< May 17	May 19 >

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

The result was Speedy delete - author request. VegaDark (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VFKBuddy[edit]

Unsourced spam - unreleased support software for an unreleased vitual world. No third party sources for either. Vary | Talk 13:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

delete for notability concerns unless independent, reliable sources are supplied to verify that this subject is currently notable enough for inclusion. I discussed the kind of sourcing needed with the creator on the talk page yesterday and s/he may yet produce something which might change my opinion, but I'm not sure that these can be supplied at this time. I could not find anything on a search myself. (Google currently produces 3 hits, Wikipedia and a fan forum.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I suggest that this be incorporated with the Virtual Family Kingdom deletion nomination per WP:BUNDLE? Debate (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Well, it's not my nomination, but I will note that while I can see the value of that, I can also see the value of listing them separately. It's possible that the game will prove to be notable even if the support software does not. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Virtual Family Kingdom currently has an Alpha-release fanbase much the size of that of what Disney's Virtual Magic Kingdom was, and there are well over 30,000 registered people awaiting the Beta release. With this caliber of membership, we're thinking it will become as notable as the Virtual Magic Kingdom since it was made almost as a "replacement" for that game. However, I don't oppose the deletion of the VFKBuddy page I stupidly created, since it probably won't achieve the same notoriety as the game ;) Please feel free to kill the VFKBuddy page. 69.231.133.143 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Oops... sorry, that last comment was from me (ParanormalHawkster). I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. My mistake! ParanormalHawkster (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete for my general stupidity in creating the page. ParanormalHawkster (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'll tag the article for deletion on author request, which should result in an uncontroversial deletion of the article and close of the AfD. (I won't do it myself, since I've commented here.) But there's no stupidity in contributing material to Wikipedia in good faith! We appreciate your contribution. It can be hard to get the hang of the project's conventions, especially when it comes to the notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be recreated provided it lists more ports that just that one. Sandstein 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of world's busiest ports by shipping tonnage[edit]

List that contains only one entry in each category. Additional citations for other entries (nor other entries) not added since July 2006. Jklamo (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I'll take "Singapore" for $200, Alex. Mandsford (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This list is a good idea, however, as it is now it is completely useless. I really wonder why so many people have edited it, without more content being added. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of one is not a list. The fact that Singapore has topped such a list can be easily covered in Singapore. Oh wait, it is *and* it's sourced. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This is a potentially valuable list, provided it is expanded. At present it is a useless stub, but if it listed 10 or 20 ports, I would certainly recommend keeping it. Compare List of world's busiest ports by cargo tonnage, but I suspect this list would have much the same ports in much the same order. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celia en el mundo[edit]

Fails WP:BK. It has no notability, no major coverage in third-party reliable sources, and the article is completely unreferenced, despite including plot analysis and interpretation, and consist primarily of plot summary and a completely unrelated mention of the television series that it was not adapted for. Not even sure the purpose of that section. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that WP:BK C3 doesn't apply here, unlike possibly Celia en el colegio. The series as a whole, however, is clearly notable, if only only on WP:BK C3 grounds, so at worst a merge to a series article. Given what I'm finding online, it shouldn't be too hard to reference the notability asserted in the article; I'd do it myself, but my Spanish is rusty enough I don't trust myself to fully evaluate the reliability of sources. Withholding !vote till others have a chance to research. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Celia books are the Little Women and Anne of Green Gables of Spain, they're classics. Why on earth should they be dropped? The books were not written to support the television series, the series was made due to their popularity among children for over seven decades.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep need to avoid recentism and systemic bias. Book is of notable author. Not a tie-in as it antedates the TV material. Criteria 3 and 5 look likely to be fulfilled to me. Book sourcing can be difficult online due to wading thru online booksellers. Should notify spanish wikiproject methinks. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has nothing to do with either "recentism" nor "systemic bias." If author is notable, why does she have no article either? Online searches for information about her almost all book store listings. If she's notable, please actually show it rather than just say it. Give the sources and fix the articles. Also, from above del sorts, Spanish project was notified. FYI, though these are claimed by the creator to be "classics" and important to Spanish literature, there are no articles for any of the Celia books on the Spanish Wikipedia. There is a single very brief article on the television series and a brief one on the author.AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of online content means little in this case - many older notable folks lack articles - much of the online info on various notable people is meagre at best and there are requests all over for various redlinks. Doesn't worry me. I have this hope we can do better research and sourcing than just googling for a few minutes. I have found books essential for all my FAs and an increasing number of my GAs too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can you do the same here is the question. Its not enough to just say "I'm sure sources exist" but they must actually be provided to point out the notability of this specific book. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't as I am not familair with the material. I am extrapolating that there would be from what I have seen and the depths to which material of similar calibre has been covered. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AnmaFinotera, how about understanding a subject and being familiar with it before deciding or judging upon its notability? The arguments you make here are pretty poor; very immature of you to attack the subject by purposely renaming it to "Cecil" (twice), what's Celia done to you? You may be surprised to know that the Spanish Wikipedia lacked an article on Spain and the Deutsch Wikipedia lacked an article on Germany until one was began for each. You should stick to Wikipedia's standard criteria and not rely on your own made up one, then claim that all these users simply "don't know the policies have changed." So far, all your nominations for deletion have been antagonized and not been supported once; this makes your credibility seriously questionable. Please refrain from reviewing further articles of my creation, I'll prefer someone who uses the standard Wikipedia known to all serious contributors, not just yourself. Also, do something about that angry tone you can't help but show in all of your recent comments regarding these articles. Thank you very much and no, this comment isn't meant to "attack." T.W. (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry, but many of my nominations for deletion have resulted in deletion. Few of my nominations have been "antagonized" and most have been supported. Telling falsehoods is another form of an attack. You incited the angry tone with your completely uncalled for abuse. And yes, I made a typo, big deal, everyone makes them. We're human. One does not have to understand or be familiar with a particular subject to judge its notability. If its notability is not clear and not supported by sources, anyone can easily and properly say "it is unlikely to be notable." You've yet to actually provide any sources to back up your claims, instead choosing to viciously attack me and getting yourself blocked. If you're so certain it is notable and that I just didn't look well enough, then all you have to do is prove it and provide reliable sources to back up the extraordinary claims you've made. That is Wikipedia policy and it is the same standard known to all contributers who bother to read them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about your other nominations, I'm talking about the four you made against articles of mine in less than four consecutive minutes. No support, which I repeat puts your credibility at risk. I'm beginning to reconsider the use of images on other articles. You have a problem with everything, so as long as it is only you, I shouldn't be concerned on whether something violates any policies. Especially when someone reviews an article for "Good article" and declares that the use of something is perfectly acceptable. The typo was made on purpose, but I don't care and about going to waste my time arguing with you about it. As for the "abuse," oh you poor thing, I don't care or regret it. T.W. (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about my credibility, thank you. It stands just fine on its own. I strongly suggest that you do not start deciding you can ignore policies just because I was the one who pointed them out to you. And, in fact, these four nominations have not been "antagonized" at all. This one has one keep, and comments. I'll even be bold and note that Quasirandom and I generally work quite well together, and his comments are not antagonistic in the least. Deletion discussions are just that, discussions. Like all discussions on Wikipedia, we try to keep them civil and sticking to the information available. Sometimes people have different experiences and different information sources that can show that the deletion criteria is not met. Sometimes not. Its part of working in a collaborative environment. If others can show these books are notable, since you don't seem to want to do that work, and the articles are kept, that's fine. That's part of the process. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to presume that your remark about GA refers to the tags on The Rescuers and a GA review done a little over a year ago, before the non-free image policies were changed. What was considered fine then is not any longer per the Wikimedia Foundation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ignore Wikipedia's policies, if I were to do that, I'd have no business here. However, I do ignore your policies; when I read Wikipedia's rules on a subject and along comes you telling me that "it says that but it really is like this" (such as the episode-summary length issue), well, then I'm sorry, but what's officially written down is what I listen to, not what you think is best or what appeals to you. All your nominations have indeed been antagonized, as all have at least on Keep, which goes against deletion. For the record, everyone else I asked agreed that a book or film was eligible for Wikipedia as long as there was proof that it existed and that it was widely released to the public. Naturally, you tend to have your own views, so I'm not too worried. The books exist, are beyond notable, and future articles will be created as soon as I get hold of the books, whether they please you or not. I don't write to please you, I'm sorry. T.W. (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No use in arguing, let us end it here. How about next time you simply put up a request for references and sources rather than just nominate an article for deletion? I simply don't have the time right now to search for sources, I plan on doing it, but just not right now. Plus, a request gives other people the opportunity to go ahead and do so for themselves. I started the article, I never declared it complete or even close to being complete. Here: You need proof that these books are in fact consider classics and you will not take my word for it, that's fine. This is all I have time to share with you right now, I hope it'll make a difference. The publisher, not the author, not me, and not a critic, states on the very back of the book,"Celia es la protagonista del clásico infantil español por excelencia"("Celia is the protagonist of the Spanish children's classic for excellence"). This same statement appears on the backs of all first five books released by this publisher, which includes both Celia en el colegio (1932) and Celia en el mundo (1934). T.W. (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This article will prove useful. It seems that the best information shows up when I'm not looking for it. It is an interview had with the Spanish director José Luis Borau, where he states his belief that the best of children's literature in Spain has been that written by Elena Fortún. José Luis Borau is an important and well-known Spanish film and television director. Notable or not? T.W. (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the same article I posted above, Borau mentions that Carmen Martín Gaite, an award-winning Spanish author, who colaborated with Borau in writing the script for the 1992 series describes herself as a "Celia-addict". "Porque, como ella [Carmen Martín Gaite] misma se define, es una Celioadicta." Borau also mentions the devotion so many other Spanish authors had for Elena Fortún's work. "Carmen tenía siete años. Yo sabía de esa devoción por el personaje, y no sólo suya, sino de otros muchos escritores, como por ejemplo Ignacio Aldecoa, García Hortelano, Gil de Biedma, que han reconocido haber aprendido a escribir, sobre todo a dialogar, con los libros de Elena Fortún." This article also gives us the reason as to why the 1992 series was cancelled, as well as other useful pieces of information. So, it'll be a good source for a number of different articles, perhaps even Cristina Cruz Mínguez, as she is mentioned as well. Since you also question the notability of the author herself, well, Elena Fortún had a bust sculpted in her memory in the year 1957 by sculptor José Planes Peñalver. The bust stands at el Parque del Oeste in Madrid, Spain. [ http://recursos.cnice.mec.es/bancoimagenes/ArchivosImagenes/DVD02/CD01/h8866_a.jpg]T.W. (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sources provided so far, plus others found through Google Books, demonstrate the historic notability of the author (WP:BK C5) and strongly indicate passing C1 as well. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Glad to see someone appreciates the time and effort I took out of my unusually busy schedule yesterday in order to support these articles. *bows* T.W. (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominations can just about be reversed. The nominator has anger issues which influences her insisting that these articles should be removed at all costs. Her claim that an 18-year-old is not adult, despite federal laws contradicting her belief, well, uh-huh. There's further stuff out there, not only online but in published books and other mediums, so there shouldn't be concern. Like I said, and the nominator insists on ignoring based on the claim that I am "an immature child" lacking the time to spend my days looking up sources for the Wikipedia, these books are on the same level of notability as are the Anne of Green Gables sequels, and no one, not even the nominator herself, feels the need to contradict those. T.W. (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing to prove my point. The nominations will run their full course, like any AfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for proving mine all along. The nominations will not be interrupted, naturally, but we can guess on their outcome. Continue ignoring me, please, if you think I am an immature child based on whatever definition of maturity or immaturity you may have. T.W. (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add some of the criticism that is no doubt available, needs to be done by someone who knows the material & the language. DGG (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what offered, and a small personal enquiry in google books, convince me that this book clearly passes WP:BK C5.--Aldux (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). The consensus of the discussion is that the novel meets WP:BK C3 and C5. Darkspots (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celia en el colegio[edit]

