< March 5	March 7 >

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

The result was: Deleted and redirected to Ghostbusters (disambiguation) - consensus that the article is not factual. Early closure. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters (TV Series)‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ghostbusters (TV Series)

Hoax article. Of course there were Ghostbusters animated series; however this one is a hoax. Apart from there obviously being no supporting evidence provided (or found) by references, there are more than a few inconsistencies in the article. For example it was made for the Welsh television station HTV, but apparently shown only on the BBC - that would be the competition. And getting the original movie stars to do the voices doesn't pan out. Seems to be connected with an anon IP editor who has been inserting dubious information on alleged animated series on a couple of existing articles. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Real Ghostbusters or to Ghostbusters (disambiguation) ....Mandsford (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Ghostbusters (disambiguation) not Real Ghostbusters as there are several TV series with this exact title. Agreed that the content is a hoax which is why I say to speedy this. 23skidoo (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Ghostbusters (disambiguation). There were at least 4 TV shows about Ghostbusters, but this article appears to be a hoax. --Pixelface (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. This is reminiscent of a hoaxmonger from the past, but I can't remember who. JuJube (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was more likely that it was someone who remembered the Ghostbusters cartoon, but who was under the impression that the voices were done by the Hollywood actors. The reason that Bill Murray's character sounded like Garfield the Cat was that the voice was supplied by Lorenzo Music. I think if someone types in the words Ghostbusters and TV in a search engine, a redirect would take them quickly to the disambiguation page. Mandsford (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably delete, or at least delete and redirect. Clearly a hoax. PC78 (talk) 13:23, 7 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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total Film's Greatest British Films of All Time[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Total Film's Greatest British Films of All Time

Non-notable poll of the month - requires a line in the total film article but that's about it. Fredrick day (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Neutral - the list warranted mention in several other places, such as the BBC website, and I have seen this list mentioned on several articles. Obviously some more information about the poll would be useful - who voted, for example? Who were the "top 25 critics"? If this cannot be found, then I would suggest deletion would be best and an external source can be used for citing the "top ten". Bob talk 01:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Bob talk 12:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COPYVIO Ohconfucius (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Total Film. The Dominator (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite many attempts to have Wikimedia's legal dept decide whether these are or aren't copyvios, ultimately what one of many groups says is the best films is not encyclopedic. Ready for Carlos' favorite films of all time? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:55, 12 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. Dreadstar † 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance off[edit]

No sources, not relevant for an article Cherokee40 (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dictdef stub. Tempshill (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, scruff stubRankun (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "scruff" mean? Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Street dance. Almost 2 million google hits. The dance battle is an actual phenomenon, not just a joke, as even a cursory amount of research would indicate. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Im sorry, i just find this ridiculous that it could be even considered to be an article in a encyclopedia, yet i do see there is some popularity in the world about it. Cherokee40 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Dhartung | Talk 02:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - okay i should of explained that, its not an article if their are no sources, this seems just like some joke to me Cherokee40 (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although there are at least three names I can think of for this sort of thing, and "dance-off" is a broader, older term also referring to things organized at sock hops and so forth. The gang dance battle has been a motif at least since the 1980s. --Dhartung | Talk 02:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think this is certainly a deserving topic for an article, but the page as it currently stands is basically an Urban Dictionary entry. Still, better to improve than delete. — brighterorange (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or moved to wikitionary. seals it for me. Mm40 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Term is not sufficiently established. Without any references, article seems like a piece of original research. --Abrech (talk) 21:14, 9 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. Dreadstar † 05:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Online Animal Sims[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of links. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not to mention bad links Rankun (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement (and not a good one). But the NEW bad links are my fault.Mm40 (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a directory. Someone another 07:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 08:41, 8 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, with a recommendation to merge onto Fred Singer or Heartland Institute ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

There is no clear evidence that this organisation exists, other than as a PR exercise by Fred Singer. It is also non- or barely- notable. No reliable information exists about the "panel". Essentially, this is about Singer, and the content should go onto his page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fred Singer and redirect: I agree that this doesn't seem notable enough to warrant its own page. It's not as if Singer's article is so big that we need to split this out. Oren0 (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreee with aboveRankun (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a merge is the way to go, perhaps it would be more relevant to the SEPP article rather than to Fred Singer. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope you will reconsider your vote. The article is much different now than when you first voted. This is not the work of one man. Fred Singer is the General Editor, but there are 22 other co-authors, many of them scientists notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page. The report issued by the NIPCC has been praised by Marie Sanderson, a climatologist in Canada for 22 years. RonCram (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a barely notable cheap trick to confuse people about who is speaking, the "NIPCC" or the "IPCC". --Dhartung | Talk 02:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (from the talk page):
- Washington Post [1]
- UPI [2]
- National Post [3]
- National Post II (added by Lumidek) [4]
- World Net Daily [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58024]
- John Tierney New York Times blog [5]
- Wall Street Journal blog [6]
- Business Media Institute [7]
- Thomas Sowell [8]
- The Register (added by Lumidek) [9]
- eFluxMedia (added by Lumidek) [10]

If this doesn't demonstration notability I don't know what will. Mønobi 02:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Climate change denial Raul654 (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it go to denial rather than Singer's page or global warming controversy? In order to put it at denial you'd need to demonstrate bad faith. Oren0 (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change when those involved are believed to be acting out of vested interests rather than an unbiased evaluation of the scientific data. While the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy, 'climate change denial' usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby - Climate change denial. Let's see - disinformation? Check. Vested financial interest in the outcome? Check. Ties to the oil industry? Check (for all 3 - Singer, Michaels, and Monckton) I think that more than covers it. Raul654 (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is grist.org? We'd need reliable sources that say there's bad faith/denial to qualify. I don't think the "grist.org blog" qualifies. Realizing of course that this is a WP:BLP situation so we have to be extra careful. Oren0 (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine—including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon—met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty. - Newsweek, 2007 He's a denier, and this article should properly be redirected to global warming denial. See also the CBC documentary 'The Denial Machine, which focuses on Singer at length. Here are the clips of him on Youtube. This more than sufficiently establishes that he he been publicly exposed as a denier - a peddler of disinformation - in reliable sources. Raul654 (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm a little confused how an article about happenings in 1998 can label the NIPCC a denier group when it didn't exist until 2008. The redirect should go to Singer, and your attempt to send it to the denial page is a smear campaign and nothing more. Oren0 (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's see - first you say they are not a denier group. Then I show that they meet all of the criteria defined by our 'global warming denial' article. Then you say we need reliable sources showing that Singer meets the first of these criteria (disinformation). I find several reliable sources (and there are lots, lots more out there) that not only show he's guilty of spreading disinformation, but that explicitly state he is part of the denial machine. So now you claiming that they are too old - as if somehow by the passage of time and founding a new disinformation group Fred Singer has magically transformed from a oil-industry-paid shill into a reputable critic.
        
        So rather than playing this game where I keep finding reliable sources to meet your demands for sources that state the perfectly obvious, to which you respond by moving the goalposts yet further, I have a better idea. How about for once YOU do some useful work on Wikipedia, rather than your usual campaign to water down our global warming-related articles with disinformation. Seeing as how I've already provided several sources showing he is a denier (and potentially many more), why don't you find me some reliable sources that answer these well-founded claims - that explain away why he should be classified as a critic instead of a denier; why as an electrical engineer with no training in climatology, he is somehow competent to comment on global warming; that as someone who has repeatedly been hired by industry to deny the perfectly well known (that smoking causes cancer) he's been wrong on basically everything he's ever said; and why, as someone with very close financial ties to big oil, we should believe a word he says. Raul654 (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're skirting the issue. I'm not saying that HE is or isn't a denier. That's far from the point. I'm saying that you have no evidence that this group has been labelled deniers. And even if you did, that still doesn't justify putting the redirect anywhere other than Singer (if, as several have claimed, this group is just a puppet for him). The fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier wouldn't justify redirecting something he did to Holocaust denial. Similarly in this case, even IF the group is a denial group it should still redirect to Singer's page, where it can be properly explained and where you can criticize it (provided reliable sources do so, of course). Oren0 (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Let's see - first you say they are not a denier group. Then I show that they meet all of the criteria defined by our 'global warming denial' article. Then you say we need reliable sources showing that Singer meets the first of these criteria (disinformation). - I never said that you need to demonstrate anything about Singer. I asked for sources that call the NIPCC a denial group (I don't believe I've seen one of these yet, though I'll admit I haven't read all the links in this AfD). For the purposes of this redirect whether Singer is or isn't a denier is irrelevant. I've said all I have to say here, I'm ready to let other editors sort this out. Oren0 (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In other words, you want it both ways - on the one hand, you claim the NIPCC is distinct enough from Singer that the fact that he's a denier (already documented earlier in this thread) cannot be used to impute that the group as a whole are deniers; on the other hand, you claim that even if we can show this is a deniers group, it would be more closely related to Singer than Climate change denial and should redirect there. That's cute, but very wrong. Raul654 (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Singer. I thin this article may be to prone to POV problems, as evidenced by the exchange above. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we do not take into consideration MotherJones-fashion conspiracy theories about oil companies and stick to the policy issue at hand. POV is not involved here. Only WP:NOTE. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The report issued by NIPCC/Singer's group is obviously notable per the common standards. The main problem with this article is, imo, that the NIPCC is not clearly yet established as an entity of its own and thus, if it's not, it cant be independant of Singer. We do have a series of news reports that make it appear as if it is independant, but the way news are produced today, little or no research is done so it might have eluded them that the NIPCC was not an existing entity. I disagree with nom that this is only about Singer since we can find evidence that this is/was a group project. So my question is, does the normal procedure requires that the article gets the axe and be reborn in the event that the NIPCC is shown to exist in the future, or should it be kept for some time and be AfD'ed later if it is shown that the NIPCC is not an entity independant of Singer? --Childhood's End (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The report doesn't exist William M. Connolley (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Not because they called it "summary" that no report exists. We can all understand that the title was meant as a form of pun. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the title is a deliberate lie William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not hesitate to elaborate if you dont mind explaining what makes it a lie. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its very simple: the report does not exist. Thus the "summary", isn't. If you're confused, its probably better to continue this on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a report titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate [11]. On the title page, it's called a report. The second page adds a subtitle ("Summary for ...."). You can even check it out yourself! (as nom, I thought you'd have). --Childhood's End (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the reference they want you to use? S. Fred Singer, ed., Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2008. The link you've used is to the thing pretending to be a summary. But its a summary of a non-existent report. They are lying. You've fallen for it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not falling into your "lying" story, that's for sure. I can make the difference between a pun and a lie. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not a pun. The report is a bad joke, of course, but Singer I'm sure takes it seriously William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! It's not a pun, it's a lie if you say so! --Childhood's End (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a lie because he says it is. It's a lie because all the evidence shows it is - they came out with a "summary" of a document that does not exist - a tactic designed to confuse people who might not understand the difference between the IPCC (the good guys) and the NIPCC (the oil industry shills) Raul654 (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! (I can't wait for the movie) --Childhood's End (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movie is already out Raul654 (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rather thought of this movie (see notably the picture where Steven Seagal executes a devastating groin attack on an oil worker) and wondered whether there could be a sequel where Seagal could work for the IPCC or something...? --Childhood's End (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group is not only Singer. The merits of the groups position is not relevant to the appropriateness of having an article on them. DGG (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to form a subsection of 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. Confining ourselves to the question of notability, rather than the merits of the group's position, the question is: has the Panel been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources? We have several potential sources to consider, the most reliable of which are The New York Times and The Washington Post. Do these sources provide substantial coverage of the Panel in and of itself? No, they do not; their primary focus is on the Conference, at which the report/summary was released; the Panel is only briefly mentioned in connection with the report and conference. However, as the notability criterion does not directly limit article content, and as we can report on the Panel and Report with reference to these reliable sources, the question is then what is the most appropriate place to do so. Fred Singer and SEPP have been suggested as answers. However, the above sources demonstrate coverage which focuses on the Conference specifically, and not in the context of a broader-reaching focus on either Singer or SEPP. The Conference is therefore notable, and since the Panel is more closely tied to the Conference than to either Singer or the SEPP specifically, that is where it should primarily be discussed -- with, of course, respect to Wikipedia's policies on NPOV, RS, and BLP. Jfire (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you could possibly get away with that title. Neither of your sources use it. There will be many other meetings in 2008 called conferences which will be about climate change and will have considerably more scientists present - why should this meeting usurp the title? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wedded to that exact title. 2008 International Conference on Climate Change (Heartland Institute) or something similar would be fine if disambiguation is needed. Do you have a better suggestion? Are you disputing that we should have an article about the conference at all? Jfire (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all convinced it deserves an article. We won't have an article on the 2008 EGU meeting, any more than the 2007 one. This is a PR stunt, not science. Plenty of things appear briefly in newspapers without becoming notable enough to have articles William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in that case I think it's pretty clear that your opposition is based on your POV rather than any rational interpretation of the notability guidelines, and I won't continue this conversation further. Jfire (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to SEPP, depending on what is the good answer to my question above. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to tell us where? We have suggestions to merge to Fred Singer, SEPP, or climate change denial. Oren0 (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is clearly notable unless some new measure of notability is being applied. Connolley's comment that other things appear in the paper without getting an article is without point. This is an effort by notable scientists to be the "Team B" (their term) to the IPCC's "Team A." They believe policymakers deserve a second opinion on climate change. This is a notable endeavor, whether they are successful in gaining the ear of policymakers or not. The report is edited by Fred Singer but is co-authored by 22 other notable people (mainly scientists) including Dennis Avery, Robert M. Carter, Vincent R. Gray, Craig D. Idso, Zbigniew Jaworowski, William Kininmonth, Lubos Motl and Tom Segalstad. This is not the work of one man and it should not be merged with the Fred Singer page. RonCram (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
1. There is no evidence that the NIPCC even exists.
2. its only been covered in reliable sources as a sidenote to the Heartland Institute's conference.
3. The "report" that the "summary" should be a summary of, apparently doesn't exist.
4. The conference seems to have gotten all its coverage as a Man bites dog (journalism) item.

Conclusion: non-notable PR-stunt (apparently) orchestrated by Fred Singer specifically for the conference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SEPP (link to Singer) unless it can be shown that an incorporated entity exists User:Eli Rabett —Preceding comment was added at 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that incorporation is not necessary for an entity and/or a project to exist. Permanency of, or an intention to carry an endeavour, are sufficient. Here, it started in 2007 and was even devised in 2003. What we do not know is if it is going to be continued beyond the conference. --Childhood's End (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it does raise the WP:REDFLAG. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The NIPCC is an important institution that has superseded the IPCC. Alternatively, delete both IPCC, NIPCC, and the web pages about the proponents of climate hysteria. Also, I assure you that we exist. ;-) --Lumidek (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COI Comment: User:Lumidek is Lubos Motl a coauthor to the NIPCC "summary". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would cut his vote. But his testimony about the existence of the NIPCC is most relevant. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The NIPCC is an important institution that has superseded the IPCC - Hear that sound, everyone? That's reality leaving the building. Raul654 (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fred Singer or Heartland Institute and redirect: It does stink of a publicity stunt, and the name seems to be chosen to deliberately confuse (an offence called "passing off" in the UK) so it really just needs to go in with all the other activities of these people rather than its own page. Ian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an existing organisation and deserves its own entry. It's views are not relevant to this issue, they should be discussed when treating the content of the article, no its existence.--213.229.171.25 (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC) In fact this conference that they organised seems to have some pretty relevant speakers, including govt. representatives, there is no excuse to deny it a page.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 does not establish individual notability. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pooka (World of Darkness)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and is just an in-universe repetition of aspect of the role playing game Changeling. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as in-universe gamecruft. No assertion of real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Not necessarily significant, but fictive characters do have a place (i.e. spiderman and batman). If deleted, other kiths articles should be deleted as well so as to be consistent: Boggan, Eshu, Nocker, Redcap, Satyr, Sidhe, Sluagh, Troll. Rob (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant to this discussion, only the notability of this article is in question. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Changeling: The Dreaming; not notable in and of itself. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:58, 14 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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads (band)[edit]

Barely established notability and weak sourcing. Poorly written and reads as if it was copy-and-pasted, so it may be a copyvio. No mention of the band on de:wikipedia, as far as I can tell (but I could have missed it, my German is atrocious). Does not meet criteria for speedy. Random89 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I created the article by copy and pasting what an anon had written on the Crossroads disambig page. Random89 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Tempshill (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:09, 7 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, since the doubts on its veracity have not been overcome. Tikiwont (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.G.S. Fives[edit]

Contested PROD. Probably hoax. This is an obscure game played apparently at only one institution. All references are from the same source and are not verifiable. Fails to meet WP:Notable. Gillyweed (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have been a speedy, as nonsense. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. Tempshill (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is part of the immense value of Wikipedia as a work of reference that information can be found on it about subjects which clearly do not fall within the mainstream, and yet are nonetheless potentially of interest to many. JDH Owens^talk 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but JDH it's probably a hoax! Gillyweed (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I accept that there is a possibility of that. On the other hand, it does have published sources quoted at the bottom, and the books in question do appear to be genuine. Furthermore, as ridiculous as it does sound, it's no less ridiculous than many other documented public school practices from centuries ago - and I can well believe a group of adolescents might wish to resurrect it today for a bit of fun! So although it's possible that it's a hoax, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's probable; and in keeping with what I said earlier about Wikipedia being valuable as an all-encompassing work of reference, I think it's worth giving an article that appears to have some sources - and some form of photographic record as well, from a plausible source - the benefit of the doubt, pending some further sourcing, if anyone could find it. For the moment, deleting it seems somewhat precipitate. JDH Owens^talk 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whilst I had previously been prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt, this article is now clearly a hoax. Thanks are owed to Gillyweed for his diligence! Jdhowens90 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think we can assume this is a hoax with reasonable confidence, unless and until it receives some kind of media attention Vneiomazza (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whatever happened to the glorious process of habeus corpus, whilst this article does not apear to be concreted in media attention (why would it be?) or etensive literature (how many books can one expect to be on such an obscure subject?) the decision of deletion purely based on the assumption or "gut feeling" that this is a hoax is unfounded. I personally found this article extremely useful in my research on the effect of the English Civil Wars on the national sporting conscious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpoole7 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As author of the article I can give only my word that it is not a hoax. I wish that there were more sources available, and hope to uncover some with further investigation. As for the notability, I simply wanted this information to be available for anyone who wanted it, feeling this game to be of some historical interest. I thank JDH for his support. Sonsoftheowl (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I distinctly remember my late Grandfather(an Old Mancunian) telling me about this game when i was studying at Manchester Grammar in the 1950s, and despite the best efforts of myself and my school-chums to find the original rule book we could not locate it. I think its terrific that the current generation have resurrected such a wonderful and ancient game. I feel that Wikipedia is an essential medium for these boys to bring back to life this tradition that outdates most public school games in England. I know i am no written source to be quoted, but i can verify that this game did exist at MGS in some form at the end of the 19th Century when my granfather was there. Im sorry i cannot be of more help but i remain convinced that to remove this article could spell an end for a game fortunate enough to be given a new lease of life. --Jphouseman (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why are people so ashamed of history? This is a unique piece of cultural heritage that has survived into an era that sadly cares little for its past. It deserves be cherished and preserved, and not so impertinently discarded. Uri Nivson (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - it is wonderful to have the MGS pupils joining in this discussion. I note that few of you have contributed to anything at WP other than to this article. I also note that the references provided do not exist in any libraries. I call this a hoax. Gillyweed (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that the book "Dare to be Wise" and a subsequent edition of the history of the first four hundred years are both referenced on the main MGS page. Perhaps before you dismiss these references you should explore the crypts of the Bodleian. Finally, may I thank both Mr Houseman and Dr Poole for contacting me with regards to their contact and study of the game, and for showing their support here.Sonsoftheowl (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment please note the additions to the sources section, which subsequent research has brought to my attention.Sonsoftheowl (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i would like to bring to attention that whilst i am an old boy of the school my interest in this topic is primarily through academic research, i just happened to find this example of personal interest and decided to further investigate on reading my own copy of Dare to be Wise, which i can assure you exists as it is physically on my bookshelf at this moment, and although it may not be the most in depth and accurate study it was forced upon me at an Old Boys' Dinner and i have subsequently found it of use. In regards to my lack of editing i was contacted by Sonsoftheowl in regards to this wikipedia page, i have no further interest in editing this site as i find it encourages laziness in students. However that is off the topic, i merely felt it necessary to address your slander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpoole7 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no problem with obscure topics being present within the project. However, no reliable sources equals no article in my estimation. The books presented as sources have no ISBN, and we are being offered no way to verify that they exist, or that they contain the information claimed. Even if both should be the case, there is nothing to suggest that the books are of sufficient independance from the school that we could consider them as being any more reliable than the myriads of self-published pieces available on Amazon.com. Experience also has taught us that where there is so much activity from SPAs - there are at least four in this discussion - that there may be verifiability concerns as well. I intend no insult to our participants here, but there simply is no proof that this subject 1. exists 2. can be verified and 3. is notable enough for an article. It is the sources and the article that must speak, not the game's able defenders. Xymmax (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please not the addition of not one, but the two ISBN numbers for the most recent history of the school. Unfortunately the other books published are too old to have such easy methods of identification. If only historical fact was as easy as Ranke thought.Sonsoftheowl (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, that is promising. Would it be possible to obtain a citation to the specific pages of the page in which the game is described? Xymmax (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment Citations added. Sonsoftheowl (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am impressed by the commitment of some of the involved users. Trying to seek the truth, a very admirable task. However it seems apparent that several members of this discussion have a tenuous, if any, connection to the school in question. It is clear that most of the advocates for this site's deletion hold books in the highest of stead, it is increadibly easy for a person or persons to have nonsense published (see The Bible), so why would the fact that something be mentioned in a book prove its worth. Personally I think that the boys who attend this establishment would probably know the history of their school better than most outside observers, have any of you even heard of the Manchester Grammar School prior to this site's creation? I also think that the page in question holds a great deal of merit as Fives is an ancient British sport of illustrius worth (if not slightly neglected of late) that has a plethora of varieties around the country; Eton, Rugby, Sheffield, to name but a few places that play or have played some manner of Fives.

Keep - I too am impressed by the tenacity of certain users. However I think it would be an outrage to delete this page. Firstly it is significantly more notable than certain other wiki articles, this game has entertained many people throughout the years. It is somewhat similar to podex which again originated at the Manchester Grammar School. I believe the sources cited are correct although unfortunately further sources are somewhat difficult to find due to the age of the game. No doubt there are other sources present, however some of these will be personal accounts or from written records, which would be somewhat difficult to prove their authenticity. In this instance, I suggest that you trust the creator that this is indeed not a hoax. New Big G (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HOAX - Time to cut the crap laddies, you've wasted enough time now. Yesterday I emailed the Communications Manager, Sally Rogers, at Manchester Grammar School. My email said: "Dear Sally, I wonder if you would comment on the accuracy of this article on Wikipedia please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.G.S._Fives Is it a hoax? Thanks" Her response was simple. It said: "It most certainly is.... have you ordered the deletion? Very many thanks for spotting this one. Best wishes" If anyone else wishes to follow up on this, simply go to the MGS website and find the Communication Officer's contact details. I won't post it here for obvious reasons. Have a good day. Gillyweed (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

READ THE ARTICLE - It clearly states in the article that this game continues without the masters' knowledge (masters' - plural), as Sally Rogers is a member of the MGS staff I believe she would fall under the aforementioned category. However certain persons have now brought the game to the attention masters and most probably crushed four centuries of tradition. Clearly many have taken it upon themselves, no matter what evidence was provided, to prevent a select group passing on information of an historic game to those who desire to learn. John Fortesque-Smythe (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So to keep the tradition secret, it gets posted on Wikipedia? Enough said! Gillyweed (talk) 21:47, 11 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. Article does not demonstrate independent notability per WP:MUSIC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Stone Lopez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

American Idol (season 1) semi-finalist that fails WP:MUSIC. Since the last deletion she has released one song on iTunes Store Aspects (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Note first year status on american idol... and concentrate on that and how it relates to the article and i think it would be more appropriate you have 1 day or i changeRankun (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Idol (season 1). Not independently notable, yet. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:06, 14 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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kim (singer)[edit]

American Idol (season 6) semi-finalist that fails WP:MUSIC Aspects (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quickly. Tempshill (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability except per WP:CRYSTAL. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable. PC78 (talk) 00:50, 10 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 somewhat borderline notability, but still notable, therefore, keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yukiko Tamaki[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:V. No explicit assertion of importance (implicit, perhaps, to several anime voice roles, but we’re given no indication of why those roles are important; roles appear minor and/or unremarkable). Discussion of blood type and hobby may be quite telling; are those her only noteworthy attributes? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She hasn't done anything of note yet to be included in WP, as per above. ArcAngel (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She voices Kazu Shioda in Digimon Tamers, not minor role. Where's the non-notability? And the Japanese wikipedia, this article is more complete. Sometimes, people mistakes Afd for clean-up. If this article is not good, expand it. Zerokitsune (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The jawiki article, while longer, is no better than this one. It cites her homepage as the sole source. An article, especially an article about a living person, should be written based on reliable secondary sources which discuss the subject in depth. cab (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The major part of our article is the cast list, which can be verified by checking the credits of the shows mentions. Do we really need third party confirmation of her blood type and hobbies? Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd go the other direction, and question why we need blood type and hobbies in this article. Blood type might be more appropriate on ja:, but on en: it doesn't have the same cultural significance. I would prefer to see things added to the article that are much more important than minor details like hobbies. -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Voice actor for primary characters in internationally famous shows. Satisfies WP:BIO's "With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" clause. --Oakshade (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Oakshade Kitty53 (talk) 03:46, 6 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, Icestorm815 • Talk 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fixed up the article by adding an info box. I also added another sentence.Kitty53 (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote once, not four times, please. If you have further things you'd like to say after making your first post, indent it underneath your original comment using multiple asterisks, or prefix *'''Comment''' to the beginning of a new line. Finally, having an infobox or not, or in general how "nice" an article looks, has nothing to do with the core standards by which we judge articles for inclusion: notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, and use of reliable, intellectually independent sources. cab (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Borderline notable, with only a couple notable roles to her credit, but I'm inclined to give the subject the benefit of the doubt, given her apparent continuing career. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks notable to me.Kitty53 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note for Administrator - I am changing my vote to Strong Keep.Kitty53 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that some have placed multiple !votes. The current summary is as follows:

Delete – elcobbola (talk · contribs)
Delete – ArcAngel (talk · contribs)
Keep – Oakshade (talk · contribs)
Strong Keep – Kitty53 (talk · contribs)
Weak Keep – Quasirandom (talk · contribs)

I renew my concern that not one reliable third-party source, as required by WP:V and WP:RS has been provided. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the purposes of a list of credits, Anime News Network Encyclopedia is considered generally reliable by the Anime and Manga WikiProject, wbhich is linked there in the External Links. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree. Anime News Network is reliable.Kitty53 (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". The ANN coverage is not significant (it's decidedly minimal) and ANN is but one source; we need at least two. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you really need two sources? If a clone of ANN appears? Do you accept it? Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Common sense should always be the measure; a clone, an extreme example, would not be sufficient (and likely a copyvio). Also, I'd argue ANN does even count as one RS in this case, as its coverage of Yukiko Tamaki is substantially less than the significant threshold. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Woah woah, confusion here. Her notability would come not from being multiply covered, but the significance of the roles, and for that all that's needed is a reliable source for verification. Which in turn can be implicitly verified from the production credits of the various series. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ЭLСОВВОLД, I must remind you that AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and therefore counting people who have !voted multiple times is irrelevant. Also, there are are other comments other than the ones you summarized that the closing admin can use to determine consensus. Just because someone hasn't prefaced their comment with a bold word doesn't discount their contribution to the discussion -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reminder is not necessary and is, frankly, condescending; notice the "!votes". Closers are not always perceptive to that fact and the summary was made solely in response to questionable repetition above. I made no assertion that the merits of the comments should be discounted and/or ignored based on bolded prefaces. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By summarizing the !votes without including their rationale and reasons, you have given undue weight to just the bolded words and implied that the reasons are less important; even if that was not your intent. And, unless you think that User:Zerokitsune is a sock-puppet of another user, I don't understand why his/her !vote was omitted from your summary either. Neier (talk) 23:52, 10 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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Styleslut[edit]

Notability not established per WP:WEB. User talk:Seicer#Styleslut has additional links, with one site proclaiming that the blog is the "fifth most popular" blog, but it is not verified elsewhere with reliable sources. Speedy deleted, but brought back to AFD per talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Tempshill (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added the reflist, but sources are woefully unimpressive. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are 'Dazed and Confused' and 'The Guardian' newspaper 'woefully unimpressive? As stated in convo with Seicer, please see complete list of links from numerous respectable sources:

http://music.guardian.co.uk/urban/story/0,,2204182,00.html http://www.dazeddigital.com/incoming/item.aspx?a=340 http://bp1.blogger.com/_ABdF67EWGBc/RwFOnT35AuI/AAAAAAAAAIA/w3AP4P9Rp6I/s1600-h/donald.jpg http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c227/styleslut/styleslutmyspace.jpg http://www.rwdmag.com/articles/5094.html http://www.timeout.com/london/clubs/events/395236/styleslut_presents_hood-stonbury-07.html

20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The citation to a Guardian article that contains no information about the subject is unimpressive. Addhoc (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is an image from Photobucket included in a list of links from numerous respectable sources? SWik78 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ignorant nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see we have an inclusionist, judging from your Keeps in your contribution history? seicer | talk | contribs 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Guardian reference is so trivial that it can be ignored. I'm not sure that Time Out is a reliable source, and the other sources don't appear to be. Overall, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are appropriate for the subject matter. Catchpole (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, they're not. SWik78 (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The included references are highly appropriate for the subject matter, as they are all highly respected and are well known for documenting new scenes and movements in the industry in question. Suggesting a page be deleted because you are not aware of the brand and/or have not extensively researched its impact, underground or otherwise, is quite ignorant.

