< March 24 March 26 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Repertory Project[edit]

Wind Repertory Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiptoety talk 18:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Eckert[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This person is very Googleable and has published many textbooks (used in colleges across North America) which now appear on the Wiki alongside their ISBNs. He is also considered to be "A Veteran IT educator" at http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/blog/2007/11/27/skills-and-training-advice-from-jason-eckert/. I have personally read two of his Linux textbooks and found them to be the best on the market for Linux certification. Animalluvr5999 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Seems to fit Wikipedia criteria to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalluvr5999 (talk • contribs) 25 March 2008un[reply]

Delete There are 8210 Google hits for "Jason Eckert" but most of them appear to be about other people with the same name, including a digital artist in New Jersey and an instructor at Marquette University[1]. Most of the publications listed are courseware for use with a specific class at a specific school or otherwise not-notable. The article's lack of sourcing and categorization as well as a very weak assertion of notability make this a prime candidate for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They may be the best text books on the market but an article here is not warnted because it fails the requirements of WP:BIO due to the lack of secondary sources. - Ctempleton3 (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiptoety talk 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Salvador[edit]

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

Non-notable game designer, no claims of notability, but my speedy tag was removed. Just a guy doing his job. Only 65 google hits, including facebook, linkedin, friendster, his own website, and other people with the same name. Corvus cornixtalk 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to American Idol (season 7) - Philippe 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kady Malloy[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) - She was only a semifinalist on American Idol (season 7) Aspects (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that's not policy. It happens to be a frequent outcomes. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Comment - Check Woohookitty's comment here. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 17:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I fail to see your point. It being a common outcome does not make it policy. Examples of policy is verifiability. And I'm not disagreeing with redirecting, but it's not a policy. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I misinterpreted. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 19:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - the present warming trend in the northeastern US and central Canada has appeared all over TV and the internet, but we don't have an article Northeast US gets warm on April 1, 2008, because it's not notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the fact that she is notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Philippe 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pickles Park[edit]

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

Unsourced article which I originally nominated as a G11 speedy candidate - the sentence at the bottom pretty much states that the article was created to to promote the initiative. The project is not complete (and may not even be underway) and the build up/planning of the development doesn't seem to have recieved the significant coverage by reliable, independent sources required to establish notability. Once completed it is possible that the development may meet the inclusion criteria but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Guest9999 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, it doesn't meet WP:NOTE. It may have significance in a conceptual sort of way, but it needs secondary sources. More specifically, it needs specific media coverage. If the park becomes notable in the future, that will be another matter. Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has references to/from official government websites. And it has had coverage in local media - but as a park, not as a technology change force. Tomlzz1 (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said "aside" meaning that was my personal opinion. Its per WP:NOT#ADVERT and everything else I said. Doc StrangeMailbox Orbitting Black HoleStrange Frequencies 15:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you know this, but "per nom" means "I agree with what the nominator for deletion said in his initial summary" Doc StrangeMailbox Orbitting Black HoleStrange Frequencies 15:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Acalanes High School. Tikiwont (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acalanes Lacrosse[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indie-electro[edit]

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

The genre doesn't exist The-15th (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Philippe 23:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gross[edit]

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

Pure Vanity. Ogranut (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Philippe 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soumaya Keynes[edit]

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

Non-notable actress, related to notable people but not herself notable. Corvus cornixtalk 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), with nearly unanimous keep/merge comments. The possibility of merging is left open to editors. Skomorokh 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine In Cornice[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to C (musical note) as per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep C. Sandstein (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low C[edit]

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

This is not a real musical term. Nrswanson (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the term Low C is not a true musical term. I have a Bachelors degree in Music Education and a Masters in Vocal Pedagogy and I have never heard of this term. I have also looked in three different Music Dictionaries and the term is not mentioned at all.Nrswanson (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but that's just a WP article, which doesn't establish notability or non-notability. DGG (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K3407[edit]

K3407 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable (and incorrect title). It is one of hundreds of transistors. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With 2,310,801 articles (and counting) on the English Wikipedia I doubt that even a thousand short articles on transistors would "overload the server". And please note that this stub should be expanded, as has been done with the other articles in Category:Commercial transistors. - Dravecky (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defiance Regional Medical Center[edit]

Defiance Regional Medical Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sentence!article, incurable WP:ORG failure Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pretty good discussion, with a narrow keep consensus.--Kubigula (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut Williams[edit]

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

Minor league player in the lowest of the lowest minor leagues. Nothing in the article to claim notability, even being MVP of the minor minor league isn't that notable. Corvus cornixtalk 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Tiptoety talk 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete and redirect to C (musical note). The consensus is not overwhelming, but the WP:V issues are not really addressed. The article is still sourceless. Sandstein (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deep C[edit]

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

This is not a real musical term. It does not exsist in any music dictionary or other resource I can find. Nrswanson (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Shishu Hospital[edit]

Dhaka Shishu Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A sentence is not an article, incurable failure of WP:ORG for local orgs. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People Paddle[edit]

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

The organization itself is somewhat marginal and probably fall short of the expectations of the relevant guideline. In any case, the article is written like an advertisement for the group's activities and in no way resembles an actual encyclopedic article. Pichpich (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - considering the lack of coverage in San Francisco-based media, I don't see why this should be merged into any article. It would surely look odd in kayak, and city articles aren't for listing minor events. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kayak in a section at the end. There's not enough for a stand-alone article, but, as John says, this should be kept somewhere, per WP:NNC. Ty 07:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) per WP:SNOWBALL. The subject is obviously notable. Nominator does not seem have have a clear grasp on policy; all of his AFD's have been meet with a unanimous keep consensus. Possibly a bad faith nomination. -Icewedge (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Samaritan Hospital (Suffern)[edit]

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

Seemingly well referenced but incurable failure of WP:ORG for local organizations. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) per WP:SNOWBALL. The subject is obviously notable. Nominator does not seem have have a clear grasp on policy; all of his AFD's have been meet with a unanimous keep consensus. Possibly a bad faith nomination. -Icewedge (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Samaritan Hospital (Los Angeles)[edit]

Good Samaritan Hospital (Los Angeles) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly well referenced but incurable failure of WP:ORG for local organizations. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) per WP:SNOWBALL. The subject is obviously notable. Nominator does not seem have have a clear grasp on policy; all of his AFD's have been meet with a unanimous keep consensus. Possibly a bad faith nomination. -Icewedge (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Samaritan Hospital (Cincinnati)[edit]

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

nn unreferenced. Incurable failure of WP:ORG for local organizations. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unreferenced doesn't mean there are no references, as cab noted above. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiptoety talk 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghale bakshian[edit]

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

Although all settled communities are notable, they still need to be verifiable. I am unable to verify the existence of this village. Searches for the name turn up no results that support its existence. And a search for "Bakshi Mohammed Fazaal" is equally fruitless. The artcile fails to meet the policy of verifiability. Whpq (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rawlings legacy[edit]

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

Appears to be a personal essay with no real context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was weakly kept.--Kubigula (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharkula[edit]

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

I see no assertion of notability in compliance with WP:MUSIC. αѕєηιηє t/c 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Tiptoety talk 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Svanholm[edit]

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

This article des not meet the notability requirements of wikipedia. Nrswanson (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Bit of trivia. He's the grandson of a Swedish opera singer who is notable - Set Svanholm. Alas for Stephen, this makes no difference to his own notability.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Goswami Maharaj[edit]

Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Goswami Maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take You There (Donnie Klang song)[edit]

Take You There (Donnie Klang song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

[18] Non-notable song - mostly aol video, blogspot, youtube, and various unofficial lyric sites. Fails WP:MUSIC for songs. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misses Glass[edit]

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

Future prediction of release non-notable song - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus; default to "keep" - Philippe 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Dharma[edit]

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

Book advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable book. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for questioning the references is that they are the subjects personal website. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, editors are encouraged to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bexley News[edit]

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

Non notable newspaper, no reliable sources cited. Prod was removed with a sarcastic comment by an IP. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Belli[edit]

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Nrswanson (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Laura Belli should also be removed from Category:Sopranos if it is deleted Wsanders (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's automatic. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (note that info on him already exists at Ryabko's Systema) - Nabla (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Manolakakis[edit]

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

Not apparently notable, based on what's in the article. CBHA (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of minor Star Wars Rebel characters. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlist Rieekan[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of the game from which the character comes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seen The Snow[edit]

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

[23] and [24] reveals no reliable sources that can confirm this upcoming film. As of right now, this is a matter of WP:CRYSTAL. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Philippe 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Moorcroft[edit]

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

Concerns here regard notability and verifiability. Presuming the accuracy of this information, this individual does not seem to meet notability guidelines for entertainers. The role does not seem that significant, as it (and its actor) don't even appear in the list of cast for the film at imdb (even though the bar of inclusion seems low, given that some of the appearances are "rumored"). There's no evidence of other significant work. The only link currently working in the article is to spotlight.com, which does not meet WP:V as It specifies that "The information in this CV has been provided by or on behalf of the client concerned. Every effort has been made to make sure that the information contained in this page is correct and Spotlight can accept no responsibility for its accuracy." I could not substantiate this information through google in this search or this. This was a creator-challenged PROD. Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC) *Keep This article was just recently started, more time should be given to the creator to add references and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 25 March 2008[reply]

  • Comment Although time may allow additional verification, notwithstanding my inability to find any, I'm not sure how it will address the notability concerns. The article's creator himself asserts that the actor's "most notable acting role is portraying the character Regulus Black" in a film currently in production. The character's significance to the plot of the story is slim. He isn't mentioned in the summary at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix or, as I said, in the listing of characters at IMDB. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would likely agree that the material could be included in that section, if the information can be verified. Currently, there are no reliable sources that verify it and hence its inclusion is problematic with regards to WP:V. (By the way, it's customary to !vote only once. If you've changed your opinion and no longer believe the article should be outright kept, you may wish to put <s> & </s> to either side of your "keep" above to indicate your change of opinion. Also, since you seem unfamiliar, I'll note that comments can be quickly & easily signed by placing four tildes (~~~~) at their end. This expands into your username and a time-stamp and leaves a nice link to your talk page for the benefit of other editors.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pastordavid (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Fortune Market 250[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    2008 Fortune Market 250 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Originally a scheduled Champ Car event for this season, Champ Car has now merged with the Indy Racing League and the event was cancelled. Only a small Atlantics support race and a Rolex Sports Car Series event are scheduled to still take place, but neither of these series need or have race reports. The359 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment If it is to be redirected to the Rolex Series, it would probably be better to direct specifically to 2008 Rolex Sports Car Series season. The359 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Conference National 1979-80 Results[edit]

    Conference National 1979-80 Results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Furthermore, this information would be much better presented as a table in the Conference National 1979-80 article. – PeeJay 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Digimon World Online[edit]

    Digimon World Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This game has not been announced by any members of the video game industry, it exists only because this user thinks that it will be released., unless a proper citation is found this page is under criteria for deletion.User:Kurowoofwoof111 18:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Philippe 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Noelle Brooks[edit]

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

    This person does not meet the wikipedia notability requirements. Nrswanson (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Weak Keep The sources down at the bottom mention her as having performed Lucia with SFO, as well as performing Candide with the California Symphony (which looks professional enough to be notable...). The RS coverage the article provides is mediocre, but I feel like her notability could be better established if the article got some TLC. SingCal 00:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Delete I didn't realize how much leg work had already been done to satisfy WP:MUSIC. She's just not there, I guess. SingCal 02:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It looks like she was the cover for the role of Lucia at SFO and got to step in for a few performances when Schafer got sick. See Here. Otherwise the SFO archives do not list any other performances with her. The California Symphony is a bit more impressive (it's still only a relatively minor regional orchestra) but it looks like Richardson has abandoned her singing career by lack of work in recent years. She didn't do much in the first place so I am still saying delete. Her article can always be recreated if and when she actually starts to do notable work. Also, there is no evidence that her last name is really Brooks now from a third party source.Nrswanson (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. "The RS coverage the article provides is mediocre, but I feel like her notability could be better established if the article got some TLC.". The coverage that's there, was added by me when the article was being considered for AfD. I wanted to make sure that we weren't missing something. I've searched exhaustively not only in the English language press, but also in Spanish, German and Italian, as well as in specialist opera publications, and via Highbeam Research to which I have a subscription. I'm afraid the coverage just isn't there, no matter how much TLC were to be applied.Voceditenore (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dylan and Hayden Whitbread[edit]

    Dylan and Hayden Whitbread (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable. Two year olds? They have no specific or heavy press coverage and have a lone acting gig in their long careers. Lawrence § t/e 17:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question - moved from where? Can it be moved back? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Each twin had their own article: Dylan Whitbread and Hayden Whitbread, so I combined them here. Morhange (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Redirect to Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus. —Travistalk 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bigger Than Us[edit]

    Bigger Than Us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    PROD deleted - Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V - nothing in this article that is not in album article. NrDg 17:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Philippe 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bearcat Sports Complex[edit]

    Bearcat Sports Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable soccer and lacrosse field of a university. Fails WP:N. Nothing to merge as main article already covers all relevant points. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 23:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alien and Predator Timeline[edit]

    Alien and Predator Timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is sadly not based on facts. The only cited sources are the movies; unfortunately, anyone's who's seen the movies knows that there are no dates provided for any of the following: Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, the flashback sequence in Alien vs. Predator or anything in Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem.

    The only date that AVP:R provides is a character saying that it's not October. The timeline page, however, insists that it is.

    On top of that, there is no evidence of where the Predators landed in the flashback in the first AVP. Obviously, they blew up the location shown and destroyed the temple. Yet somehow the page insists that it's Bouvet Island, where an intact temple is found; in truth, no location can actually be assumed.