Fails WP:BK. Minor tie to the television series is already covered in Celia (TV series), which was based on the whole series, not a single individual book. The books themselves have no individual notability, no major coverage in third-party reliable sources, and the article is completely unreferenced, despite extraordinary claims of being a great success, and consist primarily of plot summary and a blow-by-blow comparision to the three episodes. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An argument could be made that WP:BK C3 would apply even if only part of the television series is adapted from the book, as the wording's abiguous. In any case, the series clearly passes WP:BK C3, so at worst the article should be merged into an article about the series as a whole, and not deleted. Given the claims of popularity, though, it would surprise me if references supporting the notability of the individual books aren't available in Spanish. Withholding !vote till others have a chance to work on that. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note, btw, that even the English langauge sources in a Google Books search are highly suggestive, including one indicating the series' influence on the next generation of women writers in Spain. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then perhaps a merge to a single article on the series? AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to a merge, though at this point I strongly suspect each book can ultimate sustain an article on its own. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Celia classics by Elena Fortún, an important icon of Spanish culture, part of millions of childrens' lives are not eligible for the Wikipedia? Alright, I guess there Harry Potter articles should go out next. Do whatever. T.W. (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You call them classics, say they are an important icon, etc, but neither this nor the other article actually shows this. They are almost entirely plot point and your own original research. Where are the sources? If they are classics, then there should be tons of reliable sources you can use to give them proper articles. As it is now, from the articles themselves, and your own comments on the template deletion, you've basically been making articles with plots and your own thoughts on each book as you can acquire them. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, delete everything. Who gives a damn, not me. T.W. (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I give a damn, so there. Now get back here and help get these articles into wikiworthy shape. And AnmaFinotera, stop biting. They may be a bit heavy on the plot, but so are most book stubs. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked for insulting me in beyond inappropriate ways and continued personal attacks on his talk page that sent him to AN/I, blocking, and user talk page protection. Also, I was not biting. I gave the user a lot of help on the TV article, a lot of which dealt with the same issues. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep need to avoid recentism and systemic bias. Book is of notable author. Not a tie-in as it antedates the TV material. Criteria 3 and 5 look likely to be fulfilled to me. Book sourcing can be difficult online due to wading thru online booksellers. Should notify spanish wikiproject methinks. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has nothing to do with either "recentism" nor "systemic bias." If author is notable, why does she have no article either? Online searches for information about her almost all book store listings. If she's notable, please actually show it rather than just say it. Give the sources and fix the articles. Also, from above del sorts, Spanish project was notified. FYI, though these are claimed by the creator to be "classics" and important to Spanish literature, there are no articles for any of the Cecil books on the Spanish Wikipedia. There is a single very brief article on the television series and a brief one on the author. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of online content means little in this case - many older notable folks lack articles - much of the online info on various notable people is meagre at best and there are requests all over for various redlinks. Doesn't worry me. I have this hope we can do better research and sourcing than just googling for a few minutes. I have found books essential for all my FAs and an increasing number of my GAs too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can you do the same here is the question. Its not enough to just say "I'm sure sources exist" but they must actually be provided to point out the notability of this specific book. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the sources provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celia en el mundo and others found through Google Books demonstrate the historic notability of the author, thus passing WP:BK C5, and C1 as well. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what offered, and a small personal enquiry in google books, convince me that this book clearly passes WP:BK C5.--Aldux (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A series of books published for over 70 years and converted into a TV series appears notable. This article is in need of more citations, especially ones establishing its notability and importance. — λ (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears to meet criterion 3 of WP:BK, having been made into a TV show widely televised in Spain. — λ (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh[edit]

Non-notable church group. The high number of redlinks is a clue. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up and source; group has received attention in Anglicanism circles due to its activism in re opposition to a gay bishop and churches leaving the Episcopalian synods. NYT PPG Toronto Star WaPo --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources identified by Dhartung. Jakew (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Sorry, notability is barely marginal. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrogant Sons of Bitches[edit]

Also:

I don't see how this band satisfies WP:MUSIC's criteria for notability. No reliable sources among the references, and were never signed to a notable label. Recommend delete, along with associated albums. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, they fail to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: the unreferenced ones cannot establish the notability of the subjects. The references were to unreliable sources. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines.--Kubigula (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clitty Delish[edit]

Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Only 7 Google results for "Clitty Delish". Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable per WP:BIO. --RyRy5 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. Frank | talk 22:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE It seems the homophobia faced by Clitty Delish in her early career is still alive and kicking in the world today!! For a minority group in the world the Drag circuit has been and is still important as is remembering our icons. We may seem unimportant to you as you delete our memories. Enjoy and feel proud of yourselves for ridding the world of us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon star magic (talk • contribs) 08:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I don't think there is a WP:HOMOPHOBIA policy in effect here or anywhere on Wikipedia
I thought Clitty Delish was a drag queen, not a homosexual
Regardless of either of the above, it's notability that is at issue here. If you know of mentions in reliable sources that can be cited, please feel free to add them to the article. (Blogs and self-published sites typically don't qualify.) Notability needs to be independent and verifiable.
It is not clear to me why you'd think anyone is trying to rid the world of anyone. There are currently 119 pages in the drag queens category here on the English version of Wikipedia. Frank | talk 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination does not meet notability. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation. The source was Honson-Fitting.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecis (talk • contribs)

Brass fitting[edit]

I'm not sure what this article is about. Much of it is redundant with our article on brass, and should probably be merged into it. Part of it also comes across as original research. It might have been copypasted from a textbook, but I haven't been able to find the source. I have found the same material on a number of dubious sites (see [2]), but I don't really feel like putting my firewall and antivirus software to the test today. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gods and Idols[edit]

This is a non-notable game with no third party coverage at this point, as confirmed by the article creator on my own user talk. Erechtheus (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An obvious failure of WP:RS per "The problem is, there are no third party sources whatesoever as of this moment." from the above link. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If and when independent and credible third parties cover this game, then it might possibly be ready for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google search confirms lack of reliable sources--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources as established by Lenticel. Jakew (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Does not meet WP:RS, documented by Lenticel's google search. Rosiestep (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks for your contributions, Mr Hunziker, but we are a general encyclopedia, and thus not the best place to summarise one's research. Sandstein 21:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eye movement in ordinary tasks[edit]

Prod declined by author; escalating to next deletion step. Strange history - author originally cited his/her own work, then changed it. Too specific of an article title/subject with little supporting text - article consists of pictures and explanations. Probably WP:COPYVIO of new cited paper, but hard to tell as it's in German. Tan | 39 21:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not against foreign languages, but the salient points of this article are in German and aren't really of use to an English reader. Perhaps an article from the German Wikipedia needs to be translated? Frank | talk 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, short and insufficient context. WillOakland (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to add other examples to add to this article. I had already added one (eye movements in walking), but this was deleted without apparent reason.
I originally planned to add articles on eye-movements in language reading, in stress situations, in in chess - translated and adapted from my publication Hans-Werner Hunziker, (2006) Im Auge des Lesers: foveale und periphere Wahrnehmung - vom Buchstabieren zur Lesefreude [In the eye of the reader: foveal and peripheral perception - from letter recognition to the joy of reading] Transmedia Stäubli Verlag Zürich 2006 ISBN 978-3-7266-0068-6. Now I do not know if this is against Wikipedia standards even if I cite the original sources on which the articles in my book are based. Maybe someone can help me with this. Thanks.--Hans-Werner34 (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading that I still do not understand what the scope of this article is. Is it merely what you personally have written on this narrow subject? WillOakland (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britsound[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article shows two passing mentions of the Britsound radio show, one in The Independent and Time Out Chicago. This is not enough imo to make this radio show notable. The article itself claims that the show "is notable because it is the only radio show in America that plays just British music"; this too does not make a radio show notable. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete which could change if better sourcing from reliable sources could be found. - Dravecky (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems notable enough if some better references can be found.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete A little more research reveals that it's a barter show ("play our show on your radio station, we'll send it to you for free and there's 6 minutes of ad time you can sell if you like"), and it's only heard on 7 small over the air stations in the United States, 2 in the UK and one in New Zealand.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft 4[edit]

Game has not been announced anywhere. Hinting at something does not make it notable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Rockhound (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This site is not here to speculate on whether a game might be in development or not. Might I suggest if it's deleted that the space be salted/protected, kind of like what was done with the Starcraft II space until that game was officially announced. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of Salting this article until such a time as the game is announced, if it ever is. Rockhound (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I wish I could figure out how this should be speedily deleted under WP:CSD but I can't quite shoehorn it into there... Frank | talk 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Please Salt it too. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as long as we cannot verify the existence of the game itself. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Wishing it existed and then writing about it on Wikipedia doesn't make it so. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a chrystal ball. Come back when this has sources. However, salting may be a bit harsh. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 00:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect. If it does come out in four years, unprotect and allow the creation of the article. --Pixelface (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, incredibly straightforward application of WP:CRYSTAL. --Stormie (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As its encyclopedic content is unverifiable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playpen (fictional magazine)[edit]

There is no source that confirm this is the same fictional magazine and not just a prop being used over and over.The only sources in the article is a forum post and a blog. I found something on lostpedia that mentioned Sawyer had this magazine. As a fansite wiki, I don't think you can use that as a reliable source and it still dosn't confirm anything. Even if this is a real fictional magazine, I do not see the notability in it. --Coasttocoast (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable trivia in any case. Might be worth a mention in Playboy if a source can be found...but only if it's willing to take off its front cover. (Real fictional magazine? As opposed to a fictional fictional one?) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was: Is this a real Hollywood inside joke, or is it just a coincidence. Theres no sources at all to say it is.Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It probably is a mild inside joke, the minced oath version of referring to Playboy without incurring Standards & Practices or trademark pushback. But I can't find a single source about it other than a few trivial references that confirm its usage on certain TV shows. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source I'm seeing (and this would be difficult to search) is the blog cited in the article, leaving us with no reliable sources and hence possible WP:OR. We do have List of fictional magazines that mentions this; I'd think some notes in that article would cover this nicely. AnturiaethwrTalk 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are sorces for all most all the shows sighted there called episodes and are essey to varify if you watch them. I have usded this list as a recorce in the past, and Playpen has been fetuerd promenently in several shows I would say it is pretty notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe citing the episodes themselves is original research. Basically the entire article is OR like the line "The name is a contraction of Playboy and Penthouse." This magazine's existence isn't even confirmed. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the episosds is a primary source not OR and are easily verifyable. if you want confermation of its existence just look at one of the 30 episodes sighted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we need secondary sources to establish notability, not primary ones. If the conclusions in the article must be gleaned by the reader from primary sources, then it counts as OR. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could link a dozens of examples of it being mentioned of of different shows (there are not hard to find), but I know that you would just claim that they are OR like you clame everything is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theres still isn't even a source that proves this is a real hollywood inside joke, thats whats OR. Just look at the first sentence: "Playpen is a fictional pornographic magazine often depicted or mentioned in television programs, films and other media." Wheres the source for that? -- Coasttocoast (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here are a few sources for you about the name http://www.tv.com/pacific-blue/seduced/episode/43517/summary.html which should be obvios. and heres a link to a forum post talking about it http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/after-hours-lounge/150233-playpen-magazine.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, forum posts are not good sources, and I'm fairly sure TV.com is all user-submitted content; as such, neither of those really establishes notability. See WP:SPS for more information. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tv.com is a site where Anyone can add information. And if you look at this page under "notes"[3] It looks like it was added by Rafff18, just so he can link it to this AFD. So thats the perfect example of how Tv.com is not a reliable site since anyone can add information. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce D. Campbell[edit]

Bruce D. Campbell is a small-party candidate for this year's Congressional elections in the US. He stands for the DFL, which could be either the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party or the Democrats for Life of America. Either way's, he's not notable. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability beyond candidacy, fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political candidates are not notable unless and until they are actually elected to something notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a candidate, not notable. Only ref is a blog, fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any sources about him other than his blog. He's not running for a U.S. congressional seat but rather a local congressional seat, the Minnesota DFL nomination to run for the Minnesota House of Representatives. Not notable. ~ Eóin (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dysgenics (people)[edit]

Obvious POV fork and recreation of text deleted through consensus.