Hector douche (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photobucket files are not highly respected and are well known for documenting new scenes and movements in the industry in question. SWik78 (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One link to a photobucket page of a scan from a magazine (NME), which has no online link to a relevant article, is acceptable, no? I provided that to show that the brand is known and respected by a mainstream publication.

If the brand has been covered by a ‘reliable’ print source, that has not put the article online, then I’m not sure of another way to provide it as evidence in this discussion. Please let me know of a way to display magazine scans which you think is more acceptable, as there are more scans that can be provided to give you a better understanding of the brands relevance.

Also I would like the editors who have voted to 'delete' to elaborate on why the online links included are not 'reliable' and what they see as 'reliable' sources.

Hector douche (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's covered here. Wikipedia:Reliable sources. SWik78 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm saying The Guardian is a reliable source, however the article cited is worthless because the mention is completely trivial. I'm also saying that I'm not convinced that Time out is a reliable source. Addhoc (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article describes a ‘scene’ (whore-ditch) and says you should ‘read: styleslut’ to know more about the scene. Therefore, a reliable source has stated the relevance of Stylesut within the context of which it was originally referenced on the wiki entry.

Time Out magazine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Out fits the criteria of reliable sources.

62.25.106.209 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the Guardian mention is trivial; it associates the Styleslut with a scene, but nothing more. In terms of being a source for this article, I would suggest the reference is virtually worthless. Also, yes, I know what Time out is, thanks. I'm still not convinced that it constitutes a reliable source for an encyclopedia. However, I guess we disagree about this. Kudos for discussing this civilly. Addhoc (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. So far, the article has no reliable, independent sources that I see. BWH76 (talk) 17:44, 11 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coliseum of Comics[edit]

non-notable comics store did a seach enough hits came up for me to see that a prod would not work on this article that why i brought it to afd Oo7565 (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP bec. it's unreferenced and the company has marginal scope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalom (talk • contribs) 10:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This unreferenced article fails to assert notability of the subject. --Stormbay (talk) 22:48, 8 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 (Closed by nominator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradv15 (talk • contribs)

Das Spielhaus[edit]

Former East German television show that doesn't appear to be very notable. There is an article on it at the German Wikipedia [12], but I'm not sure if its considered very notable there either. —BradV 20:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of wikipedia's most valuable roles is as a record of outdated popular culture. (And IIRC, the german wikipedia has much stricter notability standards than the english. You should be requesting a translation, not a deletion.) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Tlogmer. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though its not a requirement, in general we may considerable respect to the other language encyclopedia's views on things where they have better ability to judge than we do here.DGG (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I just read the German Wikipedia article on it and the entry in the Internet movie database. It seems that the show was a very popular children's TV show in East Germany during the 80s. I think this is relevant as a piece of television history in the cold war era. --Abrech (talk) 21:23, 9 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. Fork on non-redirectworthy title. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Vortex"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Vortex"

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Duplicate of Vortex (Smallville), with less context and more OR analysis. Note that this article isn't covered by the Arbcom injunction, as it was just created. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:26, 6 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 to keep. There is clear consensus that this article does not assert stand-alone notability, but disagreement over whether that is best handled as a redirect or a merge into a new more general sub-article of Bionicle. A discussion of the merits of those approaches should probably take place in article talk space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vamprah (Bionicle Character)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and is just plot repetition from the characters appearances in Bionicle media and those articles character and plot sections. It is thus duplicative of those articles and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bionicle - trivial media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect as above. Eusebeus (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate break-out articles on characters are acceptable also, though in cases like this they should probably be merged. Propose a merge, not a deletion. DGG (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that a "Characters of Bionicle" article would be notable either, so merge would probably not be appropriate either. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or add to a general list of Bionicle characters due to notability and verfiability as will encyclopedic interest, i.e. per Wikipedia:Five pillars such articles are consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle. Yes, such published encyclopedias actually exist. Best,--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you have given is no indication of real world notability, and is probably just a fan encyclopedia that is in universe and lacking any creation info. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book exists in the real world and is a specialized encyclopedic on Bionicle. Wikipedia is also a specialized encyclopedia, ergo we keep the article per our first pillar. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and start a merge discussion. I can't tell which articles this one is duplicative of. --Pixelface (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and start merge description per DGG, Le Grand Roi, and Pixel. Wikipedia:Editing policy states, "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of deleting: try to rephrase; correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content; move text within an article or to another article (existing or new); add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced; or request a citation by adding the ((fact)) tag. Exceptions include: duplication or redundancy; irrelevancy; patent nonsense; copyright violations; or inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion)." Ursasapien (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability; no independent sources. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "reliable source" mentioned by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles is a book written by the author of the Bionicle novels and comics. From the Greg Farshtey page: "He is currently employed as the Editor in Chief for the Community Education Direct division of the LEGO Company.". This is definitely not an independent source, and thus does not indicate any notability. Notability comes from other people, from other companies (or not affiliated with any company) writing about a subject: not a book written by an employee of the company that produces the toys. That the book itself is somewhat notable is irrelevant when it is not independent of the subject. Fram (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't matter. It nevertheless demonstrates that the subject is encyclopedic. There is definitely notability from other people as evidenced by the large number of Google hits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said in another AfD debate, it is not a real encyclopedia but a work of fiction masqueraded as one. And Google hits are not part of our notability guideline... Fram (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a real specialized encyclopedia and per our First pillar, we are not just a general encyclopedia, but specialized encyclopedias as well. The sources in those google hits that show the character's inclusion in toys and publications demonstrates notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is a work of fiction. And the Google hits do not indicate notability: this is a toy character which also features in the accompanying books, written by the same author as the "encyclopedia". Google hits that show that, yes, it is a toy and so on only verify that it is real (which is not in dispute), not that it is notable. Please read our notability guidelinees again, because what you are saying is not covered by them. Fram (talk) 08:43, 14 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abundant Life Ministries[edit]

Self-sourced article on the music label of a church I've never heard of despite having a family member who is an evangelical priest in the same diocese. Tagged as lacking evidence of notability in September 2007, and not fixed. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note also that "Abundant Life Ministries" is a very widely used name or slogan in a large number of Christian organizations. Google reports more than 32,000 hits. The site http://www.abundantlifeministries.net/ goes to a church in Branson, MO; http://www.abundantlifeministries.org/ looks like it may be some kind of squatter site. If this is kept, it probably needs to move to a disambiguated title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Abundant Life Church, its parent organisation. Unlike the many churches nominated for AFD, that is a notable church. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Abundant Life Church. Seems like a sensible handling of this material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Abundant Life Church. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice. Abundant Life Church is quite well known and has had some media attention but in the absence of secondary sources, there is not a lot in this article itself to warrant treatment of ALM as a separate entity. Snthdiueoa (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge See above. Mm40 (talk) 01:30, 15 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 to keep. A discussion of the merits of a merge, or the proper target of same, may appropriately take place in article talk space, as set out at Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antroz (Bionicle Character)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of this characters appearances in various Bionicle media. It lacks notability and referencing, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bionicle#Story.--TBC !?! 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of significance. Eusebeus (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any article that begins: "Makuta Antroz leads the Makuta to invade Karda Nui, in order to control Mata Nui's situation and prevent the creation of any more Toa of Light by turning Av-Matoran into Shadow Matoran." AndyJones (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eklipse (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate break-out articles on characters are acceptable also, though in cases like this they should probably be merged. Propose a merge, not a deletion. DGG (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that a "Characters of Bionicle" article would be notable either, so merge would probably not be appropriate either. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or add to a general list of Bionicle characters due to notability and verfiability as will encyclopedic interest, i.e. per Wikipedia:Five pillars such articles are consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle. Yes, such published encyclopedias actually exist. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you have given is no indication of real world notability, and is probably just a fan encyclopedia that is in universe and lacking any creation info. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book exists in the real world and is a specialized encyclopedic on Bionicle. Wikipedia is also a specialized encyclopedia, ergo we keep the article per our first pillar. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and start a merge discussion. --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With no assertion of notability for either this article or a characters of bionicle article, why would we do that? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you should be able to find plenty of reviews online of the book I linked to. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random google searches are wholly insufficient, and even just showing us external links to things that are reliable sources doesn't cut it either. If you have reliable information, it MUST be added to the article, then we have established notability. That is true with this AFD, and all that are in the past or future. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources exist, as they do in this case, in the form of the published Bionicle encyclopedia, then we should keep the article until someone can add the information to the article, because we know the evidence is indeed out there. Since we know it exists, and because Wikipedia does not have a deadline, we can allow our editors time to locate the book (obviously if I linked to it, that means I don't just have it on hand and say even if I were to order it from Amazon.com, I'm not going to have it today or something, but that does not mean I or somebody won't have it eventually and when one of us does have it cannot be used). The google search demonstrates that references and reviews even exist for the encyclopedia, which indicates that it has notability and I figure it would be easier to demonstrate that with the link rather than posting some lengthy list of references that could clutter this discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "reliable source" mentioned by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles is a book written by the author of the Bionicle novels and comics. From the Greg Farshtey page: "He is currently employed as the Editor in Chief for the Community Education Direct division of the LEGO Company.". This is definitely not an independent source, and thus does not indicate any notability. Notability comes from other people, from other companies (or not affiliated with any company) writing about a subject: not a book written by an employee of the company that produces the toys. That the book itself is somewhat notable is irrelevant when it is not independent of the subject. Fram (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We use BOTH primary and secondary sources. A published source is entirely reliable even if as a primary source and the fact that it is an encyclopedia demonstrates the topic's encyclopedic value. Moreover, as for notability, the character certainly passes the google test. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are aware that the Google test is not a part of WP:NOTE? Popularity or number of Ghits do not indicate notability. As for your source being an "encyclopedia"... well, in name only. An encyclopedia is a third party source, this is a first party source, a work of fiction disguised as non-fiction. Fram (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not the Google test itself, it's what found in the search, i.e. that the character appears in multiple mediums (published, and toys, etc.) If the book is an encyclopedia by title then it's an encyclopedia, in fact a specialized encylopedia and consistent with the First pillar. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "If a book is an encyclopedia by title then it's an encyclopedia"? No, not really. Philippe Geluck's Encyclopédie Universelle would not be a very good source for anything, and the Discworld Encyclopedia by Terry Pratchett is not really what Wikipedia aims to be either. In the same category as the Bionicle Encyclopedia, we find the Faerie Encyclopedia... We do strive to be an Encyclopedia Galactica, but that doesn't make the earlier one any more useful as a source for Wikipedia, even though it was shown on the BBC. Fram (talk) 09:01, 14 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 except signature updates.

The result was keep. John254 23:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drip gas[edit]

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed delete. CSD A5, Any article that either consists only of a dictionary definition and has already been transwikied. Has been tagged.--TBC !?! 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is a sufficiently different thing from other forms of gasoline to deserve it's own encyclopedia article, and definitely has the potential to become a full article with; "use", "history", "legal status", etc.. Clearly passes WP:Dicdef. Mostlyharmless (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, does not pass the "cannot be expanded" test. --Dhartung | Talk 02:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've fleshed out the historical uses a little.--Wageless (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly more than a dictionary definition now. Qwfp (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was more than a dictionary definition when nominated, and is even more so now. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:44, 8 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durgin Park[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable in any way. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 19:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Famous landmark for both locals and tourists Fg2 (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be notable in these 331 ways and these 399. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs a lot of work, but it satisfies notability. BWH76 (talk) 17:47, 11 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 to keep. (Very nearly keep, but several of the keep arguments do not clearly relate to policy.) A discussion of the merits of a merge may appropriately take place in article talk space, as set out at Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turaga (Bionicle)[edit]

This article suffers from an endless number of problems, all stemming from its lack of any notability that can be established through reliable sourcing. As such, it is just a repetition of plot information from various Bionicle media, and is already covered in the various Bionicle articles. As such, this is duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bionicle#Story.--TBC !?! 20:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Judge. No assertion of real-world notability. Eusebeus (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone who knows nothing about Bionicle is trying to use Wikipedia to learn about it, and sees these characters mentioned on other pages but there is no page on any of them, they will be unsatisfied and Wikipedia will have failed its function of being a complete and comprehensive information source.--EmeraldWithin (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they were looking for that, they would only need to look in the plot section of whatever media they appeared, such as the movie articles or video game articles where those articles will discuss it. Independent notability, meaning a character having its own article, requires many reliable sources and this article has none. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate break-out articles on characters are acceptable also, though they should probably be merged. Propose a merge, not a deletion.DGG (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that a "Characters of Bionicle" article would be notable either, so merge would probably not be appropriate either. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - wasting AFD time with an editorial discussion - David Gerard (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only editorial decision that should be made is an administrator hitting the "delete" button, as article improvement doesn't take place with non notable topics, just deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they appear to be notable fictional characters and several articles redirect to this one. --Pixelface (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or add to a general list of Bionicle characters due to notability and verfiability as will encyclopedic interest, i.e. per Wikipedia:Five pillars such articles are consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle. Yes, such published encyclopedias actually exist. Best,--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you have given is no indication of real world notability, and is probably just a fan encyclopedia that is in universe and lacking any creation info. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book exists in the real world and is a specialized encyclopedic on Bionicle. Wikipedia is also a specialized encyclopedia, ergo we keep the article per our first pillar. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment in other similar AfD's: this book is written by a LEGO employee who has also created the Bionicle novels, so it is not independent at all, and can not be used to establish notability. Fram (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it does demonstrate that the topic is encyclopedic. Plus, plenty of Google hits for the character. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 13 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kreegan[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition without any referencing or notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Might and Magic article.--TBC !?! 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Kreegan were the major plot antagonists for two M&M games (6 & 7) and were involved in several others. The article is obviously in pretty bad shape right now as it's mostly in-universe and has no references, but my preference would be to improve it rather than delete. BreathingMeat (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the question is whether any references that would improve the article exist, and also are there enough, since each article needs multiple reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Judge. In-universe, fancrufty, & no assertion of real-world notability. Can be covered in enough detail at MM. Eusebeus (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep appropriate break-out articles on characters are acceptable also, though they should probably be merged. Propose a merge, not a deletion.DGG (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Wikipedia is not paper. --Pixelface (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no references can be established, there is no improvement possible, only deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Might and Magic. These critters are evidently one of the prime villains in this game and thus notable enough within the topic. While AfDs are not meant to be the standard or necessary means of proposing mergers, merge can be a valid outcome of an AfD when other editors agree with the nominator that stand-alone notability is lacking, but disagree that discarding the information is the necessary response. It's common enough that we've got templates for it: ((Merge per afd)), ((Afd-mergeto)) and ((Afd-mergefrom)). If this AfD closes accordingly, I'll happily lend a hand with the merge if needed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In anticipation of a Merge outcome, I have preserved the article in its current state at User:BreathingMeat/Kreegan. When the merge is complete, or if the outcome of this is Delete, I will delete the userspace mirror. BreathingMeat (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Eusebeus. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 14 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. Nandesuka (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor gods in Age of Mythology and The Titans[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the characters and gameplay sections of the various Age of Mythology articles. Also, what constitutes "minor" is very vague and is probably original research. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Age of Mythology or Age of Mythology: The Titans articles.--TBC !?! 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Judge. Eusebeus (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Judge, though the use of "minor" is probably an in-game term and not OR. Tempshill (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, do not merge to Age of Mythology. It's an FA so merging isn't needed and could make the article worse overall. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an appropriate way of dealing with these aspects of a major game.DGG (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete Resembles part of a gameFAQ. The game draws a distinction between minor and major gods - you start out by picking one of three (I think) major gods (like Zeus) which has a quite profound effect on the play-style needed to get the most from that affiliation, you then choose from the minor gods in the pantheon as you age up, unlocking different units and slightly altering the tactics which can be employed to come out on top. Cited sentences to that affect either will or should be in the main articles, what isn't needed is a list of the gods and the units they make available, hence why it's a separate article and Age of Mythology is a FA. Players who need to know the ins and outs can open the instruction manual, read the documentation on their game discs or fire up GameFAQs. That said it is nicely laid-out and could be hosted on one of the game wikis, a far more appropriate host. Someone another 07:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's why we dont need articles on each minor god; as I see it, you give a good explanation of why this should remain here as a separate combination article. It's significant to the game, and does not belong in the main article. DGG (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - It isn't significant to the game though. Each of the pantheons (Norse, Egyptian etc.) operate with distinct playing styles, for instance the Egyptian 'nations' are focused on defensive play, turtling. The play style divides (slightly) when a major god is picked. Pantheon chosen + major god chosen = civilization in Age of Empires III or any other 'Empires' title, they're pretty much the same thing. The minor gods however just open up a couple of minor powers (neither here nor there in the grand scheme) and one of several mythic monster types. The minor gods, as a standalone subject, fall between two stools. They don't define a 'nation' and the mythical units they unlock are already covered as part of the combat system. In isolation, the article is not discussing either of these fundamental aspects of the game, it just lists powers and mythical monsters without giving any indication of what their affect is on play or why the reader should be researching them if they want to find out about the game. The only readers who could read this and take anything away are players who need their memories refreshing. They can consult their manuals, readers who want seriously detailed info about these powers and monsters would have to consult another source (IE a gameFAQ) in order to gleen the details. It's overextension; the impact of these minor gods, who are little more than portraits to be clicked on and items in a technology tree, cannot be discussed in enough detail without resorting to writing a guide, they are very much a minor aspect which are covered collectively under the gameplay section. The units made available are themselves already listed in List of units in the Age of Mythology series, rendering this list even less relevant. Someone another 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 08:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN by definition ('minor gods'). User:Krator (t c) 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, characters in two notable videogames (as well as actual mythological gods). I can't tell which game each of these are featured in, Age of Mythology or Age of Mythology: The Titans or I might say merge. Each of these mythological gods have their own article and this list is a good starting point for readers to learn about actual Greek, Egyptian, and Norse gods. If necessary the "God Power" and "Myth Unit" cells can be trimmed down. --Pixelface (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Krator echoed my initial thoughts, Someone Another confirmed them; this is akin to a list of weapons as opposed to even a list of characters. Nifboy (talk) 00:34, 12 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. Did not put redirect in place because redirects are for terms that users are likely to search for; this title seems like a terribly unlikely search based on the discussion. Nandesuka (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of elements of the Sonic the Hedgehog series gameplay and plot sections. It is thus entirely duplicative of the game articles and Eggmans own article and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and it is duplicative of the game articles and Eggmans own article. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Dr. Eggman#Creations. At the very least, this gives a user somewhere to go. Mstuczynski (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a good article with info that's almost constantly expanding.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer[reply]

If it has no references, it's not "good", it's not even notable for an encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked you were supposed to let people have thier say on these things not just let them have thier say and then instantly go against it.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer[reply]

If you believe that, you clearly don't understand the point of AFD, which is to determine whether an article should be kept or not, and that happens through communication. This isn't a soapbox for inclusionists or deletionists or a vote, it is a conversation. I have asked if there is any notability to the article, and I would hope you would address this point so we dont talk past each other. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Meaningless listcruft. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- if this is deleted, please put a copy in my userspace. Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Sonic fan-side says Keep, but my wiki side says Delete. The best solution is redirect to Dr. Eggman. The history of this article is preserved. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree that most of these vehicles aren't notable. However, some in particular, such as recurring ones or notable final boss vehicles (or other notables for whatever reason) are more notable than others and can be merged per Mstuczynski. Though I will change my mind if sources can be found during the AFD period. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 02:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Eggman, since I already merged it into that article. --Pixelface (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface, dont you think that makes the article much too long? DGG (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this page has been turned into a redirect shouldn't we get rid of the deletion sign otherwise you're just putting a redirect up for deletion and that just doesn't make any sense.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer[reply]

Frankly, the merge should be undone; Pixelface has seen where this AFD is going and taken steps to make it fail, but that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Pixelface, please abide by the result of this AFD. If it's decided that the articles be merged, so be it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your edit. This is a deletion discussion, not a merge discussion. Merges can be performed by anyone at any time. --Pixelface (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - but editing to disrupt an AFD isn't constructive. Wait, and abide by the AFD. Don't take it upon yourself to act against it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging content is constructive. Merges can be performed at any time, even during AFDs. I'm not acting against the AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you are merging now in order to make your point that a redirect should be in place. You are acting against the AFD. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep discussing deletion all you want. I do not have to discuss before I merge something. --Pixelface (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just, no. If one user disagrees with a merging, you have to discuss. In this case, there's a discussion right here about the article, so you might as well discuss here. If your reasons for merging the article are valid, I'm sure this nomination will result in a bona fide merging. FightingStreet (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal777 and Juliancolton said this article is duplicative of the Doctor Eggman article. Mstuczynski said merge. Fairfieldfencer said keep. Tlogmer said "please put a copy in my userpsace." Zero Kitsune said redirect. Redphoenix526 said merge. So I was bold and merged it and turned the article into a redirect. The reasons given for deletion are "no notabiility", "duplicative of Eggmans own article", "meaningless listcruft", "fails WP:N", "not a game guide", and "no sources.' The content clearly belongs in the Doctor Eggman article. --Pixelface (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you're quoting this AFD shows that you're taking matters into your own hands, where you should be waiting for the AFD to finish. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has to wait for an AFD to finish to merge the content into another page. The concerns about the "notability" of the text are moot if the text is in another article about a notable topic. --Pixelface (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not to wait isn't a notability issue, it's an issue of appropriate behaviour. Moving the text prevents its deletion and makes the AFD moot, so doing it while an AFD is ongoing is disruptive. If you don't wish to make disruptive edits, you'll wait for the outcome of the AFD before you make an edit like that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game guide info has no place anywhere. Bridies (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information on how to beat the various vehicles can be cut out. --Pixelface (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources, no sourced assertion of notability. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate break-out articles on lists of things like this are not just acceptable, but a good way of handling it. I think that's the moderate compromise way on how to handle it. Trying to eliminate articles like this is not a question of notability, but a very general disagreement on the amount of content to give for games and similar subjects; as it's obvious there are some basic disagreements here, the obvious thing to do is to compromise. This is the compromise. Frankly, I'm surprised it doesn't seem obvious generally that if we did this as the usual practice, we could save a remarkable amount of trouble and go back on writing articles. DGG (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's not "the" compromise, it's something that was introduced recently and is still disputed. Until a new WP:FICT is agreed upon, we have to go by what WP:N says - it asks for coverage, and this article has none. Percy Snoodle (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as this article lacks multiple reliable sources, it will fail any version of notability guidelines. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - but in fairness to DGG I should point out that the current, disputed version of WP:FICT doesn't require articles to demonstrate any sources at all. That's the main reason it's disputed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but we have other policies such as WP:V that require "reliable, published sources", and that is not subject to debate or controversy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The games are reliable sources. --Pixelface (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The games assert the subject's verifiability (as in, the information exists), not its notability (as in, it is worthy of an encyclopedic treatement). FightingStreet (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline — not a policy — and it applies to topics. If the text is put into another article, the notability of the text doesn't apply. --Pixelface (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - WP:N is not the only reason to have separate articles. Look at WP:SIZE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:Article series. If you think the content is not notable, I've merged it into Doctor Eggman, per WP:NNC, WP:BOLD, and WP:MERGE. --Pixelface (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you'd prefer to have it deleted outright from that article on grounds of WP:NOR, that's fine, but please don't make disruptive edits to escape the AFD process. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The videogames are the sources so it's not orginal research, it's source-based research. I'm not trying to "escape" the AFD process. The concerns over "notability" are solved by putting the text into another article, where notability no longer applies to the text per WP:NNC. The concerns about the text being a "game guide" are solved by removing the information on how to beat the vehicles. --Pixelface (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's precisely what I mean - by "putting the text into another article, where notability no longer applies" you are seeking to escape the AFD process. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. FightingStreet (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete game guide, all plot, no sources, not notable Bridies (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what Wikipedia is and Wikipedia:Lists. Consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Sonic the Hedgehog. Easily verfiable. Does not fail game guide as it is not a how to. Delete rationales tend to be the non-argument of Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT, which cannot be taken seriously. The article is not original research, because original research must make an argument, and this article does no such thing. No valid reason to delete, no benefit for our project. Definitely notable and works as a sub-article. Bravo to all editors who have worked on this fine article! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is most definitely 'how to' content within the article. While notability in fiction articles is a grey area at the moment, this is not 'definitely' notable. If it was 'definitely' notable, there would be a bunch of secondary sources in the article. Saying 'definitely notable and works as a sub-article' is an I-like-it argument. The original research comes in the form of (for example) assigning names to the various creations. While as pixelface points out, this stuff could be removed, I would question whether this would leave anything substantial. The remaining content would essentially be plot regurgitation (WP:NOT#PLOT). You should read over Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT. Since the editors on this page have explained why they consider this content cruft (and most haven't used the word) it is not the 'non-argument' described in the above policy. Bridies (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is most definitely not a game guide. It factually lists vehicles associated with a notable game series. Unacademic made-up words like "cruft" are not compelling in a serious discussion. There is no benefit to Wikipedia by removing this article altogether, only another loss of human knowledge and the potential to insult editors and readers by telling them "ha, ha, what you think is important is irrelevant, because a minority of overall editors participating in one AfD thinks so". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It factually lists the vehicles, and in almost every instance describes what has to be done to beat them. There is one single instance of the word 'cruft' in the above discussion. As such, the deletion rationales do not 'tend to be' describing the articles as 'cruft', let alone in the 'non-argument' sense (i.e. stating the article is 'cruft' without qualifying said statement) described in the WP:CRUFT guideline. Your latter statement is pertinent to your ideology regarding wikipedia editing and cannot be used as any sort of justification to keep. Just as I, as an exclusionist, can't say 'well I'd be happy to see this article if it contained stuff about the conception and development'. Just as a deletionist can't say 'this makes wikipedia look like a fansite, it needs to be deleted to maintain professional standards' without qualifying it. In any case, AfD is not a soapbox for your views. The irony is your philosophy is laughably condescending to those you're supposedly defending. Since we seem to be putting words into others' mouths, how about: 'fear not, I know none of you are clever enough to find out how AfD works, or to understand these scary policies that are sometimes linked. I'll defend you by pretending you have a right to ignore them!' That's pretty insulting. Bridies (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting and condescending is telling good faith editors and readers that what they believe is worthwhile and encyclopedic does not fall into a narrow and limited interpretation of what an online encyclopedia that contains elements of specialized and general encyclopedias. If I am correct then editors are able to continue contributing to an article they believe relevant and readers are able to continue to benefit from this example of a list of human knowledge. If, however, the article is removed, no one gains anything. Plus, there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that do not mean much to me, but I agree with the spirit of Voltaire: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to tell the policy/guideline makers they are insulting and condescending, pretty sure there are proper channels for that. Removing this article eliminates misleading information (the original research) and streamlines the overall coverage of sonic the hedgehog related content (e.g. curbs the forking off of 'characters' into multiple unnecessary lists and articles). The latter is a subjective issue of course, but that's how policy/guidelines sees it. Bridies (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policies say that Wikipedia is BOTH a general and specialized enyclopedia and that lists are acceptable. This article is consistent with a specizalied encyclopedia (policy) and a discriminate list (guideline). Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think those arguments have been responded to in the above discussion. In any case, I've posted on your talk page to avoid detracting further from the specifics of this AfD discussion Bridies (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is clearly not a game guide (read WP:NOT), so those arguments seem off base to me. It is apparently an important part of a very very famous series (even I a non-platform gamer know who Sonic is) so it's existence might make sense due to WP:SIZE and the notability of the base article. That said, I know too little about the topic to have a strong opinion, and the lack of cited secondary sources makes me a bit uncomfortable. Hobit (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're way down in non-notability here. It's not clear that "Dr. Eggman" is notable. A list of in-game vehicles is just cruft. Non-notable minor element of fictional work, per WP:FICT. --John Nagle (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Eggman is most definitely notable. This is a discussion about the List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles, not Dr. Eggman himself. FightingStreet (talk) 20:37, 11 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. Addhoc (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning validation[edit]

no independent sources to indicate this individual meets the notability requirements Oo7565 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This "individual"? Did you read the article? In any case, it seems like there is a good deal to say about this topic [13], but this is totally beyond my area of expertise, so I can't do much with the article myself. Zagalejo^^^ 18:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, suggest speedy keep since this nomination seems to be misfiled. The aticle appears to be about a process used in the manufacture or compounding of drugs, and as such suggests an article that could be validly expanded. Zagalejo's evidence would seem to confirm that it isn't a neologism. Not about a person. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notable subject (there are classes that teach it), and certainly not an "individual". Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as nominator hasn't followed the relevant section of the Guide to deletion: "You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." As Zagalejo has demonstrated, Cleaning Val (as she's known to her friends) is a notable individual who has taken on an unglamorous but vital role in the pharmaceutical industry. Qwfp (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator's other nominations should be examined and likely removed - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 9 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) 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bryant and Lillian Martin[edit]

