie evidence of notability. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The problem with the sources mentioned by Blanchardb is that they're self-published websites. To establish that this book is notable, we need to have reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the book--most websites won't qualify. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the Earl Doherty article. The combination is notable, but I don't see the need for two articles. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:*Delete Possible merge to Earl Doherty, if reliable sources are provided. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

Note: This vote cast by person who made nomination, so admin closing the vote should be careful not to double count.DreamGuy (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Earl Doherty. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Certainly notable on a topic becoming more and more discussed in larger society. Some merging being possible, but I've seen too many times people try to use "merge/redirect" votes as if they were "delete" votes as an excuse to delete the information and/or while counting for alleged "consensus". DreamGuy (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep with merge -- If we keep the Chick Tracks article whose 90 references are all self published (more than 90% from Jack T. Chick's own website) then certainly we should keep the Jesus Puzzle article (which as far better references) with it being merged with Earl Doherty. In fact, I would like to know why given the self published nature of its references Chick Tracks is not marked for Deletion as well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion is about The Jesus Puzzle. Other stuff exists is not a suitable reason to keep this one, nor is its converse a reason to try to delete another article (which of course you are free to nominate separately).  Frank  |  talk  01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Earl Doherty. Not that much material in The Jesus Puzzle article, I doubt it warrants its own article. As mentioned by others, the combination seems notable enough.--Boffob (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Earl Doherty per Boffob. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: above view is the second one given by the nominator, in addition to the nom itself.  Frank  |  talk  01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin Nominator changed vote from delete to Redirect and merge to Earl Doherty. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Author. Book is not notable enough for article itself. Make into section redirect.Yobmod (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian Brazilian[edit]

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

Another useless article. This article has nothing about the population. An editor actually found out that the sources that the user who created this article was false. The user was just making up numbers. Lehoiberri (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just delete the made-up numbers, and you have a valid stub. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am Brazilian and I say this community is not notable in my country. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails to establish notability. Punkmorten (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent on recent similar nominations (xxxx Brazillian) Rasadam (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Brazilian[edit]

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

Another useless article. No information about the population. In fact, the user who created this page inflates the population to 1,850 and after reading his sources well the population is just 738. Lehoiberri (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Factual errors can be corrected. No need for an AfD. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am Brazilian and I say this community is not notable in my country. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails to establish notability. The person who is pictured is rather Brazilian Canadian, a different thing. Punkmorten (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent on recent similar nominations (xxxx Brazillian) Rasadam (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino Brazilian[edit]

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

Again another useless article. Its almost empty. No numbers on the population. There is no sources. Lehoiberri (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Valid stub. The article needs improving, not deletion. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am Brazilian and I say that community is not notable in my country. Asian notable communities are Japanese, Chinese and Korean (in São Paulo). Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found some notable Filipino Brazilians over Google but I do not see any strong cultural interaction between the two people.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect It need either improvements or redirect it to a certain page regarding or related to foreigners in Brazil. -iaNLOPEZ1115 09:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Uncyclopedic article that can't be improved due to lack of relevant information. DutchDevil (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails to establish notability. Punkmorten (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent on recent similar nominations (xxxx Brazillian) Rasadam (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Big To Huge[edit]

From Big To Huge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

future non-notable album also a violation of WP:CRYSTAL - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nomination; also, non-notable. Renee (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The one reference provided returns an Error 404. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 13:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close This is a CSD, page tagged for speedy Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic black (disambiguation)[edit]

Basic black (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unnecessary page Napierk (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy --T-rex 17:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close, tagged for deletion under G7 Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Black (disambiguation)[edit]

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

unnecessary page Napierk (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy --T-rex 17:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO, a number of the sources don't even mention him, and the reliable second party sources that do mention him give fairly trivial mentions. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Feigl[edit]

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

Not notable at all, lacking neutral sources, article contains pov material. Namsos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Here is the German version of the article (translated with Google translation) and he does seem notable -- there are far more citations. Renee (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Apparently, this guy was a crackpot denying the Armenian genocide and wanting to restore the Habsburg monarchy. Of course, even crackpots can be notable if their ideas gather enough attention in mainstream media. Renee draws attention above to the article on this person in the German Wikipedia. It is instructive to read the talk page of the German article, too. --Crusio (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete German article is irrelevant. --Namsos (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Above comment suggests possible bad faith on the part of the nominator. POV is a reason for cleanup, not deletion; the de.wikipedia article is absolutely relevant, and WP:NOTCENSORED. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith? this is English Wikipedia what happens in German is not my concern since I do not read or write in it. The editor is on that article too. --Namsos (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German article has more sources, which was noted here by User:Reneeholle before your above response. Lack of neutral sources was part of your nomination rationale. Deletion is a last resort for things that may not otherwise be saved. By ignoring an answer to your objection, it appears that deletion, (perhaps because genocide denial is a distasteful topic, but that's my perspective and may not be yours) rather than the improvement of wikipedia, may be your goal. Regardless, I'm convinced the person is notable and the article should be kept, and that decision was based on the evidence presented, not your statement. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. It seems that his notability rests on his status as a genocide denier and a monarchist crank, rather than anything in WP:PROF, and therefore that it should be determined by the existence of reliable secondary sources about him per WP:BIO. A Google news search found a little, but not enough to really convince me, and the recently-added Spiegel article only mentions him trivially. At the very least, the lede of the article should highlight more prominently his non-mainstream views. I notice that unsourced claims in the article of being a historian and a professor at the University of Vienna have been the subject of some edit warring recently; the article still calls him a professor, but without context, and that should probably also be removed unless it can be sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless he can be proven significant as a Armenian Genocide denier and conspiracy theorist, he is irrelevant. As far as I know, no other English wikipedia articles reference him. The Myotis (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any web search yields thousands of hits. Erich Feigl has produced over 60 documentaries and won numerous awards. A lot less prominent personalities have found their places on these pages. I am surpised this nomination even came this far. It looks like an abuse of the system by a user who has little good faith. --Murat (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that less prominent people have an article is not an argument here, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there a reason why none of these documentaries is listed at the Internet Movie Database? Badagnani (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One is that I could see, where he's credited as an assistant director, but I'm unsure how comprehensive IMDB's coverage is of non-English language documentaries. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP This article passes WP:BIO. It seems to be a very encyclopedic article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per David Eppstein. Fails WP:PROF, and also fails WP:BIO as there is no evidence that he has been the subject of extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteNot notable enough. Can't have an article for every single Genocide denier. Even people who are very familiar with the topic have never heard of him.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of refs, and an oldish article on the German wikipedia which has much stricter notability requirements. As such I can only view calls to delete this as a non-english bias --T-rex 03:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, appears to fit the bill quite nicely. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hacker (novel)[edit]