Delete This article was created strictly as a POV-fork to avoid the deletion of the content at the original Dysgenics article, now Dysgenics (biology). It promotes a WP:FRINGE view held by a very few people as if it were mainstream science and is thus also misleading. Also, it reprises material deleted through RfC consensus here, obviously to try to escape talk page consensus. The user who created this page has also been warned numerous times for edit warring and tendentious editing.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was created as a legitimate content fork of the Dysgenics article because there was controversy amongst the editors over whether the article should be about dysgenics in the biological sense or in the human population sense. The Dysgenics article has now been forked into the articles Dysgenics (biology) and Dysgenics (people). There was some discussion of moving the human population information to the Eugenics article but I started a new article because there is enough information in the Eugenics article as it is. You should take claims of POV-forking with a grain of salt. The legitimacy of the RfC on the Dysgenics article was compromised when the editor who started the RfC and his buddy kept changing the article to their preferred version after the RfC had begun; however, one idea that emerged was to have the article be about dysgenics in the biological sense, and that is why the article name was changed to "Dysgenics (biology)". Editing had begun on that article to remove the information that was not about dysgenics in the biological sense but further cleanup is needed. Here is a Google Scholar search on "dysgenics" for the past 10 years [4]. --Jagz (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This doesn't change the fact that there was consensus that the content you restored was WP:FRINGE, and based upon a vanishingly small number of references all put forward by a couple of WP:FRINGE researchers. As such, there are also legitimate concerns of WP:NOTABILITY when basing an article on such a restricted number of references. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that it is an obvious POV-fork meant solely to circumvent the result of an RfC (linked to above) with which you disagree.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, did you forget about your edit here?[5] --Jagz (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: POV fork of Dysgenics. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV fork of Dysgenics, which itself was largely a POV fork of Eugenics. Other related articles include Richard Lynn, Pioneer Fund, Race and intelligence, The Bell Curve and other similar articles. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this article gets deleted, then you still have the problem of what to do with the human population dysgenics information. There is really not room in the Eugenics article. --Jagz (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Eugenics. Obvious POV-fork. There was no consensus for the creation of such an article on the dysgenics talk page. Alun (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just undo the split and let us get back to discussing the merge at talk:eugenics. Richard001 (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ramdrake is incorrect in stating that the text was deleted through consensus, which was never reached. The text was deleted through edit warring, bullying, and other obstructive behavior by Wobble (Alun), Wsiegmund, Ramdrake, Slrubenstein, and a couple of less active meat puppets. These users seem to think that wikipedia is a democracy where majority rule decides. --Zero g (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me get this straight: Jagz and yourself, who have both been called several times SPAs are genuine editors, while the six or more editors who all disagree with you are all meatpuppets of each other, right? I thought so...--Ramdrake (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I suggest everyone focus on the merits of this AfD discussion and stop making comments aboout the other contributors. We do not want this to turn into a fingerpointing contest full of insults. Dreadstar † 01:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious POV fork. 69.105.124.201 (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)— 69.105.124.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This seems to be split in POV not is the sense of pro vs. con, but rather distinguishes between dysgenics as an evolutionary/biological concept and dysgenics as a social/political/cultural phenomena. The article is well referenced, there are a number of cultural references suggesting that this is not a fringe subject. Malthusianism is no less controversial and that article is far less well referenced. Neither article militates for acceptance of any conclusion and both cite critical opinions. Both contribute to understanding of popular and persistent political and philosophical ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.35.117 (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC) — 4.231.35.117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I think that what's being mostly objected to is that most proponents of dysgenics are independently known for their very controversial views on the classification of humanity (see Lynn's IQ and the Wealth of Nations and Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior), and that the predicted phenomenon is indeed not occuring (IQ measurements are rising instead of falling). This is why the whole concept is most of the time considered "fringe".--Ramdrake (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our purpose here is not to shield people from controversial views; let's leave that to fascist governments. There can be a number of factors involved in short-term and long-term IQ changes. --Jagz (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this encyclopaedia, of any encyclopaedia, is to present views according to their importance. To deliberately give more importance to a view than it has in the real world, or to present it as mainstream when it is being championed by a vanishingly small number of researchers, when it is widely contested and when evidence doesn't even support it (all true in the case of Dysgenics (people)) is misleading and thoroughly unencyclopaedic.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that it is proper to try to use a discussion of the laboratory-induced dysgenics of fruit flies and mice (as you and your buddies are planning to do) to diminish a discussion of human population dysgenics. That's one reason it is better to discuss fruit flies and people in separate articles. Human dysgenics should be presented along with varying points of view on human dysgenics, not by supplanting it with a discussion of fruit flies in the laboratory. --Jagz (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are proposing comes across as wanting to present the interpretation of dysgenics which is specific to Lynn and a very few others as legitimate, mainstream science. Nothing is further from the truth: 1)dysgenics is by and far used in relation with lab experiments involving animals, not humans. 2)Lynn and others are WP:FRINGE and aren't even experts in genetics 3)The purported effect they claim to be describing isn't happening; in fact, the reverse is happening in the real world. 4)There aren't "varying points of view" on human dysgenics: there is a single theory, advanced by a fringe scientist and believed by less than a handful of acolytes. You come across as being intent on deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Please stop.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV should be presented in the Dysgenics (people) article provided you can cite it properly. The lab experiments on animals can be discussed in the Dysgenics (biology) article. --Jagz (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our purpose here is not to push WP:FRINGE content, either. That is the major thrust of Dysgenics (people) and it is well documented at Talk:Dysgenics. The edit history is full of examples of advocates removing or burying criticisms of the Lynn et al. content. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Dysgenics (people) is to discuss the concept of dysgenics as it relates to human populations and not to bury it under the discussion of dysgenics as it relates to mice and fruit flies in the laboratory. --Jagz (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either it is the same concept biologists use when studying all life, or it is a fringe racist concept. Guess what: the way real scientists study human evolution involves the same principles and methods as the way they study the evolution of mice and fruit flies. Your position is pathetic - would you have us have an article on "Natural Selection (people)," "Genetic Drift (people)," and so on? Dysgenics is the same thing whether we are talking about humans, chickens, or cockroaches - that is the whole point of evolutionary theory and modern biology, it is the science of living things. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors want the discussion of human population dysgenics moved out of the Dysgenics (biology) article. --Jagz (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again the nature of the POV split is not addressed. The argument should not be whether or not dysgenics is true. but rather whether as a philosophical/cultural/political/social concept it is notable, verifiable, and the article presents reliable sources both as to the nature of the belief and it notability. By way of analogy: when Malthus wrote, the world's population was ~100 million, he proposed that it was impossible for the world to sustain that level of population. Today the world's population is >6.5 billion. I conclude Malthus was wrong. Two nights ago no less a worthy than Cpt. Kirk himself, William Shatner, seriously proposed on the Glenn Beck show on CNN that the problem with the world today is that there are too many people 'crapping in the ocean', and the population needs to be reduced. Obviously Malthusianism as a philosophical/cultural/political/social influence is still notable and influential, despite being personally offensive to me and (I believe) complete bunk. I similarly reject the validity of dysgenics as a description of current trends in human IQ, but I suspect that much opposition to this article stems from a fear of the very real and pervasive influence of this idea, not in biology or genetics, but in popular cultural and political dialogue. As inaccurate as Malthusianism and dysgenics are as descriptions of the empirically observable, they are notable, influential philosophical/cultural/political/social ideas and deserve to be retained as articles. If we don't know what ideas the terms refer to, how can we evaluate them critically?— 4.230.132.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Actually, although it may not be obvious now, it is a content fork in that the Dysgenics (biology) article is being changed to discuss laboratory experiments with animals such as fruit flies and mice, while Dsygenics (people) will discuss the concept of dysgenics in human populations. --Jagz (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for the record, the RfC consensus at Dysgenics was to get rid of the WP:FRINGE material. Your recreation of an earlier version of the article is just a pov-fork intended to circumvent the results of the RfC. And again, you are presenting the matter in a misleading way, pretending that WP:FRINGE concept are in fact mainstream.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This word is used by biologists, but not in the way that this article suggests; as a concept within biology it does not deserve its own article but can be explained in the context of the article on natural selection - and as a word used by racists, it is fringe and this article reflects a POV fork. I haven't read a single plausible argument from any established editor who knows anything about biology or the history of science to justify this article. looking at its history, it seems to me that it is just another example of Jagz racist shenanigans, just another attempt to disrupt wikipedia. Let's not humor him. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The statement at the top, "Obvious POV fork and recreation of text deleted through consensus.", was added by User:Ramdrake. --Jagz (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with eugenics per my original suggestion on Talk. Dysgenic should remain to carry the experiments on fruit flies and an indication that a discussion in relation to humans is found in Eugenics. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would expose the Eugenics article to increased edit warring by the egalitarian hardliners. --Jagz (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Dysgenics, with appropriate elaboration that this usage is fringey. I think putting it in eugenics is going to cause a perennial drive to fork it back out again or to put it in dysgenics anyway, because people will come to the latter, expecting to find the material there if they already know a little (or too much) about it. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it should be noted that much of this material is still in the Dysgenics (biology) article pending a decision, so in fact, the article does already also exist as a merged version in Dysgenics (biology).--Ramdrake (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, I can go along with deletion. Mangoe (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep Dysgenics (people) but expand the scope from a discussion of IQ to include other topics such as the following: [6]. --Jagz (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the comment above that dysgenics is a term used exclusively for humans (and species they have domesticated), so this split between dysgenics (biology) and dysgenics (people) is pretty foolish. In my opinion, we should go back to having a single article on dysgenics; that article was far from mature, but given time and good will a NPOV article could be written. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, there will be those that say human population dysgenics is fringe but in other animals dysgenics is legitimate. --Jagz (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