    That's really the bottom line. This is a page of assumptions and fan synthesis. It can't rightly be called "original research"; it's more accurately just fan fiction. And wikipedia is not a fan fiction page. It's impossible to cite any kind of dates for the events mentioned; with more than half the events listed therefore having no possible dates, there's no possible use for a timeline. --Bishop2 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Point taken. This is probably a more serious matter and better summary. --Bishop2 (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ...so if you have actually watched the Predator films and the Alien vs. Predator films then you should know the dates. As for the Alien films, you have to listen good to understand the time table. --Tj999 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article consolidates only primary sources to establish a new topic. While the films are notable, the transcendental timeline through combining these films is not, since no secondary sources are being implemented to provide real-world information or analysis. The timeline is only plot detail set up in a different format; nothing more. This topic provides zero context for the encyclopedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability must be established by the significant coverage of secondary sources; these films are all primary sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when? Taemyr (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Studying multiple primary sources carefully and presenting a timeline that transcends any one film is synthesis. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, synthesis of sources is not acceptable. See WP:SYN, although I am not really sure that this applies in this case. Taemyr (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not relevant if time is told in the movies. Lots of things are told or shown in movies like these -- weapons, sexes, buildings, ships, etc. There's nothing here that places this timeline in the real world. It's just plot information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any sources do demonstrate thus notability? Taemyr (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That scene is not one of the scenes up for debate. I have asked REPEATEDLY for someone to tell me what scene in the films gives you a date for the "ancient pyramid" flashback in AVP, the events of AVP:R or any of the four "Alien" films. So far NO ONE can tell me a single scene that provides a date for any of these events. For everyone who keeps claiming that this information is somehow verifiable, I find the fact that they can't verify it to be rather damning. --Bishop2 (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As of yet no one has disproven any of my claims. I keep asking for evidence that any of the disputed facts can be verified; so far no one has given me a single scene where I can find that evidence. If you can, please let me know. --Bishop2 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources given (i.e, the movies) seem to cover the matter just fine. Celarnor Talk to me 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But they don't. That's the point. The movies don't give any dates for Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection or AVP:R. Someone said that there's a scene that gives a date in Aliens, but no one can tell me where that is, and I've seen that movie enough times to know that it doesn't seem to be there. And that still leaves us with ONE of those movies getting a date and none of the others. --Bishop2 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Other people don't seem to have any trouble finding them. Some are speculation and properly marked as such, but ignoring those, the majority of the events and dates are sourced with direct statements from the films. Celarnor Talk to me 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking out editors second !vote to keep. Please only !vote once to avoid confusion. Eusebeus (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked REPEATEDLY for someone to tell me what scene in the films gives you a date for the "ancient pyramid" flashback in AVP, the events of AVP:R or any of the four "Alien" films. So far NO ONE can tell me a single scene that provides a date for any of these events. For everyone who keeps claiming that this information is somehow verifiable, I find the fact that they can't verify it to be rather damning.
    I will get back to you on this, I know it is mentioned in the film. Maybe when the archaeologist is talking about the history of it all, but I will watch the film today and get back to you on this.--Tj999 (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a new reference to the timeline. In the "Making-Of" Featurette on the DVD, Anderson describes the story board of the movie and explains that the movie has a past which begins about 3,000 B.C. in Cambodia. "5,000 years from now", he adds which indicates that the year is 2,994 B.C. --Tj999 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sebastian also comments in AvP that the pyramid was about 5,000 years old, so this makes sense. Celarnor Talk to me 02:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the article is completely encyclopedic and "cruft" is a non argument. Wikipedia is the place for syntheiszing plot summaries of film series. The article passes WP:N, WP:V, and WP:IS. Per our First pillar, Wikipedia is a science fictional encyclopedia. It is NOT just a general interest encyclopedia, as the First pillar clearly states it is "general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." The mission of Wikipedia according to the overwhelming majority of its contriubutors its to contain articles of this nature which is appropriate for Wikipedia per our policies and traditions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Le Grand on this one too. --Tj999 (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Could you explain how it is encyclopedic exactly? I realize that "encyclopedic" can be a subjective term, but I fail to see how this provides useful information to readers apart from what's already in the main articles about the films and the series. As for your other points about the "specialized encyclopedia" and "policies and traditions", allow me to cite specific policy and guideline points:
    1) WP:NOT 1.1: Although there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies"
    2) WP:NOT 2.2: "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not previously published." Also 2.2.1: "please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions". As others in this discussion have pointed out, there are very few set dates in the films. The timeline is your own extrapolation (theory) based on things that take place in the films. This constitutes original research and proposing a theory/analysis explaining continuity. I'm not arguing that the films don't flow together. There are few to no continuity issues between them and they clearly follow from one to the next. However, this is already explained in articles that already exist (Alien (film series), for example) so this article is extraneous and not based on any third-party analyses that have been previously published.
    3) WP:NOT 2.9: "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Further, 2.9.2: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." The article contains no real-world context or sourced analysis with detail about the series' development & historical significance. As already stated, such context and analysis already exists in articles about the film series. A separate timeline article is ancilliary and unnecessary.
    When I say that the article is cruft, I am not using the word solely as justification for deletion. I mean that it is not encyclopedic because it is important only to fans of the series and its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage of the series as a whole. Calling it cruft is not "a non-argument", it is a descriptive term indicating the importance of the article's subject matter, which is the basis of my argument. As I've said, the pertinent information (how each film is connected to the others in the series in terms of timing of events) is already present in the articles about the film series and the individual films. Wikipedia is not Wookiepedia; it does not need this minute level of detail any more than it needs an article on the UD4L Cheyenne. This is especially true considering that most of the article is your own extrapolations (since few dates are given in the films) and since the information is already present in existing articles about the films. Because the continuity between the films is not complex, it does not warrant a separate article on the subject. If it were an issue, it might merit discussion in an article like Star Wars canon (an article which has its own issues with regard to wikifying and lacking third-party sources, but nevertheless is a good parallel example). Such an article is not necessary for this series, however, because there is no "official" canon: the stories of the films do not directly tie in to the stories in any of the other media. Since there is little need to explain the timeline of events (because, again, the continuity is already explained in the individual articles), the timeline article is unnecessary. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said each film has a structured time. The two Predator films and AvP are obvious, but as for the others it takes some research to verify the dates. It would be great if we could actualy contact someone, as a source, who has worked on these films (a director or writer of some sort). I will try to look into it, though it would be tricky. --Tj999 (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:Five pillars, it is encyclopedic per our First pillar of one of our most core policies, i.e. it concerns an incredibly notable franchise and presents verifiable information in clear, organized, and discriminate manner. It is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction or Aliens or Predator or all three. There are over 1,000 published specialized science fiction encyclopedias; thus there is no reason for a paperless encyclopedia not to share elements with those. Thus, I am citing a specific POLICY, in first the FIRST PILLAR of that policy when I note that it is an element of a specialized encyclopedia. As for any other possible personal interpretations of other policies that may question the reason for inclusion of this article, then apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, as removing this article "prevents" editors "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia." The article is a legitimate search term created by a good faith editor and defended by at least one other good faith editor. In even a worse case scenario we would redirect the article without deleting it. Deletion, which removes editors' contribution history from the public eye, is an extreme last resort reserved for hoaxes, personal attacks, copyright violations, etc. We do not delete articles when a redirect exist and since we have articles and Alien and Predator series, we have such redirects. Saying sources do not exist or the articles' lack of sources does not mean they do not exist. Considering how much coverage the film series has had in Fangoria, Starlog, et al, I have a hard time believing that given enough time and research the article could not be better sourced, but even so, sub-articles are permitted to rely on primary sources. I can never take an argument that has a word like "cruft" seriously. It adds nothing to any conversations, just as an vulgar or unacademic word does and distracts from whatever other merits the argument may or may not have. The article is necessary for providing the chronology in clear and encyclopedic chronological context. Alien and Predator are not part of Star Wars, so Wookipedia has no relevance to this article. And even so we have plenty of overlap with other wikis, which is fine, vecause we are the most comprehensive overall wiki. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are very keen on citing the first pillar as a policy that you believe explicitly allows this type of article, on the grounds that Wikipedia "incorporat[es] elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs", with the implication being that a timeline of fictional events is an aspect of a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction. But I read the first pillar quite differently, in that most of its text has a lot more to do with what Wikipedia is not than what it permits. Specifically, the First Pillar reiterates some of my above points: "All articles must follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy", "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Also, with regard to IAR: ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." The point that the editors in favor of deletion have made here is that the article in question does not improve or maintain Wikipedia, and deleting it does not prevent other editors from improving Wikipedia. As I've said multiple times, the information contained in the timeline is already summarized in several other articles. As it is not a subject which merits multiple paragraphs of critical commentary or analysis, it is not worth branching off from the main articles. Deleting the article will not remove any meaningful content, because that content already exists in the articles the timeline was branched off from. Nor is it necessary to turn the article into a redirect, because it is a branch article to begin with and only contains information which was already in the main articles. When I draw a comparison to Wookiepedia, I am not implying that Alien and Predator are related to Star Wars. I am using it as an example to illustrate the difference between Wikipedia, which has notability guidelines to limit the amount of trivial information it allows, to another wiki-based project which does not (and which happens to be in the same field - science fiction - as the article we are debating about). Do not be so curt as to say that the comparison "has no relevance to this article". I make the comparison merely to illustrate how Wikipedia is not a forum for amassing trivial information about fictional topics. Yes, the Alien and Predator films have generated commentary and analysis by many third-party sources which can be used to source articles about them. But are any of those third-party critical sources specifically concerned with discussing the timeline of events in the film series, which is what this article is about? Can we collect any solid, reliable sources indicating that the timeline of events in this series of films is any more significant than any other timeline of events in any other fictional series? By extension, should we have timeline articles for all other fictional series that have articles about them on Wikipedia? No. This is exactly why Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and why we have notability and style guidelines that specifically deal with fictional subject matter. The article is not "necessary for providing the chronology in clear and encyclopedic chronological context". The chronology of events is already presented clearly in the main articles about the film series and the plot summaries of the articles about the films. This is almost certainly not a subject which could be expanded with encyclopedic content and third-party critical sources, and IMHO should not have been branched off from the main articles in the first place. Yes, it "concerns a notable franchise", but that is not a grounds for inclusion in and of itself. If it were, we could rationalize having separate articles on every minor character, weapon, prop...every topic related to the series in any way. The article is purely trivial information about a fictional universe with little or no encyclopedic value in and of itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We are here to write a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that is the sum total of human knowledge, that combines general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs. There is no solid basis not to have this article; there is no benefit to our goals by deleting it. We do, however, have potential gain by keeping it. The topic is hardly "trivial". It concerns the context of a blockbuster and notable film series. It presents the subject in a coherent and discrmininate manner. All this time wasted trying to delete good faith articles could and should be spent finding sources and improving them. Articles that are not hoaxes, not libel, not copy vios, etc. should not be deleted. Can we collect reliable sources? Yes. Should the article be kept? Yes. Is this article representative in part of what Wikipedia is? Yes. A timeline presents material that may or may not be spread out in a bunch of articles in a far more clear and concise manner and therefore serves a valuable purpose. I would be shocked if you cannot find any reviews of the films that do not discuss the chronology and timeline in some manner. All of these are reasons for inclusion. There is no reason for deletion that benefits anyone. The article passes the Five pillars and Ignore all rules and I see nothing reasonably convincing otherwise. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: If you have noticed in the timeline I have marked Aliens as a reference to Alien and Aliens because there is no time told in the first Alien film. --Tj999 (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You, as a historian, will naturally be biased towards the inclusion of history-related articles. I, as a programmer, will naturally be biased toward computer science articles. We aren't a specialized encyclopedia; the goal of Wikipedia isn't to bias by topic, instead to take anything whose notability can be shown and verified. This prevents the bias of "Well, I don't like topic x, so I don't think we should have articles on it" and allows us to focus solely on issues of notability and verifiability. Celarnor Talk to me 06:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very true. And as I've pointed out, Wikipedia bases notability and verifiability chiefly on secondary source coverage of the article's topic, which the article in question is lacking. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is not needed on sub or spinoff articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    LGRdC, your entire arguments on this topic seem to rest on a set of incorrect assumptions. To wit:
    1) That "subarticles" or "spinoff articles" are some kind of special category of articles that have their own separate criteria for notability and verification. This is completely untrue. There is no special classification for "subarticles". There are no distinctions between "regular articles" and "subarticles." There are only articles, and the relevant policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT) apply to all of them regardless of their subject matter. If there is enough information and supporting secondary source material to warrant splitting a specific topic from an article off into its own stand-alone article, only then then it is justifiable to do so.
    2) That these "subarticles" are exempt from Wikipedia's rules that articles must reference reliable secondary sources, and may be based only on primary sources. Again, this completely contradicts all of the core policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:N, which state the exact opposite.
    3) That because Wikipedia incorporates elements of specialized encyclopedias, and that because there are encyclopedias devoted to science fiction, that Wikipedia can therefore not exclude articles about trivial science-fiction related topics. Again, this is an incorrect assumption. A good science fiction encyclopedia, being first and foremost an encyclopedia, will consist mainly of real-world analysis of sci-fi topics (ie. notable franchises, books, and films) and base its analyses on primary and secondary sources. Otherwise it is not an encyclopedia, but a manual, guide, or novel (ie. the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual). Again, all article topics on Wikipedia are subject to the criteria of verifiability, original research, and notability, regardless of what field of interest they relate to.
    4) That notability of an article's subject is somehow "inherited" from other articles about the general subject. In other words, since the Alien and Predator movies are notable, editors have free reign to create whatever "subarticles" they wish that relate to the series in any way, and the notability of those topics is somehow "inherited" from the "parent articles" and is therefore not debatable. In all the annals of Wikipedia I have never seen anything to support this idea, and it completely contradicts the core policies and inclusion criteria such as notability, verifiability, and original research.
    I'm sorry, and I wish you all the best in editing, but you are wrong in stating that secondary sources to establish notability and verification are "not needed on sub or spinoff articles." This is the last I will say on the subject for some time. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you IllaZilla and I wish you happy editing too. This article does only need primary sources becuase the movies is what this timeline is of. Secondary sources are welcomed but not needed. --Tj999 (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • IllaZilla's comments about science fiction encyclopedias seem mistaken. For example, I have here the The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (2nd edition) by Clute and Nicholls. This cites mostly from primary sources and freely synthesizes in its thematic article such as the one about Aliens (in a general sense). For verifiability, primary sources are usually the best ones and that seems to be the issue here - the accuracy of the timeline. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kyle Breutigam[edit]