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

What used to be the article for The Bourne Ultimatum was edited by User:Jamie Bourne replacing all mentions of the Bourne novel and adding in a plot summary for "The Hacker". It was then moved by User:The hoodie to "The Hacker (Book)". I dont believe this novel exists for two reasons: one, i cant find it with a general google search, two the ISBN is for the Bourne novel, three the author is listed as Ludlum but also John Bryson, four Robert Ludlum didnt write said novel and five the John Bryson i can find that is an author (John Bryson (author)) hasnt wrote said novel. It appears to be pure made up information and a constant list of mistakes by other users. Salavat (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fabricated article. Chimeric Glider (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom --T-rex 17:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nomination. Renee (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Library of Congress has no record of this book either. I'd say revert to the original Bourne Supremacy article, but that apparently exists elsewhere. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. A Made up hoax. The article claims it's written by John Bryson, but there's an infobox that say it's written by Ludlum. All relevant ghits are to the article, this very AfD or to Wikipedia mirrors. In fact, the other language versions of this article are all actually for The Bourne Ultimatum. Basically this was vandalism that went unchecked and unreverted for a year. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:23, 29 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 (non-admin closure) Oo7565 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Minnesota Fats[edit]

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

Unnecessary dab. The fictional character doesn't have a page and probably wouldn't; anyone searching for Rudolf Wanderone, Jr. would be more likely to search for his common name Minnesota Fats, and this just adds an unnecessary click to the search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nomination; unnecessary dab.Renee (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep This AFD is half-baked. For one thing, the article has not been tagged. And, for another, the proposition that the hugely notable name of Minnesota Fats should lead to no article here is obviously wrong. There are some competing claims to the name between the real and fictional people and this dispute is itself notable. I have rewritten the article to make this clearer and cited two good sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, serves to explain why the real-life pool player changed his artist name. JIP | Talk 18:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but as disambiguation page. There isn't enough material here for an article per WP:FICT and the bit about the name is best covered in Rudolf Wanderone Jr. anyway, where it is well-sourced and discussed in the context of his biography. --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added an AFD notice to the page, TPH (I presume it was a glitch in the matrix) --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it was. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The fictional character doesn't meet WP:FICT it seems, and any info can be covered in Rudolf's page. It doesn't make sense to me (per WP:NAME) for the pool player's page to be at Rudolf what's-his-face since only pool fanatics know him that way. Someone searching for "Minnesota Fats" would most likely want to find info on the real pool player, not the fictional one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So you should withdraw this AFD and propose a merge of Rudolf Wanderone Jr. into this article per WP:NAME. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Rudolf Wanderone Jr. I wonder how come this hasn't been done already. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree. The other article is much better and gives the infomation on both the real and fictional persons. No need for someone to waste time trying to improve this article. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Hustler was a landmark film, very famous and iconic. Thus it's no surprise that there are plenty of reliable sources on the fictional character, sans any mention of Wanderone. See, e.g., this Google book search. Of course, I'm quite familiar with WP:WAX, but it's surprising that with all the incredible amounts of fancruft crap—thousands of truly unverifiable video game character articles and the like—to see resources used to nominate this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's Minnesota Fats. What's next, Sam Spade? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Subject is notable, plus the existence of the character predating Wanderone's fame shows the marketing that Wanderone did to further his own career. People think Rudolf Wanderone created The Hustler but truth be told, it was the other way around. Without the Hustler, Wanderone would have been a legend around pool halls, and probably not a lot more. Eauhomme (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I favor keeping the page as a disambiguation page. One redirection to The Hustler character and one redirection to Wanderone, or a clear disambiguation to Wanderone. I strongly oppose removal of the article on The Hustler character or any indication that Wanderone is the only Minnesota Fats. Eauhomme (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for reasons above. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep A good deal of expansion should be possible as popular culture references to the film specifically. I really couldn't believe this particular nomination when I saw in on deletion sorting. Nominations need to be made with some awareness of the subject & the background. DGG (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Jaw droppingly keep per Colonel Warden, Fuhghettaboutit, Fee Fi Fo Fum, &c., &c. Ford MF (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unusual situation of interaction between fictional character and real person's life justifies keeping, even if an interpretation of WP:FICT would indicate otherwise. JamesMLane t c 20:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"

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

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

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bec d'Epicoune[edit]