either merge back, or rename to something sensible (like genetic deterioration in human populations). "Dysgenics (people)" is a patently silly name. dab (𒁳) 17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I've changed my vote from keep to delete. It's not worth the hassle. --Jagz (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restrict all further comments to the merits of this AfD. I've moved unrelated or unhelpful comments to the talk page. Dreadstar † 16:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unnecessary spin-off caused by the never-ending "Race and intelligence" wars. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moreschi. Article is a pov fork of Eugenics and Dysgenics - seems to have been created to circumvent consensus at another page--Cailil ^talk 22:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a lot of OR in this - most of the sources cited don't seem to mention dysgenics, for instance, and no effort is made to justify this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
De-fork/Delete. The title's nonsensical, and the scope ill-defined. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW,anyone?--Ramdrake (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count ten deletes, two keeps (one from an anon) and three merges. I happen to sympathize with Itsmejudith's merge proposal in theory but given the quality of this page i think most of it would get deleted anyway. Be that as it may, even if you add the keeps and merges together twice as many people vote for delete so ... let's just delete it. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOu can move my vote from "merge" to "delete". Mangoe (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More effort should be given to establishing the importance of the influence of Dysgenics as a concept and theory in philosophical/cultural/political/social contexts, which are purely human fields, and which justify the existence of this page, as distinct from dysgenics as a theory in a biological/genetics context, the validity of which is utterly irrelevant to the notablity and encyclopedia worthiness of this page. Further if the consensus is that the biological/genetic basis for these philosophical/cultural/political/social beliefs is fringe science, then rather than debate them further, the correct action in my view would be to rephrase references to such research such that it is clear that they are cited as examples of what such fringe scientists believe. Wikipedia:FRINGE#Sourcing_and_attribution

As a further note, a google search for Dysgenics Biology returned 7,780 hits and a search for Dysgenics People returned 13,500 hits. The subject as it relates to popular philosophical/cultural/political/social ideas is, I think, fairly well established as independent from a purely biological/genetics context. Quoting from Wikipedia:Fringe theories - Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the Face on Mars can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena.— 4.230.132.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as non notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch (Viral Coder)[edit]

No assertion of notability and no references. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claims of notability in article are tenuous at best. Gsearch for Sketch plus the large website s/he took down comes up empty in google news and only comes up with wikipedia in a websearch. Possible wishful thinking?--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). The consensus below is that the subject's work on a TV show broadcast by a major network, coupled with the awards, demonstrates sufficient notability to meet the standard of WP:BIO. Darkspots (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hopkins (surf lifesaver)[edit]

This is a lifesaver. Excellent work, but nothing that makes someone notable. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the longest serving lifesaver at a certain place isn't notable. Saving lives is admirable but not notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, those are quasi-professional awards, but they aren't athletic awards precisely. This seems like the equivalent of "policeman of the year" and so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note International Surf life Saving of which the Australian body is a member is a reconigsed member of the International Olympic Committee so its aint some quasi-professional award. Gnan garra 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While the article does not mention it, he is a major participant in the reality television show Bondi Rescue. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment saw that when I found this among the other news hits. I'm leaning delete but it's weak since none seem to establish notability but rather interview him in his role as livesaver. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup he's one of the life guards in the real life tv series Bondi Rescue, combined with "Australian Lifeguard of the year award in 2006"[7] and two gold medal at the Australian surf life saving titles theres enough to warrant a standalone article..(sourcing to follow). Gnan garra 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Gnangarra. Five Years 03:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lifeguard of the year award and being on the TV series should satisfy notability. I'd like to see the sourcing added though.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BIO per Gnangarra and Sting au. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, would seem to meet WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eragon. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isidar Mithrim[edit]

Very minor part of the plot of Eragon. All encyclopedic information has been given in less than a line of text at Eragon. There is not enough encyclopedic content to justify an article to itself. Una Laguna^Talk 20:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable plot element which has certainly not received substantial coverage from outside sources. There is certainly no reason for such a minor item to have its own article, especially when that article is entirely plot summary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to find a place to merge what little encyclopedic data there is here, without success. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect certainly not an article, but no reason not to have a redirect. DGG (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Perfectly valid search term, useful as a redirect.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Valid search term, would be better off as a redirect. Razor flame 18:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of heavy metal[edit]

Unnecessary article. Category:Timelines of heavy metal already exists with links to each year containing notable events and releases. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could be summed up like this. "1970: The first guy screams something about death and Satan into a mic while playing random feedback-laden notes on a guitar, creating the first heavy metal song. 1971-2008: 4 million more recording acts follow the same formula." Seriously, it's redundant to the existing article on heavy metal, and I don't think timelines are kosher here unless in the format 19xx in (name of genre) music. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the article has potetential not entirely sure it will ever be sourced and completed. I'd also add the entire category to the afd as they don't seem of much worth either. --neonwhite user page talk 21:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it's a worthy topic, this is original research, based on someone's opinion about the significance of four events, with no sourcing whatsoever. Mandsford (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Nonsense. . Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delboo[edit]

Prodded as a hoax; I could not find any references to suggest otherwise. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 as hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per db-dogshit ^_^. JuJube (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The rationale for deletion is the least convincing nomination I've seen. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Net Authority[edit]

dis site be gone yo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habanero-tan (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? -- Fullstop (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT BE GONE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habanero-tan (talk • contribs) 19:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:NTEMP Notability is not temporary. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Weak assertations of notability, but they're there. And a trout to the nom as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, keep since the nom couldn't provide a rationale for my "So?" If death were a reason to delete, WP wouldn't have an article on goatse, :) nor would we have biographies on dead people. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Worst AfD nom I've ever seen, read this before you make any more nominations please. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, no rationale for deletion presented. Nominator does seem to have the capability of valid participation in AFDs per contribs, so I don't know what the explanation is. --Dhartung | Talk 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep dis site be notable yo. Upon further thought, this AfD nom looks like a joke. Acro X 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No deletion rationale, subject is reasonably notable. I advise the nominator to familiarise themselves with deletion policy. WilliamH (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. How many times must it be said? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris George and Company[edit]

Not notable per WP:CORP. Kelly ^hi! 18:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impressive client list, but I could find no third party coverage whatsoever (beyond business listings). The actual name is George and Company, fyi. --Dhartung | Talk 23:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Hdt83 ^Chat 02:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baton Rouge Gallery[edit]

The first sentence claims that this gallery "has been a prominent feature of Baton Rouge, Louisiana since 1965", but it doesn't become clear how. Yes, the article establishes that the gallery exists, but it doesn't become clear how what the gallery does makes it notable enough for Wikipedia. There's no indication whatsoever that it's any different from the millions of galleries throughout the world. A ecis^Brievenbus 18:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any evidence of this having coverage in second party sources, seems non-notable. --neonwhite user page talk 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in among the show listings is RS coverage I agree that the article needs a clean-up and I'll do my best to get to it this week during the AfD as I believe it can be cleaned up and notability established. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see that any of these that 'addresses the subject directly in detail' --neonwhite user page talk 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you read more than 1000 sources? I was able to find 6 without much effort. There are more behind pay gates as well. Regardless, I gutted and re-wrote. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I gutted and stubbed the article, adding in sourcing about its tenure as one of the longest running professional artist co-ops in the country and its role in Baton Rouge's art community. While it may not change the nom or any !voters POV, I think it's a better article from which to gauge notability than the previous copyvio _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Keep. I want to ask the nominator, did you google the museum before tagging AFD? I honestly never heard the museum (I don't travel a lot) but my 5 second googling shows a lot of verifiable sources with local "MAP". If the gallery did not have its notability, the search engine would not show it. --Appletrees (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hits on a search engine are not a criteria for notability. --neonwhite user page talk 02:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out that the nominator did not even try to confirm that the article falls under the notability criteria. Of the result by hitting an search engine, I can see many reliable sources. Please read the context.--Appletrees (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched but failed to find anything substantial, that's what led me to nominate the article. The only real mention of the gallery I found was this announcement in a local newspaper. That's it. All the other hits are Yellow Pages entries, personal webpages, directories, you name it, all a lot of non-reliable sources. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that may have been true at the time, I don't think it is now. Please note changes to the article since then. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article has been much improved over the course of this AfD, and now meets notability standards using reliable sources. Nice save, Travellingcari! Risker (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Now that TravellingCari has removed the questionable content and added in plenty of references, I think this is an article worth keeping. — λ (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus that the content does not merit its own page. I will fix the link in the Alvis Saracen page but it is up to the editors of that page whether it is important enough to retain. TerriersFan (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa, Oklahoma (Tulsa Police Department, SOT)[edit]

This one's complicated. It's linked from Alvis Saracen as an example of where that vehicle is in use as a police vehicle. The title of the article makes sense as the text of that link because it's a list of places it's used. However, the article title is inappropriate for the content of this article, as the title implies it's an article about a police agency, but the article is actually about a police vehicle. Furthermore, the contents of this article are not really notable; the other links on the Alvis Saracen use list point to the countries, not to any specific page describing the vehicles those countries use. As a result of all this, I think the article should just be removed as having non-notable content and a title that is unlikely to be useful for searching/browsing. Powers ^T 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost as useful as having an article on my own car as an example of the marque in use. --Dhartung | Talk 19:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Saracen and/or Tulsa Police Department. Mildly interesting but not deserving of its own microarticle. Merenta (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Dhartung's comments (what's next, an article on the Tulsa cops' use of Brand-X handcuffs?). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send the creator a link to WP:1ST. I think I get what they were trying to do, but this isn't the way to do it at all. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief, an article about one single vehicle in the Tulsa, Oklahoma police department? KleenupKrew (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One wonders why it was not a speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because no speedy deletion criterion applies. Powers ^T 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Saracens are notable. This exact one isn't.--Oakshade (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanots[edit]

"Vanity" article about a surname with no information other than the fact that the name exists and a few family tree links. Author removed speedy tag - I probably could still speedy this, but I like to err on the side of caution. Tan | 39 18:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Article is about a family with one notable member. AcroX 19:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not present. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Ozzfest 2007[edit]

Unnotable, unreleased album that fails WP:MUSIC. Failed PROD. I originally prodded for the same reason. User:Blood Red Sandman changed that reason to also note that "Suspected hoax, or maybe an illegal bootleg" Collectonian (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either a hoax album or a bootleg; not notable either way per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(double edit conflict)Delete The 'reference' supplied to Lordi's North American lable only mentions the re-release of debut album Get Heavy in that continent and the fact that The Arockalypse is availible. Nothing about a new DVD from last year's Ozzfest. I haven't even heard it rumoured on Lordi's forum or elsewhere that this is coming, nevermind any reliable source. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is real DVD. The End Records release DVD in USA and Canada on next week. Bomier (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that hard to believe, especially when this recent press release concerning the Get Heavy re-release says "LORDI... toured all summer [2007] as one of the mainstage acts on OzzFest 2007..." but does not say that a DVD is coming up with an Ozzfest show on it. Also, wouldn't they have released it earlier if they were really gonna? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with Blood Red Sandman, I can find no reference to, let alone proof of, such a dvd being planned for release, as much as I might like it to be true. --HamatoKameko (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While it's not a citable source (not that there's a legitimate citation for this article, either), I would like to make it known that Mr. Lordi himself, on the band's official message board, has stated, with obvious displeasure, that if this DVD exists at all, it is most definitely an illegal bootleg. This article needs to go, immediately. --HamatoKameko (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wholly unsourced and failing WP:OR. TerriersFan (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization strategies[edit]