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

    Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anglish[edit]

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

    Wikipedia:No_original_research

    What on Earth is this? I've never heard of this use of the phrase Anglish before. The only times I have heard it is with respect to the Angles or very occasionally amongst Northumbrian/Geordie nationalist types. The main source is a geocities page, total OR.--Him and a dog 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The primary source being a geocities page where someone is creating Anglish as a project. That's what marks this out as a bit iffy. The bibliography means nothing for proving its real; I doubt most of us have access to all of those books, it'd be perfectly easy to just make claims there. --Him and a dog 13:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the external links were sources, I'd think they'd be in a references section. The Anderson article certainly exists, and you can confirm for yourself that "Ander-Saxon" appears in the index of Le Ton Beau de Marot [26]. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    that link doesn't allow access.--Him and a dog 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying we can't have any articles that rely on paper sources? — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    External links are just that, external links. It is not labeled as a source. Have you attempted to determine whether any of the sources are bogus, or are you just asking if they need to be checked out? We have ((citecheck)) for that. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Philippe 23:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nancy Run Fire Co.[edit]

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

    Delete: Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Words: types of definition[edit]

    Words: types of definition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    contested prod; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I'd call it an inferior version of Definition, not Semantics. Klausness (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a3 and WP:SNOW, no substantive content, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Coons age[edit]

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

    Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Elicia Hughes[edit]

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

    She was tried for the murder of her husband (unsurprisingly it was reported in the newspapers) and she was er.....acquitted. Why should we care? Docg 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dunno, looks okay now. Matchups 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article remains without significant WP:V or WP:RS at the time of closing, 8 days after this AfD nomination began. Pigman☿ 03:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MyAnimeList[edit]

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

    Fails WP:WEB. All but one of the "sources" fail WP:RS, with most being nothing more than personal blogs. No assertion of real notability per WP:WEB and WP:N. Note: previous AfD was speedy closed by a non-admin due to issues with the nominator, and as such the article is eligible to be nominated.

    I am also nominating the following related page because it is a completely unnotable piece of freeware software for exclusive use on the MyAnimeList website. Fails WP:N and seems to be little more than an advertisement:

    MAL Updater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Collectonian (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, and added. Collectonian (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment One article isn't enough to pass WP:NOTE. And it still doesn't address the verifiability problems with the article. --Farix (Talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I'm not sure what the problem with verifiability here is. If it is about information regarding the history or other information, the sources for these can be considered WP:SELFPUB, and if not enough then archive.org sources can be added as necessary. Kei-clone (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The website received one piece of minor coverage. That is not sufficient for WP:WEB. As for the assertion of IDONTLIKEIT, I'm the nominator, not Iamblssed. I've spent nearly $500 on anime and manga this month alone and run my own anime/manga review blog, but I agree with Iamblssed though not its particularly application here as the issue is that its a non-notable website, not that its an anime website. There are few anime websites that meet WP:WEB. AnimeNFO couldn't even meet it, and its been around longer than this site and is far more well known amongst anime fans. The number of deletion attempts is irrelevant. Speedy is intended for quick and obvious, and an admin declined with the note to take it to AfD if desired as assertion was claimed (not necessarily validated). The first AfD was speedy closed by a non-admin because the nomination was done by a new user who was AfDing a bunch of stuff seemingly random, thus invalidating that AfD. Collectonian (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I never said you weren't the nominator...? That information is available to anyone who can read, right at the top of the AfD. The IDONTLIKEIT was to his assertion that it should be deleted because it is an anime-related site. Also, I never said anything about the previous. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get at here. Celarnor Talk to me 00:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: sorry, that was a double reply to both you and Kei-Clone. I also wanted to clarify the IDONTLIKEIT since it was made as a comment to the nom and not to Iamblssed Delete. Collectonian (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Longevity in this case has nothing to do with legitimacy. The fact that animeNfo is more "well known" is a debatable claim, and animenfo's fame is certainly helped by its age. However in terms of how much attention from the internet the sites get, MyAnimeList is on par with and recently even beats out animenfo despite MAL's newcomer status [27]. Not that the aforementioned particularly has very much to do with what's being discussed, but the point here is that the analogy to animeNfo here somehow declaring MAL less deserving of a wikipedia article is invalid. Kei-clone (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your first edit is contributing to an AfD? Do you have other sources to show notability? swaq 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Significant coverage doesn't mean one publication talks about it. Significant coverage means multiple reliable sources have discussed this site. Collectonian (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply On the contrary, according to WP:N:

      "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]

      Mentions nothing about the number of sources. Kei-clone (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note sources as in plural, not a source. Collectonian (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Now you're picking over semantics... how about we consider the larger issue at hand? According to WP:N, the criteria

      "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.

    So let's really consider the source at hand here. The source listed isn't just some random mention of the article and what it does, it is pretty much making a statement that this website is more than just "notable", it is among the "Best of the Web". If you take that into account, as well as MyAnimeList's very common use as a method to display someone's list all over the anime community (look on popular anime forums, I will provide links upon request), it is pretty clear that we are indeed dealing with something notable here. Kei-clone (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. A single mention in one magazine does not make it notable at all. If it were "clearly notable" then we wouldn't be here. As for the ability to dosplay someone's anime list and being popular, your point? DVD Aficionado is far more popular for the same function, having been around much longer, and from my experiences it is still the more popular tool used in popular anime forums. Note it also has no article. Either way, popularity doesn't equal automatic notability. As per WP:N, WP:V, and WP:WEB it must be verifiable and covered in multiple substantive sources to be considered a notable website. One source does not mean we presume its notable. In two days of discussion, no one has to find even one more reliable source that shows any possible notability. It doesn't have the notability of being industry supported like AnimeOnDVD.com (which also has no article though it very easily meets WP:WEB and WP:N, nor is it industry supported with significant coverage like Anime News Network. Collectonian (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We keep going back and forth repeating a lot of the same points. In any case, I feel there are a lot of issues being dealt with right now, so I will break this down:
    • DVD Aficionado: I don't know what forums you've been to but that's not something I can really argue with. My experience obviously says otherwise. What I can show you, however, is numbers, and with these numbers I don't see how that can be more popular than MAL.
    • AnimeOnDVD: I refer you to WP:OSE
    • WP:V: I have already dealt with this issue in my reply to Farix above.
    • WP:WEB: Site meets criteria 2, since it has won an "award" from a well-known (to those interested in Japan that is) and independent publisher
    • WP:N: Nowhere on this entire page does it explicitly state that multiple sources are required, and to imply that simply because a plural form is used is erroneous, because the page merely states

      Multiple sources are generally preferred.

      Therefore you can't simply cite the fact that it has only one source as its only rationale for deletion. Kei-clone (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we keep going back and forth and I guess in summary, I feel it does not meet WP:N nor WP:WEB and have yet to see any evidence otherwise, while you feel it does on the source of a single minor magazine mention and because you like it. Collectonian (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, no it doesn't. The first nomination was closed by a non-admin because the person who nominated it was basically a new editor on an AfD spree that invalidated the AfD. It has nothing to with IDONTLIKEIT or trying to get the result they want. The bad nomination simply called this page to the attention of other editors, one of whom (myself) renominated it under a proper reason. Please give specific evidence that this is notable per WP:WEB and WP:N. It is primarily sourced from the site itself, making it no better than an advertisement when almost no outside reliable sources exist except for the one magazine mention. Collectonian (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kei-clone already presented sufficient evidence. You remain entrenched in your view. I remain entrenched in my view that you do not like anime and related articles this site or it's article. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree. Ursasapien (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the laugh (even if you struck it out). My bank account probably wishes I didn't like anime (or worse, manga) :P I actually have no problems with the site, though I wouldn't use it personally because of the fansub section and its having no real content of value to me. I have my own databasing system for tracking all of my anime and manga. I, however, can look past my own love of anime and manga to look at the site neutrally, and I have yet to see any evidence that it meets Notability by high standards. Kei-clone points to the same article that was there when I nominated. By my reading of WP:WEB and WP:N a single magazine mention is not enough for notability. If it were, every local celebrity in the world would have an article because their 15 minutes of fame got them mentioned in a paper once or twice, or they won a local award. They don't, and I don't feel this particularly website is notable enough for one either. Neutrality requires one to be objective. Regardless of my personal feelings for a site, I only nominate them for AfD if I feel they do not have the necessary notability to meet WP:WEB and WP:N. I like, and love, many anime sites, but I also acknowledge that they do not need articles here as they are not notable. Conversely, I absolutely abhor Crunchyroll, but it is notable for making national news in getting venture capital for distributing illegal content and possible causing conflict between Japanese companies and their American distributors. Much as I hate that site, I would not support the deletion of an article on it (if someone created it and I'm suprised no one has) because it has considerable notability. MyAnimeList does not. Collectonian (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I figured striking would be better than deleting. List of Meerkat Manor meerkats is a FL, yet it is sourced in the main by the program itsself. The site has won an award, it has a mention in a reliable source, and it is well-travelled and considered important to many. Again, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. Ursasapien (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • List of Meerkat Manor meerkats is a list based on Meerkat Manor, not a standalone article. Besides that, it has notability on its own in that several of the meerkats have received coverage in major news outlets, particularly Flower upon her death. Most of the sources are from the show because it is a list about the show, however there is also extensive real world sourcing. Either way, if you want to compare, compare another website article, which has different notability guidelines than the characters/stars of an multi-award winning television series that has received wide-sweeping coverage (not just one little mention in one magazine section). Collectonian (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again Collectonian, your entire paragraph is moot because of WP:OSE. I suggest you read it before you make more irrelevant arguments such as those. Kei-clone (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read it and I suggest you watch your tone. Collectonian (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The software can also be used without a MyAnimeList account in offline mode, as it has a few specific functions for such purpose, such as tracking anime being watched in the user's computer, send the current playing information to mIRC and MSN, find and open next episode of current watching anime, find next episode in torrent websites; all of these features do NOT require an account in the mentioned website. Kotori (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC) — Kotori (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • Comment All of the sources given except for one fail WP:RS. And even the one that does pass WP:RS doesn't provide significant coverage to pass WP:NOTE. Your comments are more along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if community interest can really be a reason to keep an article. It might mean it's more likely to be worked on, and thus finding sources, but in itself isn't proof of anything. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As for notability, MyAnimeList I feel passes. It's been "addressed in detail" by a reliable source. Saying that the source isn't reliable enough is putting a subjective spin on it.

    Also, "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This statement from WP:N doesn't apply to the article in question, as it does have a reliable third-party source. CanadaAotS (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • You have one reliable source to assert notability, and it hardly goes into the "significant" level of coverage WP:N stipulates. Moreover, the common interpretation and application of the notability guideline is that if something is really notable, then it should be able to express such notability through coverage by multiple sources. As far as we can see, this site was simply lucky enough to garner hardly a paragraph in that particular source, and we don't have articles on the rest of the mentioned websites either (save Anime News Network, which has asserted its notability adequately). Show multiple sources for the assertion of notability, or the article really shouldn't be kept. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd hardly call a mention in an article that's titled "Best of Web" in an 18 year old publication "Lucky". I think we can all agree that MyAnimeList had to attract quite a bit of attention, present itself as quite a useful resource, and garner quite a bit of "notability" (at least in Japanzine's eyes, but apparently not enough notability for Wikipedia's eyes?) in order for it to garner such a mention. WP:N clearly states that multiple sources are preferred, and leaves it at that. Perhaps more sources are needed, but this can be fixed, and a deletion is hardly necessary when it's quite clear to many of those here that this site will only grow more notable with time.
    • I don't think it's really fair for you to throw out these rules (either do ________, or deletion!) or somehow tell us how WP:N should be interpreted. I realize you're an admin and all, but if WP:N doesn't reflect what you say, and what you say is correct, then perhaps WP:N should be modified! Kei-clone (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability in Wikipedia's eyes is significant coverage from multiple sources independent of the topic. If the only mention this website is receiving is a lone paragraph in a single publication, then it isn't really notable. Yes, multiple sources are not required, but the brevity of the coverage in that particular source necessitates the need for more coverage. As for your claim of future notability, see WP:NTEMP. In any case, whether I'm administrator or not is irrelevant to the current process, as by voicing my opinion here, I've forfeited the ability to close this AfD. Administrators are not intrinsically "higher" than other editors; it is simply a user type with additional tools (naturally these tools require someone of particular competence, but the position itself conveys no special privileges in regards to user conduct). Anyways, the whole purpose of discussions here is to see whether these articles meet our policies and guidelines, and our interpretations and derivations of these aforementioned policies and guidelines are what we're all using in our arguments. If you want to change WP:N, then see WT:N. AfD is not a venue for changing policy. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is relevant to this AfD why? Please keep discussion pertinent to the topic at hand. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheer Zone[edit]

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

    Delete: No sign of notability. Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eargasm[edit]

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

    Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - per nom's fine summary. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see how this qualifies as nonsense in any way.