Bec d'Epicoune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

poorly written and lack nobility. ElectricalExperiment 16:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is not against Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the fact that it's a stub should have no bearing on its existance - there are thousands of stubs on Wikipedia. JonCatalán (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Major geographical features such as this are inherently notable, particularly one that marks the border between two nations. A "poorly written" stub of a notable topic is a WP:SOFIXIT issue where deletion is not the solution. --Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Major geographic features are notable. Bec d'Epicoune is a valid mountain stub. Sources are widely available to verify it. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep mountain apparently exists and as such, is inherently notable. Current state is not a reason for deletion, but rather clean up. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per everyone but nominator. Edward321 (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per precedent, all verifiable major geographical features, such as mountains, are notable.  Sandstein  20:11, 29 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. JIP | Talk 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finan Family History[edit]

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

This looks very much like someone posted their finfings on their own family history, which is rather unnotable. StaticGull  Talk  12:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleteper WP:CSD#A7. If that is not possible delete per WP:N and WP:NOT. Anonymous101 (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and/or WP:NOT harris 578 (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:V, possible A7 --Numyht (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. completely non-notable and myspace-ish.Renee (talk) 17:35, 28 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tears Fall[edit]

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

Although the article may be notable enough, it doesn't contain enough information yet. StaticGull  Talk  12:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I fixed the AfD so it wasn't closed. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 15:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please fix. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tears Fall. There was already an AfD which closed as Redirect; which should not have been removed. I'd fix it myself, but I'm a little confused as to how to do it, and how to handle fixing this (second) AfD. Can an experienced admin please help ? Plvekamp (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable; certainly not enough for a whole article on its own.Renee (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 18:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The two AfDs were actually at different locations due to case sensitivity. I moved the page and added an "AfDs for this article" box. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 18:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A gnews and gsearch isn't turning up notability for this single from an unreleased album, nor is any claimed in the article. No prejudice against re-creation if it becomes notable in the future.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no prejudice for recreation if this develops into something covered by the media. Ford MF (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons already mentioned, without prejudice to re-creation in the future. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all reasons above. - eo (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fantasy Ride since this song is not confirmed as a single. ILikeMusicaLot (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Nothing significant has changed, still not notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Name is Jerry[edit]

My Name is Jerry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Amateur movie, no claim of notability. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This film is not an amateur movie with no claim of notability... can we get a clear indication of what needs to be added or removed to fix this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisjerry (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! the creator of the article who has done nothing else on Wikipedia other than work on this article wants to Keep this article. I am aghast! Clearly User:Mynameisjerry has big conflict of interest and ownership issues. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Upon review, I would say my nomination rationale is wrong, but the article is still not worth keeping. Since the movie is in pre-production, and there are no big names involved, you should wait until it gets released before creating an article on it. Right now, the sources do not fit the guidelines for verifiability. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - crystal-ballism. The article describes a product that may exist in the future. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is in pre-prod and still isn't cast. Wikipedia is not for advertising your film or guessing the future. Fails WP:MOVIE as well. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a professional independent film with professional actors. All major roles have been cast. Cmwinters (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, the argument on the delete side was that there is already a category for the topic, which is not a substantial argument when we have a list of dog breeds that also has a category. The article can be improved, perhaps by using a table format and adding more information, and it needs references. However just because that hasn't been done yet isn't a good enough argument to make for it to be deleted. Chetblong (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Macintosh games[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)).