There does not appear to be significant coverage indicating this is in any way a notable disappearance. Violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT/WP:BLP1E as neither person is notable aside from disappearing. Survived a VfD in 2004 presumably due to current news coverage and difference in notability standards at the time, but I don't think this passes now. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Disappearances are not notable per se; I recall at least one AFD from last year where this issue came up. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A tragic story but unfortunately this kind of thing happens frequently, and that doesn't make the victims appropriate subjects for encyclopedia articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:13, 8 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 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anette Vedvik[edit]

Norwegian artist appears to be non-notable. There is very little information on the web about her, apart from her Myspace page. In addition, there is no article on her in the Norwegian Wikipedias. [14] [15] —BradV 18:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has no assertion of notability or references. HYENASTE 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. hasn't charted at all in Norway [16], no third party sources. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, she has charted in Hedmark and gotten at least one (negative: "A long way to go: a very unfinished record") review. But that's not quite enough to pass WP:MUSIC. This article was created via AfC in 2006. Jfire (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Axl (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and the opinions above. BWH76 (talk) 17:50, 11 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 G11. non-admin closure by Lenticel ^(talk) 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AhlulBayt Productions[edit]

Notability not established Beach drifter (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Fall under both the CSD A7 and G11 criteria. Has been tagged by Ukexpat.--TBC !?! 20:20, 6 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Cross[edit]

This article was up for prod but the prod was removed by an anonymous IP without explanation. This article fails WP:FICT by having no assertion of real-world notability, in fact the only references given for the article are the video games the character appears in and a game manual. This article is just plot info for fans of the game and not encyclopedic. -- Atama ^chat 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Atama ^chat 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted in the nomination, fails to assert notability or establish real-world significance per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frag as prodder. There is nothing on this character than can not be adequately mentioned in the main video game or at worst in a character list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's an acceptable spinout article per WP:FICT, WP:SPINOUT, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:Article series. --Pixelface (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it an acceptable spinout article however? I can't even tell from this article what makes Gina Cross notable within the Half-Life games, she seems to be a very minor character. Is it acceptable for an article to be nothing but a rehash of the minor events a character participated in, in the storyline of a video game? I'm curious as to how you justify this using those Wikilinks you provided. -- Atama ^chat 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the spinout section of WP:FICT is still disputed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is WP:SPINOUT disputed? WP:SUMMARY? WP:Article series? --Pixelface (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it matter? WP:FICT is the relevant notability guideline. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, have you read WP:FICT lately? --Pixelface (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. The spinout section contradicts other guidelines and policies, and does not have consensus support. WP:N and WP:DEL#REASON do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface, per that link you provided, this article still should not be kept. As I stated before this character does not even appear notable within the original work, also, "Editors should strive to establish notability by providing as much real-world content as possible for these spinout articles." There is none. As the guideline states this character would be better located in a List of Half-Life Characters or other such article. You haven't answered any of the questions about what makes this article viable, just links to guidelines which reinforce why this article should be deleted. -- Atama ^chat 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPINOUT says "Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article." WP:SUMMARY says "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place." WP:Article series says "As young articles grow in length, they should initially be divided into sections. As the article continues to grow, it can eventually be broken up into a series of articles (called "sub-articles"), each with a short, useful title, focusing on specific areas of the topic." WP:FICT says "If a main article is concise but still becomes too long, then it may be appropriate to remove details by creating succinct spinout articles." And I disagree that the character was not noable within the original work. The character appears in two games: as the holographic guide in Half-Life and as the partner of the main character in Half-Life: Decay. You said yourself that the character would be better located in a list of Half-Life characters. That means a merge, not deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better a merge than to leave this article as-is, but better yet to just delete this article entirely. And I know the purpose of WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOUT but as I quoted, real-world context is still called for even in those guidelines. -- Atama ^chat 15:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Half-Life universe characters. Articles that can be merged should not be nominated for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary coverage, fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it "fail" WP:N? --Pixelface (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It fails to provide evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so it does not meet the notability guideline WP:N. Per WP:DEL#REASON, it should therefore be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't' mean it's not notable. WP:N doesn't say lack of significant coverage = NN. --Pixelface (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - True - if only you could explain that distinction on the WP:FICT talk page I think the disputes there might be shorter. Nonetheless, the article doesn't contain any assertion of notability whatsoever. WP:N provides a way to demonstrate notability, and the article fails to do so; it's non-notable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to think there's only one way of suggesting notability. Even if it's decided that this character is not notable, it can still be merged into another article. --Pixelface (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        On the contrary, there are many ways of demonstrating notability. This article doesn't do so under any of them. So; it should be deleted or merged. Because it contains no sourced information from a real-world perspective, a merge is inappropriate; it would constitute excess detail in a main article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do you say a merge would constitute excess detail? When performing a merge, not all information has to be merged. --Pixelface (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the interest of hopefully coming to a consensus in this AfD I'm going to try to summarize some suggestions put forth so far both pro and con to try to bring some clarity regarding what is being argued here. The reasons for wanting this article deleted per my arguments and others are that this article provides no real-world context, no third-party reliable sources, and therefore lacks notability. The reasons for wanting this article kept as far as I can tell is that spinoff articles from notable fictional articles inherit notability and exist to allow detail to be given to a portion of that fiction without making the parent article too large (in this case, Gina Cross being a character from the Half-Life series of games). One rebuttal to that argument is that the guideline regarding fictional spinoffs is controversial, another is that even accepting what that guideline suggests, this article still should have some real-world context and fails to establish that it is notable within Half-Life itself let alone the real world. -- Atama ^chat 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor component of fictional work, per WP:FICT. Not notable enough for a standalone article. --John Nagle (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:GlassCobra/Hotties are always notable. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you think she is a hottie, I question your judgement. :) Ursasapien (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, chacun a son gout. :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor component of fictional work; totally fails notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be a major aspect of a notable work and with references, seems to pass notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - reply - What "references"? What are you talking about? The only "references" for the article are the video games the character appears in and a game manual. As noted in the nomination, this fails to assert notability or establish real-world significance per WP:FICT. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - She has notability to peole in the real world and video games, game manuals, etc. are fine as reliable sources. Encyclopedias use both primary and secondary sources. She does have some google hits, but I wouldn't be surprised if she isn't also covered in various game magazines. If nothing else, the term is obviously a legitimate search term, which means that as a worst case scenario we would merge the content to a Half Life article and then redirect without deletion per the GFDL. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:27, 14 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 except signature updates.

The result was keep. John254 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Application streaming[edit]

An anonymous user requested on the talk page that this article be deleted, and tried to execute this deletion himself. I have no formal opinion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom (Me Too) If you work back through the history of edits made on this article then you will see that various companies offering Application Streaming have made an effort to use it to promote their product. I'm 'ignorant' about what it might be but I had a go and then the 'sales people' crept back in again.

I would claim not to know about the etiquette or usage of Wikipedia, you might see that because I am editing your message.

However this article is just an invitation for people to fiddle about(me too). I'd suggest you take all the text out and just leave the scheduled for deletion message.

Keith

78.149.219.71 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I heartily agree that this article may need policing to keep it free from spam and marketing style language. But it seems to be a fairly broad topic that can be written about intelligibly, and without promoting any particular sort of project. I'd defer to the computer science people if there's someplace to merge or redirect this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is important, and is currently being worked on. Suggestions for improvement rather than AfD nomination and an ultimatum on the talk page might be more appropriate. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, I'm some sort of big kid, sorry about messing. I still feel there should be some stern warning about using the article for company promotion or advertising on the article page itself similar to the AfD notice. If I am going to make suggestions then, rather than writing on the article, would I do that on the talk page? Keith 78.151.109.70 (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, please use the talk page. Suggest too that you register a username (See: Wikipedia:Why create an account?) Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no doubt that this page, and pages like it may attract spam, but that is not a reason for deletion. Instead, it is a reason for vigilance to remove the spam when it appears -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is not valid per AFD rules and thus wastes AFD time - any other nominations by this nominator should be examined for removal - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 9 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 speedily deleted. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Grounds[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to spamming Mission Grounds. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia. See WikiProject Spam report Hu12 (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete Meets speedy deletion criteria for advertising/spam. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. CSD A7, An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Has been tagged.--TBC !?! 20:16, 6 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Korotkov[edit]

This page is created by the person in question, and contains unverified information, that most likely is false. For example, he doesn't seem to actually be a professor at the university he claims to be, and the organisation of which is is supposedly an elected chairman seems to have only him as a member. Regebro (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't checked the nom's claims, but if the article is substantively false, that's an automatic delete. The COI is a major concern. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Saint Petersburg Polytechnical University has a search engine in English here, and Korotkov does not come up as a professor. The International Union of Medical and Applied Bioelectrography, the organization of which he is President, doesn't seem notable, either (I've prodded that article). Bioelectrography is a fringe field, which detracts from this guy's notability. In any case, fails WP:PROF: he is not full professor at a major university and does not have a significant record of publication. (my mistake: the article does assert a record, though it's impossible to tell if these are peer-reviewed or even respectable publications). This article also fails WP:Verifiability. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It seems that this guy is actually a major loon, rather than a minor one, and so passes WP:FRINGE. The article still has to be radically rewritten to conform to that standard; if Okjhum wants to use it as evidence of Korotkov's duplicitous methods, perhaps he could link to an old version of the page, after it's been brought into line with Wikipedia policy. Also, could Pieter Kuiper provide a link to the article about Korotkov? The article still has severe WP:RS issues. Okjhum's Yahoo! group might be a good place to start finding information (though does not itself count as a reliable source, unfortunately). RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have done quite a bit of research in both English and Russian, and everything indicates that the man is a hoax. I also met him and heard his extraordinary claims at a full-day seminar in Sweden (Dec. 2007), which I tried to stop. But I couldn't convince the gullible organizers. I'm collecting and publishing my findings in the Yahoo-group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/korotkov/ to debunk him - or give him or his followers a chance to present their facts. I think this Wikipedia page, written by Mr. Korotkov himself, should be kept here as a proof of his methods, and as an effective means to inform the public. I was planning to add my link to it, when I found that the page might be deleted. Okjhum (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This reason sounds like it might run afoul of WP:BLP. Is he a big enough name to pass WP:FRINGE? RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 03:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was here that I looked this guy up when controversy about him surfaced in the local newspaper. He is far out, but notable. Last week he was in Expressen, a national Swedish newspaper. The search result on the Petersburg University site does not mean much. It does not seem to list staff (try: Ivanov). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to be essentially a copyvio of his bio at the bottom of an interview at http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/aug3/korotkov.htm]. Given that undoubtedly wrote them both himself, its only a technical violation, but we could delete the article on that basis.DGG (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on copyvio basis. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 14 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cînde[edit]

contested prod A good faith effort to find references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. The search for references has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from clicking these links: Find sources: Cînde — news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Oo7565 (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is nothing in the article to establish notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination outlines the apparent lack of notability with this subject. --Stormbay (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks to be a vanity page written by a UC San Diego student. Nothing to indicate notability. faithless (^speak) 06:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 13 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Union[edit]

Contested prod. No Ghits, external link appears to be irrelevant, not-notable, no references. ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - utterly unsourced. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no sources are provided. External links has links to the members of the supposed union, but nothing about the "union" itself. SMC (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. Tempshill (talk) 23:01, 6 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 15:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mocha (rapper)[edit]

Contested prod. A rapper who made a few guest appearances on other people's songs in the late 90s (one uncredited), released a couple of singles which didn't chart and has one self-released (online) album to her name. Has also written a couple of small-press books, which I have been unable to locate coverage of in anything resembling a reliable source (a Google search for her pen name, 'AJ Rivers' returns only online sales sites and online catalogues). Fails WP:MUSIC. Article is also completely unreferenced and filled with rumours and conjecture, for which I have been unable to find any reliable online sources to confirm. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tempshill (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched with various combinations of "Mocha" and her other name on Google News archives and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and found no sources. There are a few hits when combining "Mocha" and "Missy Elliott", but these mention Mocha only in passing. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails WP:MUSIC, WP:NN, plus there is little-to-no coverage in reliable sources. Cloudz679 (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Has charted two singles, but only as a guest rapper on a couple songs. Given the lack of sources, she doesn't seem to be notable outside of those two minor guest apperances. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:09, 11 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journey into Legend[edit]

Ghits are primarily book listings and wiki mirrors, with no evidence of any coverage of this book's release or that it meets the guidelines for books. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Also, large sections of text from About the author appear to be copied verbatim from the Amazon.com page. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah there are WP:COAT issues as well, but neither are a reason for deletion. I'm not sure it's a copyvio since the article author is the book's author and he probably pasted the same content to both places since his article here is redlinked although it doesn't appear to have been deleted. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:52, 6 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 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chatur Singh[edit]

Fails WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:41, 5 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, jonny-m t 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable yet. Salih (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Coffee4me (talk) 21:42, 9 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. Nandesuka (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valina[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Just because the person who recorded the album is notable, that does not mean that the band is notable. Notability is not inherited. No third party sources or major label. Delete Undeath (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSIC through international touring, association with Steve Albini and reviews (see Popmatters [17]). Catchpole (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "association" with Albini is not notable by itself. He just helped record the album. That is not notable. But the tour may be. I have to check the link and see if I can find another one confirming it. I would think that a tour that large would be published in multiple sources. Undeath (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, that was one review and it was a very short one. I don't believe that it asserts any notability. Undeath (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's also this All Music Guide review of their album. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reference in the article. Then again... maybe there are some somewhere out there... but I sure aint' going to start looking for it, specially for what looks like a self promotion article. WAKE UP and smell the self-promo... delete it. And once you find some reliable sources then come back and republish. --CyclePat (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.: and make sure it's properly referenced in the article. --CyclePat (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 06:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally fails to assert its notability. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Does not appear to be notable. One editor claims notability under Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #7 (international tour). I presume that person meant #4 (that one is for tours, #7 is for prominent representation). However, an international tour is not enough - there needs to be non-trivial coverage. This is not asserted in the article, and I haven't seen anything after a Google search. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above: fails notability standard. Eusebeus (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A google search turns up this and this. Alongside the AMG album page and the associations with Steve Albini, these could point towards notability. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination from personal ignorance - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Theres more than enough substantiation. Eclecticology (talk) 09:23, 10 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 non-notable term. Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Diagnostic Monitoring[edit]

No RS coverage or other evidence in 29 ghits of this technology's notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: alternate name has more of a presence but RS coverage doesn't show notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and non-notable. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable neologism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:35, 6 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, clearly a hoax. Nandesuka (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Russell Weinberger[edit]

This article is unverifiable and a possible hoax (see related RFC). The only external citation provided that substantiates this person's existence is a passing reference in a boarding school review website ([18]). The name returns no hits on Google Scholar, Google News, Google Books, or Westlaw, and no relevant Google search hits aside from content that mirrors or references Wikipedia. In the absence of reliable sources to substantiate this article's contents, I recommend deletion as unverifiable and a probable hoax. Muchness (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't say whether Weinberger actually exists. Even so, if no sources can be found for him besides a passing reference and a dead (possibly never created) directory in the OSCN, then this article should not exist. Too bad if he's real. WP:PROVEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estemi (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a hoax. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've put the image on the page up for deletion as having false copyright info; see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 6#Image:BRWeinberger1952.JPG. My attempts at verifying the story told in the article have also been unsuccessful, and I've found a variant which has some differences in the details. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of the three "references" one is dead, one doesn't mention him, that just leaves the boarding school review site. Whether or not he's real, there are not enough sources to make him notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 6 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 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceTime[edit]

Non-notable browser. Corvus cornix_talk 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a few weeks and see if notabilty can be found; it sounds interesting enough to have sources. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been here for nine months already. Corvus cornix_talk 17:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a emerging technologie. in my opinion we sould wait untill its atleast a year old to see if it has had significant impact. --SelfQ (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that an expressed reason why this fails notablity? Corvus cornix_talk 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was covered in the San Jose Mercury News. --Pixelface (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) The reference in question is a deadlink. MercuryNews.com doesn't turn it up in an archive search, which could mean anything. However, a possibly relevant 202-word blurb does seem to exist within the archive behind a registration wall (sorry, can't be bothered). D. Brodale (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deadlinked reference appears to be mirrored at redOrbit, fwiw. D. Brodale (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references are not required to be on the web, this nomination appears to be wasting AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's David being snotty again. How does this article provide any claims of notability? Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 10 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 subject is not notable by encyclopedic standards; article lacks any sourcing which might lead to other conclusions and, evidently, none to be found. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cobalt croquet[edit]

Disputed prod. Non-notable software, can't find any reliable sources [19] and the version of the article from two days ago talked about the first iteration in the future tense which suggests that if it exists at all it is probably too new to be able to meet the notability requirement. nancy ^(talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable as yet, without prejudice to re-creation once it's moved beyond "pre-alpha" stage and got some mentions in reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced and non-notable. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't delete" - noted KAT was WAN, so speculate cobalt has two peers share their worlds without server as per http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=15870402&framed=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.41.25 (talk • contribs)

Comment: I'm sorry, the last contributor may have a valuable point but I found the clarity with which it was expressed it to be considerably less than completely crystal. (In other words, I haven't a clue what it meant). Qwfp (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't delete replies, sorry, acronyms with hindsight ridiculous" Croquet has had several iterations, and cobalt is evidently a new version.

KAT is an abbreviation (K for kidsfirst AT for application toolkit) denoting a so called "morph" you drag from a morph box in croquet to bring up a virtual world through the Internet as a WAN (wide area network) from a dedicated server. WAN abbreviates wide area network.

KAT was WAN meant a help balloon indicated KAT was for wide area network through internet where I had to dig to get at that and what it meant in previous versions. You'd launch the world by dragging the morph out of the box and wait for awhile in case the world had been visited a lot and not been reset. You had to have the patience to wait and see that you hadn't fouled up somehow.

What I have been reading on croquet users intimates something else I have been waiting to get debugged from croquet :

There are certain other morphs in the croquet-cobalt morph box. These allow peer to peer sharing of virtual worlds to visit built on the peers computers (not by a centralized server charging for a service, rather for poor kids in the one laptop per child program, say). There's a tools menu in these morphs you pull out of the box. One peer looks to see where he is with one menu item on this menu. He then uses a chat mechanism to "post card as XML" to his fellow to instruct his peer he chats with what to paste in what window is invoked with a tools menu goto world menu item. When his friend does, a window appears in his world that his avatar can jump through to visit his world and have a 3D chat ala croquet.

I'm hoping cobalt gets the bugs out of this as evidenced by my link above to the archive of croquet users.

So far, with previous versions of croquet, I've used the postcard as XML between two macs in wifi connection as well as made a demo with one mac and a lot of personal intuition I can't explain here; it is just not as vivid in black and white in an e mail as having it demonstrated in 3D. There are movies out there on croquet that do better than me (just a user who nibbles with nabble at programming) :

http://www.croquetconsortium.org/index.php/Main_Page

There are also tutorials :

http://opencroquet.org/index.php/Tutorials

I read myself above and laughed and maybe now you will understand another abbreviation that might be humorous :

KAT is not as WAN as other morphs you can pull out of the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.41.25 (talk • contribs)

Delete - non-notable (and incomprehensible, I might add). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:34, 13 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 all redirected as is the general process in this case. To The Magic of Lassie. Non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brass Rings and Daydreams[edit]

Non-notable song that fails WP:MUSIC. Notability of the film does not descend to the individual songs. Failed PRODs.

I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reason. They are all unnotable songs from the same The Magic of Lassie film, and fail WP:MUSIC:

AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fail WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per the suggestion in WP:MUSIC into The Magic of Lassie, which as an article about a musical could use a list of songs (or information about a soundtrack album, if there was one -- I'd leave it to those who know the movie to decide how to handle). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:14, 7 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 unreferenced original research nancy ^(talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha friday[edit]

Unreferenced original research. More suited for an urban dictionary. — ERcheck (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not any smarter for having read that article. It doesn't actually say anything. Out with it. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aloha shirt. Most of this is discardable original research, apparently discussing a state of mind, but the phrase is sourceable to a 1966 marketing campaign by the Hawaii Fashion Guild (suggesting people wear, yes, Aloha shirts). It may have inspired casual Friday. --Dhartung | Talk 01:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. No redirect. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I remember this -- it was the second part of a crossover episode (after "McGarrett in L.A.") involving Dragnet and Hawaii Five-O. Mandsford (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Chris, and also neologism, original research. Katr67 (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first 20 Google hits were not for the term as used here. No WP:RS to try to establish NOTE. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to correct caps andDisambiguate to Aloha shirt, Dragnet and Hawaii Five-O, for obvious reasons. Rich Farmbrough, 08:41 5 March 2008 (GMT).

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NOR. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the article is so incoherent I can't tell what it means. If it can be salvaged at all, then merge to aloha shirt; otherwise delete. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 6 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) clear majority SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Run Skate Park[edit]

Non-notable skate park. Georgia guy (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it non-notable? It's 27,000 square feet. What do you consider notable? (BTW, I'm new to discussions, so please forgive me if I'm not following etiquette.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AZard (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Size doesn't matter. A single local news article does little to show that it is notable outside of it's area. What appears to be a blog, or at least a site run off user submissions is not typically seen as a reliable source. So far all we have is that it exists and it's 27,000 square feet. That's not enough. DarkAudit (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is big, but it isn't really notable (see WP:N). If it is kept, it's going to need a lot of work. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 23:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the subject of multiple secondary independent sources, the prime criterion of WP:NOTABILITY. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has many stories on this topic. [20] [21] [22][23]. There's no "notability in a local area means it's not notable" clause in WP:N. Nominating an article for deletion within 20 minutes of its creation is disruptive to improving articles and only discourages new editors. --Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - afore mentioned papers satisfy WP:N and WP:V. When you find the 'Local' clause in WP:N you can point it out to me. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources in an AfD don't mean squat if they're not included in the article. There is still only one source that would be considered reliable. Not enough. The article still does not go any further that it exists. Noting to show why it is any more notable than any other skate park in the area. DarkAudit (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no "If the otherwise reliable sources that demonstrate notability aren't placed in the article then magically the sources don't exist" clause of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article, that thing we're all talking about, only has sources that says it exists, and only one of those is suitable. And AfD is not an article. No matter what is claimed in here, there has been absolutely no improvement to the article itself, which still fails guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article topic is what we're talking about. From WP:NOTABILITY: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It doesn't say "an article", but "a topic." We go by reliable sources to indicate notability, not an AfD nom claiming "it's not notable" when reliable secondary sources indicate the opposite.--Oakshade (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Those sources are pay-to-view or discussion topics. going by whay I could gather from the teasers, the first two don't go any further than it's coming, it's now there, and it's big. Any new project will generate articles of this nature. There is nothing there to show that it is still notable once the newness wore off. DarkAudit (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter if they're pay-per-full-view. They could even be print-only and still be reliable sources. All go beyond WP:NOTABILITY's definition of "trivial", ie passing mentions, directory listings, etc.. --Oakshade (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability isn't all that's at issue. Two citations that could be about any project anywhere at the time they were going up. Articles that are as local as you get. That is not significant coverage. That leaves one article and a discussion board about neighbors concerned about noise. That is also not significant coverage. That is not enough to make this skate park any more notable than any other. That has still not been shown in spite of all the discussion in here. DarkAudit (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're simply ignoring WP:NOTABILITY. Just because you think The Atlanta Journal-Constitution could've written "about any project anywhere" doesn't change the fact they wrote about this topic. In fact, all skate parks are not written about by reliable sources as this one has. That reliable source deemed this skate park notable (probably because if its size) and in turn WP:N deems it notable. "Local" doesn't equate to "not significant coverage" in WP:N. If you wish it did, you need to bring that up to WP:NOTABILITY's talk page and not attempt to delete a specific article topic based on your desired criteria. --Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is no different than any other paper writing about any new construction project. The Post-Gazette writes about new attractions at Kennywood. The Dominion-Post writes about the new Kroger in town being the largest grocery store in the state. They're covered once or twice as they're being built, and that's it. That's what you're presenting here. It's a news story for a day or two in one town. There doesn't appear to be anything else beyond the one article about noise since the place opened. That is not the significant press coverage asked for. There is still no proof that it is in any way notable above and beyond any other skate park. Just being built and covered as such by the local paper does NOT constitute significant coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're are simply not liking the secondary sources having written about his park. In fact, being built, opened and covered by reliable independent sources DOES constitute notability under WP:N. You only brought up a Kroger as if that means that all skate parks are written about by secondary sources. It doesn't. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found this notable enough to write several articles about it. If you don't like it passing the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY, your opinion is allowed, but it's simply an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. --Oakshade (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I looked at the sources you provided, and I think they are not up to the coverage standard of WP:N. Why do you think I have something against that paper? Their coverage is not significant enough to rise to the level of an encyclopedia article. Covering a construction project like this is a dime a dozen, and every newspaper in the country does the same. I'm trying to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the coverage you've provided is nothing special or unique to that park compared to any other attraction in the area or the rest of the country. The AJC is reliable and verifiable, but not significant here. DarkAudit (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not bringing a straw man into this, are you? There has not been a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to keep this by anyone. Just because you view the Atlanta Journal-Constitution pieces about this skate park as similar to coverage of other skate parks by other sources is irrelevant. In no where of WP:NOTABILITY does it say anything like "If the secondary independent sources coverage is similar to other coverage about other similar topics, then the secondary sources can be ignored." If you want such a provision, make that case on the WP:NOTABILITY talk page. Just because there are other projects similar doesn't in any manner mean this topic should be deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant I was trying to avoid that argument myself. If I brought up other AfD's, like the pool in Vancouver that had it's article deleted, I'd probably be setting myself up for that. Papers like the AJC, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the L.A. Times, etc., cover stuff like this all the time when the project is going up and is just opening. It's not unique. It's not special. And it's usually a canned article supplied by the location's PR folk. DarkAudit (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I'm not opposed to the article remaining, IF it is substantially expanded with reliable and verifiable sources. However, in its current state, it's nothing more than a stub (as I have just recently tagged it) and serves no purpose to the encyclopedia.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Several newspaper articles should satisfy the basic criteria of verifiable information. It is sometimes hard to draw the line between what constitutes significant coverage and what doesn't, but in this case I'm leaning toward keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be fairly notable. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in multiple articles in the AJC. Satisfies WP:N.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a major newspaper and certainly constitutes a reliable secondary source for establishing notability. Chuck (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable, yes. Significant coverage? That's up for debate. The coverage cited is nothing special. Every major (and minor) newspaper covers projects like this when they're going up or opening. The citations given are a dime a dozen. What we're left with beyond that is an article about noise complaints. That's *not* notable. That's life in a large metropolitan area. DarkAudit (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Granted, what constitutes "significant" coverage is highly subjective. But we have at least 4 AJC articles about Brook Run (not merely mentioning Brook Run in the context of some other topic), even if they are short articles. That meets my threshold for significance. Chuck (talk) 15:07, 7 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel awards and nominations[edit]