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). WilliamH (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yavneh Day School (Cincinnati, Ohio)[edit]

    Yavneh Day School (Cincinnati, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable, no WP:RS cited. Bstone (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy delete a7, didn't assert notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    63G[edit]

    63G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete: Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether or not to merge can be decided elsewhere, without the need for AFD discussion. — CharlotteWebb 21:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Cook (programmer)[edit]

    No assertion of notability beyond being involved in the production of a number of games. -- Mark Chovain 04:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect to Metaweb. It's not a lot to go on but as you say it is non-trivial. However, I think the article on Metaweb should suffice. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 23:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I think Metaweb already says everything about him that needs saying: He founded the company. -- Mark Chovain 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Abdulfattah Jandali[edit]

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

    Fails WP:BIO. Notable only for being the biological father of Steve Jobs and Mona Simpson. Sources are so scarce that the article was first assumed to be a hoax. Those that do exist mention him only in connection with Jobs or Simpson. His academic career does not seem to have been notable, and according to the Fortune article, he is now a "food and beverage director" at a Reno casino. Jfire (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 03:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Elena Delgado (Without a Trace)[edit]

    Elena Delgado (Without a Trace) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This page has been deleted before under a different name, see notice here Schmloof (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deep Crow[edit]

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

    This seems to be a barely recurring joke from Penny Arcade and thus has not been covered by any secondary, reliable sources. The page is fairly deceptive in that there is a phony reference listed as well as unrelated external links. Wickethewok (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think a problem with this, however, is that the Penny Arcade article probably won't even mention "Deep Crow" (its only mentioned in a couple strips after all). It seems weird to redirect to an article which won't have any information on the redirect subject. Wickethewok (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, Merge then - they have many inventions that crop up occasionally and there is a section for recurring characters on the page, if it's not worth a mention on the penny arcade page, it's not worth an entire article! BananaFiend (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete not notable and no evidence that it will be. Sorta funny though... Hobit (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to his professional debut. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen King (soccer)[edit]

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

    Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTYN as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd also like to move the page to Stephen King (Footballer) after this AfD is finshed. TheProf | Talk 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For an AMerican player in the national American league, soccer would be more appropriate, IMHO. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    However, "soccer" players are known internationally as Footballers. (Ps. Good luck in your RfA!) Cheers. TheProf | Talk 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked some online reports of the Fire's pre-season friendlies, and it appears that King was generally used as one of many 2nd half substitutes (although he did start against a college "select" team on the 19th). That is a good sign that he may play at some point during the season, but it's not a given that he will see action this weekend or any weekend in the near future. Jogurney (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NB before someone misconstrues my words, I wish him all the success in the world. I'd be delighted if he picked up a World Cup runners-up medal. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't make him notable in his sport, only a major appearance does that. Nick mallory (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope - a mayor appearance makes one notable even if there is no other coverage - but a lack of a mayor appearance does not make one non-notable. Agathoclea (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Playing in a professional-level game is not the only way to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. A sports league can be professional or amateur. An individual participating in a sport can be professional or amateur. Football is not a "professional sport" - in fact, there are few sports that can be exclusively described as professional, and football isn't one of them. In North America, there is professional football - such as the MLS - and there is amateur football - such as the NCAA. As a result, a football player - or hockey player, or baseball player, or basketball player, or American football player - has two ways in which they could satisfy WP:ATHLETE.

    Also, regarding the concern raised above that allowing this article to stand will set a precedent, assuming that we can satisfy that adequate secondary sources exist, the precedent has already been set. Within the last several weeks, articles on Sean Franklin, Patrick Nyarko, Pat Phelan, Chance Myers, and Julius James were all kept following Afd discussions, and that's kept, rather than closed as no consensus. These articles have several similarities, not least of which that all the players involved are 2008 MLS SuperDraft selections from the NCAA. They all survived Afd largely because members of the community were able to demonstrate sufficient secondary sources to satisfy the second point of WP:ATHLETE. Yes, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a dirty word around here, but sometimes it's a valid consideration.

    Unfortunately, until we can get a general understanding that WP:FOOTYN, while an extremely valuable starting point and a valid framework for that project, is superceded by the broader guidelines of WP:BIO, this exercise will repeat itself every year. There will be a 2009 MLS SuperDraft, articles will get created about many of the top choices in that draft, all of whom will likely have sufficient secondary sources to establish notability despite the fact that they haven't played in a professional game, they'll all get tagged with a prod or an Afd, lather, rinse, repeat. Sigh … Mlaffs (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    B K Birla Centre For Education[edit]

    B K Birla Centre For Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable private school. Only a handful of relevant Google hits. Only one source cited aside from Wikimapia and the school's own web site. Very promotional in tone, though it's better now than it was at first, but that doesn't fix the lack of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Nomination withdrawn. It now appears that this school is a high school (at least in part), something that wasn't readily apparent at first. Per longstanding Wikipedia precedent, high schools are automatically notable. This AfD discussion may now be closed. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Am I missing something? When did high schools become notable just for being high schools? Is there a Wiki policy you can point me at so I can see for myself? Dreamspy (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 03:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NACwall[edit]

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

    The NACwall article is primarily marketing for Network Clarity Inc, who hold the trademark on the term 'NACwall' and own the nacwall.net site. The term NACwall is not widely used in network security. A Google search as of March 24 for NACwall finds only 22 references, all of which are either Network Clarity marketing or unrelated. After the article was proposed for deletion on March 24th, Network Clarity revised the article to remove some of the marketing spin and moved the focus to "NAC firewall". Whether or not that is a valid article for Wikipedia is a separate discussion Bregence (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional "NAC firewall" -wikipedia -prweb -businesswire resulted in 311 hits. "NAC firewall" by itself 310. DarkAudit (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 20:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Manufacturing Execution System[edit]

    Manufacturing Execution System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article has been tagged as non-notable since April 2007. A recent PROD was removed, but the notability tag still applies. Procedural nomination to resolve. —BradV 15:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    McLeods Daughters - The Second Season[edit]

    McLeods Daughters - The Second Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    There are many different articles for the Australian TV series Mcleods daughters, these articles include an article for each season, it is not un-common for a tv series such as Lost to have an article for each season but these articles go into depth about each season unlike these articles that are nominated for deletion. The reason these articles are listed for deletion is that most of the content listed in these articles can already be found in one form or another on the Mcleods daughters page, and anything from these articles that isn't included in the main article can be merged easily enough but i personally don't think there is. There is no need for these pages and it just makes the whole subject matter a mess as it currentlly is, im working on it, but it will take me a while. Printer222 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The articles that are nominated in this deletion request are

    McLeods Daughters - The Second Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    McLeods Daughters - The Third Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    McLeods Daughters - The Fourth Season‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    McLeods Daughters - The Fifth Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    McLeods Daughters - The Sixth Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    McLeods Daughters - The Seventh Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    McLeods Daughters - The Eighth Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as vandalism. DGG (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bookworm Short Stories[edit]

    Bookworm Short Stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Complete hoax article. Admitted by the author of the article (who is a sockpuppet) here Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted as vandalism. Hoaxes are not speediable unless they rise (or, rather, fall) to the level of nonsense or vandalism. The link above is sufficient evidence of vandalism. DGG (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    "Blatant or obvious hoaxes" are now listed in the G3 tag. This one is admitted, and therefore blatant. DarkAudit (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sirat al-Mustaqim[edit]

    Sirat al-Mustaqim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not a propaganda site. Ultra! 15:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted to previous version[41]. Guest9999 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the addition of some more sources since most opinions below, they are not WP:V or WP:RS. Pigman☿ 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Regal Lager[edit]

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

    subject fails WP:CORP; uses only one source, and was started by a promotional name account. New user editing removed prod without discussion. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ralph Dasen[edit]

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

    Weak claims of meeting WP:Notability. Person gets 5 non-wiki ghits, 4 of which are used as sources here. None of the 5 hits show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matlock United F.C.[edit]

    Matlock United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable English football team. Never played above Central Midlands League Premier Division (what is now Level 12, and the usual split for notability has been Level 10 in the past), and they're even lower now (they pulled out in 2006, and now ply their trade in the Midlands Regional Alliance Division One) fchd (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was selectively merged to Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations (i.e., one sentence about the women not yet mentioned there). Sandstein (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Clinton's sex scandals[edit]

    Seems to me like a POV fork, created earlier this month. Clinton's sex scandals are covered in exhausting detail in several other places. Each of the women listed here has their own article which covers these issues in depth. If this is kept, all those should be merged and redirected here. I don't see a clear rationale for having yet another layer of coverage of the same issues, but I see real potential for maintenance and BLP nightmares. AllanBColson (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)][reply]




    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), Closing AFD after speedy deletion (G11: Blatant advertising: nn) by User:Jimfbleak Whpq (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Concrete Hart[edit]

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

    Non-notable. Very little found on the Web. Very little in accomplishments. Kingturtle (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seishin Management Suite[edit]

    Seishin Management Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability not asserted, no tp references. ukexpat (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aunty betty project[edit]

    Aunty betty project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Almost speedyable as unintelligible nonsense. Virtually no Ghits for this "project", and does not appear to be verifiable. Prod removed without comment by article creator. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Jayne[edit]

    Dear Jayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Voice Message (Dear Jayne album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Singing group that has released one single (and one radio "buzz" single—whatever that is). Their song spent only one week on the charts at #99 (out of 100). I'm usually pretty liberal in my interpretation of the "had a charted hit on any national music chart" criterion at WP:MUSIC, but one week at the bottom of the chart just isn't a hit. Google doesn't turn up any non-trivial coverage and the article's only references are the record label's website (which just bounces you to the group's own website) and their MySpace page. Their debut album has been pushed back multiple times—the way the industry works, the likelihood its release is dubious at best. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - That source gives a strong, sourceable opinion of the single. It says virtually nothing about the group, doesn't mention an album and says very little of substance about the song.
    Comment - Were there substantial coverage in reliable sources about the group and the album, I'd agree with your assessment. However, there isn't and it didn't hit the "Hot 200", it briefly appeared on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop - a much lesser accomplishment. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), WP:SNOWBALL closure on my own nomination. I disagree with having these sorts of articles, but if this is Wikipedia policy to keep, it should of course stay regardless of my opinion. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 08:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Turkish people[edit]

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

    Listcruft and completely superfluous to having a category. Besides, there already are articles such as List of Turks by net worth, List of Turkish diplomats etc. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 13:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep per WP:CLN. Article has been around since Feb 2004 and is actively maintained. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not that fond of those titles, either. But I'm OK with leaving this title as it is, too, if other people aren't bothered by it... Klausness (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I don't understand your problem with it. "List of Notable Turkish People" is redundant. All of the people in it are notable (or they shouldn't be in there). They are notable by default; non-notable entries to these lists are an exception, not the regular; thus, they aren't required. Celarnor Talk to me 01:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not necessary ... inclusion in any of the "List of people from whatever country" lists ALREADY REQUIRES notability to be established on that. We only include notable things by default; doing what you propose would be pointless, as that is already what this list, and every other list like it, is. Notability is already required for inclusion, just like anywhere else on wikipedia. What you propose would require us to go through every single article, every single list, and change it to Metallica (Notable band), Stephen King (Notable Writer), List of notable Americans, List of notable British people, List of notable politicians, List of notable Cubans, etc. That's a slippery slope that introduces unnecessary ugliness and redundancy to Wikipedia, which should be avoided when possible. Celarnor Talk to me 03:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging, (if warranted), is a non-AfD decision better warranted to talkpages of articles/relevant Wikiprojects. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Saint Jacob Bridge[edit]

    Saint Jacob Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Most probably a non-notable bridge in Ljubljana.[45] Eleassar my talk 13:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?
    • How long are they
    • What sort of construction are they?
      • arch
      • suspension
      • cantilever
      • whatever
    • When where they built?
    • Who built them?
    • Why were they built?
    • What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
    • What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
    • What kind of effort went into them?
    • Provide a picture! Or several!
    • What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
    • What makes them worth an article?
    It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and I think nothing makes it. --Eleassar my talk 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Damn straight. - Denimadept (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Human quality[edit]

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

    Is this saveable from Original Research? Has existed since 2006 and hasn't come to much. Camillus (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Bores[edit]

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

    non-notable YouTube host. While he seems to have gotten himself into hot water with a couple of various "bad taste" humour sites on the web, there are no reliable secondary sources that attest to his notability. Note that the article on his YouTube programme Irate Gamer was speedied CSD-A7 on March 19. Prod tag removed without comment by IP user. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Šempeter Bridge[edit]

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

    A non-notable bridge over Ljubljanica in Ljubljana. Eleassar my talk 13:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?
    • How long are they
    • What sort of construction are they?
      • arch
      • suspension
      • cantilever
      • whatever
    • When where they built?
    • Who built them?
    • Why were they built?
    • What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
    • What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
    • What kind of effort went into them?
    • Provide a picture! Or several!
    • What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
    • What makes them worth an article?
    It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and I think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Prule Bridge[edit]