Unreferenced, probable copyvio - if found, can be speedied. Almost nonsense, but not quite. Tan | 39 17:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copyvio or not, it's original research and a how-to guide. And it isn't even about the topic one would expect to find under this title. EALacey (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --jonny-m t 07:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Christian Outreach[edit]

The page does not have references that establish the notability of Midwest Christian Outreach. Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Of marginal notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It can be noted that all of the references are from the article's website. A Google search returns a little over 5000 results, not an extremely large amount. I don't know how well-known this organization is. Under 30 edits have been made to the article. If someone could expand on the article and add more sources, it could be a worthwhile article. Whether someone will is the problem. I prefer to abstain from voting, for a certain reason. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have done a search in Google News. Are these results enough to establish notability?
- I have found quotes that mention MCOI in passing. These articles quote MCOI president, Don Veinnot, as an expert on cults:
  - Lyndon "Don" Veinot, president of Midwest Christian Outreach Inc., an organization in Lombard, Ill., that scrutinizes new religious movements, contends that ... [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]
  - Ground zero of the detractors' mission is the Midwest Christian Outreach Center, a big Chicago support group that encourages people to leave cults. Says Don Veinot, the group's director: "After speaking with Gwen and finding her theology to be greatly in error, we set about spreading the word via e-mail lists and radio broadcasts." Volunteers sent out thousands of anti-Weigh Down packages.[ The Wall Street Journal ]
  - The confession conceals more than it reveals, says Don Veinot Jr., president of Midwest Christian Outreach, an apologetics ministry in suburban Chicago. ... [ Christianity Today ]
- I have found articles in a local newspaper, Daily Herald (of Arlington Heights, IL). Two articles in particular are about MCOI:
  - Teens go Underground to find answers about faith.(Neighbor)
  - Former atheist to share thoughts on questioning faith.(Neighbor)

Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably. I think you can withdraw your AfD nomination if you wish. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Fort Campbell. If anything is worth inclduding there, it can be. Black Kite 21:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Mikel[edit]

Article about a living person notable for only one event (a crime) whose name seems to be largely forgotten just 2-1/2 years after the event. Evidence that his 15 minutes of infamy are over: (1) sources cited in the article were online news articles, most of which are now broken citations; (2) article focuses on the criminal charges and was never updated to report on his conviction and sentence (indicating that the contributors forgot about him); and (3) Google hits on his name are sparse. The event can be amply covered in Fort Campbell (the location of the crime). Orlady (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a lot of people are notable for only one event - the BIO1E ruling is meant to prevent articles being written about the guy who stalked Lindsay Lohan, the guy who saved Madonna from oncoming traffic - not to prevent articles being written about US Officers charged with 42 counts of attempted murder. I don't know what you think "Sources are online news articles" proves, since they include at least two paper-and-ink newspapers including the USA Today - most articles use online sources, because they're easier to verify. I also find a thousand independent articles on him on Google - after removing any Wikipedia mirrors. I also see the House Judiciary Committee considers him notable enough to put on a CV - "he prosecuted 40 criminal cases, including US. v. Mikel, which drew national interest after Pvt. Mikel attempted to murder his platoon sergeant and fired upon his unit's early morning formation". Merging it into Fort Campbell would result in serious UNDUEWEIGHT concerns as well. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on your concerns about WP:UNDUE when the incident is included in Fort Campbell? Note that the incident is discussed in Fort Campbell#Notable crime incidents at Fort Campbell (and has been documented in that article since you first added it in February 2006). --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be like merging Charles Whitman with University of Texas, standard organisations/facilities like Fort Campbell or University of Texas do not want their Wiki article to be focused chiefly on crime sprees that have occurred on their grounds - they want them forked into separate articles, and it's a fair issue. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that as an argument to make an article on the incident itself, not a bio of Mikel. Where did he go to high school? What were his hobbies? Where did he go to basic training? Its inescapable that this is a BLP1E case, and you can't get that other info without OR, nor should we have to do, because from a biographical standpoint, there is no need. The incident itself is already stubbed into the Ft. Campbell article. MrPrada (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator's rationale that notability has diminished is not grounds for deletion per WP:NTEMP. I would invite other to evaluate this AfD by the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). Once I have time to sit down and read through the article, I'll put a more substantive comment here. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, I am not suggesting that the criminal act should not be documented in Wikipedia. My rationale is that the person responsible for the criminal act is not sufficiently notable (as revealed by the rapid diminution of interest over time) to be the subject of a stand-alone article. For the record, I get 61 ghits on "Nicholas Mikel", of which at least 20 are other people with similar names, and many more appear to be hits on Wikipedia or sites that use Wikipedia content. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Mikel + 'Fort Campbell'", all the hits are related to this Mikel, and you'll find there are nearly a thousand all related to the attemptd mass murder. Sometimes he's "Pte. Mikel", othertimes he's "Pte N. Mikel", "N. Mikel", "Pvt Mikel" or any number of other variations. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint. I tried "+Mikel +'Fort Campbell'" and I saw some new hits about this case (particularly items about the attorney), but many of the ghits were about other people named "Mikel" (Mike Mikel, Mikel Fagan, Mikel McMuren, Mikel Petty, Tabitha Mikel, Shannon Mikel, Emma Mikel, Jon-Mikel Gates, etc.). --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from a MILHIST perspective the notablity would be established one of three ways: recieving a flag rank (ie: Chester Nimitz), recieving one the highest honors one's country may bestow (Gary Gordon), or being involved in an international scandal (Lynndie England), and in the case of this article I see no criteria for any of the three notabilities here to fore mentioned. To me, that suggests that we can afford to delete this article. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationales of WP:N/CA (not an official guideline yet). The subject of the article is infamous only for the crime itself. Whilst the rationale of the nom in regards to temporary notability has passed, I see nothing that suggests further substantial analysis of the subject took place a long time after the incident in order for it to qualify for some for of historical notability. Under such circumstances and with little material of substance sufficient for an article based solely on the crime itself, I suggest that the material included in the Fort Campbell article is sufficient for coverage of this event. Fritzpoll (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can agree with inclusion of the material to Fort Cambell. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Fort Campbell article perhaps? I'm still mulling this one over. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per BLP1E. Could be a stub of the overall Fort Campbell article, but no need for an Independent article. There is nothing to this biography except the one event, and I don't think you're going to find verified reliable sources to flesh it out otherwise. MrPrada (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I usually defend articles on crimes, but this one is really trivial. I'm not at all we'll ever agree on N/CA, but this is clearly beneath encyclopedic importance. DGG (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and include to Fort Campbell. Alone, it fails notability policies. However, I believe that the information is worth inclusion into the Campbell Fort article. Razor flame 21:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close This was a cautionary, procedural AfD simply because of the length of the PROD reasoning. I have already trouted -- I mean, warned -- the prodder for an inappropriate prod. Any issues can be taken up on the article's talk page. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide methods[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural AfD listing for User:Prowikipedians, who gave the following rationale in the longest PROD I've ever seen:

“

This article contains inappropriate material for the internet audience for any and all ages, as well as the possibility of violating federal laws in the United States as well as those in Flordia where the databases are stored. In addition, this article fails to reach its purpose, by actually doing more harm than good. None of the information has been considered useful. Should a list of "how-to" be useful, why does Wikipedia not have a guide to bomb-making? This article does not reach it's purpose in any way what-so-ever. From arstechnica.com, it has been stated that"

But perhaps most disturbing was that the most frequent results were pro-suicide. "The three most frequently occurring sites were all pro-suicide," note the authors, who also found that "Wikipedia was the fourth most frequently occurring site." All four of these top sites provided information about methods, speed, and pain associated with suicide attempts.

"

What purpose should this article serve? I declare that this article be deleted as soon as possible.

(Note: If you are suicidal right now, I recommend that you call a hotline or call 1.800.SUICIDE)

”

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, just because we have an article on suicide doesn't mean we're pro suicide. We try to maintain a neutral point of view here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Wikipedia is not censored. The nomination doesn't seem to say anything that was not said in the previous AFDs. The main issue with the article is that it poorly written. I just added a couple of details to explore the topic and found that there is a huge amount of scholarly material out there to digest. Much of this relates to prevention of suicide and understanding of the common methods is helpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see the "how to" and do see enough relevance to this article, its subject is definitely interesting enough. And I don't think its pro either. Also, TenPoundHammer missed one nomination (Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_method). This is the fifth nomination. Steinberger (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly reasonable subarticle of Suicide. An encyclopedia without discussion of suicide methods is incomplete, and the Suicide article is very long as it is. Powers ^T 18:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is not censored, we do have articles on bombmaking, and this is not pro-suicide (nor does the ArsTechnica quote seem to indicate they thought so). It isn't a WP:HOWTO; it doesn't tell you how to tie the knot or time your jump or measure your pills. --Dhartung | Talk 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The article isn't written in the style of a how-to guide and, as for 'reaching [sic] it's purpose' - the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to present information in a neutral fashion - nothing more, nothing less. I personally don't see the need for a separate article detailing methods of commiting suicide when most of them have their own articles, so a list in the main suicide article would suffice. However, this is not a valid reason to delete. The nomination is just repeating the same old arguments put forward time and again in favour of censorship of the web. Cosmo0 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep, if only to prevent the main suicide article from becoming too long. But I'd like to see the article focus on topics that have been the subject of published research – like differences in methods across cultures and time periods, or the reasons people choose particular methods – rather than taking a list of methods as its structure. Unlike some of the above commenters, I do think large parts of the current article read like a how-to guide, and I fear that Wikipedia will get a lot of bad publicity some day from a news report blaming this page for someone's death, justly or not. EALacey (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has already been said. Wikipedia is not censored and the article is not written like a guide or instuctions. --neonwhite user page talk 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have issues with the article's lack of referencing, but I am erring on the side of keeping because this the fourth attempt to kill the article -- c'mon, guys, let the article live! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't agree with the rationale given for deletion-- i.e., that this will encourage the suicidal to do something-- this is a worthwhile topic that never has been given a worthwhile article. The article is a piece of crap, as if a bunch of ghouls sat around and brainstormed over all the ways one could kill oneself, and the lack of sourcing is ridiculous. There's a section about beheading oneself, sourced to a couple of articles about someone finding a body (and a head) next to a guillotine; a lot of unsourced facts about drowning, suffocating, electrocuting, shooting or blowing up one self; what sources there are refer to little factoids. Since there are articles about different suicide methods, it would make more sense to just go with a category. Mandsford (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, doesn't violate any law that I know of. Suicide methods are a subject of public interest as demonstrated by Jack Kevorkian, Karin Spaink, and the book Final Exit. WillOakland (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Wikipedia is not censored, and the article is not written like a how to guide. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emobetting[edit]