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

Delete for two reasons. Firstly, eight months after being tagged as unreferenced, none of it is sourced. Secondly categories are much more suited to collecting data like this. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful list in need of cleanup. It's not on a deadline. SashaNein (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:USEFUL. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't spit non-policies in my face. SashaNein (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you believe that WP:DEADLINE is a policy? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. She didn't introduce WP:DEADLINE as an imperative. Protonk (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, categories are better suited. Furthermore, I bet that there are millions of red linked games that someone might be tempted to add to this list (I would also bet it's less than 10% complete). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per TenPoundHammer --T-rex 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pages in category "Mac OS games": 621. As stated before this seems better suited to categories which already exist. Even Category:Mac OS-only games exists. If it ends up deleted please redirect Mac games to something suitable like the category Faradayplank (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and close Catgories and lists are not exclusive and do not compete with each other. See WP:CLN. It is considered disruptive behaviour to nominate either in this way. This is an obviously notable subject for a list. The content should largely be common sense. --neon white talk 00:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN is a guideline, not a policy. WP:V is policy. Also there is NO extra detail in the article that wouldn't be found in a category, it is just a simple list of article links. Nothing else. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is called a navigational list. Have a good read of WP:LISTS especially Wikipedia:LISTS#Navigation. They are a major part of wikipedia navigation and do not conflict with categories. It is the consensus of the community that neither should be nominated for deletion on grounds of overlap. --neon white talk 15:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Who considers it "disruptive behaviour"? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again, who considers it disruptive? Given that I've nominated a bunch of similar articles which have all been successfully deleted I am looking for a specific place where this consensus was reached. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – We already have other such articles such as List of Nintendo Entertainment System games with corresponding category list, the former containing plenty of red links; in fact, it looks like more red links than this list article. With that said, also agree with SashaNein about cleanup. MuZemike (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention the other useful list, else he'll go on a crusade to have that notable list removed as well. SashaNein (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tempt me. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NOT#INFO. Better presented as a category, and no point in listing a couple hundred games on this list. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not indiscriminate, it has clear criteria in line with guidelines. Again categories and lists do not compete with each other. --neon white talk 15:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is that criteria? Is the criteria simply games that run on a Mac? Is it games that run on current Macs? If it is simply every game that runs on a Mac, do we include games that run within emulators like VirtualPC? How about games that run in WINE? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stated criteria is "Macintosh video games available for any version of Mac OS in native mode" --neon white talk 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - along with the other hundred or so similar lists in Category:Video game lists by platform, including three featured lists. Nifboy (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't see any difference between those lists which include other information which can't be included in a category and this one which is just simply a list of article links? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the equivalent of deleting a page because it's a stub. Nifboy (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ZOMG turn into category This thing SCREAMS "turn me into an easy navigational category". No added information. Only wikilinks. A category would be easier to maintain and 0 information would be lost doing it. Protonk (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is valid navigational list, fully complying with guidelines guidelines. --neon white talk 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lists and categories are not exclusive. It has been shown that it is possible to have a featured list of video games by adding more information. If this list doesn't provide added information when compared to the category, the solution is to add the information, not to delete the list! Treat it as a kind of stub; AfD is not cleanup. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said at the top, the article has been tagged for eight months as unreferenced and eight months and approximately forty edits later it still has zero references. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We already have a category for this purpose. It makes no sense to duplicate this content, and it goes without saying that open-ended lists attract all sorts of non-notable additions (like Movod 2, for example). -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN explains why lists and categories are considered both valid and neither preferred. --neon white talk 22:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It concerns me that nobody seems to be dealing with the question "Does having this list improve the ability for a Wikipedia user to find access to appropriate articles?". There are wikipedia policy's and guidelines that go either way, and the idea behind these debates isn't vote counting - its about achieving consensus on compiling a collection of appropriate and useful information. I think we would do much better with this topic, if we focused on whether or not having the page is useful to wikipedias aims, rather than simply quoting competing policy and guidelines. Where's our consensus guys? Does this list help our users get access to relevant and appropriate information in Wikipedia about the subject? Less of "it does/doesn't meet policy" and more "does this help us" methinks! Icemotoboy (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hence, the fifth pillar of Wikipedia: Ignore all rules. MuZemike (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And now to contradict what I just said, Deletion policy states that These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate. MuZemike (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does this article add any additional value to Wikipedia? It's a duplicate listing (and just a list) of the Macintosh games. The category is a much better format (easier to maintain, more navigable). If the article however would be turned into a table with release dates, publishers, etc, then I can see some use for it. But then, Chronology of Macintosh games might be a more appropriate name for that. Rasadam (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that in its current form, this list effectively duplicates the "Mac OS games" category. But I think it could be very useful and encyclopedic. Deleting it seems like a waste... it would be similar to deleting a stub or an otherwise undeveloped article. I'd like to work on it, but I can't guarantee anything soon (especially not within the day or two that this discussion will remain open). Thus I recommend that the article be kept and improved. I'll certainly help out, time permitting. --Iamunknown 07:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We have an entire Category:Video game lists by platform, so I'm wondering why the Mac list is being singled out in this fashion. I'm not trying to invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS here, but I would like to know what the consensus is regarding lists like these, which have well-defined but perhaps overly broad criteria leading to a very long list. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Macintosh is less of a gaming platform and more of an OS. (Yes, that does imply that I would support the deletion of a few more of those lists) --T-rex 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That could appear to be POV statement or strawman argument. The issue is not whether Mac is a gaming platform or not, the AfD was raised because: the article was unsourced, and the requester felt that categories were much more suited too this. What this discussion needs to decide is if we can agree on whether this list as it standards adds or takes away from users navigating to pages on wikipedia. Mac's have a well referenced and verifable commitment to games across its iPods and iMacs that arguably is gaining momentum (1, 2, 3, 4). I think whatever the consensus we should agree on something that benefits users by not being confusing. I.e. A level of standardization in the VG Project on this issue would be great.Icemotoboy (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First saying that Macintosh is an OS is not POV, but a simple indisputable fact. Secondly iPods are certainly not Macintoshes, they are mp3 players. The subject is not apple --T-rex 05:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was suggesting that saying "Macintosh is less of a gaming platform and more of an OS" without citation could appear to be a POV statement, I provided some references that would dispute that statement, and that regardless it was a strawman argument. Lets try and focus the discussion on the usefulness of the list vs. category not debate whether "Mac OS" is more or less worthy of Video Game lists.Icemotoboy (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed, what you feel about OS X is irrelevant to the discussion. As I stated below, Wikipedia:Lists is very clear that lists and categories of the same thing actually improves navigation as readers have a preference either way (Some would want an article-based list, some would want to sift through a category).
          • It's clear that the list is valid as a list, even with an identical category. What the discussion should then be about is how well it meets criteria for being an article based on its content. Obviously it needs references, tag it. It's not a red link garden, it links to many other valid articles. I might suggest making the list into a table to make it sortable. As for the scope of the list I'd say it's very useful as there are many games I had no idea were released on the Mac. Plus it's a personal amusement to me every time I hear someone claim Macs don't have games, and an article like this is a poster child for why Wikipedia exists; to educate people and spread knowledge. Anyway, unless someone wants to challenge policy, we've confirmed it's existence is legit now let's go over how to improve it (as that is supposedly why we're all here). --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, valid list according to policy (which explicitly states that categories and lists of the same items may coincide with each other). Hell, it looks cleaner than other lists I've seen on Wikipedia. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- no point having a list if it does nothing a category couldn't. Reyk _YO! 02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List and categories are both welcome even if they cover the same thing, as stated in Wikipedia:Lists --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. — _Maggot^Syn 13:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Parry[edit]