Unnecessary and odd article that appears to be a break off from the main, except it combines awards from two series in one article. Buffy's already appear to be adequately covered in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), though any missing ones could easily be merged into the prose. Ditto Angel's awards. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Buffy article-- 500 different ones to choose from Mandsford (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information back into the Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) and Angel (TV series) articles, respectively Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge And if possible, convert to prose so it's not such a huge visual object. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why convert to prose? Information like this is easier to digest in list form. And the (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. lists have the purpose. Trying to put something like this is prose will make it unreadable. Itcan be done, but it doesnt help. Encyclopedias have always had lists and tables--its a hallmark of their style. DGG (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/shrug. If it's not a good idea, then don't do it. That's why I qualified it with "if possible". --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Buffy article is too long. Everyking (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but source. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per everykingOo7565 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back. It's not like it saved a lot of space, what with the summaries left in the main articles. Barring that, split into two subarticles. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back, or barring that, at least split into two separate articles. No reason to have the awards for the two shows listed in one article, even though one was a spin-off of the other. It wouldn't make sense to have a single article listing the awards of All in the Family, The Jeffersons, Maude, Archie Bunker's Place, Gloria, 704 Hauser, Good Times, and Checking In all on one page, would it? Chuck (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss the various ways of merging it on the proper place, which is not AfD. DGG (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and start a merge discussion. --Pixelface (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep is a well-put together list although I'm not completely convinced that lists of awards that shows have received really is a great thing to include. However, given the length of the main article merger is not reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep...make it a drop down within the parent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallicio (talk • contribs) 09:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but modify scope. The discussion above shows a clear consensus to retain the content in some form. The comments that the content is too long to merge into existing articles are appropriate. However, the concern over creating articles based on associated, but discrete, media properties is equally valid. May I suggest (that someone more familiar with the subjects than I take the lead in) converting this article into something like a "List of awards and nominations for media properties created by Joss Whedon." (That title is dreadful, but at least two of his creations have been both cinema and television properties.) Focusing on the creator (as I think has been done in other situations) addresses most of the concerns raised, and would probably be more useful to encyclopedia users than a more limited multi-subject list would be. I assume appropriate links would be placed in the article on Whedon and on the individual properties. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - editorial discussion, thus grossly inappropriate for AFD. Nominator needs to learn to edit articles rather than reach straight for AFD. Other nominations from this nominator need to be examined and possibly removed as wastes of AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) and Angel (TV series) or expand and re-write for FLC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Everyking. --Oldak Quill 17:40, 9 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles and Lee-Lee Chan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Charles and Lee-Lee Chan

Disputable notability of subjects - Being the parents of someone famous does not make you famous in your own right Smurfmeister (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - utterly non-notable. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- perhaps some info can be taken to their son's article, but the naming is blantantly ill-formed. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Mangoe that some parts can be incorporated into Jackie Chan's article. Odikuas 14:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they're the subjects of a film - Traces of a Dragon: Jackie Chan and his Lost Family. The film even has a Wikipedia article (Traces of a Dragon). Eug (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this film notable? Maybe the article for Traces of a Dragon should also be deleted and partly be taken into Jackie Chan's article. Odikuas 15:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not possible, there's well over 60 films article of his on wiki, and Traces of a Dragon is no exception.--DaliusButkus (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of a feature film, burial attended by former heads of government and US ambassador. [24] Sufficient to establish notability. WWGB (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No-brainer. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per WWGB. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per WWGB. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of a documentary, funeral attended by important guests.--DaliusButkus (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subjects of a notable documentary, plus everything else pointed out above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:05, 11 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faxrush[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This survived an AfD almost three years ago, when the software was new and in the news. However ghits!notability and press releases are not RS coverage. There;s no evidence of notability for this software. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-29t18:42z
Delete - unable to establish any reliable sources. Only things that could be found are press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, unreferenced advertising. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely qualifies as a stub article. R. Baley (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned in published sources: http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=Faxrush . Independent sources seem to be available. --Oldak Quill 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial coverage does not establish notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:38, 9 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. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Rollerz[edit]

I can find no reliable sources about this club. There are only a couple of hundred Google hits, not all of them about this group, but most of them either forums or the group's own website. Nothing in Google news. It was speedy deleted once, then undeleted after the article's creating editor applied at WP:DRV. Corvus cornix_talk 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corvus, you may want to take another look at Google News. Now, the topic was brought up by Deb about the organization's "Notability". From the wiki-notability page, found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." We have 4 outside news articles now. The organization has also been the subject of numerous news specials, as well. Such videos can be found on their page, http://holyrollerz.org/?view=media. The American Bible Society did a great interview, can a video be cited as a source for information? KKEI Radio did another great interview, also on the page. the SPEED Channel did an episode featuring them, and also listed is the exert from the movie R Generation where they were featured. My Wiki skills as limited, and I am working on improving them. This on-going struggle trying to meet Wiki's guidelines for a page is sure helping, but I need some help as well. Can videos linked from the organization's own web page, but preformed by notable outside sources be used in citation? Skiendog (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable subject. Unverifiable. Dgf32 (talk) 23:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, and notability doesn't look so hot either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three related articles in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution found with a quick Google News search [25] and added to the article. Also, I've pared down the advertorial nature of the article and while it could certainly use expansion and some re-writing, the group is notable and now has reliable secondary sourcing. - Dravecky (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was me who speedied it, and I have to see that, as yet, I see no improvement in tone or content. As it stands, it's just an advert for a club. Deb (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Tone and content are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. The nominator's sole rationale was a lack of "reliable sources" and now the article has references from three distinct, relevant articles in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. - Dravecky (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed. help me improve the tone and content, please. I understand that the tone and content are not up to standards, and am hoping that you all can help. Here is another news article that feature information about the organization: http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=4871027 Skiendog (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 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 both consensus and the author's request below (G7). Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMPACT-Charlottesville[edit]

Non-notable, no references to support notability ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete minimal coverage in WP:RS; local notability at best. JJL (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References have been fixed, or are in the process of being fixed. As for notability, how do you define that? The Sea People are not considered "notable" by most of America, but yet they have an extensive article. Community service (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's easy, for WP purposes it's in WP:N and WP:Notability (organizations and companies) – ukexpat (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And of course Wikipedia is not a US only encyclopedia... – ukexpat (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies, by most of the "world."Community service (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for notability, I'll try to make it more evident it meets the required guidelines. Thanks! Community service (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me know what else I can do if it still doesn't meet the criteria.Community service (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability made in the article—at least, nothing that would mean any notability beyond the local level. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I quote "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I have several articles from independent sources. As a developing organization, there is by no means a plethora of information. But nonetheless, I do provide reputable, third party sources. What is the problem? Community service (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, no where in Wikipedia's definition of Notable is there anything about a criteria pertaining to whether or not an entry refers to something "local." I understand there is a serious attitude taken toward the preservation of professionalism and dignity. But I am obviously not taking this process lightly. Community service (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the admin who had it speedy deleted, then reverted on the basis that it could be improved upon (per discussion at my talk page), I haven't seen much improvement upon assertion outside of a very limited geographical area -- or in general. This is content that is better suited on an individual web-site, not Wikipedia. seicer | talk | contribs 06:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based upon the deletion !votes citing the non-existant 'Local' clause in WP:N. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- but there is WP:LOCAL. DarkAudit (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What has that got to do with 'Interfaith Movement Promoting Action by Congregations Together' ? WP:LOCAL specifically deals only with places. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - O.k. so I gave wikipedia a fair shot. But all that has happened is I have been stonewalled at every single turn. So, as the writer of this article, I would appreciate if you would remove it. I would like to be able to know I have not contributed to sycophantic "public encyclopedia" that claims to offer a chance to everyone to document worthy entries so that the public can appreciate them. Also, I would suggest to all of the administrators to stop spending so much time on their computers. Life is really too short to spend in front of a computer screen criticizing other people's work. Community service (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there may not be local guidelines , but there is WP:ORG which covers local orgs well, and this one doesn't meet the RS coverage, specifically "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." That's of course apart from the article-cide committed above. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:35, 6 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. Icestorm815 • Talk 21:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Adenuga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

~~A completely unreferenced article about a living person is a WP:BLP violation since the information within it cannot be verified.~~ I have been unable to find any suitable reliable sources on which to base the article. It seems unlikely that the topic of the article is notable, there is no evidence of siginicant coverage by reliable sources, independent of the subject or that the they meet any of the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC. Guest9999 (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here suggests passage of WP:MUSIC and there is no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was linked to in the original AfD discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the reference to the article, although I don't think that two paragraphs constitutes the significant coverage by reliable, independent sources required to establish notability by WP:NN or the specific requirements listed in WP:MUSIC. Guest9999 (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I deleted all peacocking from the article. Very little content left, nothing properly sourced. But I'll withhold my opinion as I've no clue about the genre. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:15, 6 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Shah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural listing, per result of deletion review. The original concern, from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawahar Shah, was that the subject isn't notable. A number of potential sources were raised at the DRV and should be examined for reliability. In addition, at the DRV a concern was raised that the article was self-posted. I am neutral. Mango juice^talk 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Whoever posted it, his career is notable as a leading Indian homeopath administrator. On the other hand, I am not impressed by a professorship at "Pioneer University, which is apparently [26] "The first open University for Homeopathy and other Complementary Medicines", which claims to be accredited by the " President of the Grand Council of the SBC Antico Principato Di Seborga, Europe" whomever they may be. [27] and is claimed to be " located in the Principality of Wales, UK", but without any discernible mailing address--except ones for their accountant and their lawyer. the degree course is is head of has an interesting abbreviation "MD Hom" is not an M.D. in homeopathic medicine, but a "Master Degree in Homeopathic Medicine". I have seen no information about whether this school is even recognized by the UK homeopathic profession. DGG (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No basis for retention per WP:PROF & the assertions seem guffy & suspect. Eusebeus (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's to bureaucracy! Keep - David Gerard (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable, independent sources available (his work is published in literature, mentioned in The Times of India, information in published sources: http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22Jawahar+Shah%22 ). --Oldak Quill 17:47, 9 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. henrik•talk 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loïc Abenzoar[edit]

Non-notable footballer, playing for Lyon reserves and youth football do not confer notability under WP:FOOTY/Notability or WP:ATHLETE which state that the player must have played at professional level.

(note: PROD tag was removed from Loïc Abenzoar, Romain Dedola and Jeremy Pied without explanation or any attempt to make the articles assert notability).

I am also nominating the following because none of the following Lyon youth team players have played at professional level:

Romain Dedola
Jeremy Pied
Stephen Ettien
Lossémy Karaboué
Maxime Gonalons
Saïd Mehama
Brice Ducarre
Aurélien Badin
Francisco Migliore
Alexandre Bouchard

-English peasant 20:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. English peasant 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom as they all fail WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom BanRay 22:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following list of articles are being dealt with separately and do not form part of this AfD

Well, if that's the case. Then take care of these while you're at it.

Rodrigo Possebon PROD
James Chester PROD
Aidan Downes PROD
Max Grün PROD
Marco Stier PROD
Matthias Schwarz PROD
Michael Kokocinski PROD
Thomas Kraft PROD
Stefano Celozzi PROD
Georg Niedermeier PROD
Alexander Benede PROD
Timo Heinze PROD
Holger Badstuber PROD
Dean Bouzanis Sent to AfD
Troy Archibald-Henville PROD
Simon Dawkins PROD
Tommy Forecast PROD
Wesley Ngo Baheng PROD
~~Adam Watts~~ (Has played at professional level according to Soccerbase)
Eric Lichaj PROD
Adam McGurk PROD
David Bevan PROD
Danny Earls PROD
Erik Lund PROD
Andreas Weimann PROD
Robert Gucher PROD
Barry Bannan PROD
~~Jason Clive Lloyd~~ (Guyana international)
David Gbemie PROD
Nicky Riley PROD
Simon Ferry PROD
Luca Santonocito PROD
Paul Skinner PROD
Laurence Gaughan PROD
~~Daniel Lafferty~~ (Not footballer)
~~Charles Grant~~ (Not Footballer)

And there's alot more where that came from.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaKid555 (talk • contribs)

I will go thorough them and PROD the ones that are clearly non-notable (most of them by the look of it). English peasant 23:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, lots of PRODs and 1 AfD, see Wikipedia:FOOTY#Nominations_for_deletion_and_page_moves, English peasant 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the above, per nom. Can be re-created when/if they play at the professional level. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely no reason why not. You may want to double check with the WP:FOOTY/Notability guideline, but once you can scrounge 2 or 3 WP:reliable sources confirming that they are playing (not "will play in the future", not "maybe play") at professional level and can use them to cite the information in the article, you should have no dramas. -- saberwyn 02:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Umm, wasn't that his point? AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My apologies. When I first looked at it I thought he/she/it was asking. -- saberwyn 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries, I don't think my comment was as clear as it might have been. We're all in the same boat TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources available to demonstrate notability; no pro appearances mean none of them pass WP:ATHLETE. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:48, 9 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, which is to say that some editorial work is required to treat the article, which does not appear likely to remain as a standalone piece of work. -Splash - tk 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Morgan[edit]

"Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events [...] Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right.", only one source,
"Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry.",
"Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. [...] particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions",
BLP for Mary and George: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist [...] When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems". -- Jeandré, 2008-02-29t18:37z
Weak Keep - Argument about lack of additional sources isn't a strong one. [28][29], [30], [31]. Story did appear on a syndicated A&E program. In regard Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy I do not believe the article is sensationalizing these events. Nor are they presented in a tabloid manner. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week delete.~~ The BLP rationale is thin but so is WP:RS coverage. This is basically a homicide case one-event with an unusually long cold period. From the sources above, general interest was 1996-99 when the case was open and prosecuted. Beyond that Cold Case Files is special interest infotainment that actively seeks out these kinds of stories. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content to "Cold Case Files" and re-purpose page per Orlady below. (change of vote) • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of a consensus policy on crime articles, I prefer that they demonstrate some significance beyond merely being news (or in this case, unsolved). If the bar is that low we would have thousands upon thousands of criminal victims, bordering on WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This case is not 'unsolved'. The mother was charged with man slaughter and sentenced to 5 years in prison. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is unique case that demonstrates the potential of cold cases. ۝ ۞ ░ 19:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content of article into Cold Case Files. It's an article about half of one episode of that TV show, so the content would fit well in an article about the show. (I linked to this article from the Cold Case Files article.) Additionally, convert Michelle Morgan into a disambiguation page. It turns out that there is ~~an American~~ a Canadian actress by that name (spelled "Michelle", with 2 "L"s); when the actress is named in other articles, some of those other articles have erroneously linked to this one. The disambiguation page should link to (1) Michèle Morgan, (2) the Cold Case Files article, and (3) a stub article (to be created) for the two-"L" actress. --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created Michelle Morgan (actress). IMDB had several listings for people by that name, and I find that at least one article points to the nonexistent Michelle Morgan (American actress). --Orlady (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree with above Merge recco. Mangoe (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I agree that the subject of the article, as currently framed, is probably not sufficient to support a stand-alone article, I dislike the idea of simple deletion. To me, the genuinely noteworthy aspect of the events discussed is not the reference to a television program, but the unusual manner of the detection and reopening of the case of a serial child abuser and child killer, leading to eventual apprehension, conviction, and punishment. Perhaps the article creator could use his/her research to develop an article focused on the case and the perpetrator, which would appear to me to be the normal approach for this encyclopedia. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ataru and BlueLotas. --Oldak Quill 17:42, 9 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Stylez[edit]

Failed prod. Subject appears to be a DJ getting a start on his career, but not notable in WP terms. Google search for subject's name in quotes yields around 250 hits when Wikipedia is excluded. Unable to find independant treatment of any of subject's four songs, although they are available for download at certain sites. Does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:MUSIC. Xymmax (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:CRYSTAL.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not a DJ. I'm a registered artist and songwriter (ASCAP). I'm appearing in a new show piloted to MTV called "The Ultimate Guido" featuring Brett Broski from the popular "My New Haircut" video. You won't find "Carousel" my 2008 track yet because it has not yet leaked. As far as my other tracks, if you view my myspace page you can see how many hits I've had (substantially larger than the average person "starting out"). I have and am currently working with A-list producers (Freebass, Spliffington Management, and Cory Bold). I was on the Top 100 in "Top Artists" in Florida for months (myspace). The only reason I am not currently there, is because I have not released any new material yet (for months now). I have an interview featuring in Axis Magazine which releases in April (a popular magazine in Florida). I have fans that stretch primarily from New Jersey, New York, and Florida. My wikipedia was created not only as a marketing tool, but to keep my fans well informed of what is and will be happening. If in fact I have violated any terms, or have not provided enough information, I will do everything necessary to fix it. Please keep me informed.

Thanks, Mikey Stylez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.177.72 (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

anyone can be a registered artist. any1 can pay for a producer or be friends with producers. anyone can have a couple fans.any1 can create an llc. to this kid a leaked song is when he leaks it himself. this kid has no evidence of being anything special. delete this page untill this wanna-be's name is on some records as part of the credits. if it ever is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.40.146 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.34.61 (talk) [reply]

Speedy Delete - self-admitted advertising, and no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I wasn't even the one who created this page. Second off, wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia used by many to find information. The information provided is currently up to date and valid. Whether or not someone classifies me as "special" should not subject the page to be deleted. If your so stuck on making sure wikipedia is full of only facts, stop accepting the opinions of others as valid statements. If you are really going to consider the opinions of people who obviously have nothing better to do than vandalize my page, then go ahead and delete it. To the ignorant person above me, you should not only do research about who I am and who I know, but you should worry about your own life and not mine. P.S. The person above me has vandalized my wikipedia page before from the UCF college campus, check his history. 76.26.177.72 (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Mikey Stylez.[reply]

Comment I believe that Mikey Stylez is referring to anon, not Whpq. First, to the anon - your trolling is not welcome here. As has been pointed out you vandalized the page in question, and I suspect that closer will completely disregard your opinion. The fact that you and Antistylez1, assuming you're different people, obviously care enough to vandalize the page actually is an argument in favor of the subject's notability. In fact, I only came across the article because I was reverting vandalism there. Still, I don't think Mikey Stylez currently meets the guidelines for notability. If the page is deleted, I would suggest that Mikey Stylez or anyone else could ask the closing admin to undelete when reliable sources appear. It may well be that the magazine article and MTV story will be enough, but we generally don't try to look into the future and guess. Good luck. Xymmax (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above concerns--NAHID 13:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xymmax, I actually made a few phone calls regarding your comment as far as notability and proof. I asked the producer Cory Bold, to directly link me with his 2008 discography because like I have already stated, it is contracted already and confirmed for release. I start filming for the MTV show this saturday and obviously until it airs, I won't even mention it on here. I am just trying to avoid the deletion and re-creation of this page, as you obviously know that will not look professional for me at all. Anything you can think of to further prove and show my notability, I'm willing to do. Thanks, 76.26.177.72 (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Mikey Stylez[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Being a registered songwriter (I'm one too) does not automatically satisfy WP:N, nor does appearing in a pilot of a TV show, having a myspace page, working with producers, or having an interview in a regional music magazine. Beyond that, this article illustrates 90% of the problem with Wikipedia. We are not a marketing tool, and anyone who uses us as a marketing tool is helping to destroy what once was a beautiful attempt at an open-source collection of all human knowledge. Unfortunately, 1000 articles like this are added every day, in a crass attempt to use a free, open-source, volunteer-edited online encyclopedia to advertise. I can't believe Jimbo would go along with this. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:27, 6 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, without prejudice to the creation of a new article with proper sourcing to substantiate notability and provide evidence that this is not original research. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern demographic transition[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Modern demographic transition

Seems more like an essay than an article, also a lack of notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Demographic transition. Article reads like an essay and although there are several google books hits, they all seem to be referring to modern "demographic transition" rather than "Modern demographic transition" as a theory worthy of its own article. ascidian | talk-to-me 13:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- we should wait for a clarification from the original author, who seems to be a subject matter expert. (In my opinion, a talk-page message would have been more appropriate than an AfD.) I would give it several days to a week, since new users often don't realize how quick things move here. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep if it is in fact a theory that produced some academic work and debate, it merits its own article, as many articles on failed theories do. The lack of sources makes it hard to keep, but there's room for improvement. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sourcing, no verifiability, no wikification, smacks of original research. If there is such a notable theory, this is not the article to tell us so. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 13 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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Street Dreams Pt.2[edit]

It is a mixtape that just shows a track list. No reviews, no sales, etc. DiverseMentality (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Fabolous discography. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 23:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references, third party citations. Who is it? Why is it notable? delete.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 09:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 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 Transwiki and redirect. I've got an account on Wikisource, so I've moved the text of the license over there. I have also redirected the page. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nupedia Open Content License[edit]

Lack of content, mostly just a copy of the full text version of the license. Notability concerns have been given, and I agree that it's not of major interest of the world. _→AzaToth 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiSource, if its not already there. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as above. Fulltext documents like this are not really suitable for an encyclopædia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Transwiki as above and redirect to Nupedia. --Merovingian (T, C) 15:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteor transwiki...fails WP:NOT--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 09:49, 8 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. - Philippe | Talk 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olia Lialina[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable artist; makes a couple claims to notability but nothing that seems to meet WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this one can be notable if expanded and cited, so I'm going to work on it. Coffee4me (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article expanded; notability established. Also see Internet art where she is specifically named, as far back as the 9/2003 revision, as being one of the early founders of this art form. Coffee4me (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - article expansion by Coffee4me seems to have done the trick. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The references added by Coffee4me help establish verifiability, but they don't make a very strong case for Wikipedia notability. However, "Olia Lialina" gets pretty impressive coverage on google scholar[32], and the hits there appear to support the position that she's an important figure in her field.--Kubigula (talk) 23:18, 6 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. Could have been speedied as a copyvio. faithless (^speak) 19:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Windows Installer[edit]

Many Issues; WP:CRYSTAL, copy from the Ubuntu wiki; The entire page is written like this software actually exists, yet ~~not even a proof of concept as been produced~~ it has not been released. There is only this specification at launchpad.net -- Kl4m ^{T C} 04:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Once it's considerably more than "just a concept" it will be worth a subsection in the Ubuntu article. I can't see the rationale for a separate article even then. Qwfp (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Qwfp. --Salix alba (talk) 21:28, 9 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 the subject of the article is notable, although there is some debate over whether or not he should be documented in the parent band article or in a stand-alone article. If a merge is believed to be appropriate, it can, of course, be proposed and discussed in article talk space as set out at Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Courtney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - Subject does not meet notabilityWP:NOT; Article is conjecture and opinionated WP:NPOV Justpassinby (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems quite sourced to me. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Justpassinby has long-standing issues with Pure Reason Revolution (of which Jon Courtney is a member); he's been blocked for vandalising that page and for associated sockpuppetry. I don't see any reason to delete this new article. If there are NPOV issues, those should be dealt with through edits, not deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pure Reason Revolution. Not really notable enough to warrant an individual article. Eusebeus (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chloe Alper has her own page, and she is arguably a less important/notable member of Pure Reason Revolution. I am sure that all the content on this page is true, and I fail to understand how it could be called opinionated. If anyone has any changes to suggest, feel free to make them, but I see no reason for deletion.Thedarkfourth (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really would appreciate it if contributers to this page would address the issues of WP:NOT WP:MUSIC and how this subject relates to them. Wikipedia eligibity should not be based on opinion or conjecture, nor is association with anything of notability (no matter how tenuous) reason enough to merit a separate entry. There is little point in merging this subject as all of it is replicated on the PRR page anyway. Justpassinby (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the above insinuation by Bondegezou: I do not have an issue with Pure Reason Revolution per se, but I do have an issue with their inclusion in Wikipedia on the grounds of insignificance and notability, and, as we have already discussed, I will challenge that entry in due course. It is well known that you champion this genre of music and that you are a fan of the band, appearing as you do on their Myspace list of 'friends', and are possibly a personal friend of theirs and have an, as yet, undeclared interest.

If we can concentrate on this article however then I agree with with you that any duplicate, irrelevant hearsay or unreliably sourced material should be deleted. I would therefore ask you to read the article again and check the sources i.e actually read them. How a person can be 'notable for the references to and similarities with various, often obscure, sources' is a mystery to me. To whom is he notable? The author ? (who, incidentally references himself via a free forum website - read the references).

'Lyrically, Courtney is very interested in dreams and often uses a "stream of consciousness" technique[6]'. Is this notable? Does it merit encyclopaedic entry? The citation leads to a Proboard fan's forum to which the band (PRR) contributes. The rest of the citations are to promotional band material, a fan's page - the same fan who wrote the original PRR page, incidentally - or social networking pages.Justpassinby (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Justpassinby, I like PRR's music, but I have no connection to the band whatsoever and no conflict of interest. Bondegezou (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Bondegezou, you have a deeper affinity with PRR than just 'liking their music', judging by the way you advertise their gigs on your blog, and champion the band on chat forums. I can therefore understand that you wish to keep this article. Hopefully, other editors will show greater pragmatism when commenting (if that actually happens)Justpassinby (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a blog. I can't recall mentioning PRR in an online forum for months, but I'm sure I did at some point. I have a website listing forthcoming progressive rock gigs in London that includes PRR shows, yes. As I said, I like the band. Having an interest in the subject of an article is not a conflict of interest. If it was, most of Wikipedia wouldn't exist! Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your point and apologise if you understood that I was implying a conflict of interest as this is not the case. You do, however have an interest in this band that 'colours' your POV so I stand by my previous paragraph. Justpassinby (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth could be so terrible about an encaeclopedia entry on the lead singer and song writer of a famous band, and in what way is he not notable? After reading several long paragraphs of unadulterated rant against this man and his band, (as well as checking for myself his verifiable history of vandalism and sockpuppetry), I'm surprised Justpassinby has the gall to accuse anyone else of being opinionated. Although I have no idea about what lies behind this rather insane grudge, it seems wrong to me that it could be used as an excuse to delete the page of someone who I know a lot of people have an interest in, and who is certainly more notable than many other subjects of wikipedia articles. Although the sources are rough (it is very difficult to find good ones), the content is all definitely true and there is no opinion factor at all.Thedarkfourth (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MUSIC. This may clarify things. Also, WP:NOT may help Justpassinby (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge to PRR). I believe this to be a breach of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:MUSIC and WP:NOT. The content could be easily placed in the PRR article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read both those pages, and so I know that for composers and lyricists, the subject should have "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition". Since Courtney has credit for writing the music and lyrics for several notable compositions, there seems to be no problems on these grounds.Thedarkfourth (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would be good if you could expand on this, as this article needs titles of notable compositions, details of their performances and on what grounds they are notable (e.g national radio rotation plays, covers by third parties, royalties, popular appeal etc)WP:BAND. The challenge to this entry still remains the verifiability of all the references as they are all at best tenuous and at worst unreliable, and if you do wish to debate them on an itemised basis I will be quite happy to do so, although I prefer to let other editors come to their own conclusions about this. Justpassinby (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney's songs have been played across several national radio stations (for example Radio Two and XFM), they have been reviewed in very many national publications, as well as receiving praise from more high-profile supporters (such as Rick Wakeman, of Yes, and Steven Wilson, of Porcupine Tree) and have appeared on national charts, as well as indie ones (one song peaked at #12). I believe this fulfills the demands of notability in WP:MUSIC. If you feel this should be included in the article, please feel free to make the necessary changes.

As for references, I will attempt to tidy this up, but it will be quite a challenge.Thedarkfourth (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your last paragraph sums up my argument; it will be quite a challenge. You are confusing songs written by this subject with performances by Pure Reason Revolution - RW was reviewing a PRR performance. A notable song has several criteria - popularity, public recognition, peer recognition, style etc. The song 'Million Bright Ambassadors'to which you refer anecdotally as 'peaking at #12' (in whose chart?) used plagiarised words, was structurally simple, received no radio airplay and has no mass appeal or recognition. I would therefore argue that it is not notable.Justpassinby (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are not many sources on the internet about a specific subject does not make that subject unnoteworthy or obsolete. I have managed to find several good references however, and I now believe the only weak one is the myspace link, which I intend to be temporary until I can find a better source. As for the rest of your points, I suggest you do some more research on the subject before you start making comments. The song 'Million Bright Ambassadors' does not exist, and even if you meant 'The Bright Ambassadors of Morning', you are still wrong in assuming that that was the song to which I referred (it was actually The Apprentice of the Universe, which peaked at #12 in the indie charts, and no #74 in the national ones). The fact that TBAOM uses one line from another song, and your opinion that it's structurally simple has no bearing on the matter at all. The fact that that this particular song received no airtime is also moot because as a twelve minute song, it would have been very surprising if it had. As far as 'popularity and public obinion' goes, although it is a very subjective term, Courtney has gained an ever growning fan base, especially in Reading and London where he does regular DJ sets, and as for 'peer recognition', he specifically has been recognised by the likes of Steymour Stein (who signed The Rammones and Madonna) and Alan McGee (of Poptones), and his song 'Moving' received significant airtime on Radio 1 after being championed by their DJ Steve Lamacq. All I'm saying is, Courtney isn't some nobody: he has had significant success and popularity; more than enough to merit inclusion under the terms of WP:MUSIC.Thedarkfourth (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this debate hinges on whether or not this subject "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." The facts are:

1. Has not had a verifiable entry in a national radio or indie hit chart. 2. Has not had any material recorded or performed by anyone but himself. 3. Has not had any composition played in rotation on a national radio channel. 4. Has no mass appeal or recognition. 5. You claim he is popular in Reading and London for his 'DJ sets' but not his compositions 6. The citation re Seymour Stein of Sire records is from a Velocity recordings page which in turn cites Jon Courtney as the source. A Google search of 'Jon Courtney turns up just one page...this one, and the subject does not have his own web presence. 7. You claim 'significant success and popularity', yet this subject has never headlined a tour (a criterion for musicians/bands) nor are his songs performed regularly or frequently.