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

    A non-notable bridge over Ljubljanica. Eleassar my talk 13:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?
    • How long are they
    • What sort of construction are they?
      • arch
      • suspension
      • cantilever
      • whatever
    • When where they built?
    • Who built them?
    • Why were they built?
    • What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
    • What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
    • What kind of effort went into them?
    • Provide a picture! Or several!
    • What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
    • What makes them worth an article?
    It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and I think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The people in Minneapolis thought much the same about their bridge I-35 bridge over the Mississippii beofre it collapsed. Is there nothing even mildly interesting here? - Denimadept (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this make it worth an article? Under which criteria? --Eleassar my talk 12:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nicely improved.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    APRIL[edit]

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

    not notable, doesn't seem to physically exist, the sole findable reference is the one cited in the page


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

    The result was

    Peter Shaw (Australia)[edit]

    Peter Shaw (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not notable person, only hit from google was for this wiki page. All others not this Peter Shaw. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 12:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Nothing compelling has emerged here to suggest it should be kept. Doesn't seem very notable to me. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete - no WP:RS, no evidence of notability, per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Thaxton[edit]

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

    This survived a VFD in 2004 (see talk) but I just can't see the notability. He seems to have gone to prison for his part in a riot, but beyond that? NB I removed the unreferenced prison allegations per WP:BLP (plus a lot of speculative psycho-analysis about his distrust of men) but if this is notable the prison stuff could be replaced if sourced properly. I'm also suspicious of the PD nature of the image. Docg 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As an addendum, perusing this cat[47] shows a large amount of unreferenced vanispamcruftisement. Emma Goldman is undeniably notable. Juha and Darren Deicide are not. Skinwalker (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Steelworkers' Bridge[edit]

    Steelworkers' Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    An unimportant bridge crossing Gradaščica in Ljubljana. Eleassar my talk 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?
    • How long are they
    • What sort of construction are they?
      • arch
      • suspension
      • cantilever
      • whatever
    • When where they built?
    • Who built them?
    • Why were they built?
    • What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
    • What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
    • What kind of effort went into them?
    • Provide a picture! Or several!
    • What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
    • What makes them worth an article?
    It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and I think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Podutik Bridge[edit]

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

    An unimportant bridge in Ljubljana. Eleassar my talk 12:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?
    • How long are they
    • What sort of construction are they?
      • arch
      • suspension
      • cantilever
      • whatever
    • When where they built?
    • Who built them?
    • Why were they built?
    • What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
    • What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
    • What kind of effort went into them?
    • Provide a picture! Or several!
    • What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
    • What makes them worth an article?
    It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fužine Bridge[edit]

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

    An unimportant bridge over Ljubljanica. Eleassar my talk 12:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?
    • How long are they
    • What sort of construction are they?
      • arch
      • suspension
      • cantilever
      • whatever
    • When where they built?
    • Who built them?
    • Why were they built?
    • What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
    • What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
    • What kind of effort went into them?
    • Provide a picture! Or several!
    • What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
    • What makes them worth an article?
    It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. This bridge is not located in the center (much less Center) of the city at all.[48] --Eleassar my talk 10:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I see what you mean. It looks like it might have some nice guard rails, but otherwise I don't see anything on the satellite imagery. If this bridge, and the others, is to be considered "of interest", we need more information in the article. Tell us more about this bridge, as I said above. Include a nice picture, perhaps. - Denimadept (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can expand on this. I've created a number of these "crossings" lists. I'll pick one to use as an example: List of crossings of the Taunton River. You can see that I've documented the first few bridges (first 3, really, but included one demolished and one under construction), but not nearly all of them. Someone else came along and made another list based on mine, List of crossings of the Assonet River. None of those bridges have links, note. On the other hand, in my first burst of documentation, I started creating articles for all the bridges on the Connecticut River, including Route 10 bridge, Northfield, Massachusetts and US Route 3 Bridge over the Connecticut River. I'm not big on AfD, you might say, at least for bridges! - Denimadept (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to find anything useful in a local library in the following days but don't expect miracles. These lists seem much more reasonable imo. --Eleassar my talk 14:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm currently working with others on the List of crossings of the Danube River, if you're interested. I'm reformatting it, as you can see. - Denimadept (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong delete It would have been decent if somebody had told me about this. I stubbed a few of them believing some SLovene users could expand them but according to Eleassar it isn't notable so delete ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we request that they build a nicer bridge so we can document it? :-D - Denimadept (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course, just don't forget to enclose a big check with the request. :-D --Eleassar my talk 16:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's the bridge on the highway ring, right? Out of those nominated in the series, this would maybe be the most noteworthy but without proper references it's hard to say. The best solution would indeed be a list of bridges with photos. --Tone 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An interesting article, just in time... --Tone 16:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, judging from the pictures, there's some good stuff there. Needs a translation, though. Nice arch bridge, the one with all the columns looks neat, the one with the walkways going up and down and what look like turned pillars in stone is good too. MOAR INFO! - Denimadept (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The one with the pillars is Čevljarski most, the one up and down is Tromostovje and the one with the arch is the Dragon Bridge. The others are Prule, Moste, Šentjakob and Šempeter bridges. --Tone 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. No, this bridge is not located on the highway. I have provided a link where you can see it.[49] The article you have provided is a copyvio of what has already been found.[50] I am very much for the articles Čevljarski most, Tromostovje and Dragon Bridge etc. but some others are simply not worth to have an article. I think it is best to have a list of bridges with photos, as has been proposed. --Eleassar my talk 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting idea to have a list of crossings where one column might be small pictures. Hm.
    Crossing Location Built Coordinates Image
    Ponte Romana Sertã somewhere over the rainbow 120 CE Roman bridge

    - Denimadept (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Črnuče Bridge[edit]

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

    An unimportant bridge in Ljubljana. Eleassar my talk 12:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?
    • How long are they
    • What sort of construction are they?
      • arch
      • suspension
      • cantilever
      • whatever
    • When where they built?
    • Who built them?
    • Why were they built?
    • What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
    • What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
    • What kind of effort went into them?
    • Provide a picture! Or several!
    • What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
    • What makes them worth an article?
    It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cockbridge[edit]

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

    An unimportant bridge in Ljubljana. Eleassar my talk 12:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?
    • How long are they
    • What sort of construction are they?
      • arch
      • suspension
      • cantilever
      • whatever
    • When where they built?
    • Who built them?
    • Why were they built?
    • What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
    • What context are they in? Any history? Battles or other events?
    • What kind of effort went into them?
    • Provide a picture! Or several!
    • What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
    • What makes them worth an article?
    It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete per WP:CSD#G7 (only one author contributed substantially to the article and that author has requested here that it be deleted). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Batterley Algorythm[edit]

    Batterley Algorythm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    The article was included in good faith, and we politely asked Batterley's permission to publish the algorithm (rather than it be lost to commerse alone).
    We agree that peer review is important, however don't kid yourself on that one. Journal's are equally as competitive by default, and quite frankly the algorithm stands up on it's own merit.
    Just delete the article. Thanks.

    Viev (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    Thank you for your comments, Mr Epstein. You had nothing to offer useful. It's the author's right to request deletion of the article. For the benefit of anyone so interested, if RHaworth may interpret chronology in one way, who is Epstein to interpret it differently? Who is Epstein?

    The edit summary to this edit is tanatmount to an admission that this is original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The author did not create the algorithm. In fact it took 5 years to divest the information from Batterley.
    You are not suitably qualified to make judgement on the effectiveness of the algorithm unless you belong to the fraternity of mathematicians and schedulers whose job it is to perform very large calculations on a weekly basis in order to save money for the company you work for. The algorithm is put here for prosperity and so that it may not be forgotten.
    Erlang used his formula in business. Is it possible that we are being hypercritical and too judgemental in wanting to remove this article?
    Or is it that we should remove the Erlang C reference as the output of private research? Viev (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) — Viev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The article was included in good faith, and we politely asked Batterley's permission to publish the algorithm (rather than it be lost to commerse alone).
    We agree that peer review is important, however don't kid yourself on that one. Journal's are equally as competitive by default, and quite frankly the algorithm stands up on it's own merit.
    Just delete the article. Thanks. Viev (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In case anyone else is wondering why my name is mentioned here, as I haven't expressed an actual opinion on the AfD: I did some minor editing, including, among other things, putting the comments back into chronological order after Viev shuffled them. Apparently this was not appreciated. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep (non-admin closure) as there were no !votes to delete; possible merge pending talkpage consensus. Skomorokh 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LewRockwell.com[edit]

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

    A largely self-sourced article on Lew Rockwell's website. Rockwell is notable, is his site independently notable? Doesn't look it to me. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This Google text string search for "lewrockwell.com" yields about a quarter of a million hits. Thousands of these represent indications of notability. It is likely the most noted and widely read libertarian website on earth. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. These things aren't always obvious to those of us who don't live in the political world. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, article size is of lesser relevancy when it comes to this level of notability. You ought to expand it rather than remergeing. Lord Metroid (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Artificial Elite[edit]

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

    Lack of notability

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

    The result was Delete as there is, on inspection, nothing to merge, and the merge target is not unambiguous. If there is a disambiguation page for Tindals, one could mention him there with links to the two elections, but perennial losers have to do better than this to achieve independent notability. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Tindal (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

    Non notable candidate for Canadian Federal parliament. Fails Notable politician criteria. This person is already mentioned in Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election but additional text could be merged from this article into that one. Suttungr (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So? That doesn't make him notable. As a candidate in a high profile by-election (thanks to Bob Rae), I'm surprised he didn't get more hits. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    El-Farouk Khaki got significantly less, and he's supposively notable. GreenJoe 13:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Google hits aren't an indication of notability. Tindal is also an extensive blogger and contributor to online publications which does not make him notable but does drive up the number of google hits he gets. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What about X? is not considered a strong argument at AFD. Stick to this article's strengths or weaknesses. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Inadequate reliable sources to make an article Mr.Z-man 23:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Crew change Guide[edit]

    Crew change Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    There is no claim to notability. Murderbike (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment, "I like it" is not a reason for keeping, the information must be notable and verifiable. This subject is neither. Murderbike (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - you didn't notice that I didn't vote or give a reason for keeping. In any case, the amount of egregious vandalism in this article's history - I guess in an attempt to keep its topic "secret" - makes me feel that this article is too much trouble to keep. So I'm keeping out of it. Though I'd personally like to see a good proper article on it, if it were possible. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - also, a quick Google search shows that this is at least notable to the freight-hopping community, although no sources were found that could pass WP:RS. No mentions were found in Google Books. Thank me for finding proof for you? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, No, because we don't need to find proof that it's not notable or verifiable, we need proof that it IS notable and verifiable. Murderbike (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with the fate of the content (merge, transwiki, cleanup, etc.) decided later. `'Míkka>t 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eye candy[edit]

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

    Unreferenced original research. Dictdef. Mikeblas (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. I've added some references, although the article still needs work. The article is also more than just a definition entry, citing both PhotoShop and PowerPoint. Andareed (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 00:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesus H. Christ[edit]

    Jesus H. Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article covers only usage of "Jesus H. Christ" when it could cover usage of "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" as a more profane term as well. Propose deletion or move to Jesus Christ (profanity) or similar. Suggestions encouraged. . — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 10:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 14:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Dragon Ball planets[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    List of Dragon Ball planets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is just a list relating to the features of a game/fictional scenario, and is incomplete to boot. Deb (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Redirect to Mahopac, New York. Closed per WP:SNOW as clearly, the content of this 3 sentence article was duplicative of the far more expansive target. Probably could have been a CSD G6, but redirect preserves a plausible search term. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mahopac[edit]

    An article on Mahopac, New York already exsists. Also the link for Mahopac Falls, New York in the Mahopac, New York article links to the Mahopac, New York article and I believe there used to be a seperate article for Mahopac Falls. I believe this article may be vandalism because the a link for this article was inserted where Mahopac, New York used to be, but I already fixed that.EMT1871 (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --jonny-mt 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Midway Arcade: Trilogy Pack[edit]

    Midway Arcade: Trilogy Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article makes no attempt to assert verifiability or notability. The lead paragraph states that the subject "was an unconfirmed release for the Sony Playstation 2". The game was never released. The rest of the article is a list of classic arcade games that would possibly have been included in the release. I feel that the article is listcruft, crystal-ballism, unverifiable and not notable. Gazimoff (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 00:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pringle Baronets[edit]

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

    Doesnt make sense Hot200245 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. Article states exactly what it is about, contains references, and links to relevant other wikipedia pages. Are you claiming it's a hoax, that it's not notable, etc (i.e., the criteria for deletion), that it is poorly written (i.e., it needs editorial work, which is not a criterion for deletion) or just that you don't understand it? DMacks (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. --jonny-mt 08:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David Williams (film producer)[edit]

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

    Assuming that refs can be provided, is this guy notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a single delete vote. (Note: For mergers please use ((merge)), and possibly Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, not AfD) - Nabla (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Srija[edit]

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

    Merge into Chiranjeevi page. This comes under WP:BIO1E. Notability only for one event. Furthermore, the subject cannot inherit importance of her celebrity parent. Mspraveen (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Keep Google hits over 40000 exclusively about her.[55]and in Yahoo [56] She is a household name in Andhra Pradesh and known in India.feel enough notablity for a person clearly passes WP:BIO and WP:N for an individual.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge into Chiranjeevi page . there is not enough information provided for it to stay as a independent page , if the page is rewritten with more about the person in particular then a separate article is indeed necessary . but right now seeing the contents its better to Merge with Chiranjeevi .--Pearll's sun (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    comment but if this article is rewritten and some more infos are added then im ready to change my vote .--Pearll's sun (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - Nabla (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Zettai Ryōiki[edit]