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

Non-notable. Only mentioned by primary sources, his own website. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable journalist, played notable role in Iran-Contra scandal. Chimeric Glider (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Polk Award winner and his Iran-contra reporting is acknowledged. Even if sources about him are slim there's enough to confirm major assertions and he he has sufficient recognition for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times story just barely mentions him, and that is more sourcing than the article has had so far. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Polk award is enough for me. His impact on Iran-Contra solidifies it. Definitely notable. Vickser (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He seems to be notable enough. However the article could use some work. Right now it is mainly a coatrack for his views. He left a successful career in mainstream journalism to edit a left-wing political blog. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:13, 29 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. Speedy deletion already said. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retardomusic[edit]

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

Delete irrelevant internet meme. It receives a grand total of six unique hits via google search, four of which are related to this Wikipedia article. There are about 2000 non-unique hits, all of them from the site rantsnraves.org. Fails WP:WEB. Mindmatrix 14:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable, seems like self promotion and/or a joke. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete made up neologism, joke, personal essay, possible attack magnet and I could go on and on... Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NFT. Delete it please, horrible. --Numyht (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as an nn meme and probable OR. May actually qualify as a speedy --T-rex 17:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, possibly speedy as an obvious attempt to astroturf a patently non-notable meme/advertise a website. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Strong Speedy Delete - Speedy under CSD A7 as a non-notable meme, from a non-notable website. Complete original research. Total violations of WP:NFT, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NEO, and WP:WEB. How many policies can one article break? Speedy Delete. iced kola^(Mmm...) 01:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, for the same reasons everybody else mentioned. BecauseWhy? (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete complete and total worthless garbage from an idiot troll trying to force a meme. If he kicks up a fuss, block him. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think this entry will do no harm. It is a genuine development in trolling and I see no reason why it needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueskyboris (talk • contribs) 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:NOHARM. Mindmatrix 02:49, 29 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. I've read through the article several times (including "past versions, reversions, new versions...), I've read the entire talkpage of the article, and I've read through and weighed the discussion here at AFD several times. It would be very easy for me to simply say "no consensus", but I would be doing so simply to avoid "hurt feelings". I'm obliged to say keep based on the case presented. The improvements to the article are valid, the sources are "improving", indicating a likelihood that they will continue to improve. Mr. Wilson's credentials, (Harvard), his academic position (academic dean of a prominent (within its field) seminary), his writing of a widely (again, within his field) book, the availability of reviews for said book, all add up to notability of subject. I agree in part with those advocating deletion that this biography is skewed towards being too coatrack-y, however, and want to urge all editors to not let the focus of the article be simply the book he wrote. The article definitely needs more citations specifically that talk (independently and reliably) about Mr. Wilson instead of "Mr. Wilson wrote a notable book". If those prove unattainable in the in the next few weeks/months, then this article is inappropriately named and a rename discussion should occur. (to the book title). Ideally, especially for WP:BLP biographies, we should have background, comeuppance, birth/(death) dates, etc that are sourced. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wilson (theologian)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Only mentioned in primary sources. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as non-notable -- no third party coverage, no indication in the article that anybody (even within the Unification Church) has even heard of him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of apparently notable sources (and a few stray hits) googling for "andrew wilson" and unification. Please take the time to do at least that much research before nominating an undersourced article: google first, nom second. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found two relevant cites from ProQuest, searching on "Andrew Wilson" and "unification"--a third did not appear relevant.

Andrew Wilson. The World & I. Washington: Jan 1999. Vol. 14, Iss. 1; pg. 266. A review of Boorstin's "The Seekers". Author tag "Andrew Wilson is associate professor of biblical studies at the Unification Theological Seminary His publications include True Family Values (1996) and World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts (1991). He has collaborated on textbooks in the field of moral education and also spent several years researching and planning an encyclopedia oriented around values."

Gülen's Paradox: Combining Commitment and Tolerance. Lester R Kurtz. The Muslim World. Hartford: Jul 2005. Vol. 95, Iss. 3; pg. 373, 12 pgs. Wilson is cited in end note: "See, e.g., the remarkable compendium edited by Andrew Wilson and posted on the internet at http://www.unification.net/ws/themel44.htm (available 30 August 2003)." as reference for "Virtually every religious tradition, for example, has some version of a "love your enemy" ethic" Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, apparently third party sources for "World Scripture" and "Andrew Wilson" include: [10], [11] (includes quotes from apparently non-Unification folks), [12] (one of six texts on the topic profiled), [13], [14], [15] (three examples--there are many more--of collegiate libraries linking to the online version as a reference).