In short, the inclusion of this subject devalues the Wikipedia status of true singer songwriters like Bob Dylan, Paul Anka, Albert Hammond, Freddie Mercury etc etc. I have said all I'm going to say on the subject so I'll leave it to a referee now, as we are going round in circles hereJustpassinby (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to leave it to a referee too; let me just answer your points (or "facts"): 1. http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=31682 2. This is not required under the terms of WP: MUSIC 3. This too is not required, though as I have pointed out his songs have appeared on national radio many times. 4. Your opinion only: I believe the opposite. 5. He is also popular for compositions, obviously, but recent DJ sets have only increased this: he is far more well known for his work with PRR. 6. I have no idea why you're talking about velocity recordings: they have nothing to do with Stein. If you want a reference to prove this particular point then read the following article from The Independent: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060106/ai_n15995936 7. Again, not required, but since he has not pursued a solo career it would be very surprising if he had headlined a tour: with Pure Reason Revolution he has headlined many. Finally: Reserving wikipedia solely for huge multi-national names would defeat the point of an online encyclopedia, nor is it wikipedia's policy (as is demonstrated by the fact that it does not take much effort to find many articles here with subjects far less notable than Courtney). I would again express my hope that Justpassinby's record on this subject be taken into account in consideration of this article's deletion.Thedarkfourth (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep member of notable band; Pure Reason Revolution, meets WP:MUSIC. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:09, 14 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 all redirected as is the general process in this case. To The Magic of Lassie. Non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brass Rings and Daydreams[edit]

Non-notable song that fails WP:MUSIC. Notability of the film does not descend to the individual songs. Failed PRODs.

I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reason. They are all unnotable songs from the same The Magic of Lassie film, and fail WP:MUSIC:

AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fail WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per the suggestion in WP:MUSIC into The Magic of Lassie, which as an article about a musical could use a list of songs (or information about a soundtrack album, if there was one -- I'd leave it to those who know the movie to decide how to handle). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:14, 7 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 both. --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut Steiner[edit]

First up, looks like a conflict of interest: original author is User:Peanut1010. Probably an autobiographical page. Anyway, doesn't look to pass WP:MUSIC or WP:N. Only useful google hit I found was this, an article on how he was in an accident and has come back from that, but a single, localised news piece does not demonstrate notability. Record company is simply for self-publishing; the associated band does not look to be notable and was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 earlier today. (As it happens, so was this article.) I appreciate it has the under construction tab on it but I really don't see any sources available with which to expand the article, and would make a CSD nom a bit distasteful, so I've brought it here instead where I feel it's most appropriate under the circumstances.

Note, I am also nominating the following, the "debut album" from the band which doesn't really even seem to demonstrate any notability, but it's just easier to nominate it here I feel:

Suggesting delete for both. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I agree with the nominator; there is no evidence of notability. Although tagged with "under construction", it has not been edited by the creator since March 6th. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:38, 14 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 authors request (cp. below). Tikiwont (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007-08 Cleveland Cavaliers depth chart[edit]

This information is already noted on the main article, found at 2007-08 Cleveland Cavaliers season. This looks as if it's meant to be a template, but there's no reason for it to be one - when it would only be transcluded on to one page, it makes a template rather redundant. The depth chart is already found on the season page. Not convinced a redirect is needed, so I'm recommending a delete. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to information on another page Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 15:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant per AllynJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukexpat (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This was created clearly in error.--Crzy cheetah 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fyi, it may or may not have been, but (to be pedantic -- sorry, I have a tendency to be so) that isn't a reason to speedy delete unless the author blanks the page. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicative. Basketball teams are small enough that their depth charts could actually be handled more easily in prose rather than as a table anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of page is a precedent we don't want to set. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. ((db-author)). Author's request to delete as a naming error is here. --Onorem♠Dil 13:17, 7 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 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Canadian Union[edit]

This article is about a proposed party that doesn't seem to have gotten off the ground. The external link goes to an AOL members site and the only sites I found on the internet are personal sites. I think this article should be deleted. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia:NOT#CRYSTAL – ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a website (if that). No reliable sources to back up this article and it's highly unlikely there ever will be. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable never-existed political party. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and found nothing about this party. It does not pass WP:N; delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lower taxes and more spending. Shame it never got off the ground. Canuckle (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be less a political party than something made up on your aol homepage one day. No RS. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 23:26, 10 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kartika (album)[edit]

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no 3rd-party references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable album. – Jerry^teps 02:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:49, 7 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, defaulting to keep. If you wish to begin a merge discussion at 12th century in poetry, then by all means do so. Wizardman 19:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1193 in poetry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/1193 in poetry

Pointless page with no relevant content Markb (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Song Dynasty did not 'die' in 1193 anyway.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 11:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'Tis a useless page with no real info. Almighty Clam 12:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obivous merge to 12th century in poetry. Unlike historical events like battles and reigns of kings and other items from the Dark Ages, we really don't know the precise year that works of literature were first produced 800 or 900 years ago. Even the 12th century article has four entries-- the [Nibelunglied]] ("1180 to 1210"); The Tale of Igor's Campaign ("dated near the end of the century"); the Chanson d'Antioche ("at the beginning of the century"); and the Ormulum, date unknown. I agree that the poetry project is wonderful for more recent centuries, but this is a case of diminishing marginal returns, where the further back you attempt to go, the less you really find, and... as here... the best that you can do is put in who was born or who died in AD 1193. Mandsford (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirect~~: I disagree that it 1193 is the Dark Ages and that we don't know any dates for literature then. We know a few things by surrounding events and context. If there are internal references to events that we know, we can be confident of some dates. That said, the items are few enough that breaking into years before 1400 is really not especially useful. Essentially, the emergence of various "stationers registers" in various nations allow us to have meaningful dating, and the advent of the printing press allows us to have "publication" data. Prior to those, we have few items we can be precise with. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I still hate single line articles; the fact is that we don't always break out "in literature" and "in art" and the like. When there is insufficient material, we contain the details in the master year. I did a ton of "- in literature" articles, and it was obvious that breaking out "novel" from "books" should not occur until there were sufficient titles to justify such a split. The same is true of splitting off "in literature" in general. No one, I hope, is against having book data, but the question is whether an "in literature" article is justified with a single entry. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless whole scheme is considered together. About half the years in the century have articles, typically with 1-3 items; no doubt other centuries are similar. There is no point in deleting just one in the series. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We dont delete random years from a scheme. But there is material to fill them: In many cases we do have exact years for this period. In Western Europe, 1193 is the 12th century, by no means the dark ages--indeed, the century in Western Europe is usually known as the "12th century Renaissance" for the revival of humanistic studies--including poetry--and the rise of the schools which were to become the first universities. As we get more and better articles here we will fill these in. A great many of our articles on the middle ages are from the old EB or Catholic encyclopedia, and a much more has become known since then. There's hundreds if not thousands of surviving poetic works from the 12th century in Europe.

Incidentally, it wasn't the Song dynasty that died in 1193, but Fan Chengda, the Song dynasty poet, and we have exact years for almost all Chinese intellectuals of that period. We have many exact dates and much exact knowledge of the arts in China (and the Islamic world) for these years, which were periods with highly developed civilizations, & were far ahead of Europe in everything intellectual. Interesting that almost everyone above assumed we were talking about Europe. DGG (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. We have much that is nailed down to near dates and some that is nailed down to exact dates, but the very concept of the year is difficult when we don't have publication. If we are going for composition instead of publication, we're in yet a different mud puddle, and if we go for "appearance to the public - publication," we need a system for being precise. That emerges different places at different times, but the question isn't even "should we have the book data," but "should we have an in literature article for an individual year when it isn't populated?" The speedy delete criterion A3 would come into play if this weren't one of our formula series. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. 'We dont delete random years from a scheme'. Where is this agreed? do 'we' really maintain mere place-holders in Wikipedia just in case someone comes up with an entry? If so, shouldn't there be blank entries for every day in 1193 for a poetry-related article; indeed one for every hour within each day? Markb (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe the scheme itself is extremely unrealistic in how it sets it boundaries, for the reasons pointed out above.... we have articles about what happened every year in aviation, going back to 1900, and before that, for every century in aviation. Was there aviation before 1900? Sure. Do we know what happened in 1193 in aviation? No. Are we likely to find out someday? No. Hence, nobody has a page reserved for 1193 in aviation as they might for 1993 in aviation. The reason why is that somebody took some time to plan the "scheme" instead of setting up a stock template. If you look at List of years in poetry, it looks like nobody really knows the exact year for when a work came out prior to 1571 in poetry. Instead of pretending as if we know anything about the events of 1193 in poetry, the better course of action would be to incorporate all that into the 12th century. Mandsford (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a very bad idea. Year in year out in the 12th century? That's absurd. Eusebeus (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Look at the listing: its the year the poet died not the year a particular work was published. For all but the most major works that would normally be the better date--as Utgard L says, the year of publication in the manuscript era is a little ambiguous in most cases, and we would not normally want to do every poem in an oeuvre anyway. Birth dates are in most cases much less certain than death dates. so the placement of this item in this specific year reasonable. As for airplanes, people were writing poems long before they were making airplanes; as for " year in year out in the 12th century", that's IDONTKNOWABOUTIT--certainly as applied to the more civilized countries of the period, such as China. DGG (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it's more like "NOBODYKNOWSABOUTIT". Hopefully, there will be a day when someone knowledgable about 12th century Chinese literature (or about 12th century literature anywhere) would contribute to Wikipedia. That day hasn't come yet, apparently. Remember, the 12th century article identifies only four works-- not four works where the dates are known, but four works, period. Let's learn more about the 12th century before we start pretending that we're experts on the 100 individual years there. What will happen if we return Fan Chengda to the 12th century in poetry? A useless blue link will turn back into a red link on the years in poetry template. No big deal. Mandsford (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is doing exactly that--adding Chinese poets to the appropriate year here, using death dates, an appropriate choice, not years of publication. Someone starts working on it, and so you want to delete it? DGG (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there's been any "work" to speak of. If the only thing that can someone can mention about Fan Chengda is his date of death, then they don't have anything to tell us about the legacy of Fan Chengda. Can you imagine if the only mention of Robert Frost was "1963 in poetry"? That's not a stub, it's a snub. I'll concede that, had this article not been nominated, I would not have heard of Fan Chengda, and that you have raised a good point, in that someone can find years for 12th century poetry. Books have been written about the poetry of Mr. Fan, (who was born on June 26, 1126) and reasonably accurate dates have been located, such as "On the Road to Nanxu", circa 1153. I'm still in favor of a merge for the time being, although if people truly are working on a Chinese poetry project, the 12th century cup will soon runneth over... ere long. Mandsford (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(but of course check the article on Fan Chengda, where much else can be said; a list of these years is a chronological guide, nto a ull history of the period--the information is in the article. It couldelll havejust given the date fror Frost--the rest is inthe article. These lists are organizational devices. DGG (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of a series, which can easily be expanded in the future. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So you are arguing for a place holder on the basis something might come along in the future? wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If, and when, content is created then of course there should be an entry; but until then this merely sets a precedent for an editor to create speculative empty entries. Markb (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge inot groups of years - This appears to be part of a bold project, which seems so far to be collecting together birth and death dates of poets, with provision for the future addition of events. However, at periods as remote as this. the number of candidates for inclusion is likely to be small. I would therefore suggest that all similar articles should be merged into articles on decades, or even quarter or one-third centuries (Early= 1100-1133; mid=1134-1167; late=1168-99), or something similar. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and start a merge discussion in the proper place. --Pixelface (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What is the 'proper' place? Markb (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a timeline covering a longer period. Tim! (talk) 18:05, 13 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 consensus. Information can easily be added (if not there already) to the artist's article without this speculative history. Therefore, no need to merge. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Cannon (album)[edit]

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Crystal applies here. Also, consider deleting Cashis, as he is not yet notable. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Both the wrapper and the product: neither are there yet. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Some of the information in the article is sourced and therefore not WP:CRYSTAL. That information should be merged until an actual release date is set. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cashis. For the last time, it's not WP:CRYSTAL just because it's in the future. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From WP:CRYSTAL: "scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (emphasis mine). The way the record industry works, no record's release is a foregone conclusion, and without significant media coverage, notability isn't shown. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Holy cow. We've had this article around since November of 2006, waiting for this album to be released under some name or the other. I agree that Cashis' statement about the album, which is sourced, merits inclusion in the parent article. WP:CRYSTAL notes that "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Right here we've got referenced discussion on whether some development will occur. I do agree it doesn't merit a stand-alone article, because as Hello, Control notes (and this one amply demonstrates) planned releases don't always happen. I think the artist barely passes notability myself, notwithstanding his survival of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ca$his. Unless that EP of his was quite a success. Oh, wait. It was. Never mind. Nevertheless, merge this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree (except about "quite a success"—the Heatseekers chart is a minor one, indicative of records expected to do well; the EP fizzled at #37 on the R&B/Rap chart and didn't break 100 on the Top 200 chart. A success, but a "decent success" at best). Information about upcoming albums (as long as it's sourced) certainly belongs in the artist's own article. It's just that many editors jump the gun and start a separate article before they probably should. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I yield to "decent success." :) I agree with you that separate articles are often started too early. In fact, this one bears you out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
Delete - this has been on the "gonna be out soon, gonna make him a big star" list for eons. Most of the "forthcoming album" articles here are WP:CRYSTAL violations and should be AfD'd; but this one is a downright embarassment to us all. (And I agree with Stephen and Loki that the musician himself is nn.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given his charting, I think he probably is notable...even though I strongly suspect that his charting had more to do with Eminem than Cashis. He's not a speedy candidate, anyway, since he previously survived AfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:55, 14 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 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward (Ed) Pope[edit]

Lots of external links pointing to company's the subject is associated with, but no actual references for Pope himself. Article is also very promotional in tone, could be considered speedy G11? Marasmusine (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as not notable - more a CV. Note that Primary author has had similarly named article Ed Pope twice deleted through CSD. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Oh, no. It's an ad for an investor newsletter. Absolutely foul stuff and not appropriate at all for Wikipedia. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – ukexpat (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7 bio. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:27, 6 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, redirected to Tax protester (United States). Nandesuka (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen of the several states[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states

This is a hoax[edit]

This is a hoax, or more specifically, tax protester nonsense, incorrectly (and with breathtaking stupidity) mis-stating the law to contend that someone may be either a citizen of the U.S. or a citizen of an individual state therein, but not both. In other words, the article argues that people who are citizens of Texas or Indiana or Wyoming are therefore not U.S. Citizens. If the erroneous contentions are removed, then this article would be nothing more than a duplicate of material in United States nationality law, so it should be deleted outright as a hoax bd2412 T 07:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've added some corrected info at the beginning, but the article is still useless, and mostly nonsense. bd2412 T 08:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actual opinions[edit]

Keep I learned something from this article. :-) Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if you read past the first three paragraphs. bd2412 T 09:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Fine, then we delete everything except the first three paragraphs. This debate is about the legitmacy of the article per se. StAnselm (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we delete everything except the first three paragraphs, we're stuck with a duplication of material covered in Tax protester constitutional arguments. bd2412 T 15:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete In the most accepted legal definition Citizen of the Several States refers only to what would equate to, in modern terms, as federal citizens. At the time the phrase was in use the colonies had declared independence but not ratified a constitution, therefore no better legal phrase to describe a federal citizenship existed [33]. This article, while it presents an interesting interpretation of the law is nothing but WP:SOAP and WP:POV. I don't think there is enough non-controversial information presented in this article to allow for anything beyond stubbing if clean-up was attempted, therefor I suggest deletion.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Upon further reading I am also willing to argue that this article constitutes WP:OR based upon interpretation of case law. Wikipedia relies on the ability to verify information in third-party reliable sources and all the information in the article in question appears to be based on speculation of case law instead of verifiable facts. In google searches [34] the phrase "citizen of the several" either appears in pages devoted to this "debate" or as passing mentions in which the phrase IS NOT defined as a separate class of citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchwoodwho (talk • contribs) 11:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am ammending my argument to include WP:HOAX and WP:CB based upon Gettingitdone's open letter in this AFD. From reading his statements and provided case law I can see no evidence to support his claims of a third and unique class of citizenship. I see no statement from the court clearly making a statement to the effect of "Citizen of the United States, Citizen of a State and Citizen of the Several States shall each be governed by unique jurisdictions" Gettingitdone's references merely reference two at a time, not all three. This is VERY important in determining whether all three do in fact exist concurrently or exclusively.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POV. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know why we're debating the merits of the theory. The fact that it exists, some people hold it, and that publications mention it, suggests to me that we should have an article on it. The article doesn't necessarily have to be POV, and even if the author of the article is Dan Goodman (which would be poor form), he has actually published on it. StAnselm (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Articles on Wikipedia should not find theories and cite primary sources to support them, but instead write about theories and cite secondary sources by reliable publishers for those theories. This article clearly does the former though, it does some reasoning - mainly using various court findings as primary sources - to show something (I must admit, I couldn't really follow). A valid encyclopedic article would instead summarize the results of the theory and cite secondary sources for them. Seeing how the author of the first paragraph (which does have encyclopedic style and could lead to an article) gave up and initiated this AfD, I doubt such sources exist. If they are found, a new article about the topic can be created any time. --Minimaki (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I think it's a valid topic about a legal argument that has been raised, and which federal courts have had to actually address before rejecting it. I'm hoping that some of the participants here will learn that (a) not to accuse someone of a hoax unless your attempts at verification come back empty; (b) not to "take someone's addition off" or to otherwise edit out someone else's comments (a definite no-no); (c) emphasizing your point in BIG BOLD LETTERS may attract attention to you, but not to your argument; and finally (d) don't let personality conflicts overshadow where you stand on the topic being discussed. Mandsford (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. If it were actually used by the courts with a meaning distinct from "citizens of the states", it might be notable term. But the commentary is, as noted, completely false original tax protester rhetoric; in fact, almost every word other than direct quotes from court decisions is incorrect. The lead is now approximately correct. But if the lead were the only thing to be kept, it would fall under WP:NOT (legal) DICT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prohibited original research, Also, although the creator of this article may not have realized it, this idea -- that you can be a citizen of a state and yet not be a citizen of the United States -- is indeed part of a hoax perpetrated by tax protesters. No court has ever upheld such a theory. Editor BD2412 has documented the tax protester connection by adding the link to You're not a "citizen" under the Internal Revenue Code. This is a web site run by Christopher M. Hansen of San Diego (not to be confused with the Christopher Hansen of Nevada, another individual allegedly connected with tax protester activity). Christopher M. Hansen is current the subject of a federal court order, including a permanent injunction, in connection with his activities and his web sites, www.famguardian.org (Family Guardian) and www.sedm.org (Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry). The United States District Court for the Southern District of California order is "Amended Order Re: Motions/Order Entering Permanent Injunction," at docket entry 105, entered December 13, 2006, in United States of America v. Christopher M. Hansen, case no. 05cv0921-L(CAB). The court order specifically states: "Defendant Christopher M. Hansen conducts business and promotes a number of tax-fraud schemes under two names or entities: the Family Guardian and the Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry [ . . .]" Amended Order, p. 1. "The evidence before the Court conclusively establishes that the Defendant knows or should know that the theories under which he urges others to avoid paying federal income taxes are false or fraudulent." Amended Order, p. 16. This is oversimplified, but one of Hansen's arguments is that a person can avoid paying federal income tax because the person is a citizen (or "national") of a state, but not of the United States. See, for example, the chart at item 10.1, table 9, page 57, at Why You are a National or State National and Not a U.S. Citizen, a rambling, convoluted, ninety-page document, where Hansen contends that an individual born in a "State of the Union" is a "non-resident alien," and not a "citizen" -- for purposes of 26 USC/the Internal Revenue Code -- complete with citations to the Internal Revenue Code and the Code of Federal Regulations that in no way support his laughable theories. Famspear (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - another recrudescence of the usual tax-protestor lawquackery. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete out the original research, (presently 95% of the article), and what is left is already covered in the Tax protester (United States) article. Articles like this give Wikipedia a bad reputation for being too far on a fringe. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very title is nonsense. In the English language, as opposed to whatever language these people speak, "the citizens of the several states" simply means the citizens of Alaska and the citizens of Alabama and the citizens of Arkansas, etc., taken together. There aren't three kinds of citizenship but two, and anybody born or naturalised in the USA, and who lives in some particular state, and who isn't a foreign ambassador or something similar, has both. -- Zsero (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article in dispute is clearly making a tax protester argument regarding citizenship. Because that violates the NPOV policy and because the article incorrectly describes American citizenship, it should be deleted. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire complete bollocks. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Poorly-written tax protester gibberish, and incorrect as a matter of law. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to clarify my earlier comment: the only place I have ever seen this theory, which is pure pseudolaw, is on the websites of far-right militia and tax protester groups. It has absolutely no currency in the courts or legal scholarship. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The matter is a notable point of constitutional law and is obviously not a hoax. The fact that it excites controversy is all the more reason to include it, c.f. Roe vs Wade. The topic is also interesting in the context of the developing European Union. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be incorrect, but I, personally, have been using the terms controversy and theory as means of being politically correct in this AFD process. I don't want to confuse the issue that this is nothing more than a fringe misconception and not an actual point of controversy within the law of the United States. This isn't even a commonly held misconception. If the article is to stay it must include language that makes it clear that there being three classes of citizenship isn't a valid theory of constitutional interpretation and that the notion is simply an urban legend. After an exhausting two days of researching this, from scratch, I believe that the article is simply not factual.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains much that is not factual - all the articles on fiction, for example. It also contains articles on real world hoaxes and misconceptions such as Flat Earth and Piltdown Man. All that matters for our purposes is whether this constitutional theory, right or wrong, has some substance outside of Wikipedia, and it seems that it does. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that this theory has any substance, it is properly covered at Tax protester constitutional arguments. bd2412 T 09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That may well be a sensible merger but deletion is not required to achieve this. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, there is plenty of COVERAGE of fiction in Wikipedia, but that does not mean that the substance of those articles is fiction. For example, I can say Spider-Man is a wall-crawling superhero in the Marvel Comics Universe and that statement is complete fact. Also, this article makes a confusing circular argument based upon court cases. The article's point is so confusing that even in this AFD multiple editors are trying to understand the point the main article editor is trying to make. At some points the title is explained to mean a third type of citizenship, at others it's about mutual exclusivity related to citizenship... it's completed unclear what the point of the article is. If there is an argument to be made about either of those points it can be addressed in a more appropriate article. If I look up the phrase "Citizen of the Several States" I want to know what the phrase actually means. What has been explained here is that it means, at its core, a plural form of Citizen of a single state... which in and of itself can be explained in another article on citizenship, if it's even an important enough issue to cover.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to an appropriate article discussing tax protester arguments, as that destination would probably be of greatest interest to someone searching on this phrase (which is the best test of what a useful redirect would be). As for the merits of the constitutional argument presented, the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is dispositive: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)C[reply]
Delete Although I initially voted for a keep as a valid topic, I have no faith in the topic in the hands of its author. Ironically, "getting it done" means finishing a job quickly and efficiently. The sooner that this debate can be closed, the better. Mandsford (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if you accept that the use of this term in this context is a Hoax (which I do not stipulate), some hoaxes are still notable if they receive independent coverage. My concern here is that the facts of the article amount to a synthesis of the various court cases and analyses presented, and not an overview of the independent sources listed. We can say that "Court case X read as follows:", but not that "Court case X read as follows, which means that...". There is interpretation here, which is outside the bounds of WP:NPOV. I must note, though, that the author of the article has put together an extremely well-written piece, with extensive research and finely-worded information - but, unfortunately, I don't think there is a place for this article in this form. I also note that the debate below is absolutely fascinating, but serves only to confirm the presence of synthesis in the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Colonel Warden's keep amounts to "keep because it says stuff. To justify an article on a controversy the controversy itself has to be important as justified by third party reliable sources. The proponents for keeping have offered no correctly cited sources supporting the claims maid in the article or the importance of its topic. Per WP:V we cannot keep it. Man bd and Famspear, you guys have the patience of Job. I don't know where or why people dig up such garbage. - Taxman ^Talk 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously did not read this article[edit]

bd24112,

I have taken your addition off. You obviously did not read this article. If you did you would have seen that this article is based on citizenship. There are three citizenships in this country: citizenship of the United States, citizenship of the several states, and citizenship of a state. Taxes has nothing to do with this article. Your action was, therefore, unjustified.

I will report you to Wikipedia if you do this again. I suggest you read this article. It has references to Supreme Court cases, documents of our forefathers and other sources, including acts of Congress. --Gettingitdone (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gettingitdone, you are putting forth a legally incorrect decision, one that is in fact utterly false and nonsensical. Pursuant to the discussion at Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment, such nonsense may be deleted on site. The fact that you don't mention taxes in the article is besides the point, as this argument is only ever used (although without success) by tax protesters and their ilk.
I have only taken the step of listing this on AFD because it is important that the community see and respond to these attacks on Wikipedia's credibility. Since you claim that the article is "based on citizenship", that alone is reason to delete it as a POV fork of the existing article on U.S. citizenship. Your sources are, of course, completely misconstrued, and intentionally so.
But, if you disagree, please feel free to report me to Wikipedia. Be sure to notify Mike Godwin, general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikipedia's Chair Emeritus, Jimbo Wales. I'm sure they will rush to your defense. Cheers! bd2412 T 08:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

bd24112,

I intend to do so. I noticed that you took off the very first line on this page, which is a Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett, which holds that there are citizens of the several states and citizens of the United States. So you take off what is the intitial proof of the article and put your unrelated and innapprioprate material on and thereby change the whole purpose of the article.

We will see who get removed. ::--Gettingitdone (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just style. You start an encyclopedia article with a description of the topic in your own words, not with a quote from someone else's. The Minor v. Happersett has no bearing on your argument, as that case does not contend that a person could be a citizen of a state but not of the United States. bd2412 T 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Long Version[edit]

To all,

I am concluding that what is said by the Supreme Court of the United States on the topic of a citizen of the several states would matter to you.

On this point there is the following from the Supreme Court of the United States:

“The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the citizens of the several States a general citizenship.” Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, 113-114 (1890).

This case was decided after the Slaughterhouse Cases (1890) to (1873).

In addition, the following was removed by BD2412, from the top of my article:

“Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.” Minor v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162, 165 (1874).

This is another Supreme Court case decided after the Slaughterhouse Cases."

There is also the following from the Slaughterhouse Cases:

"The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established...

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause (that is Section 2, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment) are the same.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73-74.

And, from another Supreme Court case decided after the Slaughterhouse Cases. there is:

“In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. ed. 394, the subject of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as distinguished from those of a particular state, was treated by Mr. Justice Miller in delivering the opinion of the court. He stated that the argument in favor of the plaintiffs, claiming that the ordinance of the city of New Orleans was invalid, rested wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment are the same as to citizens of the United States and citizens of the several states. This he showed to be not well founded; that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual." Maxwell v. Dow: 176 U.S. 581, 587-588 (1900).

Citizen of the several States is therefore a legal term.