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

    Unverifiable original research on a non-notable neologism. Original prod was disputed --Farix (Talk) 10:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Zettai Ryōiki (絶対領域, Zettai Ryōiki?) is an anime/manga related term for describing the area of bare skin exposed on the thighs between the skirt and socks for female characters." This is a dictionary definition. "The socks are preferably over the knee type." This is one editor's opinion. "It is a common Tsundere/Meido attribute." This is original research. "The term Zettai Ryouiki loosely translates to Absolute Territory in Japanese." This is plausible, and has no apparent relation to the meaning of the term. "The ratio of exposed skin to the skirt and the socks is generally agreed in standard anime geek/otaku lore as 4:1:2.5 (Length of the skirt : Skin on thigh exposed : Length of the sock above the knee)." This is unreferenced, and I don't anticipate a scientific poll of anime geeks/otaku to find its way into scholarly literature soon. We may have to settle for a careful meta-analysis. "The term is said to have been inspired from the Neon Genesis Evangelion's AT field, but this has no relation to its present meaning." This is unreferenced, and even if a reference were provided, would not elevate the article above a dictionary definition of a neologism. One wonders how much information having no relation to the meaning of the term being defined belongs in its definition. "Anime characters known for their Zettai Ryouiki include Rin Tōsaka from Fate Stay Night, Louise from Zero no Tsukaima, and Karen Stadtfeld from Code Geass." What is the charactistic of their "zettai ryouiki"? Who has noted them? Is there any reason why Wikipedia should have this statement? References: Two blogs and a user page (I think) on some wiki. In short, this is a one-sentence dictionary definition of a term that, as a neologism, does not deserve coverage in Wikipedia, and refers to a concept that itself is not worth an article, even if mentioned on Japanese television (what's not?), used in the porn industry (that doesn't help its case) or trademarked (making something a trademark doesn't contribute to its being noteworthy). Apart from the article, Google claims hundreds of thousands of matches, but #871 is the last one it serves up. Fg2 (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to say that people don't decide what's notable, sources and verifiability do. (Granted, I don't have the sources and I can't care enough to look for them) You may not think that Japanese TV and porn and a trademark can help its case, but that argument is just based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Clearly this article needs to be rewritten, and I wouldn't mind the article deleted so that a better article can be written anew. _dk (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note, I believe Akiba Blog should qualify as a reliable source: despite its name, it's not really a blog but a personal news site that is held in pretty high regard, and certainly has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Bikasuishin (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some more: the Akiba Keizai Shimbun (a reliable news source of Digital Hollywood Entertainment) has had several headlines mentioning the term, including this one, which is rather in-depth (and mentions the 4:1:2.5 "golden ratio" as well). Bikasuishin (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. _dk (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with suggestion to merge to Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. - Nabla (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bob Dent[edit]

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

    Wikipedia is not a memorial. This person appears to be no more notable than children who are notable for being murdered. Grahame (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Preston Zimmerman[edit]

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

    Contested PROD about a footballer who plays for Hamburg's reserve team and never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. The PROD was contested under the claim he meets WP:FOOTYN#4, which is a bit weird since it is about "Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers", which is definitely not the case. Angelo (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Which appears to say it isn't a fully professional league yet, in which case Delete. Struway2 (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Hamburger SV II is a professional (rather than amateur or semi-pro) side, then I would support keeping the article. Does anyone have support for this? (I found the attendance for their opening home match was 2400: [58]). Jogurney (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I'm sure they are a pro side BanRay 23:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Wizardman 19:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Trevor Steedman[edit]

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

    Article was proposed for deletion with rationale: "Non-notable stunt actor." PROD was contested with request to list on AfD. Procedural nomination, I abstain. B. Wolterding (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DGG raises an excellent point below--as laymen, we are uniquely unqualified to evaluate the quality of a given professor's work. However, their relative importance and general notability in the field they work in can be evaluated, and based on the discussion below it is clear that the good professor is not noteworthy by our standards.

    It should be noted, though, that a change in status or the coming to light of relevant sources could impart new relevance on the topic and that any creation of an article based on these factors would not be subject to speedy deletion. To that end, if anyone would like the text in order to userfy and work on the article a little more, I will be more than happy to provide it.

    Finally, with regard to the renomination of the article, I agree that a month seems to be a sufficient amount of time to improve on the article. --jonny-mt 08:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Herrmann[edit]

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

    This is little more than a padded resume. The article has been tagged since December as having notability problems, and the first AfD resulted in No Consensus. There's been no subsequent improvement of the article. Let's get rid of this thing now. An editor with a similar name did some work on it, so it may be autobiography, and the sources leave much to be desired. Qworty (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The AfD discussion you mention, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Dutton is about a person who is primarily notable as a media personality rather than as an academic. Notability as a media personality is established, per WP:BIO, primarily by covergage of that person in the conventional media. Academic notablity is notability primarily for one's academic/scholarly work. In the main, such notability is established by looking at the impact of the person in question in their academic field, see WP:PROF. This means that in most cases to establish academic notability one has to look at things like academic honors and awards and coverage of the work of the person in question in scholarly publications (scholarly journals, conference proceedings, books, etc), looking at citation rates, h-index, etc. Yes, this is harder to do, yes more mistakes are probably made and and yes participation by experts is helpful. However, editing Wikipedia is open to everyone so ultimately anyone can express their opinion. You may not like this aspect of the Wikipedia model (and it is in fact mentioned in Criticism of Wikipedia), but that is the way it is.
    Going back to WP:PROF, it does say criterion 1 of WP:PROF can be satisfied if there is a substantial coverage of the person in question, as an academic expert, in conventional media. In practice this happens very rarely since most academic subjects are quite technical. But sometimes there are articles or interviews in mass media about famous scientists, or a journal like Scientific American can honor someone with a SciAm50 award as one of the top scientific innovators, or some biologist is repeatedly quoted in mass media as an expert on some schientific developments in molecular biology etc. One could argue that this is the case for Denis Dutton, but I think that his notability is primarily as a notable media pundit on general cultural and literary matters rather than as a media expert/pundit on some academic subject. Nsk92 (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply Unless a person has at least some vague knowledge of the field it is certainly not possible to evaluate whether this guy has achieved anything based on some pseudo-scientific numerological method of evaluation, and/or award counting. The citation evaluation methodologies you are quoting and using aren't even the best. And the best are nowhere as valuable as the evaluations of the top scholars in the particular discipline and sub-discipline. Numbers, do, of course, look impressive. They do impress the ignoratti. --203.214.15.223 (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete per lack of notability. --jonny-mt 08:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin Warner[edit]

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

    Very sloppily written self-promotional article. User who created it has the same name as the article. No notability whatsoever established. Qworty (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Article has been rewritten. Kai A. Simon (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment ... but is no better. The problem is not with the article, it is the lack of notability of the subject. Springnuts (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (criterion A7: unremarkable person). Waggers (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mackeson[edit]

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

    Non notable sports person and public speaker. A google search turns up no reliable sources Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    &Delete - A search with "australia sport" added returns NO hits whatsoever. Camillus (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. I'll be more than happy to provide the deleted content for another article or project in the future. --jonny-mt 08:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FITcon[edit]

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

    Non-notable convention held sporadically by a non-notable club with exactly one chapter at one college. Qworty (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Revised my statement. I am searching for other significant coverage. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do not merge into main university article. This convention has been held by a fairly large organization on campus (I'd know... I go to Florida Tech). However, this convention, as most other student activities, does not have enough standalone notability to satisfy on its own. The contents of this article does not fit into the current university article body and will change the tone of the overall article. If this article is to be deleted, portions of this article (trim-to-stub needed) that is not-notable and not directly cited by WP:RS should be removed and merged a new generic article called Florida Institute of Technology Student Life and merge with other notable campus events held on campus that also have WP:RS. (Note: I am not affiliated with this organization, so WP:COI is not an issue here. I just posses a clearer picture of whether to keep this article or not...:D) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 13:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. --jonny-mt 09:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Rukus[edit]

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

    Utterly non-notable hip hop group. There's little to say about them in this nomination, and there's even less to say about them in the article. Qworty (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was No consensus to delete, which defaults of course to Keep. The article needs some serious TLC, so I'm marking it for post-AfD cleanup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Electrocutango[edit]

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

    I rejected the speedy A7 on grounds of the mentioned award. Procedural nom, I haven't done any research on it yet Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reject deletion; support article's presence. Electrocutango is known among dancers of tango nuevo... Binksternet (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment some of the Norweigan hits look like reviews and semi-professional based on format. Can't read the language. Can't verify the award in English ghits. Anyone know a Norwegian reading editor? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am Norwegian: the reviews are good. The band/album is great and widely used, and considered to be in line with Gotan Project and Bajofondo - it definitely needs a Wikip article. It could be better, but I haven't had time to do more for now. If your deletion policy is as strict as Martijn Hoekstra suggests here, The Beatles and Elvis will be the only musicians to have pages here...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambivaline (talk • contribs)
    You may have misinterpreted my comments. The article was tagged for speedy deletion, which I believed was not valid, if only because of the mentioned award. I listed the article here so discussion could take place, and so far we have two people who support keeping it, and none that are arguing for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    United Hospitals' Challenge Cup[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    United Hospitals' Challenge Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable cup competition for a select number of university teams. Only possible claim to significance is the age of the cup itself, though there are no references or sources to back this up (attempts to get an editor to provide sources merely elicited facetious comments and abuse). Was originally prodded, but was removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Waggers (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cracc[edit]

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

    Mixtapes generally fail notability per WP:BAND, and this one doesn't appear to be any exception. faithless (speak) 09:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Earthoid.com[edit]

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

    Procedural nom. The article was speedily deleted twice in two days by two different admins per A7 under the name Earthoid. The creator then gave it a slight name change seemingly to avoid detection. I have no real opinion, but since several editors felt that the article was inappropriate already, I figure it should at least be brought to discussion to see if that is the consensus. It does seem slightly spammy. No real assertion of notability. faithless (speak) 08:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was move to a serious subject. `'Míkka>t 00:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyeball search[edit]

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

    To these eyeballs, this looks like a definition, and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • note that, while looking for relevant articles, I found another slangy one called vdiff which I turned into Visual comparison. One doesn't need AFD to do this cleanup work. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 00:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Dahmer Community Involvement Scholarship[edit]

    John Dahmer Community Involvement Scholarship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    It is nonsense in the gala of texts (no matter what it is) have been added with no regard for what is typed. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:CSD#A7). WODUP 08:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FWOOOFM[edit]

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

    Delete: Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Chilton (game developer)[edit]

    From the few diffs that I analyzed none of them seem to establish this person's notability, the two given sources seem to be of questionable reliability, also given the sourcing problems BLP issues seem to frequent this article. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't mean to sound incredulous, but could you list a few of these sources? I'm all for keeping the article if some can be listed. Celarnor Talk to me 08:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would consider this person notable, since World of Warcraft has over 10 million subscribers. He was one of the key designers of World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade, working on the Player vs Player aspects, and that game was the best selling game of 2007 in North America and Europe and the fastest selling PC game of all time.[66] I believe this person meets WP:BIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
    • There is an article for Tom Chilton on WowWiki, and I suppose that may be an alternate place for this. Considering the recent vandalism to this article by upset gamers and the lack of information on Chilton's background, I *am* wondering though if it's worth it to have an article. But I think semi protection will take care of most of it. --Pixelface (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really think WowWiki is the place for something like this. Most of the articles are tenuous at best with their connection to him. This is mostly fan coverage and in-game material. While the World of Warcraft game itself is certainly very popular and notable, I don't think Chilton himself is. Also, regarding your citation from our biography guidelines:
    Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Fansites and interviews about PvP sites don't meet that criteria. Celarnor Talk to me 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is no reliable source that discusses the subject in depth. Celarnor Talk to me 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A valid and viable entry wouldn't be glaringly absent of reliable sources. Celarnor Talk to me 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done an extensive rewrite using some of the sources I mentioned. --Pixelface (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Pixelface has made significant improvements. It seems that most of the original objections no longer apply. Doc Tropics 01:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Reference number 3 doesn't even mention the subject. References 2 and 4 don't assert notability and merely say "This guy works here." If that is a notability assertion, then I'd like to see articles for the rest of the Blizzard employees listed there. References 5 and 6 are not independent, and are just "This guy will be at the convention for the company he works at." They also don't assert notability. This leaves us with 1 and 7, which are the ones we had at the start of the AfD. Not much has changed. We still don't have any reliable sources to establish notability. Celarnor Talk to me 02:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WorldofWarcraft.com IS a reliable source. I really don't see how you can say a lead designer on the fastest selling PC game of all time is non notable. WP:BIO says "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." and "The person's work...has won significant critical attention." Tim Chilton clearly passes WP:BIO. --Pixelface (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And reference number 3 is the source for the fact that Burning Crusade is the fastest selling PC game of all time, and comes from the Burning Crusade article. I'm sure another source could be found for that claim. --Pixelface (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Our guidelines on reliable sources lists independence from the source as one of the criteria. As the World of Warcraft website is not independent from him (i.e, he was the developer), it is not a third-party source. A third-party source would be a book, a news site, a special on tv or radio, or something along those lines. If it is as popular as you say it is, and the person is so notable, it should be easy to find some sources independent of him (i.e, not the website of the company he works for) to help bolster his notability rather than all of these non-reliable, non-independent, and sometimes not even mentioning the subject (as is the case of #3), sources.
    All you've really done here is establish the notability of the World of Warcraft game, which has already been done on the appropriate article. Celarnor Talk to me 04:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't address those two criteria from WP:BIO I mentioned. --Pixelface (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If his work on the project was as notable as you say, then there would be sources to show it other than his attendance at company-sponsored conventions and a few brief interviews regarding PvP in WoW. Celarnor Talk to me 10:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    mass account deletions by the player community, Successfully destroyed Ultima Online (former largest MMORPG), Currently is in the process of ruining WOW and if you disagree check out the deleted accounts since 2.4 patch.( possibly most unwanted patch ever). This guy is HATED by millions of gamers and they still hire the guy.. I guess they.. eh .. I don't know why. Keep him though in history no one in this industry is more loathed and hated. . . and wiki should reflect that more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.109.27 (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was already deleted by Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA); G11. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Zebtron[edit]