• Comment: in actual fact, a Google search shows up almost exclusively primary and/or UC-affiliated sources. No indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you'd already gone through and done the searching I re-did, it would have been considerate for you to have explicitly said that--e.g. "first 20 google hits look like primary sources." That would have saved me some time. Jclemens (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't previously as (i) I didn't nominate this AfD & (ii) I don't find (vanilla) Google to be particularly useful because of the large number of unreliable sources it turns up (G. Scholar/Books tends to be more useful in that respect, but does tend to clog up with a large number of non-"significant coverage" bare mentions). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You looked at Google Scholar, did you? Did you notice that World Scripture seems to be cited 18 times? I just did. Funny how that got overlooked in the rush to declare that no one had ever heard of Andrew Wilson, Ph.D. from Harvard. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wilson's notability derives primarily from his having edited World Scripture, a 5-year project which I have seen praised a number of times in third-party publications as a major work in the field of comparative religion. This claim is made in the article, but is unsourced. This AfD is premature - a cite tag should have been put on that claim instead. So keep, but find third-party sources. A secondary claim of notability might not be enough by itself, that Wilson (a Harvard Ph.D. who is Academic Dean of the church's main seminary in the world) is probably the most accomplished Western theologian in the Unification Church, including being one of two translators of the church's main scripture. -Exucmember (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RS citations for this? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Andrew Wilson" + unification turns up zero hits on google news, whereas "Andrew Wilson" turns up a total of 10 pages of hits: including an associate professor of physics at the University of Otago and an archaeological scientist at the University of Bradford, but no professors of theology. I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF or WP:BIO, but I'd be happy to change my opinion if WP:RS sources are provided which demonstrate notability to either of these standards. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a critic of the Unification Church, but I have to take issue with Pete Hurd's comment. Google News?!? Is that how we evaluate the notability of an academic?!? There are three main claims to notability. [1] Editor of major work in comparative religion, World Scripture - third-party sources need to be found for its importance, which is more difficult as it was published in the pre-internet era (patience is appropriate here, not rushing to AfD). [2] He is the Academic Dean of a fully accredited graduate school. [3] He is probably the most accomplished Western theologian in the Unification Church, including being one of two translators of the church's main scripture. (This third claim is a harder one to evaluate. On the first point, WP:PROF says "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable....The person has published a significant and well-known academic work." -Exucmember (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You already made (1) above (and I asked for a WP:RS on it). (2) would appear to be an administrative position and non-notable. (3), even were it to be verified via a WP:RS is of questionable value -- as chief theologian of a church whose theological pronouncements many (in both the Christian and the secular communities) would often consider to be out-and-out bizarre. WP:FRINGE would appear to apply, and some independent verification that Unification theology is notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not at all comfortable with your (3)--at first glance, it looks to be taking a stand on the value of Unification theology. Can you please clarify that point? Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it would be stretching credibility to suggest that most Christians and secularists (as well as most Muslims, Buddhists, Confucians and presidential historians) would consider claims such as this (cited in Sang Hun Lee) of beyond-the-grave endorsements from Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius and 36 presidents of the US to be, to say the least, well outside the ordinary. I would therefore like to see some independent evidence that Unification theology is considered to be a serious field of academic study, and not merely an apologetic overlay on the pronouncements of Moon and other senior UC members. On a more general note, I would suggest that WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria applies, and that none of these criteria have, as yet, been met. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside from the inherent challenge of finding RS for minority viewpoints and religions, I don't think Unification's religious prestige or lack thereof should be a consideration on whether this article should be deleted or not. WP:RS and WP:N already cover it sufficiently, in other words. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For any Academic their notability due to the prominence in their specialist field necessarily relies on the prominence of that field. I would note that the Unification theology article cites no third party sources. I therefore would suggest that the prominence (and even the bare notability) of that field has not been established. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm finding your arguments less and less convincing; each reply makes it more difficult for me to WP:AGF, both in terms of your disrespect for a minority religion, but especially in light of the dozen or more college libraries which link to the online version of World Scripture. Please demonstrate good faith by amending your clearly erroneous initial statement in light of the evidence brought forth, at essentially trivial effort, by myself and other editors. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• <unident>Then lets leave the Unification aspect out of this altogether. Is Andrew Wilson considered "by independent sources" to be an expert in theology? Is he considered to be an "important figure" in theology by "independent notable" theologians (if so, then by whom)? Is World Scripture considered to be "significant and well-known" (again, if so, then by whom)? These are the questions that WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria asks. As to universities linking to it, (i) this is a very vague claim -- in what manner do they link to it? (ii) please provide verifiable information substantiating this & (iii) please establish relevance to WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still waiting for you to refactor, retract, or otherwise amend (which can be as simple as "the information since added to the article renders this statement now incorrect") your initial false statements. After all, shouldn't the presentation of accurate information in an AfD take precedence over such minor points? Still, both the article and this page have the information needed for you to answer the university linking question. If you'd like more, Google this string ("andrew wilson" "world scripture" site:*.edu) and peruse the results, adding them to the page as you see fit. As to the WP:ACADEMIC criteria "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is widely used as a textbook; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]." citations by a dozen university websites (many of them libraries), including UPenn, GMU, Temple, and Emory would seem to establish that pretty firmly. If you'd be so kind as to change your vote, I'll count that as self-repudiation of your initial incorrect comments. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll refactor it if somebody demonstrates it to be inaccurate. I am not repudiating the underlying theme of my previous thread of argument: that at some point "minority religion" becomes sufficiently small and sufficiently idiosyncratic that its study is no longer a significant field in theology (just as would apply to any other sub-sub-sub-field in academia), and that which side of this boundary UC sits on has not been established. My reframing of the question to theology generally was to avoid this (apparently contentious) issue, not a repudiation of it. Google hits turned up references that suggest that World Scripture is merely a collection of scriptural passages, organised thematically -- not that it is a major piece of original scholarship. As to my vote, let me clarify it: Delete: as there still has not been presented even a single WP:RS that attests to the topic's notability (per WP:NOTE, WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I'll demonstrate how your statement is inaccurate: "no third party coverage, no indication in the article that anybody (even within the Unification Church) has even heard of him" Note that since the second clause is qualified, twice, and the first statement is not, hence absolute.

1. "No third party coverage"--The article now has third party (i.e., non-UC) coverage.
2. "no indication in the article that anybody (even within the Unification Church) has even heard of him" Now there is.