Unreferenced neologism. No notability, not much context, most likely entirely WP:OR. Tan | 39 16:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense. Undeath (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t nonsense as defined by WP:NONSENSE. — Travis ^talk 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero google hits, apparently an idiosyncratic protologism with no references. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced and not notable. Happyme22 (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Chaloner[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Article is not about a notable person drak2 (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete delete this immediately and save the time of other editors reading about a young person starting a career in broadcastingElan26 (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Elan[reply]
Delete Makes an assertation of notability (youngest presenter...) but isn't the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 00:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't meet the notability threshold. There is one reliable secondary source as to his schooling (which I've added) but only a primary source for some of the rest of it and no sourcing at all for most of it. Youngest presenter on one station in one city is not notable on an encyclopedic scale. - Dravecky (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. GRBerry 00:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English translations of the Creed for possible future liturgical use[edit]

This article was created out of a content dispute at English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use. Editors were in dispute over whether to include the text of this newly proposed wording of the Nicene Creed. One editor pointed out that the article is specifically about "Current use", and since this new, disputed wording isn't in current use, it has no place in that article, which is why the new article was created for "possible future" use. First of all, that dispute may be settled, because the entire content of the new article is already at the old. On top of that, it doesn't seem appropriate to spin out content when there is only a single source that mentions this possible future use. I don't believe this possible future use is notable enough to warrant it's own article, and there doesn't appear to be other possible future uses outside of the ICEL recommendation. So the article's title is misleading in that it suggestions that multiple English translations will be discussed (only one is discussed), it doesn't make it clear that this is only for the Roman Catholic Church, and it doesn't state what "Creed" is being discussed. I believe this article was created in haste by an editor who was overly zealous to get this content somewhere in wikipedia (and I think now is a good time to mention that wikipedia is NOT a primary source). Finally, there have been some concerns regarding copyright in that a) the entire text is reproduced and b) there have been sources that have said that this text is not to be released to the public yet. I apologize if there is a lot of jargon or specialized knowledge required to examine this case. Andrew c ^[talk] 16:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright violation from [8]. This topic may well be worthy of discussion somewhere in Wikipedia, but not under this title (which sounds like attempting to predict the future), in this format, or in a way which violates copyright. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect All per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 21:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love or Confusion[edit]

No worthy information. Andre666 (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all Hendrix songs with no worthy information:

Merge all to the albums. These are permanent stubs on non-notable songs, and per WP:MUSIC they should be merged to the albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all as per TPH. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect to Are You Experienced per WP:MUSIC (Non-admin closure). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Live Today[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I Don't Live Today

No decent information. Andre666 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the album as it's a permanent stub on a non-notable song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great song, but fails WP:BAND so Merge per above. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TPH. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Hamtun[edit]

Unreferenced article about non-notable micronation; apparently something made up in a day. Russ (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no secondeary sources at all. Elan26 (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Delete Looks like a hoax or something made up one day. In the least, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL according to this. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete idiocy. JuJube (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Really, why do they even bother? Ecoleetage (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. What is it with these damn Brit teenagers who want to make their own kingdoms? Mandsford (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - hoax/nonsense/lunacy/self-promotion/etc! Enaidmawr (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 21:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

51st Anniversary[edit]

No decent information, only infobox stuff. Andre666 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't on an album, and was the B-side to a song that doesn't have a page. Non-notable song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TPH. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TPH. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the non-notability but TPH appears to be wrong on Purple Haze not having a page. Dimitrii (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Are You Experienced? per WP:MUSIC (non-admin closure). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can You See Me[edit]

No notable information. Andre666 (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge perma-stub on a song, merge it to the album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC Black Kite 21:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astroman[edit]

It is not a notable song and it contains no decent information. Andre666 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure song, not on any albums, unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Non-Notable and I don't think it has the right info to be on wikipedia. It generally reads the release date and the writer is all.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Razor flame 16:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Google search shows up no extensive coverage. The matter here isn't whether the trail exists, whether it is maintained well, or where you can download files about it; rather, we need to establish how the trail is notable. A Christian newspaper covering a Christian topic isn't really an objective source. The other source only makes a mention that can at best be described as advertising, and doesn't give us much to go on. Per that reasoning, I'm closing this as a delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Trail[edit]

This article failed a prod, which stated: Article used to promote a recent marketing venture. No sources cited, not likely to find independent sources. Notability not explained. Currently there are two independent sources cited: haaretz.com and CatholicNews.com (I'm ignoring the travel blog because blogs are generally not reliable sources, plus it doesn't mention "Jesus Trail" once). It is not clear to me that either of these sources is not Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. (from WP:WEB). The phrase "Jesus Trail" gets a relatively low google hit (7,540 without taking into consideration that many of these links are not referring to the topic of this article). Alexa ranking is 8,664,269. Notability is not clear to me, and the indepenent media coverage is questionable (would be nice if we had more, or more solid sourcing). Also concerning, but not necessarily a reason to delete is that User:Dplandis has a very similar name to one of the founders of Jesus Trail. Also, the majority of the editors seem to be single-purpose accounts which have been spamming the external link to Jesus Trail throughout multiple unrelated articles. This article seems to serve the purpose of advertising a recent entrepreneurial venture, not encyclopedic coverage of a notable topic. But it is not cut and dry, which is why the community's input is important here. What do others think about this article? Andrew c ^[talk] 15:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepInteresting question. There is no doubt that this page is put up to promote a toruism enterprise. On the other hand, I read the Catholic News and Haaretz newspaper accounts. Ths Catholic News story is written by an actual journalist , a Jerusalem-based freelancer (she googles, )and reading it I can see no doubt that it is a real news story. The Haaretz accoount certainly is. Haaretz is a major daily, not some small-town paper tht runs press releases. This is a real feature story in a real newspaper. So we have a brand-new tourism enterprise with exactly two outside sources. Stop. I just checked the Jesus Trail's web page, and there is more covereage. The Catholic News story was picked up by many of the large American Catholic weeklies. and there has been a smattering of other stories. [9]. So, there is no doubt that this trail was created to encourage tourism and to bring people to Israel and to make them like Israel or whatever. So were the Freedonm Trail and the Black Heritage Trail. The only grounds for disqualifying the Jesus Trail would be that it is brand new. If the editors are behaving bad.y, give them a warning. but their behavior does not affect the merit of the articleElan26 (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Elan[reply]
Keep as the article is adequately sourced, but contributors should be warned for conflict editing. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just have a different standard for adequate sourcing. Imagine ten years ago, a new restaurant opens up in Cincinnati. Let's say that the local, yet notable newspaper The Cincinnati Enquirer does a story and review about the opening of this new restaurant. Let's also say that a national trade journal Restaurants & Institutions has a short, but seemingly significant one-page about the restaurant. Is this enough to warrant a wikipedia article? What if the restaurant hasn't been mentioned in ten years? What if it went out of business in the first year? Wikipedia is not a new source, and for entrepreneurial ventures that are still new, with out any real claim to fame (or in this case, notability), and only these two publications covering the topic, I feel that we shouldn't have an article on the topic. The criteria says "multiple independent reliable sources". Two is at a very bare minimum of "multiple", and WP:N goes on to say these independent sources work to establish a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. In this case, we have two examples of media coverage, but I am arguing that that is not enough and the article is still not suitable for inclusion. But there are things that could be worked on to improve the article, and perhaps bring it up to standards. More sourcing would be good, and at the very least, a sourced explanation of the significance or importance of the topic.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I googled : ("Jesus Trail" hiking Galilee) and I do see your point. This is a renaming of sections of existing trail for toruism promotion purposes. A number of Christian hikers and groups have used the trail and there is some enthusiasm. On the other hand, only two news articles , so there is real question about whether the name will actually catch on. I am now less supportive. though I can see the appeal of a trail that goes through : Nazareth, and passes through Sepphoris, Cana, the Horns of Hattin, the Arbel Cliffs, the Sea of Galilee, Capernaum, Tabgha, the Mount of Beatitudes, the Jordan River and Mount Tabor.I really don't know.Elan26 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Elan[reply]

Andrew, the radio interview on a Christian network - a recording is linked form the site - makes a third reliable media source. Taking that into consideration along with the number of Catholic weeklies that printed the article, plus the number of blogs and web pages that have written it up, and I really think we do have notability. This trail is new, but it has already drawn enough attention that I think taking the page down would be a poor decision. Elan26 (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Keep I am new to the principles of editing wikipedia and discussing it, but perhaps I can share a first-hand experience from being on the trail that might help. I arrived in Nazareth one week ago, having found information about the trail through free non-profit networking sites such as facebook and later wikipedia. the trail and its site is purely informational and a collaborative effort, integrating into free-source systems out there such as Google Maps and GPS. KMZ files of the trail are free for download off the site, as well as information on campsites, where to find water, historical and religious points of interest, etc. When I took my GPS out on the land, the path was an unique trek across many surfaces, old roman road, trails, highway, farm fields, etc. it was a very real way to experience the land, history, and culture, and people. My guess is that the editors of the Jesus Trail article are branching out into Wikipedia for the sake of sharing the knowledge of hiking and trekking, a common theme among outdoor adventurists and hikers. the trail and it's information is public and collaborative not commercial, which is why I think it should not be deleted.Indoordusk (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires that articles be about subjects that have been written about in the media. Two articles in major places may be enough Haaretz is a major national daily and the Catholic News Service article was picked up by a lot of newspapers. If articles were to appear in hiking or Christian publications, let alone in other major sources like the two tht are there already, the decision would be simple.Elan26 (talk)Elan26 —Preceding comment was added at 12:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another article was recently published by KNA.Indoordusk (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indoordusk, I think you misunderstand the purpose of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here for free advertising, or to serve the same purpose as facebook. It doesn't matter if the venture is "not commercial". Spam is spam. Please do not use wikipedia to promote things you like (or may be affiliated with). Your rationale for inclusion does not adhere to any known wikipedia policy or guideline. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All true. And there is no doubt but that the promoters of this trail appear to have been logging on under multiple names to , well, promote the trail. Of course, the directors and backers of small historical sites, small museums, small documentary movies and so forth do this all the time. And we let people who are running such outfits do so as long as the things they are promoting are real and notable. I this case, despite their bad Wiki-manners, the promoters have put up a reasonably good site promoting something that isreal, a real hiking trail that links the real towns where Jesus lived and taught and that has gotten real attention form real, major news outlets. I think that it would be wrong to take the page down merely because some of us are annoyed at them for using Wikipedia for prormting a project that they are committed to.Elan26 (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A recent event with little coverage. The article could be recreated in the future if it recieves more news stories. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Century[edit]

I honestly can't tell if this is an elaborate hoax or simply a very non-notable musician. I've already deleted the supposed record label, WP2R, as A7 and cannot find a single mention of any of the albums Neal Century supposedly released. I also failed to find any reference to the tours Century supposedly performed on. The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (music), is completely unreferenced, and the only mentions of a Neal Century or Maurice Yandiorio (birth name) are mirrors of this article. - auburnpilot talk 15:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the supposed band, which again I cannot find any sources for except for mirrors of the article. It's only claim to fame is the sale of 4000 e-tracks.