In addition, this article has nothing to do with taxes. It deals with citizenship. Sources are referred to including but not limited to: Supreme Court cases, documents of our forefatheres, and acts of Congress. --Gettingitdone (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

I went through BD2412 reference to Wikipedia's Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment, and found nothing in it, by way of "theory" of citizenship, to the issue of federal income taxes. The closest thing is that the Fourteenth Amendment was not properly ratified, which is NOT present in my article. --Gettingitdone (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - The AFD will be closed by an administrator who decides upon the consensus of the community as represented by arguments of Wikipedia policy. Your arguments, although perfectly logical to you, do not speak to the concerns of the community regarding WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:POV, WP:HOAX or other policies in question. Please familiarize yourself with the policies of Wikipedia before demanding ridiculous actions such as having this AFD removed immediately. Furthermore, all good Wikipedians have done their due diligence in discussing this AFD by looking at both the article, the supporting discussions on Wikipedia AND through outside sources. I for one have nothing to do with these tax debates as you can see from my edit history. I urge you not to use words like "bogus" in regards to these proceedings because although I do not agree with your stand on whether this article should be kept or not it your words make you seem irrational and undermine your arguments. I think we all want a fair proceeding and by making open letters and proclamations of the validity of the AFD proceeding you do nothing but weight the argument against you. Lastly, the reasoning for the proposed deletion is that the case law you cite does not clearly state your case. From a reasonable perspective you must admit that no court or governing body has any definitive statement on the validity of this theory. Since there is no clear indication of truth to the way the arguments are represented in the article we are in a position to have to decide whether this article should be left intact. Due to the passion you display in regards to this article and in other discussions I am hard-pressed to believe that any modifications to this article to represent a balanced, verifiable point of view would result in anything but editing-warring and or stubbing I am proposing deletion. The theory, as proposed and disputed allowing for balance, exists as a section of other existing wikipedia pages. This means that there are other places on this site in which a balanced viewpoint on this theory is accessible to the public. I am adding to my previous Deletion request that the closing admin also salt this article or otherwise protect it from recreation for a certain amount of time. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

Above I quoted and cited cases from the Supreme Court relating to a citizen of the several States. Here are some from the Supreme Court which relate to a citizen of a state.

“. . . The act was considered in Johnson v. United States, 160 U.S. 546, 16 Sup. Ct. 377, and we there held that a person who was not a citizen of the United States at the time of an alleged appropriation of his property by a tribe of Indians was not entitled to maintain an action in the court of claims under the act in question. There was not in that case, however, any assertion that the claimant was a citizen of a state, as distinguished from a citizen of the United States.” United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1897).

The Supreme Court makes a distinction between a citizen of a state and a citizen of the United States.

In addition, there is the following:

“. . . In the Constitution and laws of the United States the word 'citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense, to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State OR of the United States.” Baldwin v. Franks: 120 U.S. 678, 690 (1887); reaffirmed, Collins v. Hardyman: 341 U.S. 651, 658-659 (1950); Griffen v. Breckenridge: 403 U.S. 88, 93-95 (1971).

Also:

“. . . There is no inherent right in a citizen to thus sell intoxicating liquors by retail; it is not a privilege of a citizen of a State OR of a citizen of the United States.” Crowley v. Christensen: 137 U.S. 86, 91 (1890).

And:

". . . Unquestionably, in the general and common acceptation, a citizen of the state is considered as synonymous with citizen of the United States, and the one is therefore treated as expressive of the other. This flows from the fact that the one is normally and usually the other, and where such is not the case it is purely exceptional and uncommon." United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1877).

From the Slaughterhouse Cases there is the following:

“The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. . . .

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873).

Therefore, citizen of a state is a legal term.

And, as stated at my first entry there are three citizenship in this country; citizenship of the United States, citizenship of the several States, and citizenship of a state. To this I will add that privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are in the 14th Amendment, privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States are located at Article IV, Section 2 and privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state are to be found in the constitution and laws of an individual State. --Gettingitdone (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

Now that I have given legal authority, I will now address other issues. My article does not in WP:POV violate local bias. Legal authority is quoted and cited (and link to in most cases). In addition, the views expressed are not my but those of the legal sources. I have provided additional legal sources to further support those views in my article. As I have stated before this article is on citizenship and NOT taxes. Assuming the obvious is obviously not being violated since nothing is assumed in my article. Pseudonyms has not been violated. Other points really doesn't apply. English language also really doesn't apply. Under Basic writing I do not see a problem especially regarding being "unbalanced" since althought the article treats citizenship of the several states, citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state are also included. And Other areas really doesn't apply. So I am left with the conclusion that WP:POV in not being violated, in whole, at all. --Gettingitdone (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

I will now address the issue of an hoax WP.HOAX. "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real." Such is not the case here. Legal authority has been provided which provide the basis for my article. Note: court cases, acts of Congress, and other sources like the Congressional Globe are considered published documents. An article was also referred to: Dan Goodman, "Slaughterhouse Cases, Two Citizens"; December 1, 2007; The New Media Journal.us at http://therant.us/guest/d_goodman/12012007.htm . A published piece. There is no trickery.

Just because one does not know of something does not make it non-existent. I at first, was unaware of what is now in this article. However, I kept my mind open and pursued it further and was surprised at what I found. In a way it is like finding out the Earth is round instead of being flat. You took the journey to the edge of the Earth to see if it is really flat, knowing that it might not be and found out that it was indeed round and not flat. --Gettingitdone (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

In WP.CB it reads "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." However, I will make a comment. The terms that used in my work are not complete bollocks. Legal authority is provided in the article and has been provided in this Talk. Turning the table around, if I was to say what is a citizen of the United States, Amendment 14 of the Constitution of the United States would be cited, and if pressed further reference to the Slaughterhouse Cases, would have been made. Both are legal documents, both are published, and both have the terms citizen of the United States or United States citizen in them. --Gettingitdone (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

WP.OR relates to unpublished original research or original thought. My work is the expression of the legal sources included. As stated in reference to WP.HOAX "Legal authority has been provided which provide the basis for my article. Note: court cases, acts of Congress, and other sources like the Congressional Globe are considered published documents. An article was also referred to: Dan Goodman, "Slaughterhouse Cases, Two Citizens"; December 1, 2007; The New Media Journal.us at http://therant.us/guest/d_goodman/12012007.htm . A published piece." Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability are therefore satisfied. This piece has been written in objective manner. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is therefore also satisfied. --Gettingitdone (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is about status of citizenship why should this article stand on its own and not be part of United States nationality law if it is in-fact accurate that there are three distinct citizenships?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I finished reading United States nationality law. This article deals, in essence, with an act of Congress. Granted, it relates to the Constitution of the United States, but it does not deal with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States as my article does. I think the contributor would agree with me that his or his piece is substantially different from my, even though they both deal with citizenship.

You would be putting an apple with an orange. Even though they are a fruit, they are not the same. Similiar yes, the same no. --Gettingitdone (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- From the article itself: "As a citizen of the several States, a citizen of a State had the same rights and privileges (in general) as the citizens of the State in which he was in. And, as a citizen of the United States, the Bill of Rights and constitutional provisions and amendments plus the laws of the United States contained them." I see no basis for the support of this statement in the Slaugheterhouse quote... specifically here... "and so important in their bearing upon the relations of the United States and of the several States to each other, and to the citizens of the states and of the United States," Furthermore, in reading this quote from Slaughterhouse "We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states." I can not in good faith say that I believe the court is using "citizens of the states" or "citizens of the several states" as anything other than a plural to include all citizens of all states. Please Explain, in layman's terms, why my argument is false.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC),

You have to read Footnote 1 and not the Slaughterhouse Case reference. BD2412 remove the first line which was:

"Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision." [1] (1)
Footnotes:
(1) "Before . . .

Reference:
[1] ^ Minor v. Happersett,88 U.S. 162, 165 (1874).

I am still reading United States nationality law. --Gettingitdone (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following Supreme Court case should answer your concern:

"There can be no doubt that Balk, as a citizen of the state of North Carolina, had the right to sue Harris in Maryland to recover the debt which Harris owed him. Being a citizen of North Carolina, he was entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several states, one of which is the right to institute actions in the courts of another state." Harris v. Balk: 198 U.S. 215, 223 (1905).

Note at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States it states:

"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens IN the several states."

Words in law are chosen carefully. Citizens OF the several states is not the same as citizens IN the several states. Citizen of the several states refers to a citizen of the several states and not a citizen of a state. This is shown in Cole v. Cunningham:

“The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the citizens OF the several States a general citizenship.” Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, 113-114 (1890).

--Gettingitdone (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand on your statement
"Words in law are chosen carefully. Citizens OF the several states is not the same as citizens IN the several states. Citizen of the several states refers to a citizen of the several states and not a citizen of a state."
I still see no evidence whatsoever as to your interpretation of the case law in question. Please link to party-neutral evidence that clearly explains this. If you can provide third party evidence of your interpretation, maybe a United States Government booklet on citizenship... maybe direct quotes from academically used text books... maybe a U.S. government website that clearly explains the three types of citizenship, these are all things that can used to verify your claims, but simply interpreting these court cases constitutes WP:OR and perpetuates a WP:HOAX or worse WP:CB. If there is a U.S. government sanctioned third type of citizenship I feel that the article needs to clearly define all three types of citizenship and the differences thereof based upon approved academic and official government sources, otherwise it is just a "theory" and a controversial one at that which should in no way be presented as factual information.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a case:

"The expression, Citizen of a State, is carefully omitted here. In Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States, it had been already provided that 'the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.' The rights of Citizens of the States (under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1) and of citizens of the United States (under The Fourteenth Amendment) are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, recently decided by the Supreme court. The rights of Citizens of the State, as such, are not under consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions." United States v. Anthony: 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830 (Case No. 14,459) (1873).

--Gettingitdone (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I have taken the liberty of researching more in-depth into the sources cited in the article. Beginning with the further reading entitled "Privileges and Immunities of a Citizen of the Several States" it states in the opening paragraph " Under the Constitution of the United States, there are two citizens. They are a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the several States. "

This clearly states there are two types of citizenship, not three. Ignoring the case law as citations, which I feel we can because no one is disputing the results of those cases or the looking at the cases from an academic standpoint in this article... we are in essence debating the language... I will move on to Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe...

"It has in view some results beneficial to the citizens of the several States, or it would not be found there; yet I am not aware that the Supreme Court have ever undertaken to define either the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities thus guarantied. . ."

This illustrates that the author does not understand there to be three classes of citizenship, and if so he doesn't know what the differences are. This source is from 1866 in in context refers to interstate commerce right. In the citation for Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers the direct quote referencing Citizens of the Several States is thus,

"It may be esteemed the basis of the union, that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states."

I can see no reference suggesting that the use of the phrase is distinct from citizens of the united states or citizen of a state in plural. The Joseph Story citation opens with the statement

"The first is, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

I am again at a loss for how this is interpreted as a unique and distinct classification of citizenship. In the final citation in question the document refers to the differences between political and civil rights of freed black and is in substance

"that the word white be stricken out. Chancellor Kent supported this motion and among other reasons suggested that the exclusion of negroes might be opposed to the constitution of the United States, which provided that 'the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states."

I again, there is no single statement put forward in this citation that defines three unique classes of citizenship. I therefore conclude that this article desperately needs better citations to bolster the argument that there is a third classification of citizenship and not merely a debate over semantics.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Torchwoodwho|talk 08:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You have made an ettor. You have concluded that a citizen of the states is the same as a citizen of a state from the case U.S. v. Anthony. This is incorrect as shown in my artice at "Citizenship of the several States after the Fourteenth Amendment" There it is shown that the term is the same as a citizen of the several states in the Slaughterhouse Casse. To wit:

"Citizenship of the several States after the Fourteenth Amendment"

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, The Supreme Court of the United States decided in the Slaughterhouse Cases ^[1] that because of the Fourteenth Amendment there were now two separate and distinct citizens under the Constitution of the United States (and not the Fourteenth Amendment): a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the several States;

To wit:

"We do not conceal from ourselves the great responsibility which this duty devolves upon us. No questions so far reaching and pervading in their consequences, so profoundly interesting to the people of this country, and so important in their bearing upon the relations of the United States and of the several States to each other, and to the citizens of the states and of the United States, have been before this court during the official life of any of its present members. We have given every opportunity for a full hearing at the bar; we have discussed it freely and compared views among ourselves; we have taken ample time for careful deliberation, and we now propose to announce the judgments which we have formed in the construction of those articles, so far as we have found them necessary to the decision of the cases before us, and beyond that we have neither the inclination nor the right to go.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at 67.

And:

"The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established...

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause (that is Section 2, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment) are the same.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73-74.

Also:

"Fortunately we are not without judicial construction of this clause of the Constitution (that is, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1). The first and the leading case on the subject is that of Corfield v. Coryell ^[2], decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania in 1823. 4 Wash C. C. 371.

'The inquiry,' he says, 'is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States? . . .

This definition of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states is adopted in the main by this court in the recent case of Ward v. Maryland. . . .

Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the states as such, and that they are left to the state governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which no state can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 75-76, 78-79.

See also *Dan Goodman, "Slaughterhouse Cases, Two Citizens"; December 1, 2007; The New Media Journal.us at http://therant.us/guest/d_goodman/12012007.htm a published piece.

--Gettingitdone (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court dealt with two clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment; Section 1, Clause 1 and Section 1, Clause 2. Citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state were treated in Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citizenship of the United States and citizenship of the several States were covered in Section 1, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“. . . [T]o establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a state, the 1st clause of the 1st section was framed. . . .

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular state . . .

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. . . .

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (2nd clause of the 1st section), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 72-74.

Moreover, it was decided that citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state were now separate and distinct. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state were to be found in the constitution and laws of the individual state. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States were to be located at the Fourteenth Amendment.

Also, the Slaughterhouse court concluded that there were now two separate and distinct citizens under the Constitution of the United States (and not the Fourteenth Amendment); a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the several States:

To wit:

“We do not conceal from ourselves the great responsibility which this duty devolves upon us. No questions so far reaching and pervading in their consequences, so profoundly interesting to the people of this country, and so important in their bearing upon the relations of the United States and of the several States to each other, and to the citizens of the states and of the United States, have been before this court during the official life of any of its present members. We have given every opportunity for a full hearing at the bar; we have discussed it freely and compared views among ourselves; we have taken ample time for careful deliberation, and we now propose to announce the judgments which we have formed in the construction of those articles, so far as we have found them necessary to the decision of the cases before us, and beyond that we have neither the inclination nor the right to go.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at 67 (1873).

And:

“The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. . . .

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (2nd clause of the 1st section), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73-74.

Also:

“Fortunately we are not without judicial construction of this clause of the Constitution (that is, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1). The first and the leading case on the subject is that of Corfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania in 1823. 4 Wash C. C. 371.
'The inquiry,' he says, 'is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States?. . .

This definition of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states is adopted in the main by this court in the recent case of Ward v. Maryland. . . .

Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the states as such, and that they are left to the state governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which no state can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 75-76, 78-79.
It is to be observed that the terms “citizens of the states” and “citizens of the several states” are used interchangeably by the Slaughterhouse court. And they are employed in contradistinction to the term “citizens of the United States.”

--Gettingitdone (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back on track[edit]

Dear Gettingitdone: If I'm reading you correctly, you keep saying that "citizen of the United States" and "citizen of the several states" and "citizen of a state" are three separate things.

Here is what "Dan Goodman" says in the material you linked:

Therefore, one can be a citizen of the United States or a citizen of the several States, but not both. [35]

Sorry, but in none of the court cases you cited, and in none of the court cases Dan Goodman cited, did any court ever rule that a person cannot be BOTH a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of "the several States" at the same time. Similarly, in none of the court cases cited did any court ever rule that one cannot be BOTH a citizen of the United States and a citizen of "a state" at the same time. No case. Not once. Not ever.

Think of it this way: The mere fact that "being a father" is not the same as "being a brother" does not mean that I cannot be both at the same time. Yes, they're two different things, with different attributes and responsibilities and rights -- but I can be both a father and a brother at the same time. The mere fact that being a "citizen of the United States" is not the same as being a "citizen of Texas" does not mean that I cannot be both at the same time.

It appears that Goodman is essentially arguing that because "being a citizen of Texas" AND "being a citizen of the United States" are two different things (which of course they are), a person therefore cannot be both at the same time. The argument is completely illogical. And more to the point, none of the courts in the court cases Goodman cited ever made any such ruling.

And as far as the phrase "citizens of the several states," as somehow being a "third class" of citizenship, none of the court cases cited ever contained any ruling that there is a third class of citizenship called "citizens of the several states." The term "citizens of the several states" essentially means, "citizens of the separate, or various, states." This is not rocket science.

There are only two classes of citizenship in the sense in which we are speaking here: state citizenship and national citizenship. Under the Constitution (which of course includes the Fourteenth Amendment), a "citizen of the United States" is automatically a "citizen of the state wherein he or she resides" at a given time. You cannot be a citizen of a state (e.g., Montana) and not also be a United States citizen at the same time. Nothing that Dan Goodman writes, and nothing that you write, will ever change that fundamental legal concept.

I am having a hard time finding any information on the linked web site about "Dan Goodman." What are his qualifications or credentials? Does he have any legal training? Can you find anyone with any legal expertise who has ever made the arguments Dan Goodman is making? I think we are also having a reliable source issue here.

In no federal court case whatsover has any court ever ruled that someone can be a citizen of "a state" and yet not, at the same time, be a "citizen of the United States". So, where is all this leading you? Famspear (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-script: Looking back, it appears that what you and Dan Goodman may be arguing is that there were three classes of citizenship before the 14th Amendment and only two afterward. You are at least correct that there are only two classes of citizenship after the Amendment (if that's what you're arguing). But the basic problem I have identified is: Goodman seems to be confused in his reading of the court cases. Goodman is incorrectly inferring that somehow the courts have ruled that you cannot be both a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of a state at the same time. Goodman is wrong. No court has ever ruled that way, and again the argument has no legal validity. It's nonsensical. Famspear (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Famspear (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that "In no federal court case whatsover has any court ever ruled that someone can be a 'citizen of a state" and yet not, at the same time, be a 'citizen of the United States'.

In an earlier post on this Talk page, --Gettingitdone (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC), I provided legal authority on this point you brought up. I reproduce here:[reply]

The Supreme Court makes a distinction between a citizen of a state and a citizen of the United States.

(As an example), there is the following:

“. . . In the Constitution and laws of the United States the word 'citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense, to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State OR of the United States.” Baldwin v. Franks: 120 U.S. 678, 690 (1887); reaffirmed, Collins v. Hardyman: 341 U.S. 651, 658-659 (1950); Griffen v. Breckenridge: 403 U.S. 88, 93-95 (1971).

Also:

“. . . There is no inherent right in a citizen to thus sell intoxicating liquors by retail; it is not a privilege of a citizen of a State OR of a citizen of the United States.” Crowley v. Christensen: 137 U.S. 86, 91 (1890).

And:

". . . Unquestionably, in the general and common acceptation, a citizen of the state is considered as synonymous with citizen of the United States, and the one is therefore treated as expressive of the other. This flows from the fact that the one is normally and usually the other, and where such is not the case it is purely exceptional and uncommon." United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1877).

Postscript

I am in total agreement with you that a citizen of the United States can also be a citizen of a state. --Gettingitdone (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back to Famspear's point above about someone being both a father and a brother. You can just as easily say that someone has not lived up to their responsibilities as a father or as a brother. Saying that does not mean that one is exclusive of the other. You can just as easily say that selling liquor is not a privilege to which I am automatically entitled as a resident of Coral Gables or as a resident of Miami-Dade County. It hardly means that being a resident of the former means I am not a resident of the latter, just that each entity can afford me certain rights, but I derive the rights at issue from neither. That is precisely the point the court is making in each of the above quotes, and that is precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside". In order for you to overcome the plain language of the Constitution, you must make an extraordinary showing of evidence that the word "and" in the amendment means "one or the other, but not both at the same time". You have not provided a single authority which clearly says that, and frankly you will be unable to because it is simply not the case. bd2412 T 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To bd2412 T 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In my posting at,--Gettingitdone (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC). there was this Supreme Court case:[reply]

“. . . The act was considered in Johnson v. United States, 160 U.S. 546, 16 Sup. Ct. 377, and we there held that a person who was not a citizen of the United States at the time of an alleged appropriation of his property by a tribe of Indians was not entitled to maintain an action in the court of claims under the act in question. There was not in that case, however, any assertion that the claimant was a citizen of a state, as distinguished from a citizen of the United States.” United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1897).

Here is another case (a state case):

"Under the Fourteenth Amendment all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside, but we find nothing which requires that a citizen of a state must be a citizen of the United States." Crosse v. Board of Supervisory of Election of Baltimore City: 243 Md. 555, 562; 221 A.2d 431, 436 (1966).

From the same Supreme Case above, including citing, is the following:

“... [U]ndoubtedly in a purely technical and abstract sense citizenship of one of the states may not include citizenship of the United States.”

I think this makes it clear that one can be a citizen of a state and not a citizen of the United States. --Gettingitdone (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have misread the cases. Let's take the first one, United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company, 164 U.S. 686 (1897). The issue in that case was whether a corporation was to be considered a "citizen of a state". It was not about a person at all. The statute at issue was one which allowed the Court of Claims to adjudicate "all claims for property of citizens of the United States" taken or destroyed by Indians. The Court specifically states:

"The sole question presented by the appeal, therefore, is as to whether, under a proper construction of the act referred to, a corporation of a State for the purpose of the act is embraced within the designation 'citizens of the United States'".

The Court then finds:

"Unquestionably, in the general and common acceptation, a citizen of the State is considered as synonymous with citizen of the United States, and the one is therefore treated as expressive of the other. This flows from the fact that the one is normally and usually the other, and where such is not the case, it is purely exceptional and uncommon".

In short, the Court says that because the corporation was legally a citizen of a state, it must also be a citizen of the United States, and able to sue under the statute. Now, the other case the court cites in your quote from Northwestern Express, Johnson v. United States, 160 U.S. 546 (1896), was exceptional because Johnson was born outside the U.S., and then became a U.S. citizen while residing in Utah- before Utah became a state. Johnson was an alien at the time that his property was taken by Indians. He later became a U.S. citizen, but not of a state. The Court held that because Johnson had not yet been naturalized as a citizen when his property was taken, the statute did not apply to him. Both Johnson and Northwestern Express consider it highly unusual for a natural-born person (as opposed to a corporation) to be a citizen of a state without simultaneously being a citizen of the United States. The Court in Northwestern Express calls these conditions "synonymous".

Now, as for the Maryland case, Crosse v. Board of Supervisory of Election of Baltimore City, 243 Md. 555 (1966), we are again talking about an alien, born in another country, who becomes a citizen of the United States. In this case, George Crosse was born in the West Indies, and moved to Maryland in 1957. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1966, and shortly thereafter filed papers to run for sheriff. The state would not let him run because of a requirement under Maryland law that a person be a citizen of Maryland for five years before holding office, and although Grosse had lived there for ten years, he had only been a U.S. citizen for a month. The Maryland court compared this to case from another state, Halaby v. Board of Directors of University of Cincinnati, 162 Ohio St. 290 (1954), which was about "a statute which provided free university instruction to citizens of the municipality in which the university is located". Notice, now we are comparing this to citizenship in a municipality as opposed to either a state or the United States. That court held that the plaintiff, "an alien minor whose parents were residents of and conducted a business in the city", fell within the statute because "[i]t is to be observed that the term, 'citizen,' is often used in legislation where 'domicile' is meant and where United States citizenship has no reasonable relationship to the subject matter and purpose of the legislation in question."

The Maryland court was not saying that the U.S. Constitution provides for two different and mutually exclusive kinds of citizenship. It was simply saying that a state can use the word 'citizen' when it really means 'domicile'. A person who was born outside the U.S. and had not been naturalized, but who was a 'citizen' of Maryland in the sense of being able to run for sheriff, would still not be able to vote in a federal election, serve on a jury, or take advantage of diversity jurisdiction in a federal court. A federal tribunal would not consider such a person to be a citizen of a state or of the United States.

What you have shown is that there are rare circumstances where a person born outside the United States can become a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state (if they live in a U.S. territory such as Utah in the 1880s or Guam today), and that a person born outside of the United States but living in a U.S. State can be considered a 'citizen' of that state by that state, for limited purposes which do not relate to the rights provided by citizenship under the Constitution of the United States. Please show me an instance - one instance - where a person born in a U.S. State, and residing in a U.S. State, is considered to be a citizen of a U.S. State but not a citizen of the United States (or of "the several states" as you like to put it).

In any event, this is a far deviation from your original point. You wrote in the article that "After Slaughterhouse, however, one could be a citizen of the United States or a citizen of the several States, but not both". This is plainly false under Northwestern Express, and you have not produced an iota of support for the assertion that citizenship in a state excludes citizenship in the United States.

Cheers! bd2412 T 09:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Issue: Three Citizens (Citizenships)

To all,

I will now address the issue of three citizens (citizenships).

Section 1, Clause 1 of the Amendment 14 reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Section 1, Clause 2 of the Amendment 14 provides:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The following is from the Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36) at pages 73 thru 74:

"To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section (of the Fourteenth Amendment) was framed.

'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.'

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. . . .

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (the second clause of the first section), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of (privileges and immunities) of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.

The language is, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose.

Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause (the second clause of the first section) under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.

I have boldfaced the following terms from this opinion:

privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States

privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States

privileges and immunities of the/(a) citizen of the United States

privileges and immunities of the/(a) citizen of the/(a) State

The Slaughterhouse court makes the observation that the term citizen of a state is in Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment but not in Section 1, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“ . . . ‘"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’ It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose.”

Therefore, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not relate to a citizen of a state.

However, the Slaughterhouse court uses the term privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states in reference to Section 1, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (the second clause of the first section), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of (privileges and immunities) of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.”

The language is, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

The Slaughterhouse court refers to the argument of the plaintiff in error, and remarks that the brief rests on the wrong citizenship (and provision of the Constitution). In this case, before this opinion, there is the following, starting at the bottom of page 45, then to pages 55 thru 56 :

"Mr. John A. Campbell, and also Mr. J. Q. A. Fellows, argued the case at much length and on the authorities, in behalf of the plaintiffs in error. The reporter cannot pretend to give more than such an abstract of the argument as may show to what the opinion of the court was meant to be responsive. . . .

"Now, what are 'privileges and immunities' in the sense of the Constitution? They are undoubtedly the personal and civil rights which usage, tradition, the habits of society, written law, and the common sentiments of people have recognized as forming the basis of the institutions of the country. The first clause in the fourteenth amendment does not deal with any interstate relations, nor relations that depend in any manner upon State laws, nor is any standard among the States referred to for the ascertainment of these privileges and immunities. It assumes that there were privileges and immunities that belong to an American citizen, and the State is commanded neither to make nor to enforce any law that will abridge them.

The case of Ward v. Maryland bears upon the matter. That case involved the validity of a statute of Maryland which imposed a tax in the form of a license to sell the agricultural and manufactured articles of other States than Maryland by card, sample, or printed lists, or catalogue. The purpose of the tax was to prohibit sales in the mode, and to relieve the resident merchant from the competition of these itinerant or transient dealers. This court decided that the power to carry on commerce in this form was 'a privilege or immunity' of the sojourner. 2. The act in question is equally in the face of the fourteenth amendment in that it denies to the plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws. By an act of legislative partiality it enriches seventeen persons and deprives nearly a thousand others of the same class, and as upright and competent as the seventeen, of the means by which they earn their daily bread."

However, Ward v. Maryland did not deal with the Fourteenth Amendment and privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, but rather, with Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 and citizens of the several States:

“Comprehensive as the power of the states is to lay and collect taxes and excises, it is, nevertheless, clear, in the judgment of the court, that the power cannot be exercised to any extent in a manner forbidden by the Constitution; and inasmuch as the Constitution provides that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, it follows that the defendant might lawfully sell, or offer or expose for sale, within the district described in the indictment, any goods which the permanent residents of the state might sell, or offer or expose for sale in that district, without being subjected to any higher tax or excise than that exacted by law of such permanent residents.

Grant that the states may impose discriminating taxes against the citizens of other states, and it will soon be found that the power conferred upon Congress to regulate interstate commerce is of no value, as the unrestricted power of the states to tax will prove to be more efficacious to promote inequality than any regulations which Congress can pass to preserve the equality of right contemplated by the Constitution among the citizens of the several states.” Ward v. State of Maryland: 79 U.S. 418, 430-431 (1870)

Privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states therefore relate to a citizen of the several states.

Thus, from the Slaughterhouse Cases, there are three citizens (citizenships):

a citizen of the United States,

a citizen of the several States,

and a citizen of a state.