If you still don't see the need to refactor that statement as demonstrably incorrect in light of the current state of ther article, then I really have nothing further to say in response to such intransigence. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the state that the article was in when I made my original comment. It could accurately be described as containing "no third party coverage, no indication in the article that anybody (even within the Unification Church) has even heard of him". Yes, third party sources have been provided since, but they are very poor quality as (i) they, or the statements attributed to them, score the trifecta of violating WP:NPOV (opinion stated as fact), WP:NOR (synthesis) and WP:V (referencing uncited quotes), and (ii) do not give the "significant coverage" required by WP:NOTE (nor meet the equivalent standards of WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC). There is thus no basis for either a retraction or a change of vote. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but you didn't say there was no third party coverage referenced in the article. By excluding the qualifier from that statement, and including it for the latter clause, you said that no third party coverage existed at all. You're now reinterpreting your statement to present it that that assertion was never made, but you're clearly unwilling to apply the same standards of exactness you apply to the article to your own statements. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The case of Dr. Wilson is pure ignorance or bias. World Scripture has sold over 25,000 copies and has dozens of very high reviews from people not related at all to UC. I would say that objectively he rates an entry more than a lot of people in the Wikipedia. If he doesn't merit an article of his own, at least merge the information about him into Unification Theological Seminary. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: last I checked WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria did not contain a sales-based criterion. Thus this figure, even if it were verifiable to a reliable source (which Ed fails to provide), is irrelevant. As to the claim that it has "has dozens of very high reviews from people not related at all to UC", where is the WP:RS? This is not a "case of ... pure ignorance or bias" it is case of repeated bare assertion, rather than making any attempt whatsoever to meet WP:PROVEIT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteComment I have run the Google search referred to above by Jclemens. This gives 13 hits. I have looked at all of them. Almost all (3 exceptions) are simple lists of "online web resources". The other three are texts citing this work (one in Russian). Google Scholar gives also about 13 hits and indicates that this work has been cited about 20 times. Many grad students get more cites... Hrafn is right, this does not meet WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria. --Crusio (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You meant comment, right? You already !Voted delete. While you're commenting, though, could you look at the Google Scholar ones I posted above, too? Jclemens (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure which ones you mean. The 18 citations that you refer to above? My former grad student (defended his PhD less than 4 years ago) has almost 150.... 18 is simply not very impressive, to say the least. --Crusio (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So what is the magic number? Is it the same from field to field? Note that he's not "just" an academic--he's a seminary professor, which means that he's likely been more involved in training Unification Church clergy than in publishing original research. I do know he's more cited than the vast majority of clergy are. Jclemens (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are absolutely right that citation rates vary a lot between different fields. In the life sciences, I don't start getting impressed below 1000. However, I cannot imagine that 18 citations would be above the mean in any field, theology or other. Of course most clergy are not cited because they do not simulteously work as academics. The correct comparison is with other seminary professors. As for "just" an academic: almost all academics teach and train, for instance, new scientists. Nothing really special about that. --Crusio (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So, given the pull quotes, Google scholar citations, etc., please take a look at the current state of the article and let me know 1) is there anything else that you see that should be added to change your vote under WP:ACADEMIC, or 2) is there another established notability standard that you believe he meets, given the information in the article now? Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but given all the evidence (of lack of evidence, actually) presented so far, I think it has been shown clearly that this article does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hrafn just tagged three trivial corrections for cleanup. I addressed each one, but the tagging of issues that could have been easily fixed by any editor raises additional questions of good faith on this editor's part. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Five more, even more trivial, tags have been addressed. Only one required a change. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After assessing Jclemens claims, I have to agree, there are notable sources (as he points out). It's a good start and Jclemens is demonstrating a good faith attempt to remedy the objections. Therefore, I strongly urge that this be kept. I would only say that a photo would be nice. Note that WP:ACADEMIC is merely a guideline and does not have the community's consensus to be a policy. As such there is plenty of room for leeway. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have personally seen praise in print for World Scripture from well-known people in the comparative religion world, but that was effectively before the web, so those comments are not on the web. It will take some time to find such additional sources commenting on Wilson's major work. Comparative religion is a much narrower field even than theology. As has been pointed out by me and others above, there are other factors that contribute to Wilson's notability, which are now covered pretty well in the article, but weren't when this AfD began. All of the reasons given directly after "delete" arguments above (well I guess there are only 3 people making such arguments, including the AfD nominator) have now been addressed in the article. -Exucmember (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to Closing Admin Please take a look at the edit history of the article. Hrafn has been actively removing material which I and Exucmember believe establish notability for Wilson's work, such as the fact the online version of his notable work is linked to by multiple college/university libraries. I intend to pursue dispute resolution processes, but I do not want my failure to edit war over these material removals to impact the resolution of this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think that lists of links establish notability just by including this work. --Crusio (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And I appreciate your candor throughout the process, even though we disagree. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further I am now not reverting the article in question until I've had a neutral party appraise whether doing so will violate 3RR. I have been unjustly accused of Coatracking, despite WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack--as the book is Wilson's biggest documented accomplishment, it is allowed to take up disproportionate space in the article. Further, I have been unjustly accused of Gaming the AfD, simply because of my concerted effort to include material to demonstrate that Andrew Wilson meets the criteria of having published a major work in his field--that work being World Religion the alleged coatrack. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As it stands this is a very bad article. WP:COATRACK applies in the extreme - i.e. the article is just an excuse to write about his book. The article contains no biographical material. No birthdate, no other jobs, no history. Unless the article is substantially improved I have to say delete. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not delete major portions of the text in the middle of an AfD. The reason the section about World Scripture is so large is to demonstrate notability. Quoting Exucmember above "On the first point, WP:PROF says "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable....The person has published a significant and well-known academic work."" The current AfD is the sole reason that portion of the article has grown out of proportion to the rest of the article. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes DJ Clayworth, your removal of this material quite cruelly undercuts Jclemens' attempt to WP:GAME this AfD by loading the article up with spurious, trivial and/or tangential citations, none of which give Wilson (or even World Scriptures) "significant coverage". Shame on you. ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't agree that the edits I and exucmember have made improve the article enought to meet WP:HEY, then leave them alone and let the AfD process kill the entire article. By actively removing content, you're demonstrating a lack of faith in the closing admin: If our additions are BS, then the article should be deleted, as the closing admin should not be influenced by inferior additions. Given that you hold the position that the article should be deleted, what do you hope to accomplish by pre-deleting parts of it? Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• An AfD is not carte blanche to load an article up with WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, and spurious citations. New material that does not meet policy can be removed at any time -- and doing so before the sheer number of them you are piling in willy-nilly get mistaken for "significant coverage" (which they are not) would appear to be timely. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying that you fear that the inclusion of the material (which you disagree meets policy) could be seen by a community-selected admin as significant coverage? Is that not, then, the very definition of gaming the AfD? I'd think it also reflected poorly on your WP:AGF of the closing admin. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No. What I am saying is that commenting editors will generally not track down every citation, so will tend to voice an opinion on the number of citations, and thus might be misled by the insertion of a large number of spurious or tangential citations. The closing admins role is to determine what the consensus of the discussion was, not to impose their own opinion on notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Keep, pending further research. Here's a newspaper article about Wilson.John Z (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google News gives an NYT article quoting Wilson in preview, on graduation at top, the third article from the Frederick Maryland News looks like it could be an interview with his parents about the deprogramming.John Z (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those. I've added the Crimson reference, and will look to see if I can get full text for the other articles. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Edits Please see Talk:Andrew Wilson (theologian)#Questionable edits for details. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm among those who've contributed to answering, to a degree I think most people would find very reasonable, all the criticisms made by Hrafn in his extremely aggressive attack on this article (see above and recent edits), and have made several compromises as well. Though I don't favor his editing style, I have to say that the article is vastly better as of writing than it was before the AfD. Then again, the same result could have been accomplished more calmly, but over a longer time frame. -Exucmember (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - being the dean of Unification Theological Seminary comes close to notability, but not quite there --T-rex 03:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you wouldn't mind reviewing a more complete version that speaks to the notability of Wilson's magnum opus, I think you'll find enough additional notability aplenty. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The comment by T-rex and at least one other "delete" editor above seem to be ignoring the fact that various reasons for notability can be cumulative. For example, T-rex's comment appears to ignore [1] "leading Unification scholar", [2] editor of the main academic journal of Unificationism, and [3] translator of the main scripture of the Unification Church, in addition to [4] his magnum opus, the significance of which was illegitimately deleted from the article, but has now been restored. -Exucmember (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for his notable book, whic makes him notable. Better sources would still be nice thoughYobmod (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't think that the book is notable. Being included in some link lists and mentioned on some blogs is not really a ringing endorsement by the academic community. I see above that some feel that Wilson might be notable as a "deprogrammation survivor". If that indeed would be the case (and that still is a very big if), then the article should be rewritten to put the emphasis on what makes him notable (i.e. the deprogrammation episode) and renamed from "Andrew Wilson (theologian)" to "Andrew Wilson (deprogrammation survivor)". I think it has been shown over and again that Wilson is not notable as an academic (sorry Exucmember, but your arguments just don't cut it for me). An "Academic Dean" at a major research university or a major seminary might be notable, but from nothing that I see does it look like that the seminary where he works is even average. It is only notable for being the main Unification Church seminary. I still think this article should be deleted, although this AfD seems to be heading to "no consensus" (which I think would be the easy but wrong way out for the closing admin). A compromise might be to make it a redirect to the seminary page, where Wilson could be mentioned as Academic Dean with perhaps a footnote mentioning his deprogrammation experience and his authorship of the oft-mentioned edited book.