Note to closing admin As this AFD was getting ludicrously long and incoherent, I've collapsed all comments by single purpose accounts into collapse boxes. — iridescent 14:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Hi... what? I'm mister Maurice Yandiorio... sorry... but... actually all the things i wrote are real! The WP2R has been closed down because i'm moving to Japan... and the albums are coverd by the Italian SIAE Copyrights. The tours made were self organized by The Work Band... wich is one of my musical projects. All the informations ... are real! Please! Why did you deleted the WP2R? We have never made things on the marketing but we always paid taxes. - torratte talk 17:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Then... about The Work (band)... we have been playing and selling tracks all around the world to artists. Now, at the moment... we counted about 4000 tracks sold on the internet through those artist that actually used the music we created and sold. All our web sites are now closed cuz we are actually renovating them... and making them right in 10 different languages! - torratte talk 17:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] In fact in the www.myspace.com/nealcentury in only 3 months we received something like 5000 contacts of people that knew us before and found hard to contact us in the internet since we decided to close everything down for a while to promote in the near future just our project and working only for us. Bet it will take a long time since we are moving everything to Japan. - torratte talk 17:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] we actually didn't claim "to fame" after salling 4000 e-tracks. That's even why we decided to call them e-tracks. We decided to write on the Wikipedia about one year ago and be ready for the 2010 when our strong promotion will start. We are now working on our projects. Short movies and studying the right way to promote the new band. We are even working with Translators to translate the page in 10 different languages... to be available to everyone wants to know more things about us. We decided to start some pages on the Wikipedia because sometimes people do not peak english... that's came out from people that wrote on our old website. - torratte talk 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] I've just informed my producer and the rest of the band... and we decided, if you want... since we have all our web sites all closed ... that maybe we can arrange a meeting to prove with papers what we wrote. Also could send you some notable-artist's contact to add some more references! Thanks! - torratte talk 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] PAY ATTENTION TO THE THINGS I WROTE: "actually all the things i wrote are real! The WP2R has been closed down because i'm moving to Japan... and the albums are coverd by the Italian SIAE Copyrights. The tours made were self organized by The Work Band... wich is one of my musical projects. All the informations ... are real!" IT MEANS THAT THIS IS HAPPENED. I'VE NEVER SAID THAT THE PAGES I WROTE ARE PROJECT FOR THE FUTURE. THERE ARE OTHER PROJECT FOR THE FUTURE... AND THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED TO PUT INFORMATIONS ON THE WIKI'S SITE. BECAUSE PEOPLE COULDN'T FIND AVAILABLE OUR WEB SITE... CUZ WE ARE CHANGING A LOT OF THINGS. - torratte talk 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] OK... EVERYTHING WRITTEN IS RIGHT... HAPPENED AND DONE! "OTHER" PROJECTS ARE READY FOR THE FUTURE! IS IT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND? SORRY ABOUT THAT. BUT I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THIS ARTICLES MUST BE DELETED.WE HAVE RESPECTED WIKI'S RULES!!! - torratte talk 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Unfortunately, being true or real does not mean an article passes the tests that Wikipedia has regarding such things as notability. These are the quite strict criteria that determines whether there should be an article about something or not. If you click on this blue word notability you can read all about it. In addition, you should read this : WP:MUSIC. Many thanks and best wishes with your projects, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'VE JUST POSTED THIS ON MY BLOG. WE THINK YOUR DECISION IS TOTALLY UNFAIR. WE HAVE RECEIVED ALREADY UNDREADS OF MAILS AND WE WILL GO FURTHER THIS PROBLEM. IS A NOTABLE WEBSITE AND IS FREE. WE HAVE RESPECTED ALL THE RULES, CRITERIA AND WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANNA DELETE THESE PAGES? WHAT IS WRONG? IF YOU THINK THE TOURS, FOR EXAMPLE... ARE NOT SUFFICIENT NOTABLE... SO WE CAN EDIT THE PAGE! OTHERWISE... WHAT THIS SITE IS MADE FOR? WE CAN EDIT IT! END OF THE PROBLEMS. - torratte talk 19:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment Torratte, your behaviour here is bordering on being disruptive, please stop. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] WE ONLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT. WE WILL MOVE THROUGH THE WIKI'S HEAD IF YOU REALLY THINK THE PAGES ARE NOT RIGHT... OR DO NOT RESPECT YOUR CRITERIA... FINE. WE WILL MOVE THROUGH THE WIKI'S HEAD. WE WILL CONTACT WIKIPEDIA VIA PAPERS. THANKS. - torratte talk 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Hi. this is for us the first time that things like that happen and we cannot understand really. Sorry about torratte's behaviour but we really talked a lot about this. Also our HEAD-OFFICE just read your policy and they cannot understand where the problem is. - nick talk 20:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] ~~That's increadible how do we read the informations about the band? the sites are closed. - jonny talk 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply] Comment. Erm... the above two comments by 'Nick' and 'jonny' were posted by torrattetalk himself... see [10] and [11]. Torratte, please, desist. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment I have struck through the comments by 'nick' and 'jonny' because, as Alasdair says, these were posted by torratte posing as other users. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Hi... what? I'm mister Maurice Yandiorio... sorry... but... actually all the things i wrote are real! The WP2R has been closed down because i'm moving to Japan... and the albums are coverd by the Italian SIAE Copyrights. The tours made were self organized by The Work Band... wich is one of my musical projects. All the informations ... are real! Please! Why did you deleted the WP2R? We have never made things on the marketing but we always paid taxes. - torratte talk 17:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then... about The Work (band)... we have been playing and selling tracks all around the world to artists. Now, at the moment... we counted about 4000 tracks sold on the internet through those artist that actually used the music we created and sold. All our web sites are now closed cuz we are actually renovating them... and making them right in 10 different languages! - torratte talk 17:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact in the www.myspace.com/nealcentury in only 3 months we received something like 5000 contacts of people that knew us before and found hard to contact us in the internet since we decided to close everything down for a while to promote in the near future just our project and working only for us. Bet it will take a long time since we are moving everything to Japan. - torratte talk 17:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we actually didn't claim "to fame" after salling 4000 e-tracks. That's even why we decided to call them e-tracks. We decided to write on the Wikipedia about one year ago and be ready for the 2010 when our strong promotion will start. We are now working on our projects. Short movies and studying the right way to promote the new band. We are even working with Translators to translate the page in 10 different languages... to be available to everyone wants to know more things about us. We decided to start some pages on the Wikipedia because sometimes people do not peak english... that's came out from people that wrote on our old website. - torratte talk 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just informed my producer and the rest of the band... and we decided, if you want... since we have all our web sites all closed ... that maybe we can arrange a meeting to prove with papers what we wrote. Also could send you some notable-artist's contact to add some more references! Thanks! - torratte talk 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PAY ATTENTION TO THE THINGS I WROTE: "actually all the things i wrote are real! The WP2R has been closed down because i'm moving to Japan... and the albums are coverd by the Italian SIAE Copyrights. The tours made were self organized by The Work Band... wich is one of my musical projects. All the informations ... are real!" IT MEANS THAT THIS IS HAPPENED. I'VE NEVER SAID THAT THE PAGES I WROTE ARE PROJECT FOR THE FUTURE. THERE ARE OTHER PROJECT FOR THE FUTURE... AND THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED TO PUT INFORMATIONS ON THE WIKI'S SITE. BECAUSE PEOPLE COULDN'T FIND AVAILABLE OUR WEB SITE... CUZ WE ARE CHANGING A LOT OF THINGS. - torratte talk 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK... EVERYTHING WRITTEN IS RIGHT... HAPPENED AND DONE! "OTHER" PROJECTS ARE READY FOR THE FUTURE! IS IT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND? SORRY ABOUT THAT. BUT I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THIS ARTICLES MUST BE DELETED.WE HAVE RESPECTED WIKI'S RULES!!! - torratte talk 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfortunately, being true or real does not mean an article passes the tests that Wikipedia has regarding such things as notability. These are the quite strict criteria that determines whether there should be an article about something or not. If you click on this blue word notability you can read all about it. In addition, you should read this : WP:MUSIC. Many thanks and best wishes with your projects, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'VE JUST POSTED THIS ON MY BLOG. WE THINK YOUR DECISION IS TOTALLY UNFAIR. WE HAVE RECEIVED ALREADY UNDREADS OF MAILS AND WE WILL GO FURTHER THIS PROBLEM. IS A NOTABLE WEBSITE AND IS FREE. WE HAVE RESPECTED ALL THE RULES, CRITERIA AND WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANNA DELETE THESE PAGES? WHAT IS WRONG?

IF YOU THINK THE TOURS, FOR EXAMPLE... ARE NOT SUFFICIENT NOTABLE... SO WE CAN EDIT THE PAGE!

OTHERWISE... WHAT THIS SITE IS MADE FOR?

WE CAN EDIT IT! END OF THE PROBLEMS.

- torratte

talk 19:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Torratte, your behaviour here is bordering on being disruptive, please stop. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WE ONLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT. WE WILL MOVE THROUGH THE WIKI'S HEAD IF YOU REALLY THINK THE PAGES ARE NOT RIGHT... OR DO NOT RESPECT YOUR CRITERIA... FINE. WE WILL MOVE THROUGH THE WIKI'S HEAD. WE WILL CONTACT WIKIPEDIA VIA PAPERS. THANKS. - torratte talk 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. this is for us the first time that things like that happen and we cannot understand really. Sorry about torratte's behaviour but we really talked a lot about this. Also our HEAD-OFFICE just read your policy and they cannot understand where the problem is. - nick talk 20:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's increadible how do we read the informations about the band? the sites are closed. - jonny talk 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment. Erm... the above two comments by 'Nick' and 'jonny' were posted by torrattetalk himself... see [10] and [11]. Torratte, please, desist. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have struck through the comments by 'nick' and 'jonny' because, as Alasdair says, these were posted by torratte posing as other users. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles per nom, non-notable under WP:N and WP:MUSIC. In his comments above, the articles' creator tells us that this is a project for the future, and I wish him well with it. If and when there is sufficient notability, that'll be the time to have these articles. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no sir, you have not respected Wikipedia policies at all. Please read the policies on verifiability, sourcing and notability for musicians or at least peruse the five pillars and stop YELLING IN ALL CAPS with lots of exclamation points!!!!!!! Beeblbrox (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neal Century and the band simply do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:MUSIC and WP:N, i.e. they are not notable. Also the articles have no reliable sources (and I can find none), i.e. features in independent sources with a reputation for factchecking and accuracy, without which the content of the articles cannot be verified. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them both - it's a cut above your usual Myspace rubbish, but it's still Myspace rubbish. Aside from anything else it's a copyvio given that it's cut-and-pasted from the Myspace page. — iridescent 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain, and idiocy from sockpuppets. JuJube (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither article meets notability criteria. Can someone clean this afd up a bit? --neonwhite user page talk 21:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, for all the above reasons. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Hi, I've been reading all through this section and i would like to say that i know Century's Works since i've bought one of his albums. Albums are hard to be named cuz they are in fact only venils. They do not have proper CDs out but "followers" can order them via the blog or via the web site. Actually i even didn't know that the web site is no longer available. After have read this section i edited the Neal Century Page. I do not really know much about Works because i don't really like them. Too Rocky. I would like to ask you not to Delete these pages since they report true informations, might not complete informations but users are here for this, to edit day by day the pages. I've read on Neal Century's Blog that Wikipedia wanted to Delete the page, that's why i'm writing here. I think the informations about Neal Century and The Work should only be edited as better as we all can. I think that's the spirit of this Site, isn't it? Hopefully, i hope my edit could have helped you to calm a bit the situation. Thanks a lot. Joanna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.1.134.5 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Hi, this is still me. I wanted to say that if you have a look to the people that have collabotared with George Michael the singer, you can find Mr. Yandiorio. Thanks. Joanna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.1.134.5 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] On his Blog Neal Century says that wikipedia wants to delete his Biography... why? Non-Notable? Are you Joking? Just because you don't know him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. We are collecting over 150'000 sings to report a petition against all the users that want to delete the pages. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia!!! More signs will be available on the blog in the next days to ask to Jimmy Donal Wales... the man that ownes Wiki to block these administration users. They are not good enough to cope with such a big thing as wiki... for sure! If someone reads... Sing the Petition! Maria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariabrumana (talk • contribs) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Hi, I've been reading all through this section and i would like to say that i know Century's Works since i've bought one of his albums. Albums are hard to be named cuz they are in fact only venils. They do not have proper CDs out but "followers" can order them via the blog or via the web site. Actually i even didn't know that the web site is no longer available. After have read this section i edited the Neal Century Page. I do not really know much about Works because i don't really like them. Too Rocky.