In addition, the Slaughterhouse court stated the following

”Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause (the second clause of the first section) under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.“

--Gettingitdone (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing in very wide circles. Absolutely nothing you have provided supports the claim that either a) "citizens of the several states" is anything other than a shorter way of saying "citizens of the states of the United States"; or b) that there is any reason why a citizen of a state could not simultaneously be a citizen of the United States. The only thing your citations support is the core principle of federalism: that being a citizen of the United States secures certain rights and imposes certain obligations; and that being a citizen of a U.S. state simultaneously secures additional rights and imposes additional obligations. If Georgia has a statute requiring used car dealerships to disclose prior repairs to a car, then every citizen of Georgia has the right to receive such disclosures; and thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, Georgia can not require such disclosures to Georgians but not to Alabamans, even though Alabama may require no such disclosure. This works in harmony with, and not in derogation to, the continued federal requirement that, for example, Georgia not require such disclosures only to members of one race or religion. bd2412 T 07:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Two sentence orphaned article as it stands does not offer sourcing to verify notability. (As an aside, it has been tagged for reference since April of 2006.) Sources located here do not meet necessary standards to verify same. No prejudice against creation of a new article if sufficient sources can be located. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chung Ngai Dance Troupe[edit]

Non-notable Local troupe, no evidence of widespread or other signs of notability. Also cannot be verified, as no sources are provided. Oo7565 (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - [36] - No notable coverage - youtube, myspace, the troupes official website, trivial mentions elsewhere. Fails WP:NOTE. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 11:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think this article loosely satisfies WP:N (specifically WP:ORG I think) because it does indeed have some mentions in third-party places: [37]most important [38][39] Littleteddy (roar!) 11:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are reliable sources, however, especially number 2 - which is a youtube video. In order to satisfy WP:N, one must provide evidence of widespread and significant coverage, not fleeting mentions of the organization. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 15:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Number 2 is not a YouTube video. Littleteddy (roar!) 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only coverage in reliable sources I could find were passing mentions that the Troupe performed at a certain event. Jfire (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not familiar with this group, but googling for "san francisco" "Chung Ngai" -site:wikipedia.org -site:googlepages.com -site:chungngai.com -site:youtube.com still brings up some results which seem not-so-trivial to me. It seems to have a certain notability, but someone with understanding of this kind of art should check whether those search results contain valuable sources. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding that a press release isn't sufficient to demonstrate notability. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing any reliable indepedent coverage anywhere. If am missing an award, recognition, or distinction that would be enough to meet the criteria for WP:BIO for entertainers. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability does not reach an encyclopedic level. Stormbay (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google news provides a few mentions, most directly what looks like an article about the troupe from the Times-Standard, Jan. 30 1974 (can't tell: subscription needed to see for sure); but things like histories of the Asian community in San Francisco would likely be a better place to look for references (Google books doesn't turn up anything in this respect, but does show it is at least mentioned in the author bio of a book about Kung Fu). --Paularblaster (talk) 18:57, 13 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast District Student Council[edit]

Non-notable local student council. Article is unsourced, totally original research, and makes no assertion of notability. RedShiftPA (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 11:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Littleteddy (roar!) 11:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A 75+ year old independent regional organization serving student councils. Need information added, not deletion. • Freechild'sup? 12:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Change to delete per nominator. • Freechild'sup? 16:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not stated, plus it reads as an advert for the council. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom there is absolutely no assertion of notability and Wikipedia is not a personal web hosting service. This student council has not received significant coverage in third party and the notability of the school does not inherit to this article. Collectonian (talk) 02:30, 9 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, which defaults to Keep. No prejudice against a renomination if the article doesn't improve in sourcing and NPOV. Article needs cleanup though, marking as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conference on Student Government Associations[edit]

Non-notable ~~local student council~~ conference of non-notable student government associations. Article is orphaned, unsourced, totally original research, and makes no assertion of notability.RedShiftPA (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, I knew this might be a borderline case. However, for the record, it is not a local student council. Rather, it is a conference that annually gathers together student government leaders from all over the country to share their insights/experiences, which I am told are helpful to the attendees in administering their own student governments. That is of course the rationale used to justify spending thousands of dollars on travel expenses to send them there. An unstated reason for attending is the opportunity to stay up till 3 AM getting plastered and potentially hooking up with one or more random people you'll never see again, but that goes without saying and we need not go there. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As the national organisation it is probably notable.DGG (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Student Affairs/List of students' union articles - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That almost makes me inclined to weak keep, if only on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If you look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you'll see that this is not generally a strong argument to cite in AFDs. Also, if you look, most of those articles are either in the process of merging into the main articles or going through their own AFDs.--RedShiftPA (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unsourced, unnotable very niche conference. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable to me if 550 student unions get together to talk about issues of common interest. They all have large memberships, so that's a lot of students they are representing. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 17:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sounds notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence or assertion of notability; fails WP:ORG. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 14 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. While evidently there is some effort to reach consensus that all student unions are notable regardless of sourcing, this AfD in itself demonstrates that this view does not currently have consensus. There is no evidence offered that this student union is notable within current definitions. Consensus is that a merge of this article would be inappropriate, although that is the usual procedure for handling student union articles, since there is no parent article to merge to. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Junior College Student Government Association[edit]

Non notable state group of Junior College Student Governments. Article is orphaned, unsourced, totally original research, and makes no assertion of notability. RedShiftPA (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Such articles to me are worthless, esp. without third-party refs, but it's no worse than any other article in Category:Student governments in the United States regarding notability, and I don't care to delete the whole bunch. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the rest of those article in that category need to be merged into their school's main article, and I'll be doing that over the next few days. However, this one has no main article to be merged into. And since there are no 3rd party sources and no notability, it shouldn't have its own article.--RedShiftPA (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just aren't enough independent sources around to save this article. I would prefer to merge it, but there's no appropriate "parent article" to put it in. Lovelac 7 16:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really doubt that "all students unions have inherent notability." 1) They are always local in scope, since they are connected to a particular campus. 2) They rarely (if ever) have an reliable third party coverage. 3) Once you delete all of the unverified, unencyclopedic, original researched material, all that remains is a stub. So, it just makes sense to merge the students unions into their main article. 4)WP:UNI's own standards call for students unions to be merged into the main article.

"Student life - Here is also a good place to mention ...students' union activities" (from Wikipedia:UNI#Structure)--RedShiftPA (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, non-notable organization that fails WP:ORG as it has no significant coverage in reliable and independant secondary sources. Collectonian (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's notable unto itself. Reliable sources will come. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 17:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I doubt WP:RS will come. I looked them and I only found incidental mentions of the TJCSGA and these: [40] and this myspace profile [41]
Delete I guess I'll finally begin to comment on every single SU that's being AfDed. I'd say merge, but this is not an ordinary SU where it only represents in one specific college/university. Therefore, each university/college TJCSGA represents may note their SGA in their respective "Student life" sections of their university/college's main article. (Oh, and Comment: User:RedShiftPA needs to learn how to not fall asleep on the keyboard. The redundant tildes are very annoying since it screams "I have a massive ego and I want to flaunt it with many many signatures".) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - such bodies need secondary sources that meet WP:ORG. This one hasn't and doesn't. TerriersFan (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable; fails WP:ORG. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 13 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 per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Rezko[edit]

Not noteable in and of himself, infamous only because of gossip about Obama Timothy Horrigan (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep all I have to say is "Tony Rezko" -site:wikipedia.org. Rezko is clearly notable. The article could do with some serious expansion beyond the Obama rumors, but we can't expect articles to start out perfect. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This information pertains to an active trial of a person linked to currently serving politicians. This absolutely belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.139.178 (talk • contribs)
Strong keep, possibly speedily. Article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted..--TBC !?! 05:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although he is now best known because Obama is running for president, he was already a notable and major Chicago real-estate developer before there was any real hint of scandal, and became more prominent after Rod Blagojevich, for whom he was a key fundraiser, became Governor. There was a protracted lawsuit with Papa John's Pizza as well. He's a classic example of Chicago clout; Mike Royko is probably sorry he missed it. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear and SNOWy Keep Current events newsmaker -- RoninBK _{T C} 06:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snowy Keep You pretty much can't get away from Rezko trial details on Chicago media currently, a huge case, especailly because of the accusations with Obama and Blagojevich. Nate • (chatter) 06:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable enough to be kept; the editors should make sure it does not entirely surround his relationship with Obama, though (it's about Rezko himself, not simply his relationship to Obama). The current articles is blatantly POV (it would be better titled "Barack Obama's relationship to Tony Rezko"). -Rosywounds (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would be independently notable for his circumstances even if Obama had never heard of the guy. bd2412 T 07:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep but i'm sure the nominator would have pushed for deletion if he'd been associated with John McCain too. 121.217.107.8 (talk) 07:52, 6 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside)[edit]

Yet another fork of Vector (geometric). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector (physical), closed as delete. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AfD / nom. Article has little/no content. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vector (geometric) or Rename to something like History of vectors. It has very little content other than an outline made from section titles, but the section titles suggest that this article, if fleshed out, would be a historical article. That is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. However, given the lack of actual content at present, it could also be merged into a history section in the main vector article. If the history section there expands too much, then it can be spun out again following summary style. --Itub (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a rename to something like "history of vector analysis" assuming it was properly mathematical history, not forking mathematical content. Before that though, I would expect some content in the body of the article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even in its current stub+outline form, the article is illuminating. It is doing the right thing by starting with lots of sources rather than lots of OR. It just needs tagging for improvement and then fleshing out. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list of sources does not an article make. There is literally no content whatsoever in the body of the article. While this might be a great candidate for userfication, it is not acceptable for mainspace right now. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see relevant editing policy which states:

However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve

...

During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential... Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection is not required. Content/context is. This is not a first draft - it is a zeroth draft. "A random collection of notes and factoids" I do not think includes the empty set of factoids. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a lede, it has a good outline in the form of section headings and, most importantly, it has good list of sources such as the prize-winning History of Vector Analysis. It is already superior to many mathematics articles which are utterly lacking in sources such as Coordinate vector. It is they that are empty of the most important content. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address my point. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have a point. I have cited clear policy showing that the current half-baked state of the article is acceptable and even desirable. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I have explained that this policy applies to articles with content, not "outlines." Those are not articles. Lack of any/all context/content is a criteria for deletion (if not speedy deletion). If somebody has a draft of an entire article, then throw that policy around all you want. This isn't an article. It's not even a random collection of factoids. It's a random collection of section headings. And, relevant here, if someone is trying to make a content fork, there better at least be some content. It has been suggested, time and again, that this be USERFIED if necessary, until it is an actual article with some content. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings which provide a structure to develop the lede are an example of the notes which the policy describes. Laying out an article in this way is a standard technique which is often recommended to writers. It is a sensible way of starting a new Wikipedia article which is fully supported by our policy. If you have any contrary policy to cite, please do so. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you think so, but a collection of section headings has never been enough for an article. Articles require content. If you believe otherwise, fine, I will no longer discuss this with you since this basis for your singular "keep" opinion doesn't even address the rest of the highly valid concerns raised here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your unsupported assertion is contrary to the policy cited which states, One person can start an article with, perhaps, an overview or a few random facts. One simply has to click random article a few times to see that we have many stubby articles with less content than this one. Here's a fresh example: Rosetta, Belfast. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Itub. This article is a POV/content fork on the history of vectors. Spatial vectors (physical vectors, whatever) were not originated by Heaviside and Gibbs. See the talk page Talk:Vector (geometric). For my own part, I have indicated that the modern usage of vector in connection with mathematical physics clearly predates the contributions of Gibbs/Heaviside. User:Arcfrk furthermore has suggested that we tread very lightly when it comes to the history of vectors. I agree wholeheartedly, and believe that any article which attempts to address the issue must be started with broader support than this one has. Issues surrounding the history need to be discussed at length. Editors involved need to attempt to reach consensus rather than creating a new article anytime they can't seem to get their own way. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Vector (geometric) contains no history nor purports to present a history, how is this a fork of the topic? And why do editors have to ask the permission of you or User:Arcfrk before venturing to write an article on the topic? Please see WP:OWN. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I fail to see how the WP:OWN charge is warranted here, and I strongly do not appreciate it. Please see Itub's remark above, which I was agreeing with. If more history can be included, and done so accurately and conforming with other Wikipedia policies, then by all means do so and rename the article to History of vectors. Otherwise it contains very little in the way of actual content, and the "history" it will undoubtedly attempt to present will be inaccurate. There is absolutely no doubt that Gibbs and Heaviside were not the originators of the notion of a spatial/physical vector. Furthermore, their vectors are indistinguishable from those of Hamilton and Clifford. Interested parties can go and read the thread at Talk:Vector (geometric) (or not, I really don't care.) Silly rabbit (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially no content, POV fork. Quale (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the text (but not the empty headings) into a "History" section of Vector (geometric). (I'm not sure there's much point leaving a redirect behind as no-one's going to type "Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside)" into the search box, but I guess it does no harm.) Userfy in addition to preserve the outline so the author can flesh it out if wished. If it expands considerably it can then be split into a "History of vectors" article. Qwfp (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork with little content. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content. There is potential here for an article on the history of vectors, but a POV fork seems a bad way to start it. See also Silly rabbit's comments above. -- Fropuff (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears that there is no such thing as a "Gibbs-Heaviside vector". This google search returns 91 results, but excluding the obvious cases "Gibbs-Heaviside vector analysis" and "Gibbs-Heaviside vector algebra" yields only 6 hits, one of which is to the Wikipedia page, and for the others "Gibbs-Heaviside vector" is a modifier on some other word, such as "calculus" or "cross product" (which was actually invented by Lagrange, but I digress). Since the term "Gibbs-Heaviside vector" to refer to an actual type of vector appears to have been invented by this article, the article clearly needs to rethink its choice of nomenclature as it relies exclusively on a WP:NEOLOGISM and a rather idiosyncratic view of history. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change and KEEP (I am the author.) If Silly Rabbit and others are agreeable to a keep on condition of a title change, then let me propose that the title be changed to Gibbsian Vector (my original source is a book, though 287 Google hits on the exact phrase "Gibbsian Vector" exist with its usage largely being a noun phrase, while 8,890 hits exist for the unquoted phrase of Gibbsian Vector). Perhaps this is best left as a future question to someone at the level of steward, but for now I might add that I would certainly like to believe that an established adjectival phrase merely used as a noun phrase in wikipedia would be within the bounds of wikipedia policy. --(talk) 01:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the off chance that this becomes useful to our discussion, my understanding is that the geometric representation of a complex number and its multiplication by another complex number was the origin of the algebraic "cross product" (i.e., vector product), while the multipication by its complex conjugate originated the idea of an algebraic "dot product" (i.e., scalar product). As far as I know, the first documented and accurate demonstration of such a geometric-algebraic interaction/operation was by Caspar Wessel in 1799. Were Silly Rabbit to provide a book reference discussing Lagrange's discovery of the "cross product," then I would gladly read it since his understanding differs from mine. (He or she is welcome to add the reference to my user page, should it prove too much of digression for this page.) --(talk) 01:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrange, J-L (1773). "Solutions analytiques de quelques problèmes sur les pyramides triangulaires" Silly rabbit (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triple product#Note --Firefly322 (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content-free, misnamed, redundant. Forking the article is the wrong resolution to a content dispute and should not be encouraged. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a FORK. It's a totally legimate, respectable, and separate topic as defined by its references. All fork-based votes here and in the earlier debate ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector (physical)) should be disqualified on the grounds that their casters demonstrate a lack of understanding about such basic wikipedia criteria as references. References and not an editor's sense of truth (not even that of an MIT professor) are how topics are legitimized or not on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly, we all know you disagree. You've said your opinion. You cannot then stand up and demand that all votes that disagree with you be disqualified because they disagree with you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to the facts. Are editors here saying that they disagree with reliability of the provided references on Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside)? None of its references nor any of its content ever existed on Vector (geometric). A fork would be where actual content is either separated or copied to another article. The Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) article content and its references are completely new. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facts? Hit CTRL+F (Apple+F for mac) and type in reliab. Notice that the only place on the page where the word "reliable" "reliability" or anything like that is mentioned is right where you just said it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're being uncivil and you're not addressing the points. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly, you aren't making any valid points. Saying so is not uncivil. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Silly Rabbitt, Fropuff, Oleg Alexandrov, and David Eppstein. Michael Kinyon (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the notability issues, the page is empty RogueNinja_talk 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this AfD and the earlier one on vector (physical) are being and have been employed as "battle grounds", then dispute resolution should have been used instead. WP:NOT#BATTELGROUND --Firefly322 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AfD is the appropriate venue if one of the possible outcomes is the deletion of the article, unless it's thought that the author could be convinced the article should be deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or, failing that, merge with History of quaternions. Though I don't particularly like its title, this could become a nice little article on the early history of 3-vectors in physics. Cardamon (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not an article, it is an outline of what an article might look like some day. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take another look? I just hid the outline. It is in fact an article, albeit a small one. Cardamon (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now that the outline is gone, it should clearly be renamed to "History of vectors" (per above) or merged into Vector (geometric). The existing text does not make the case that there is something called "Gibbs-Heaviside vector" and that this is in any way distinct from spatial vectors, on which there is an article already. silly rabbit (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "History of vectors" might be a better name, but perhaps it is too broad a title for this article, which is about only some of the strands in the history of vectors. I could see it as a section of a future "History of vectors" article, or as something like "History of 3-vectors". Cardamon (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename to history of vectors.--Salix alba (talk) 11:57, 15 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. There are several articles related to this one which may/may not be subject to their own afds in the near future, as listed here by User:Mstuczynski. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Excelencia[edit]

NN band. One album, tone is spammish. Repeatedly recreated after A7 and G11 speedy deletions, so I thought a debate this time would be best. Mango juice^talk 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no non-trivial references here so this fails WP:N, there is no indication that this qualifies under any of the WP:MUSIC criteria, and this would also fail any reasonable interpretation of WP:NPOV. I would also like to bring up a WP:COI issue, as it turns out that the independent record label that signed this band, Handle With Care Productions Inc., was founded by two of the members, Julian Silva and Jose Vazquez-Cofresi, with this group as it only signed act. This fact makes a good case for WP:SPAM. In addition, every one of the group's members and their label have pages of their own on wikipedia, so I might suggest adding them all to this nom. Mstuczynski (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not include them. It would really help in those cases to clarify if the band is notable first. Mango juice^talk 13:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'd disagree that there are no non-trivial sources; that abstract suggest substantial reference. But it doesn't seem widespread, and there's no substantiation that they otherwise meet WP:MUSIC. (I can't find sources to support that international tour.) That said, they & their initial CD seems well received (sources with editorial review only): [42], [43], [44], [45]. If they do a follow-up release, they might find sufficient notability. (If the band is deleted, judging by the linked members, this is going to cause a cascade of follow up AfDs.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable band; may be big someday, but someday ain't now. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:04, 14 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, uncontested. Nandesuka (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sera (Gears of War)[edit]

This article should be deleted as it is entirely composed of unsourced and in-universe information about a non-notable subject. (Article fails WP:A, WP:WAF, and WP:N) Perhaps it could re-direct to Gears of War#Setting, but there are few articles that link to the it.--ShadowJester07 ► Talk 05:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources, no sourced assertion of notability. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 09:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fictional planet. User:Krator (t c) 12:48, 8 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 after the edits by Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) that address the reasons for this AFD. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dilly beans[edit]

WP is not a how-to! ukexpat (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly transwiki to WikiBooks. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook.--TBC !?! 05:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#HOWTO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is certainly not up to standards. It is also writing like an advertisment, as well as violating WP:NOT#HOWTO. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. Unfortunately, this violates Wikipedia's WP:NOT, but would be more appropriate at Wikibooks. I note that the originator of the article is new as of 6th March. Editors please be careful to support your arguments with evidence, and make clear statements about the content, so as not to bite the newcomers. --Darkprincealain (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is a notable part of New England food culture. WP:NOT#HOWTO can be used as a reason to remove the recipe from the article, but to delete the whole article would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It contains encyclopedic information on what dilly beans are, how they are served, why they were developed and where they are popular. There is also plenty of scope for expansion from sources such as Time Magazine, which is just one of 179 hits (the first non-paywall one) in the Google news archive that demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following the improvements made by Phil Bridger. --Pixelface (talk) 16:04, 9 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, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln (film)[edit]

Announced film which has yet to enter production (and may not for some time). Fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, wait until it at least enters production and has a reliable source (i.e., not IMDB). --Kinu ^t/_c 04:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films... this project has been perpetually in development for a good length of time, with no indication of active production on the horizon. No prejudice against recreation if production ever begins, and if Lincoln is even the title of it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Kinu and Erik mentioned, film guidelines dictate that articles on future films cannot be created until the film enters production.--TBC !?! 04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete I redirected this article again, after some IP restored without good reason. The film is not shooting for a long time, especially since Spielberg is working on Crystal Skull and Tintin. Alientraveller (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can just remove the AFD template and redirect it again. It should have been redirected in the first place, but now the AFD needs to play out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was bordering on suggesting putting the redirect back in, but with production so far off, it's probably better to delete it now under WP:NFF. If there's no content to go back to in the history (even that one stubby paragraph), it might help to dissuade editors from recreating it at the drop of a hat. Steve ^{T • C} 13:49, 6 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 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace O'Malley (film)[edit]

No evidence that filming has started; the article suggests that the script is still being written. Fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Film hasn't entered production yet.--TBC !?! 04:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this project is clearly not anywhere beyond development and thus does not meet the notability guidelines for future films. There is sufficient mention of the project at Grace O'Malley, and if production begins, a full-fledged film article would then be warranted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. This film is merely in development; in accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 13:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Coffee4me (talk) 16:57, 9 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 Withdrawn (non-admin closure), the article in the Jakarta Post provides sufficient notability in my opinion. Pixelface (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Senang Hati Foundation[edit]

Non-notable non-profit organization in Bali. Pixelface (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It appears to be a relativly well known organization in its region. I found quite a bit of information on it with a quick Google search. -Icewedge (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the typical press release, I couldn't find anything on Google to verify the notability of the organization. That might be attributed to the fact that it's a foreign organization, however.--TBC !?! 05:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — this would appear to be another bad-faith nomination targeting an article I started for the purpose of harassment and retaliation. Recuse. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good faith nomination. I don't see evidence this foundation is notable or why Wikipedia should have an article about it. --Pixelface (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that this is a bad faith nomination. Pixelface clearly isn't associated with Senang Hati (impersonator), the vandal, and there are some legitimate quality issues concerning the article.--TBC !?! 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jack, could you or some other editor explain how this article establishes notability or has the potential to show notability? Ursasapien (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~100 English GHits (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and another ~150 in Indonesian (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); no reliable, independent, non-trivial sources among them. cab (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An appropriate guideline for this article is WP:CORP. And the current six external references plus the official homepage all are not reliable, independent sources - therefore my vote. I'm sure this is a very good cause and they should get any publicity they can - but Wikipedia articles only are there to document any notability they may have once they do have it. I'm not convinced the article couldn't be kept though, just because google can't find coverage doesn't mean none exist. So if any of the editors knows about coverage about it - maybe some off-line Indonesian newspaper articles (not press releases/advertisements or trivial mentions, but by independent journalists) - they should say so. Else the article can be re-created once such sources get available. --Minimaki (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - no evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any sources granting notability. Some smallish mentions, and I might be persuaded if we have more of them, but at the moment I do not believe it has notability. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Has a few links but they are not reliable, independent sources and seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how you can call mentions such as this or this "trivial". -Icewedge (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also take this article(translated by google). It is in dutch but it is about the foundation and is over 2,500 words long. Explain why a 2,500 word document about the foundation is "trivial or incidental coverage". -Icewedge (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First ones a partner, the second a bodybuilding site? and the third another partner. I fail to how you can consider those reliable secondary sources. Perhaps you should explain why there are no mentions of this organization, over the past 7 years in 4,500 news sources--Hu12 (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:V does it say that non profit orginizations are not reliable sources. As for the body building site, I was just using it to refute your claim that there are no non trivial mentions which, as per my three examples, is wrong. -Icewedge (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve through regular editing per WP:AfD. This organization assists the ably challenged in Bali, arguably in the center of a technologically challenged part of the world. I hardly expect a non-profit-type enterprises doing this kind of work to have a functional press office let alone a computer. Many non-profits in "first-world" countries, like the United States, have been around just as long, done incredible work but also aren't making news headlines as that isn't always the goal and possibly seen as unhelpful - they simply do the work needed while simultaneously finding ways to address underlying issues. Also I would expect most of the verifiable coverage towards our standards to be buried in grants from foundations and governments which have their own technology challenges so it's of little surprise to me that this organization isn't written up by the New York Times. I also see no reason to doubt the references provided thus far. Are we claiming this is a hoax? If so it seems to be a complex and global one with unclear objectives. It would do well for the article editors to research what makes this organization unique and get the lede to spell that out quickly and clearly. Then some understanding of what they do and how as well as the history would help. Benji boi 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they have a worthy cause, however this is an encyclopedia, which has inclusion criterion. Notability is not synonymous with "importance.". Therefore Content that does not meet the inclusion criterion is removed.--Hu12 (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He never said the inclusion criteria are synonymous with importance... He is giving an explanation as to why there is less coverage of the group in U.S. and online media than orginizations of similar importance in the United States. -Icewedge (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, and I could have been more clear on this, my point is that organizations that likely would be considered noteworthy in "first-world" countries also don't focus on self-promoting, sometimes due to resources, sometimes politics or cultural concerns or for any other reasons. I see an organization in a less developed country as having an even further uphill battle to meet requires unknown to them. We are dealing with language barriers as well as sourcing issues. I'm not hearing that an editor thinks this is a hoax or fiction, simply that it needs better sourcing, writing to help explain the subject and its noteworthiness. Benji boi 04:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I have visited their centre; I helped repair their roof. They do have a few computers, but they have very limited English skills and have no idea what a press release might be. Many of them have never been to school at all. They are focused on their art,^[46] crafts and events that aid-types help them organize. They have the attention of aid organizations and arrange the connection to individuals in need. Many of their members hardly ever left the back room in a family compound until someone from Senang Hati showed-up and gave them a wheelchair and friendship (a back room with a dirt floor and no toilet). They have no idea that I started this article or any concept of what this site even is. They are mentioned regularly in local papers (in Indonesian, which I'm rather limited at). —Jack Merridew 10:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've had a look around and found quite a few references here and there, most notably a rather good article in the Jakarta Post. My feeling is that the Jakarta Post article establishes (sufficient) notability when Benjiboi's comments are taken into account and you consider the number of references to the foundation from other sources. I'm sure that more references will emerge through print publications and through translations of some of the other online materials. - Bilby (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination after seeing the article from the Jakarta Post. --Pixelface (talk) 14:02, 9 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 Nandesuka (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ajnabee Shehr Mein[edit]

Non-notable cancelled film. Fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable non-film. JJL (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the hell? It even says it's canceled. The Dominator (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NFF. Coffee4me (talk) 16:54, 9 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) 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Yelnats' Survival Guide to Camp Green Lake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stanley Yelnats' Survival Guide to Camp Green Lake

This "article" sounds more like a advertisement or a book summary than an encyclopedia article. Thisisborin9^{talk|contribs} 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When an article is tagged for proposed deletion, you can just leave it be and see if anyone contests it within the five days. If you wish, you can tag it with ((prod2)), to indicate that two editors have endorsed the deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 06:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's got a Publishers Weekly review and is a sequel to a NewberryAward-winning book. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sequel to a newberry prize winner is almost certain to be notable. DGG (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it may be a sequel to a prize winner, the book itself is not. The article provides no information about the book other than a brief overview of the plot (if you can call it that, even - as mentioned on the talk page, it's basically a back-cover blurb) and cites no reliable references. The reviews linked above are more-or-less plot summaries themselves, and lend no additional information, which is required by criteria 1 of WP:BK. I'm getting no reliable hits on Google either. Hersfold

I do not in general support articles merely in the vague hope there may possibly be material for them eventualy, but in cases like this there is almost certain to be. DGG (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^(t/a/c) 05:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep widely-read, bestselling sequel to major motion picture's source. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as being in New York Times bestseller list. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:46, 9 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. faithless (^speak) 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamile Ghaddar[edit]

No evidence of RS coverage or other notability for this unsuccessful candidate. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable person taking part in something notable isn't necessarily grounds for an article all about them. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a textbook case of a non-notable loser (of an election). There's really no counterargument unless more content comes to light. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:23, 7 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.