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

    Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, both due to consensus below and because the debate has sat for a month or so without resolution. (!) UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kenneth C. Bucchi[edit]

    Kenneth C. Bucchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Vanity article being used to promote author's book (and his promotional article about it...). Subject fails WP:NOTE and all references to him seem to be FROM him. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 14:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alki Steriopoulos[edit]

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

    Seems non-notable. I see no assertion that makes them notable per WP:MUSIC, does anyone else? αѕєηιηє t/c 06:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 03:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick Draughon[edit]

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

    Non-notable stub — TAnthonyTalk 05:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak keep - Some of the programs he has worked on in a 'high-up' job may make him pass notability. αѕєηιηє t/c 06:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kuching International Airport Flights[edit]

    Kuching International Airport Flights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Disputed prod, prod was concerned about the notability of the subject. Myself, I'm pushing for "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". And there's lots more reasons too. Join the fun, find your very own reason for deleting this "article". UsaSatsui (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - Fails WP:V and seems unencyclopaedic. αѕєηιηє t/c 06:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Denis Dutton[edit]

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

    Non-notable individual does not me WP:BIO criteria Ursasapien (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you can find some more indep sourcing on the man himself, I'd change to a keep. But independent bits do not by any stretch automatically confer notability; "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious, what about this person appears notable to you? He seems extremely non-notable to me. Ursasapien (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Climate change denial? *rereads article* climate change denial? *sifts article history* are you sure you're commenting on the right article? Yep, your edit history suggests you are.. so this non-sequitor is just linking someone you don't like to unpopular views that he might well not hold? I'm having a really hard time following the logic, or is that intentional? Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification for the hard of thinking. The comment re:climate change is, of course, not on the article but is on the claim that a new website on that topic is grounds for DD being notable enough for inclusion. I am sorry that you find logic hard to follow. As for the suggestion of malice for having views, I have had many good laughs at climate change denial arguments but the topic is becoming passé. I really think that DD's fans should aquaint themselves with the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. He may be an amusing companion down at the pub but as far as inclusion goes, he is just not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Nsk92 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Here's a more recent write-up, in the context of his new website. Sadly, I don't have time right now to figure out how best to add this to the article. Scog (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    also note that New Zealand Universities have relatively few Professorial chairs - an Associate Professor is not equivalent to that title in the context of US faculties - it is about two grades higher. It will be easier to develop and improve this article than to have to recreate it from scratch. dramatic (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Extremely Super Very Strong Delete with purple clusters, gold bars and silver bells but if not delete then merge – There are criteria for inclusion. The DD entry doesn’t meet the criteria. But clearly, DD has some fans. I suggest they copy the entry and start a fan club. The fans seem quite fanatical. I do not deny that he has fans and friends, and a flare for self promotion. However, claims for inclusion are exaggerated and show that fans and friends either have not read the guidelines or feel strongly that an exception should be made for DD. As for the awfully dramatic claim of 10,000+ Google hits… So what, even if they are all his (and they are not). John Smith gets about 4.7 million hits (and a statue). The fan club’s Denis Dutton is not the only Denis Dutton. The Google hits are not references to him alone. For example, there is a Denis Dutton at here who was nominated for two Primetime Emmys. Clearly more notable but without a Wikipedia bio, and I would say, also not notable enough. Another Denis Dutton is at here. There is also a disturbing element of parochialism in the special pleading for retaining the DD entry. NZ is a small country, 4 million people. International standards should still be used. There are lots of notable academic NZ residents and NZ born who are not in Wikipedia. And those that do have relatively tiny entries. Take Peter Phillips, one of the world’s best econometricians, for example (see [74]). Instead of wasting time with all these Facebook entries, and DD is not, by far, the worst I have seen, why not spend the effort on adding people who are notable? On the parochial topic, the NZ system of academic titles is the same as is used throughout the Commonwealth. NZ Professors are the same as Australian Professors and British Professors and those in HK and South Africa and so on. They are equivalent to Full Professors in the American system. They have chairs. They are not Super Professors. And associate professors, readers and more senior lecturers are about equivalent to the American Associate Professor. Lecturers and some less senior, senior lecturers are about equivalent to American Assistant Professors. In the last twenty years the status of academics in NZ and Australia has declined as various, previously non-academic, institutions have been turned into Universities and their staff given various academic titles. The new competition has necessitated ‘old’ Universities promoting more staff into higher titled positions. The Salon article is over the top and is not exactly written by an independent party and does not make DD notable. As for the claims about DD’s contributions to evolutionary psychology, lets hear an expert say that he has made a significant contribution. If he has, where are the refereed academic articles, in good journals, to support the assertion. I have never met DD. I imagine I would like him. I imagine I would be happy to have a beer with him at the Bush Inn. Now, have I been there or did I just find it on the web? He seems like a entertaining rogue. But notable? Not. Let’s maintain some standards folks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Note, this is 203.214.15.223'd 300th delete !vote in this AfD. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This is all very amusing. I came across the DD page having seen many other pages of people who are not notable including some people I do know. DD I don't know. But a little investigation shows that he is not notable either. I tried to clean up his page, consistent with Wikipedia standards, admittedly I did add a bit of humour because a page on a non notable person invites humour and then I am accused of being a fan of Prof Butler's, someone else that I have no knowledge of. For someone who cleaned up the DD page to remove slander, you seem remarkably free to slander yourself. There is no personal animus. And if it was palpable your comment would not be required. Have you heard of argument ad hominem? Whether someone is anonymous or not it is their arguments that should be evaluated, not their alleged motivations. I am sure you can find this principle explained elsewhere in Wikipedia. As I said this, DD's entry, is not the worst example I have seen in Wikipedia of a non notable person entry. Some of these entries are written by the people themselves. I have seen pages clearly written by the person who uses their name to write them. These entries are a joke. Overall Wikipedia is a great concept and a great resource but surely it is not and should not become Facebook! The people who contribute are, overall, doing a great job. However, many of you do take yourselves far too seriously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly, DD is not as notable as Bill Nye. But WP:BIO does not require being a major media celebrity as a necessary condition for inclusion. being a "minor media celebrity" (using the words of NYT article) is certainly enough to satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. In this case we have a relatively rare situation where notability is not just implicitly implied but explicitly asserted ("minor media celebrity") by a reliable source, like the NYT. Regarding the "nothing new" comment, I am not sure what that means. The links I provided simply go to demonstrate that the subject is sufficiently frequently mentioned by significant media outlets as a sort of media pundit on literary matters. Regarding your other comments, I can claim the same "advantages" as you. I also have lived in several different countries, I also do not know DD. I have not edited his article here in Wikipedia and have no beef to grind in the matter, either for or against DD. Nsk92 (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Bill Nye is more a minor media celebrity than a major one. When there are so many gaps amongst the notables (or, if you will, the more notable) why waste time on the non notable (or, if you will, the less notable). Everybody is notable, to some extent. That's the idea behind Facebook. If you want a NZ based media celebrity who is not already in Wikipedia, how about Brian Edwards? [83] How about Judy Callingham? [84]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Evaluating the notability claims Everyone is notable to some extent, in the same way that everyone is special. The important question to be determined in this discussion is, is DD notable within the commonly accepted meaning and within the Wikipedia criteria for a biographical entry? I suggest that he is not, so let’s examine the claims for the areas in which it is suggested he is notable.

    First, is DD notable as an academic? No.

    He has a rather pedestrian academic publishing record for an associate professor and is not recognised as having contributed any notable ideas in any area. This can be ascertained simply by looking at his own list of his most important publications. If this is disputed where is the leading scholar who says differently? The journal he founded and edited is not notable amongst academic journals. Indeed, it is more a magazine than a serious academic journal. If this is disputed where is the leading scholar who says differently?

    Second, is DD is a notable web entrepreneur? No.

    Admittedly Arts and Letters has a following but so do various community newspapers, specialist publications, webpages and blogs. Arts and Letters aggregates and provides links expected to be of interest to the webpage’s readership. In this respect, it is much like any of a very large number of local newspapers which consist largely of material created not for the newspaper but by others, elsewhere, and initially, for others. Also, not exactly unique as a webpage. Meritorious yes, but notable no.

    Cybereditions is not a new or original idea, has not been a roaring success, does not have an impressive list of titles, and has been done better and more successfully by many others - Amazon.com, for example.

    Climatedebatedaily is but one of a myriad of other such offerings and only started recently, at a time when that debate, in the mainstream at least, is well and truly over. In comparison, AnswersinGenesis [85] covers another area where rational debate has concluded but is more notable because a large polity in the USA seems wedded to the irrational side. It is also a leading site amongst Creationism exponents.

    DenisDutton.com is not at all notable, there are an obscene number of such offerings, and blogs, on the web.

    Third, is DD notable as a notable libertarian media commentator/activist? No.

    There are plenty of notable libertarian media commentators/activist that are, and were, notable for other things before they became commentators. Gary Becker and Richard Posner, for example, to name just two. As for media commentator/activist, or commentator/activist, starting a few organisations of little if any note, there are so many people, even in NZ, who have done this that this is just not notable. Being on the board of RNZ is no big deal. Writing a report criticising alleged failings of a public broadcaster is also not notable. Allegations of bias and of failings made against a public broadcaster (and against private media) are so common in any country that they are certainly not, of themselves, notable.

    Fourth, is DD notable for controversy or some controversy? Not really.

    This is an area in which DD appears to have worked particularly hard in to try to become notable. The ‘bad writing’ contest which seems to be what DD is most well known for, did, apparently, ‘briefly become a cause célèbre in the world of academic theorists’, although still not sufficiently to make him notable.

    On the topic of ‘bad writing’, criticism and controversy, now I am not going to claim that the following analysis is not a cheap shot but it does show that the game of simply critiquing is one anyone can play, and is rather easy. Take for example this sentence from the first paper in the online sample (Philosophy and Literature 29.1 (2005) 1-23) of the journal DD edits:

    First, the sentence is long, just as the Butler sentence is long. But more importantly, isn't it possible to make a similar point to the one 'George Meyer' makes in an episode of the Simpsons: "Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?" Don't "larger, more comprehensive vision", "genuine and valid interdisciplinarity", "connected, coherent, cumulative, and relentlessly self-critical body of knowledge", "dilettantish smorgasbord", "genuine historical vision", and "immediate and long-term causal factors", although grand sounding, involve rather vacuous descriptors? Do they tell the reader something or are they so vague that they are open to claim that they are just meaningless phrases that dumb people use to sound important? Isn't the sentence really equivalent to "I don't like Lacanian psychology and associated critical theory?" And if it is, so what? Does this qualify as academic scholarship? I think not.

    Rather than publishing this paper in an obscure, non notable, journal, shouldn't the editor (DD) have nominated it for a 'bad writing' award?

    Butler, in her NYT response to her award, accuses DD of using the 'bad writing' award to take pot shots at those whose political philosophies he takes exception to. The evidence suggests that she is right.

    Now it so happens that I am far more likely to hold views more in common with DD than Butler (for example, I am not a great believer in relativism, and when I was a student I was frequently accused of being ‘to the right of Attila the Hun’, whatever that means, and I used to enjoy ridiculing the vacuous arguments of those with a 'left' orientation, a bit childish I admit, given they are such easy meat) but academic scholarship is supposed to involve more than "I don't like x". It is supposed to involve original contributions, original ideas, supported by tight arguments and evidence - more than simply the recycling of derivative ideas, and empty invective against ideas or people you don't like. Now just because my political persuasion is somewhat different, I think it only fair to give Butler her due, clearly she is one clever woman and although I do not have the requisite knowledge to understand the technical material she writes, I would be very surprised if it does not count as scholarship. If it does present serious ideas that one disagrees with, one should engage and critique them with serious analysis. If it is all nonsense one should demonstrate it. Simply saying it is all nonsense is rather lazy and is not good enough for academic scholarship.

    Within critical theory schools, which I really know nothing about, I imagine that there is a deal of pretension. I think the efforts of Alan Sokal well and truly demonstrate that. (In fact I intend to get around to purchasing and reading his book, which I expect to enjoy.) But, to be fair again, there is considerable pretension throughout the 'Arts' and beyond. I am not blind to considerable pretension amongst those who have views similar to mine, and even occasionally I manage to see my own pretension. Being able to see flaws and pretension in your own arguments and in the arguments of those whose conclusions you agree with is an important part of critical thinking.

    To summarise, DD is not a notable academic, not a notable web entrepreneur and not a notable libertarian media commentator/activist. He is not notable as a jack of several trades. Plenty of others, Herbert Simon for example, are notable in several different areas, so there is no need to make someone who is not notable in any area, notable, simply because they do more than one thing. In short, DD is just not notable.

    And just because you like someone, or like their views, or think they are a jolly good fellow, does not, in itself, make them notable.