I think that this discussion is becoming increasingly sterile, with people digging trenches instead of listening to arguments, so this will be my last contribution to this AfD. --Crusio (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Crusio's characterization "included in some link lists and mentioned on some blogs" grossly misrepresents the article. Of course, if the statements by professors praising the book are repeatedly deleted, someone who doesn't look carefully enough might believe the characterization to be accurate. Also, it not "the easy way out" to acknowledge the obvious lack of consensus here, especially when it's clear that the early objections have been addressed. -Exucmember (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please, show me a single blog that has been added as a source by those advocating keeping the article. That is essentially an unfounded accusation that those of us supporting Wilson's notability have been padding the article with unreliable sources. Hrafn's critique, focused on the triviality of such mentions, has more merit than an attack on the reliability of the sources. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Let me try to make what seems to me to be a perfectly obvious point (but that others don't seem to get) in a different way. In a Venn diagram of overlapping circles, unless there is complete, 100% overlap, each circle contributes to the total shaded area. If a numerical score is given for each of a group of factors (i.e., grade point average, standardized test score, essay score, legacy score, etc.), they can combine to predict some outcome (i.e., performance in college). Unless the factors are 100% correlated, the variance explained by (total mathematical predictive value of) adding each factor is increased. The same is true for Wilson's various sources of notability. You can't take just one source of notability and say it doesn't quite reach the bar, ignoring that the others added in put it well over the bar. -Exucmember (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. After all the editing the article's been through over the course of this AfD, it still comes out looking like an ad for his book. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this comment misunderstands the role of a magnum opus in the life of an academic. Also, the book is still under attack as not sufficiently notable by itself! Other portions of the article can be beefed up. -Exucmember (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable edits by DJ Clayworth deleting references to contribution to comparative religion of World Scripture, the notability of which has been challenged [16][17][18][19]. See also questionable edits by Hrafn described by Jclemens at Talk:Andrew Wilson (theologian)#Questionable edits. -Exucmember (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - based on coverage in sources, just about notable. Possibly should be rewritten so it's primarily about the book. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Notability, although extremely marginal, is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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