Ivan's Paradox[edit]

The result was speedy deleted by User:Orangemike (non-admin closure), speedy deletion per Wikipedia:CSD#G1. Ale_Jrb ^talk 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ivan's Paradox

Original research, no references. (Also trivially refuted, but that's neither here nor there.) Justin Eiler (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. Maralia (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just Speedy this as complete rot? Or at least throw a WP:SNOWball at it? Mangoe (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just double checked wp:speedy and can not find anything that fits this situation, but I will fire wp:or, wp:NFT, and wp:v at this and keep the snowball rolling. Mstuczynski (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject to re-creating the article when author wins Nobel Prize for 2008 mathematical discovery. Mandsford (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, lacks coverage in sources. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mstuczynski. How many editors does it take to make a snowball? Qwfp (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added "db-nonsense" with a reference to WP:SNOW and this discussion. Justin Eiler (talk) 18:00, 6 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the keep comments are exactly pertinent to the issue of hand: should this article be included? The arguments to delete are much stronger than the ones to keep. DHMO's link interested me, and I looked at the three articles, but I don't think they are very pertinent articles with a lot of information and centred on the murder itself, so DHMO's comment isn't that strong.

Murder of Jana Shearer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I'm re-nominating this page because the last AfD for it was a no consensus/check back in a month. It's been more than a month since and no edits to the article have been made. I'm a bit impartial to it, I'm only nominating it due to the outcome of the last AfD. Undeath (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E/WP:ONEEVENT (the two are confusing me these days) and/or WP:NOTNEWS. There is no evidence of notability beside her murder. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the first two don't really apply, since this is not a biography, but an article about the event itself. (This isn't meant as a keep argument; I just want to make sure you know what guidelines you're invoking.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, like I said, they confuse me. Basically, my deletion argument is that she isn't notable apart from the murder. I don't think the case of the murder is any more notable than another murder in terms of not being news. It would be different in my mind if she were known for something and happened to be murdered. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the article is about the murder, that she might not be notable except for the murder does not seem a logical reason for deletion DGG (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument isn't (or at least shouldn't be) that she is not notable outside the murder. The basic argument is that the murder itself is not notable. -- RoninBK _{T C} 06:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This murder has received far more media coverage than the average murder, and has captivated the attention of the American midwest. Even now, there is more being written, said, and discussed on this particular murder than the subject of most articles on Wikipedia. I see no reason why it should be deleted, only that it should be kept. EgraS (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lots of grandiose claims from EgraS, all totally unsubstantiated. WWGB (talk)

Keep The nominator offers no rationale for deletion. 121.217.107.8 (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. Previous AfD decision was to revisit in one month. Nominator is merely complying with this decision. If anything, the nomination rationale is the same for the previous AfD-- RoninBK _{T C} 08:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment EgraS is being investigated as a potential sock puppet. That makes that IP look strange too. Undeath (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABF. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're also suspected of being a conspiracy nut. Just because I am investigated for being a sockpuppet doesnt mean a thing. I can find ten random usernames and also post a sockputtetry notice on your talk page, and then mention that every time you post anything. EgraS (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither one of you are the subject of this debate, this article is. Let's try to keep it that way, and be WP:CIVIL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roninbk (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC) ...oops... -- RoninBK _{T C} 03:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from ghoulish fascination with cannibalism, where's the notability? WWGB (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There has been no news about this since it broke on January 7th. I said in the first AFD that if, in a month or so, there was nothing new, to delete it. It's been two, there is nothing new. Cougar Draven (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG. Still has sources. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable crime; only here because of the recentist bias inherent in our process here. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:02, 14 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/redirect with/to List of Marvel Comics mutants#J. Non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumbo Carnation[edit]

Non-notable comic book character whose article has no reliable sources, and for whom I could not find any upon searching. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to... ah, how about List of Marvel Comics mutants? BOZ (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and BOZ's suggested location seem reasonable, although see this discussion for other ways of dealing with these kinds of character. Also might be worth transwiking this to the Marvel Comics wiki. (Emperor (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Merge StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in-universe trivial non-notable character. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 13 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. faithless (^speak) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Hamilton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Autobiography of an apparently non-notable musician/actor. Apart from false positives and wikimirrors, I can't verify the dubious claim to notability, although I'm not sure that would provide notability for an individual member. No evidence he passes for WP:MUUSIC or WP:BIO for entertainers as I can't verify commercial work either. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: first AfD appears to be different person with the same name as there is no evidence of this Jerry Hamilton being a Mason TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only reference is a myspace page with extremely little content and no other sources present themselves after a quick trawl through google. -Icewedge (talk) 03:06, 6 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 speedily deleted as vandalism. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walentukiewicz[edit]

Notability not established, possibly hoax -- especially regarding the statement that he "lost everything (what) he had (even virginity)" and other rather dubious statements. No Google query results. seicer | talk | contribs 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as obvious hoax. I doubt an article that claims someone "born 1 May 1990" "began playing more seriously in 1991". The article also refers to a TV show called "Heads Up with Kuba Wojewódzwki", a phrase that gets no google results. -Icewedge (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. A Google search brings up a chess player by that name and birth date. This article has a WP:BLP problem along with WP:V. I don't know chess and so I can't judge notability. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- The article is clearly a hoax, article failed the google test. Steve Crossin (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Obviously a hoax. No proper Ghits. Visor (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete total hoax. There is no way it is possible for a poker player to turn professionally when they're one year old. Also proclaims that someone named "Adam Rogowski" won the 1999 World Series of Poker. The winner of said event was Noel Furlong. This whole article is filled with nonsense. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 14:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant misinformation/hoax - so tagged. Ale_Jrb ^talk 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Plainly nonsense. Nuke it. --BrucePodger (talk) 19:37, 6 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 no prejudice against recreation if/when she gets her "big break." This article fails A7 bio, could've been speedied as no assertion of importance. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jilana Stewart[edit]

Her small roles don't appear to have garnered any RS coverage and ghits don't provide any evidence she passes WP:BIO for entertainers. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not everyone on IMDb belongs on WP. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:25, 7 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 this article as it has evolved since its nomination demonstrates sufficient notability, although it has evidently been subject to inflated claims. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Life Ministries[edit]

There is RS coverage but it appears to be limited to the Washington/Idaho area and covering events at the church. No evidence this church/mission passes WP:CORP. It was speedied as G11, which I don't think applies in this re-creation, but I still don't see evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the size of the churrch is sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've encouraged the IP to bring the discussion here, but there's a discussion taking place on the Talk page about the notability of the church and other issues, including sourcing and NPOV. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking me to this page. I'll continue the discussion here. There is quite a lot of notability about real life. The leaders are asked to speak throughout the nation at conferences. Real Life ministries was noted in the Christian science magazine as the fastest growing church in America. I will continue to bring more notability to the table as I find the sources outside "local press". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As one of the 50 fastest growing churches in America, Real Life Ministries deserves encyclopedic mention. Opportunity to ensure truthful and neutral description is equally deserving. Real Life Ministries has been afforded almost two years of what has been perceived as advertising. The evidence noted by 'Censored' can be both researched and substantiated. The Citizens of Kootenai, County have a right to know how their designated tithes and offerings are spent, especially when the proposed expansions adversely impact quality of life. I urge Wikipedia to continue this listing for 6 months, restore the history, and closely moderate corrections to ensure accountability and neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainview (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not even assert notability, let alone establish it. Being "fastest-growing" is an inherently unsustainable condition and thus does not imply lasting notability. Who'll care when 100 other mega-churches have outpaced this one? Dethme0w (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can have the 100 articles. almost by definition, sufficiently large mega churches are likely to be notable. DGG (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, if they have sources to prove independent reliable source coverage. As it stands the article has none and I cannot find anything to back up its claim that's not from the church itself. Right now it's promotional and that's about it. There's no evidence to the claims -- or that it's even one of the largest. If it hasn't gotten coverage outside its local area where it operates, then it fails WP:CORP, as would any of the larger ones that don't establish notability. Just because we can have an article I don't think means we should if it doesn't meet standards TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for independent citations. With regret, I frequently accept that most churches that come up under AFD are NN and must be deleted. However if the claims are true (which i cannot judge), the rate of growth makes it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V is at the core of Wikipedia, it cannot be verified as you've said yourself. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research on Real Life Ministries growth and in Outreach Magazine they did a study in 2005 and 2007. Real Life Ministries did not have the percentage of growth that they say, but was still listed as one of the 101 Fastest Growing churches in America. I don't know how to list this as a citation. Here are the links: http://www.outreachmagazine.com/docs/top100_2005.pdf ,and http://www.outreachmagazine.com/docs/top100_2007_fastest.pdf --1TruthTracker (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been the target of relentless vandalism in recent months and would probably be a candidate for deletion in the cannibalized state in which it has been left. I have cleaned up some of the mess and added citation where needed. I see no reason why it should not remain. Bg357 (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLease do not remove AfD tags as you did here. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Reinstate AfD Message Obviously the church leadership feels that they can do whatever they want and ignore posted "warnings" not to delete certain content on this article. I found that I cannot "undo" their removal of the "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" warning. I guess the church leadership feels that they can settle this matter themselves without anyone elses approval. If they were not trying to hide the truth from their congregation, and anyone else, then why avoid the discussion and try to remove all of the proven facts on the Wiki article. They even put back on the old "Mission statement", from their old website (that no longer exists -- www.rlmin.org) that you removed, stating that it is from their current website, when in fact it can be proven, by going to their website, that the same thing is not even on there. It is different. And if you go to the Secretary of the State of Idaho's website; and look at their "Articles of Incorporation", they have indeed been recorded with the State as a "Church of Christ" church. Isn't a recorded document enough "proof" to reflect in their first paragraph, cited as such, the truth? Please do not let this church leadership "bully" or intimidate another organization, such as yourself, to hide the truth. Thank you.--1TruthTracker (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment it doesn't matter that it can be proven, it's entirely unencyclopedic and that's why it has been removed. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD has been restored, not sure when or by whom it was removed but the discussion is not closed, therefore it should remain. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "proven" point I meant to emphasize was the encyclopedic fact of Real Life Ministries being a "Church of Christ" church. I know why you deleted the Mission Statement. Sorry for the confusion.--1TruthTracker (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks any reliable independent sources that would verify the information in the article, and I wasn't able to find independent sources verifying the information with a google search. A claim has been made that the church was discussed in the Christian Science Monitor, but my search of their archives revealed no hits for the term. The discussions of whether or not the church is affiliated with the Church of Christ and whether or not the church's leaders are acting unethically are irrelevant; if the information in the article cannot be verified by sources outside of the church, then the article does not meet the verifiability standard or the notability standard. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A church this size is notable. Not having sufficient references is something that can be fixed, and not a reason for deletion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment verifiability needs to be established before its kept. I'm trying to clean up the inline citations TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't care how big it is, or how much its supporters argue for inclusion, without credible independent sourecs we don't have an article. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be deleted only if verifiability cannot be established, not because right now it doesn't have the references it needs. If every article was deleted because it hadn't yet been completely referenced many fine articles would have been killed before they got started. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment -has local coverage- [47][48], probably others. It all hinges on whether local coverage is enough for notability in a church? No google news hits that I can see. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 15:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Oops, sorry! I didn't know you were listing the citations under "references".--1TruthTracker (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Strong Keep per DGG, and Peterkingiron. I also agree with Guy that it needs better sourcing though. In the 23 seconds it took me to type "Real Life Ministries in Google News, I found at least one article in The Spokesman-Review (full article accessed through accessmylibrary.com), which is an independent, reliable source, asserts that The church...the largest in the Inland Northwest if not the Pacific Northwest, and Space is limited for the 7,500 people who attend weekend services. That number ballooned to 12,000 on Easter.. Also, towards the end of the article Putman said it could take 25 years to complete the new campus, which is planned as 10 buildings with a total of 458,000 square feet of space. It's organized around a village green that could include a two-acre artificial lake, two miles of trails and an amphitheater, in addition to a 3,500-space parking lot. Although local, (all churches are local aren't they? Denominations are the articles that need non-local verifiability) this place sounds significant, whether we like it or not. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spokane spokesman review. The thing is all churches probably have local coverage. I am undecided, I'm not an expert on google news search but when I put "real life ministries" in quotes, it didn't come up with anything at all. Maybe I need to search the archives or something. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 17:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that all churches probably do not have local coverage, at least not in independent, verifiable and attributable sources, beyond simple directories, press releases, and service listings. The fact that this church does (likely because of its size, growth, and commnity involvement) solidifies my "keep". An essay you may find relevant is WP:LOCAL, which says that places of local interest are best suited as subsections of the location (town, county, whatever), unless the parent article is overly long or, to take from the essay, It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article.. I think that's what we have here about this particular church. Most, but not all, local churches would fall under the category of "include in parent/location article". Churhces of historical significance, girth, growth, or notoriety would not. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears to be notable, well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Is there something that anyone can do about various people deleting verifiable and substantiated citations and references to the Real Life Ministries article?--1TruthTracker (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to semi-protect, and am not sure if it "kept". Bearian (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just confirmed, and I think my name will be in the log, to semi-protect this afd against contribs from IPs and new users. An unfortunate turn of events, and even though I said in ANI that I wouldn't do this, I did. I would be happy to be reversed by any other admin if it would lead to civil and uncluttered discussion here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 13 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 00:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Fascism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gay Fascism

Neologism. Sources provided don't even refer to "gay fascism", though some refer to "homo-fascism". The article seems to be mostly WP:OR and WP:SOAP. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fringe view preaching from a hate group. See also Homofascism - same author, exact same article. -- Lenky (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an actual topic discussed in neutral, reliable sources. Just like the "Allegations of ... apartheid" articles, it's simply using a nasty name to describe your political opponents. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, could eventually merit an article on the term as a term, much like Homosexual agenda, but not yet. I don't have time to re-learn the procedures right now, but can this be turned into a joint nomination with Homofascism? --Allen (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's a previously deleted article. I'll WP:CSD#G4 that one right now. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Homofascism seems like a topic covered in reliable sources, it's just not what the author of Gay fascism is trying to use it for. I stubbed that article back to the original meaning. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just a jumble of unrelated material. The idea that fascism - and particularly Nazism - is connected to homoeroticism is nothing new. It was very common in the 1930s (e.g. Swastika Night). But that's completely unrelated to the vague use of the word "fascist" as it appears here, to mean any form of behaviour that someone might consider to be bullying, or any kind of clannishness. The same editor created homofascism. All legitimate content can be placed in that article. Paul B (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:02, 12 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 00:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MIT cubed[edit]

Contested prod. Neologism limited in scope to a single university. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Allen3 ^talk 02:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ellen Spertus, for whom this phrase seems to have been invented (in addition to "the sexiest geek alive") Mandsford (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a generic use of cubed to mean a triplet. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some reliable sources mention it in passing (primarily as a description for Spertus), but there is not enough material to do a decent article on it. We don't seem to have an article on double domer either. Likewise, I've tried describing myself as an M&M, but that hasn't caught on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObiterDicta (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons (WINAD etc.). That's cool, though. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:49, 9 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 15:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DISK (student union)[edit]

Student organization for a single department of a university; non-notable. Prod tag removed. Paddy Simcox (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ORG, local org TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant here, this is a organization only for students in the Department for Computer and Systems Sciences at Campus Kista, Stockholm University. Paddy Simcox (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stems from the canvassing I mentioned to you TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry... Paddy Simcox (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all notable. _Talk Islander 19:18, 8 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IonIdea[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I'd have speedied under A11, however it was kept via a VfD 3 years ago and I think it's therefore ineligible for speedy. Regardless, it's spam including company contact information and purely promotional. Kept on the ground of ghits, but ghits!notability and RS coverage appears limited to press releases and directory information. No evidence it passes WP:CORP TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See http://www.ionidea.com/press.htm for additional news coverage, primarily in Indian media. --Eastmain (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment they appear to be multiple copies of the same press release and a joint venture announcement from 5+ years ago. Unless perhaps I was missing something? I still don't see significant RS coverage and if a company doesn't include anything recent on it's own site... TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another software development and consulting business using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. FWIW, this seems to be a Virginia corporation, not an Indian corporation, although they apparently operate in India. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable corporation spam prettied up with quotation marks. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 13 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Notability still not confirmed through reliable secondary sources Jammy Simpson | Talk | 01:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It establishes some notability since Mike Rudd was in the band and one of their records was produced by Peter Dawkins but without sources to verify this information, it doesn't mean much. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mike Rudd. Band isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article.--TBC !?! 05:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into Mike Rudd. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel (band), where the article was kept. Seemingly bad faith nomination. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Didhryo - it was notable and there easy references out there - what is everyone up to? please keep other issues off Afd Satu Suro 08:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Each of Jamaican Farewell (single 1974), I'll take you high (single, 1974) and A Strange Fantastic Dream (album, 1974) charted in Australia (refer [49]) thus meeting WP:BAND. I'll add this to the article Murtoa (talk) 08:55, 14 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) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romy Irving[edit]

The Christmas special role is confirmed via IMDb and a BBC press reelease but ghits are fairly trivial with no evidence she meets guidelines for entertainers. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of substantial coverage from reliable sources. — Scientizzle 15:50, 12 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. There is an apparent lack of substantial, reliable coverage from which to build a proper article. Google tests are insufficient to assert notability. Opinion of indef-blocked (effectively banned) user was completely discounted. — Scientizzle 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money as Debt[edit]

Delete This is fringe theory pushing and soapboxing, which is neither notable nor encyclopedic. This article is on an amateur documentary by an anti-semitic banking conspiracy theorist, originally only published on the internet (now with a home business, where he ships out DVDs he burns himself). It is the equivalent of Loose Change, except it's not nearly as well-known and is about gold bug conspiracies. It appears on various conspiracy theory sites and obscure blogs, but has never been referenced by any mainstream or academic sources because it's silly nonsense. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article has been speedy deleted in the past, with different spelling. [50] ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a similar article which has been deleted in the past: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Money Masters. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable documentary. --SyntaxError55 ^talk 01:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not establish notability via independent references that are not blogs & such. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - rapidly and with extreme politeness.--Gregalton (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been reviewed favorably on-line. It's "fringe", but so what? This argument has been used relentlessly by Zenwhat and Gregalton to stifle debate before and it's a weak circular argument, dangerously close to censorship. It's fringe because trol...sorry....people like Zenwhat keep deleting it. Leave it for six months and I guarantee it wouldn't be "fringe" much longer. However the banks may have a slight PR problem. Which, truth be known, is what it's really all about, ain't it guys?--KarmasBlackSwan (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)←Sock of banned editor Karmaisking (talk · contribs)[reply]

One more point, before I get killed off (again). Screaming that something or someone is "anti-semitic" or is "mad" or is a "conspiracy theorist" is nothing other than a smear. It's an ad hominem argument at its most childish and pitiful. Not one substantive criticism of the video has been made other than it being "fringe". Calling someone a Nazi doesn't sound much like an argument. Oh... by the way... many anti-banking gold bugs were Jews. The great Murray Rothbard. The great Ludwig von Mises. To name two. I assume they were "self-hating Jews" because they had legitimate (some would say brilliant) insights into the parasitic evils of fractional reserve banking? I don't care whether Catholics, Jews, Scientologists or Martians support "unhinged" frb - if they do, they are mad, bad and dangerous to be around. Run, run like you are running away from contagious cancer.--KarmasBlackSwan (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)←Sock of banned editor Karmaisking (talk · contribs)[reply]

Delete (gross NPOV violations unlikely to be corrected) --Doopdoop (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagreement with claims made in the movie is not a reason for deleting the article. The article doesn't and shouldn't take the position argued in the movie. It's an article about the movie; the movie exists and is being distributed. This article is the logical place for facts/criticisms/etc. about the movie to reside. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several reasons, see items below:
- Please read my new update of the article with a new academic reference. I've been starting to scan through some databases of academic journals and international news at my university library, and found immediately an article in Anthropology Today written by economic anthropologist Keith Hart, who reviews the film. Academic journals is normally not for free - if you want a copy of this article, please contact me. I beg you therefore to reappraise your views and possibly change your votes accordingly.
- I've also done some minor changes to the article, the least minor being I renamed it to Money as Debt (film) since Gregalton suggested so on the article's talkpage.
- Zenwhat: Please give me a reference saying that Paul Grignon is an anti-semitic. If you don't have any reference meeting up to Wikipedia's standards, please stop from using unfounded statements in this debate.
- Doopdoop: I cannot see why this article violates grossly NPOV. I've tried to give an objective description of the film and its reception, that's all. Please explain yourself.
- A google search on <"loose change" avery> gave approx 100 000 hits, and on <"money as debt" grignon> approx 18000 hits. Okey that's less, a fifth, but it's still a huge amounts of webpages, which implies you cannot say it's non-notable compared to Loose Change.
- Remember the article is a stub, and you should give it some time to be improved.
- Editorial comment for this articles for deletion page: Since the template DeleteVote seems to be deleted, I've changed the beginning of every vote to simply Delete or Keep. I've also structured the contributions by means of indentation so it's easier to read. And I've readded KarmasBlackSwans comments as her/his vote is as good as anyones even though she/he is banned, and also her/his contribution was made before she/he was banned, and, finally, in my opinion her/his contribution is holding a not too disturbingly violent tone. Mårten Berglund (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Accusations of fringe, NPOV, and soapboxing are not reasons to delete an article. Notability is the only criteria required for an article to be included in Wikipedia. I do not think this film is significantly covered by reliable, independent sources. Existence of a topic does not mean it should be included. "Significantly covered" does not mean a single source. I have also tried to find more reliable sources, but after searching I do not think this film is significant enough yet. If 2 or 3 more reliable sources are found (not all within the same field), then I will change my vote to a keep. --EGeek (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Anthropology Today (a publication of the Royal Anthropological Institute) is a very reliable source, and a quick search reveals plenty of discussion elsewhere; academic sourcing is just as significant as sourcing from America's hit-and-run commercial media. That aside, the nominator's description of the documentary is maliciously inaccurate. The documentary is a criticism of fractional-reserve_banking, and has nothing to do 9/11, antisemitism, or gold bug conspiracies whatsoever; the nominator's comparison to Loose Change (a documentary which claims that the American government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks) is especially offensive. Shem^(talk) 23:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the subject being mentioned in an academic journal does not establish notability, certainly if we have no idea what the text says. (Nor would a passing mention in other media).--Gregalton (talk) 07:55, 12 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. Marginal notability concerns are secondary to a lack of reliable sources to produce an article that meets WP:V and WP:BLP. — Scientizzle 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Anne Allman[edit]

Fails WPBIO. Bit player with no substantial resume, few google hits to empty pages, and no references cited in the article. Writing reeks of a vanity page. Lenky (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Marginal notability, but no non-trivial secondary sources. In addition, the text as it exists is blatant plagiarism and possibly a copyright violation from here [51]. Mstuczynski (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable enough. How many works did she had to do to become notable? Thirty aren't enough? Just because some of the biografical elements are plagiarism it doesn't justify a whole deletion, since her roles are still to be mentioned. G.-M. C. 12:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty, sure, but the majority are one-off appearances in TV shows, none are featured roles. The only possible exception I can see is a short recurring role in The Shield. And "some" of the biographical elements aren't plagiarism - all of them are. I think you should peruse the criteria for WP:BIO. The defining phrase, I believe, is this: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. Jamie Allman does not fit this criteria. -- Lenky (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I addressed this concern, but to clarify. Her notability is marginal, but maybe enough to qualify, the issue is lack of reliable sources and thus verifiablility. I actually went looking for reliable sources to save this article but was unable to find any. Mstuczynski (talk) 19:43, 6 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, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TruDef[edit]

Unverifiable and Non-Neutral Spot (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its interesting to note Scott Draves (Spot) has been editing his own Wikipedia pages in blatant violation of NPOV policy. The pages in question are Scott Draves and Fractal Flames. I am by no means an expert on dealing with such obvious violations of Wikipedia's policy so I ask for assistance in putting a stop to his blatant self promotion and hawking of wares.--Editor5435 (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The TruDef article is for a unreleased product of a company (TMMI) and is sourced only from their web page, in violation of WP:V. The text reads like an advertisement in violation of WP:NPOV. This is total corporate vanity. The editor responsible is an WP:SPA that goes by two names, Editor5435 and Technodo. It should be removed forthwith. Spot (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (refactored per User_talk:Spot --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Invalid comment, verification has been provided that SoftVideo has a history of commercial use. SoftVideo has been renamed TruDef.--Editor5435 (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Talk:Fractal compression for some history of the dispute between Spot and Editor5435. --Canley (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Issues of editor disagreement and conduct aside, this article does not go far enough in citing independent sources.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article indeed has multiple issues, and I doubt they can be remedied, so for now it's best to delete it. Once we have plenty of independent reviews on the performance of the compression, sources talking about its use in high profile products, and scientific papers examining the algorithm and citing it as the one commercial success using this technology, a new article can be created. Or actually, even if one of those happens and to a lesser extent, I think it would be enough. Some gaming magazine spending half a page on how this codec made the video quality in the games it was used so much better probably would make it borderline - but the manual of a game is not an independent source and won't help. --Minimaki (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article can be restored at a later date when more content is available. Currently it consists of a single sentence which specifies a name change and reference showing prior use of the software. Its not very important and certainly not worth all of this controversy and libelous statemenst made by a certain individual.--Editor5435 (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SoftVideo is almost an exact duplicate of TruDef. --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the only difference is a name change but never the less provides readers with useful information who may search that name.--Editor5435 (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic. To keep, it would require a lot of fixing.Mm40 (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the amount of work involved is overwhelming, I'm in favor of deletion. Readers can always search Google.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unreferenced factoid. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok it's been five days and nobody has stood up to keep this page. I think it's time to close it and would prefer if someone more neutral than I could handle this process (but I will get to it in a couple of days otherwise). Spot (talk) 22:09, 11 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. — Scientizzle 15:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tproxy[edit]

I redirected this to Proxy server, but the author reverted me, however I feel this article is pointless as we already have an article on proxies. The redirect is not obvious anyway, it might as well be deletedJackaranga (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Jackaranga (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of RS coverage and ghits don't assert notability to re-write the article into something encyclopedic. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It may have found a place in Wiktionary, but usage isn't common enough. 9Nak (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect - this is actually widely used in industry - but I can't see it needing its own article - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, is there any way then to keep the creator from reverting that, which is the original issue? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's a problem, the redirect could be protected just like any other page. bd2412 T 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashen Temper[edit]

Nom-de-plume of a video game software designer. Fails notablity requirements, probably conflict of interest in its creation. Lack of reliable, third party sources. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note this afd has no link within the afd template on the article page. I'm not sure what is wrong with it. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with it now... — Scientizzle 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as NN-biog - Alison ^❤ 10:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A biography of a screen name. No thanks. This is not a person. Utgard Loki (talk) 20:54, 6 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. bd2412 T 19:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitotsu[edit]

Preproduction film with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch for title + either star yields zero non-wiki ghits. Prod back in January was contested. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MOVIE. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per future film guidelines. JJL (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N -- WP:NFF would've applied if there was some secondary and significant coverage from reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage and it doesn't sound like the script is even finished. --Pixelface (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wp:movie ! --Camaeron (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF —Coffee4me (talk) 16:48, 9 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 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of photovoltaics companies[edit]

I don't see how this can ever be anything more than a spam magnet. Plus, Wikipedia isn't a mere repository of links, lists of companies, etc. John Reaves 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have lots of company lists on WP (see [52]) and I guess any of these could be called a "spam magnet". It would be useful if you could indicate why this particular list is causing a problem. Or are you against all company lists? Johnfos (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was well managed, I wouldn't have a problem with it. This one lacks claims of notability. No comment on the other ones, I just wish to address the issue at hand. John Reaves 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we should make some improvements to this list and keep it. For example, I think we could have a lead paragraph explaining that photovoltaics is the fastest growing energy technology in the world at present, and that a substantial industry has grown up. And we could open the list with the Top 10 companies, and then maybe include some notable IPOs, and probably weed out some of the non-notable cos. I would be happy to make these sorts of changes if others agree. Johnfos (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your willing to do that, go right ahead. Just be sure to keep an eye on it. Theoretically any company listed would be wikilinked... John Reaves 03:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnfos (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious keep provided the article could be rephrased as suggested above to ensure that only noteworthy companies are included. As it stands, the article could end up as a never-ending list. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Comment The section Other companies states "Other notable companies include..." but with no definition of what classes as notable in the article, you run the risk of any company loosly associated with the technology being included. Tidy that up, and I would be happy to change my vote to lose the word "cautious". StephenBuxton (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although that kind of specific technology companies can't be so well known as some "mainstream" companies, they are notable for the specific sector and therefore the list is worthy to be kept. There is also recent improvements, so hopefully all mentioned problems would be fixed. Beagel (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - highly encyclopedic listing of companies in the fastest growing energy technology in the world. It is no more a spam magnet than any other article. Personally, I believe this is the kind of Article that brings new readers/editors to WP. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "spam magnet" is not and has never been a deletion criterion - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 9 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.