    --203.214.15.223 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both the Arts&Letters website and DD himself are notable because they received substantial coverage by independent sources in mainstream meadia. The same cannot be said about an average blog or a facebook page. Look up WP:V. It is irrelevant for the purposes of deciding if DD satisfies WP:N if his notability is well deserved. The fact that substantial independent coverage exists is the primary relevant consideration. Here is a quote about DD from an article in Time magazine: "A few years ago, Mathew Gross, 32, was a free-lance writer living in tiny Moab, Utah. Rob Malda, 28, was an underperforming undergraduate at a small Christian college in Michigan. Denis Dutton, 60, was a professor of philosophy in faraway Christchurch, New Zealand. Today they are some of the most influential media personalities in the world. You can be one too."[86] When a Time article calls a person one of "the most influential media personalities in the world", that fact alone closes the case regarding whether or not that person satisfies WP:N and WP:BIO. But in this case there is more. There is a NYT article that I cited above that calls DD "a minor media celebrity, a cyberpublishing prophet who is invited to speak at e-book conferences from Los Angeles to New York." [87] Again, it is quite irrelevant if the judgement of the journalist who wrote this is correct or if DD has earned it. The fact that they wrote it is what counts for determining notability per WP:N and WP:BIO. A few other quotes from mass media. USA Today: "Human beings, by and large, don't know what they're interested in," says Denis Dutton, a professor in New Zealand who started and edits the highly acclaimed Arts & Letters Daily, perhaps the most eclectic, serendipity-driven Web site out there."[88] Here is another one from Guardian: "Arts & Letters Daily should be, Prof Dutton promised, "the place people would like to look at every day, just to see what was new in the world of the arts or ideas". The popularity it now enjoys would suggest he has been good to his energetic word. Today, the site claims more than 2.5 million page views a month - with Britain supplying the second-most users after the US - and a name recognition second to none among the internet's cornucopia of sites cobbled together by other academics, a majority of whose weblogs would typically measure reader numbers over an entire year in the high hundreds at best."[89]. Nsk92 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply "To judge by what we personally think of the work would show ignorance of encyclopaedic [proportions]. We are laymen, and we accept the demonstrated judgment of the experts in the field (just as we accept the judgment of reviewers for books, of critics for actors). and What anyone here may think of his political or philosophical or literary views is irrelevant."

    My points exactly, and what I have been consistently arguing throughout. Where we differ is on who we think are experts. Journalists are not experts simply by virtue of being journalists. They may be experts for other reasons. Newspapers, magazine, and various other media are by no means authorities. Although their believability does vary, even the best contain fanciful nonsense and are regularly deceived by those who have an agenda. Plenty of people earn a very good living principally for the services they provide in deceiving the media. I must admit that when I was young and more callow than I still am now, I used to think "if it is in the newspaper it must be true".

    As for the often pseudo-scientific methods used to evaluate citations... They are, indeed, laughable. Eight or nine years ago a friend and I decided to have a look at which economics journals the Social Sciences Citation Index ranked as being the best. We were most amused to find that the clear and easy winner, based on their formula, was The Economist magazine! Now although The Economist is a good read, it too frequently contains nonsense and, more importantly, it is not even a journal. Any citation in The Economist should be given a relative weight close to zero. Following this discovery, we took the data on citations from articles in one journal to another (including those involving The Economist) and we used what appears to be the best method for numerical evaluation of citations to estimate weights of journals based on the implicit hierarchy in the data. In the journal ranking based on this, The Economist had dropped from sight. The ranking of journals at the top made sense and were relatively consistent with the ranking evaluations of experts. Unfortunately, even this apparently best numerical method is not foolproof. We tried it on some other disciplines and found that there were cases where the ranking results were complete nonsense.

    On a similar point, in the past, when I have had to do a literature search, I tried, a couple of times, to use our librarian (I always prefer someone else to do the work where possible). The results were several inches thick of printouts, almost completely dross and the few nuggets found not worth the effort. As a consequence, if I do need to do something like that now I always do it myself. When people who don't know what they are doing try to evaluate things where they don't have the requisite skill, or knowledge, or capacity, the result is always amusing. Once I had the pleasure of watching someone who is colour blind sorting bottles into green ones and brown ones. Unfortunately, the bottles he was attempting to sort had already been sorted. They were all brown. He had seen other people doing similar sorting, and, although he is colour blind, he thought he had worked out how to do it. Most amusing!

    As for who I try to convert, I don't try to convert anyone. I don't try to convince my opponents and don't try to convince the audience. Whether they are convinced or not is not entirely in my hands and if convincing them was my objective I would use sophistry, not rational argument, as sophistry is more effective. That said, I do hope to convince any independent, intelligent, disinterested person. Debate can be fun, as long as you don't take it, or yourself, too seriously. --203.214.3.114 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete and merged into the Portage, Indiana article. The consensus is that the article was not notable and not deserving its own entry. The parent article has a subsection on Parks, and so the information has been moved there. Keegantalk 06:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Robbins Pond[edit]

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

    not a notable location Metanoid (talk, email) 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, author request. Canley (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PetroVietnam Twin Tower[edit]

    No reliable third party sources. WP:BALL: I'm living in Vietnam, but there's no information about this building , PetroVietnam Twin Tower is described only on Wikipedia (Vietnamese version and English version) and a Internet forum. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Magnifier (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral - It doesn't seem so notable, but it definitely isn't non-notable as per such. If this building is genuine, then it seems encyclopaedic and relevant. αѕєηιηє t/c 06:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfinished Confessions[edit]

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

    Non-notable bar band. The article was previously speedied [92], then it was immediately recreated, so it should be deleted and salted. No third-party verifiability presented at all. Qworty (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy delete - No plays at last.fm! None at all! Def. not notable. αѕєηιηє t/c 06:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete, based on consensus that the subject and album fail to qualify notability guidelines. Keegantalk 06:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Zatopeks[edit]

    Zatopeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Ain't Nobody Left But Us (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Completing unfinished nom for Beeblbrox (talk · contribs), apparently Twinkle choked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak delete - Last.fm has very few plays, and doesn't seem to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asenine (talk • contribs)

    ""Keep"". They are a notable UK band, relevant to US labels that have worked with them. Also, sources such as Last FM or similar are not always reliable in the punk genre. - JoeThird —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeThird (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - If you sincerely feel that the article fails notability criteria, then shouldn't your !vote be delete? Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedily deleted. Grandmasterka 03:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Avi Zolty[edit]

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

    The article shows no evidence that the subject is notable due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. I don't think that such sources exist for this topic. Guest9999 (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Raljoball[edit]

    Non-notable game with no references played by one group of friends. Somno (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 00:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KaLiNco[edit]

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

    Non-notable autobiography. This rapper does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. I was unable to locate any reliable sources that discuss the subject, and none are present. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy delete per CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Albert Junior[edit]

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

    Vanity, no evidence of notability. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was SNOW-delete.. WODUP 06:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Evan D'Angeles[edit]

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

    absolutely non-notable, COI vanity piece twice put up for speedy, uploader (subject/author of article) removed the tags. Okay, we'll do this the long way Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, redirect to Memorandum. Singularity 00:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Memorandom[edit]

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

    Non-notable music group. No independent sources provided. Does not meet WP:BAND Mattinbgn\talk 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've tried finding that out myself. The second CD is apparently available from Amazon, but they don't list the label. I suspect it is an independent release. The UPC is 6890760490616, if that helps anyone.
    • This says, "Tunnel Vision is available from all good record stores through Green Distribution (MGM).". The link itself is a PR release so not reliable, but does anybody know what Green Distribution is? Corvus cornixtalk 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha, thanks for that link. Based on that, I'm going to have to say delete, they don't have a record label, Green Distribution is just a distributor for bands that have released their own material. Corvus cornixtalk 18:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete as full of lies. DS (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Ussuri republic[edit]

    Apparent hoax. The 'references' provided do not mention any 'Ussuri republic' or 'Battle of the Ussuri River'; Google does not return any results for either apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Reading the article for Mikhail Frunze, it seems quite unlikely he was in the Russian Far East in 1920, since he was involved in battles elsewhere at that time. This calls the accuracy of the whole article into question. (It was created in its entirety on January 18 by User:Ussri Bobby.) If the information in it cannot be verified, it should be considered a hoax and deleted. Terraxos (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This is ridiculous! This article is a hoax and this article has survived on Wikipedia for two months! The creator of this article (User:Ussri Bobby) should be blocked from editing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Blocking the user may be kind of pointless, however as he/she as been inactive since January 18 2008. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 06:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 00:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Knapp[edit]

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

    Book advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable book. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep consensus is that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Welch[edit]

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

    Non notable mayor ButtonMyShirtImGay (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Closure made by nominator, who forgot to place closure rationale at the top so I'm doing it for them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Feminist historians (United Kingdom)[edit]

    Feminist historians (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Virtually no content, no sources, and only assertion of notability is the claim that it is important. Very few edits in three years. Redirect to feminist history. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously You are, of course, right. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete all. Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shyne Records, Zeo (rapper)‎, Zeo discography, and the surrounds[edit]

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

    Nonnotability and nonverifiablity bordering on hoax. Created by a new account user:Yung Smile which look like an old nuisance to me, who creates various fictional and noonotable rap artists for quite some time. `'Míkka>t 01:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Philippe | Talk 21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Safe hands[edit]

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

    I was going to tag this article for speedy deletion but I decided to play it safe and list it here. The band seems to fail the WP:MUSIC criteria, making them non-notable. They're not assigned to a major record label and they don't even have their own website, only a MySpace page. On the other side Contribs|@ 01:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Hunt[edit]

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

    Article is about an actor, but no page on IMDB; unverifiable in reliable sources and fails WP:BIO. --Snigbrook (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Consensus is that WP:WEB is not met.--Kubigula (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wind Repertory Project[edit]

    Wind Repertory Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Website which fails any fair test of notability, be it WP:WEB or WP:N. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy keep. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Critical Metrics[edit]

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

    non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagreement - Website is well-documented for notability, as witnessed by multiple references included on page Wkreth (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy keep. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OEDN[edit]

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

    non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the relevant notability guideline due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    American Travel International[edit]

    American Travel International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    non notable company Gray5512 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychopedia[edit]

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

    non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FeedZero[edit]

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

    non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The League of Laboring Poets[edit]

    The League of Laboring Poets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy keep. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MyAnimeList[edit]

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

    non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NiceTorrent[edit]

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

    non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ShareSource.org[edit]

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

    non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result of the debate was Speedy Delete Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Socialroster[edit]

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

    non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy keep. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lip Service Radio[edit]

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

    non notable website, service. Gray5512 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. With few exceptions, the "keep" arguments are weak, as noted by WLU at the end, and do not address the notability guideline issues that have been highlighted by several editors. Sandstein (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Battlestar Wiki[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Battlestar Wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    File:BSWiki.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
    File:BattlestarWiki.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

    Fails WP:WEB. The research indicated is only an article from a PhD CANDIDATE and was not published in any journal. As for the AOL mention, if AOL was to have a page detailing the top 20 fan sites for every TV show out there, 99% of them would be rejected outright as NN. It should be considered a link directory, which means it cannot be used to satisfy #1 Nick Catalano  contrib talk 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wouldn't that make it a speedy candidate as "recreation of deleted content" or is this version of the article different from the previously deleted ones?--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Last version was deleted in July '06; this version was created in November '07. I doubt this is the same content that got deleted before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And my reply would be as my initial comment - review WP:AFD and nominate it for deletion. Fortunately the acronym is wikilinked, so you can review it. WLU (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The link is working now, not sure why it wasn't in the past. BW still gets three lines. Insufficient in my mind. WLU (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Toton's paper isn't published aside from the on-line vesion, indicating no editorial oversight once presented, and wasn't considered worth printing in any anthology that came out of the conference. Many of the sources are to blogs and battlestar wiki itself. Given the AOL link, it's borderline meeting WP:WEB, but nudging to delete. WLU (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    External links
    • Battlestar Wiki - an encyclopedic reference for topics related to the Battlestar Galactica fictional universe, both the original and re-imagined series.
    Comment - to everyone saying 'keep per Joe', I can't see what Joe's argument is. If it's 'other pages are just as bad', this is explicitly pointed out as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically under what about article x? and further expanded in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. This is not a clear argument to keep the page. The relevant criteria are found at the pages on notability and notability of web content. Specifically, articles must have been the subject of multiple non-trivial and independent published works, won a well-known independent award, or distributed by a medium independent of creators. WLU (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure this is his argument. Let me quote it from him: This is the problem with deletionists, you aim to get rid of all the good stuff when you should really be putting your efforts in developing articles to higher quality standards. But I may be speaking to those who don't care to listen on that issue, so I'll save my breath. He's calling us deletionists. My argument is below. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It's worth noting that this article has been deleted twice before. Has anything changed since then? Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiptoety talk 18:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pat McGinn[edit]

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

    unreferenced sub-stub article on a non-notable local district councillor; fails WP:BIO. It has been tagged as a stub for two years, but unchanged for 18 months. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article to concurrency (road) (seems to have been done already), Delete the list. Tikiwont (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong-way concurrency[edit]

    Wrong-way concurrency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    List of wrong-way concurrencies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Unsourced. Tagged Unencylopedic for a six weeks with no changes to the article. Pure Trivia and worse a neologism. A google for "wrong-way concurrency" site:gov shows ZERO hits. KelleyCook (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and because I didn't make this clear, I favor deletion if a transwiki doesn't happen. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the subject has info which goes beyond a dictionary def. --- Taroaldo (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    EDIT: There is also a dictionary definition at Wiktionary. Also, the article does have more than a dictionary definition and has the potential for more. I change my vote to Weak Keep. --Shruti14 t c s 01:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 00:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rima Anabtawi[edit]

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

    Appears to fail WP:BIO. Does not assert importance or significance. Taroaldo (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Time alloted for discussion is sufficient. Waffling endlessly serves no purpose. --- Taroaldo (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), deleted as (G11: Blatant advertising) by User:Orangemike. Whpq (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gabriel Yak[edit]

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

    Concerns about notability - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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