I would like to ask you not to Delete these pages since they report true informations, might not complete informations but users are here for this, to edit day by day the pages. I've read on Neal Century's Blog that Wikipedia wanted to Delete the page, that's why i'm writing here. I think the informations about Neal Century and The Work should only be edited as better as we all can. I think that's the spirit of this Site, isn't it? Hopefully, i hope my edit could have helped you to calm a bit the situation. Thanks a lot. Joanna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.1.134.5 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is still me. I wanted to say that if you have a look to the people that have collabotared with George Michael the singer, you can find Mr. Yandiorio. Thanks. Joanna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.1.134.5 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On his Blog Neal Century says that wikipedia wants to delete his Biography... why? Non-Notable? Are you Joking? Just because you don't know him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. We are collecting over 150'000 sings to report a petition against all the users that want to delete the pages. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia!!! More signs will be available on the blog in the next days to ask to Jimmy Donal Wales... the man that ownes Wiki to block these administration users. They are not good enough to cope with such a big thing as wiki... for sure!

If someone reads... Sing the Petition! Maria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariabrumana (talk • contribs) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails Wikipedia's content inclusion criteria of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (music), cites no sources other than Myspace and YouTube and I can't find any other usable ones. Hut 8.5 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom non notable. BigDunc^Talk 15:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopeless vanity. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself states the tours were 'self-organized and not notable'.If the artist or their fans don't feel the tour was notable,then what hope for the rest of us? Lemon martini (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either a hoax or hopelessly vanity. In either case, miserably fails notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no reliable sources support the notability of the subject (either subject) --Haemo (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: can this be a snowstorm? -- Hoary (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's subject has apparently made several legal threats, and claims to have been in contact with the foundation, I wouldn't suggest closing this early. Let's give it the full five days. - auburnpilot talk 16:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously nn. Eusebeus (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Flash Game[edit]

Fangame which doesn't establish notability. I prodded the article but the template was removed without any explanation or improvement. Therefore I'm taking it to AFD. Kariteh (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kariteh (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Kariteh (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not asserted or established Frank | talk 13:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom --SkyWalker (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty sure this game was deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Smash Flash. Either way, it doesn't appear to meet either the verifiability or notability guidelines. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fangame. JuJube (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fangame is right. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fangame is an understatement. Addionne (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to establish notability, no reliable sources coming up in a search. Someone another 00:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hurley[edit]

Delete. Notability not established by any independent references. The so-called "article" about his movie role emanates from a Wikipedia edit by the same author as this article, almost two years ago. See [12]. WWGB (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is wrong with this page? Its well written and referenced, it deals with a well respected and well know actor and television personality in Ireland, if articles are to be deleted purely on the bases that concern people who are no well know outside there home country there would be thousands or articles in need of the same treatment. Clearly whoever tagged this is not an Irish resident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkback09 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 18 May 2008

Referenced? It is referenced to something that you wrote in July 2006, here. WWGB (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established; no gnews hits, few ghits are blogs/myspace/etc. Frank | talk 13:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE Is Mr. WWGB high raking in the Irish Film Board, thats the only way I can explain him know about the cancellation of this film, while their lates news letter mentions it. (WmddP (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)). — WmddP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

Comment - this article is not about a film; it's about an actor. Also, the decision to delete or not delete is not based on one editor and neither is it based on people's rank in society or industry. It's based on consensus, which is what this page is about. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to have an article in Wikipedia. We will see what consensus develops for this article regarding keep or delete. In the meantime, you are welcome to improve the article by adding to its content and finding reliable sources to cite notability of the actor. It is a distinct possibility that improving the article will result in a decision to keep it. Frank | talk 13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh! Sorry Frank, I had both articles open in tabs, my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WmddP (talk • contribs) 13:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found, and doesn't pass WP:BIO criteria. Epbr123 (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable actor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Insufficient coverage to pass WP:BIO. Guliolopez (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources given that show his notability or anything about him. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only real assertion of notability is having been in Angela's Ashes (film) and yet he is not listed as a cast member in that article... Beeblbrox (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Also Clearly whoever tagged this is not an Irish resident is a totally irrelevant observation. If the sources are out there, anyone can use them to establish notability no matter where they live. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by LId (A7). Non-admin closure. --Beloved Freak 13:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Zone Wrestling[edit]

Just another form of wrestling. No assertion of notability, no mention in reliable sources. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established, no gnews hits, possibly a speedy delete candidate Frank | talk 12:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I may be looking in the wrong places, but a Google search for "Michael Manning priest" found nothing that establishes notability. May I also remind Elan26 that just because a famous publisher publishes something doesn't mean that the subject matter is automatically famous (see WP:INHERITED). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Manning (priest)[edit]

While this person has written a number of books and appeared as a guest on a number of talk shows, the article fails to reference wide citation of this person in their field. Creator may have a conflict of interest. Zero references cited in the article.Rtphokie (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Manning is a non-notable Roman Catholic priest. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look, it's a really, really badly-written article. No footnotes. Terrible. However, the guy has notability. You have to google him a little carefully, with key words like Catholic because there are a lote of Michael mannings in the world. But he appears to be a legitimate personality within the North American Catholic community. Even the list of books on the page is lousy, mixing what appear to be pamphlets with at least one real book: Questions and Answers for Today's Catholic: A Catholic Answers Difficult. Note the publisher, Thomas Nelson. that alone would establish notability. This notability debate is probably unnecessary. Flag the article for needing improvement and keep it.Elan26 (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Keep for the reasons Elan26 cited for keeping Fg2 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elan's reasons are compelling. In addition to web sources, there will be dead tree sources. GRBerry 13:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would consider withdrawing the AFD if some concrete sources could be located. So far we know he's published a book (more?) and written some pamphletes but there are still no verifiable 3rd party references showing this.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazon lists the book --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately simply being an author doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE which stats that the person must be regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
Delete - Quick search didn't result in any worthy refs. Hooper (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is 2 years old and completely unsourced, no sources whatsoever. Delete per WP:NOTABILITY.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect (non-admin closure) Content is already merged, redirecting per WP:SILENCE Beeblbrox (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things I Want[edit]

Notability; song never released as single etc Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tenacious D discography. I would like to note also that since this is not likely to be controversial, you could have just gone ahead and merged or proded per WP:BOLD, rather than having it sit at AfD for five days of debate. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the info is already there, so no merge is necessary, you can just redirect, withdraw the nomination and call it good. That's what I would do anyway. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to FIFA Club World Cup as already merged. Black Kite 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badge of Honour FIFA[edit]

Contested PROD. Original concern was "The bulk of this information already exists in the FIFA Club World Cup article, while the remainder will just end up being a long list of the competition's winners, which also exists in the main article." PROD was removed by User:Adrianski with the reason "The award is not trivial, taking into account the Badge of honour is similar to UEFA Badge of Honour. Besides that the same article exists in Italian Wikipedia, which was used for creating this page. I don't see a reason for deletion!" However, this award is not similar to the UEFA Badge of Honour at all, in that the UEFA Badge of Honour is a permanent award that is given to any team that has won the UEFA Champions League five times overall or for three consecutive years. The "FIFA Badge of Honour", however, is a temporary award that may only be worn for a year by the team that won the FIFA Club World Cup the previous year, making it akin to the badges worn by the Premier League's winning team from the previous season, or the Scudetto shield. – Pee Jay 11:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 11:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant information into the FIFA Club World Cup article. GiantSnowman 12:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Already done, it seems. All the relevant info is currently in the lead of the FIFA Club World Cup article. – Pee Jay 12:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect not notable in of itself.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious article title and minimal content so merge/redirect --Rumping (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Explosion of Latino Players in MLB[edit]

A curiously inconsistent little essay, completely unsourced and stagnant for months. Badger Drink (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates the No original research policy.--Beloved Freak 13:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rewrite Clearly WP:OR, unsourced, very incomplete. An article of this sort needs to go back farther than a couple years and explore why there are more Latino players. Eauhomme (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An essay like this must have a lot of references or else it's just WP:OR. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. Clearly it's OR but the topic is notable. My main concern is that a comprehensive search may find it to be copyvio. In the absence of any evidence of that I'd still like to see it properly referenced before I'd be entirely comfortable. Debate (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was conflicted, as a name change and a complete, fully referenced rewrite could turn this into a quality article. However, I soon realized that deleting it and leting that new article with proper references and no original research would accomplish the same goal... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous comments. Personally, I was amused by the title, because it suggests spontaneous combustion (oh no, A-Rod just blew up!). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Sosa, would you please take the field? ...ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Sosa has learnt the value of not being seen. --Badger Drink (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efxor (Vintage Album)[edit]

Non-notable self-released album by a non-notable band that has only self-released albums. Oddly enough, WP:CSD allows for speedy deletion of non-notable garage bands but if they burn a non-notable CD in their garage that is explicitly not speedyable. So here we are. Weregerbil (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, blatant advertising Frank | talk 12:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band page has already disappeared, and if nobody associated with the album is notable, then the album can't be notable. A speedy would have satisfied me. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Angelini[edit]

A lot of fake stuff. This person is still alive, I've talked with one of his students... then, work like A failure as Physicist but incomparable as headmaster or The Headmaster are completely fake (also google thinks so ;-)). Furthermore, if it's a so famous physicist, why isn't an article on the Italian wikipedia (at least a stub?). --Fil nik ^dimmi! 10:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment This person does appear to be notable, but it is very hard to sift through the article to find out what exactly is true and isn't. There are a lot of google hits out there for this person (or at least for people with the same name), but not being able to speak Italian makes it hard to judge. I've had a nose through the Italian speaking Wikipedians list, and found User:Alessandro57 who might be a good person to ask for their thoughts. I'll drop a note on his page. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Got a response from User:Alessandro57, who stated that the article is a hoax. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Italian and I've seen that there are a lot of people with the same name and surname of this Headmaster. But if you see they are all different people, the first is a photograph, another is works with plants and trees (this one) and so on. If you search for Massimo Angelini preside you won't find something (headmaster = preside in Italian) because now preside is no more used in Italian but dirigente scolastico so if you search for Massimo Angelini dirigente scolastico you'll find the right person. But as you can see, it's a normal headmaster in articles like Massimo Angelini will take a speech about his gymnasium or something related to some events that his gymnasium takes part. So, imho it's a fake :-) --Fil nik ^dimmi! 12:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Most of the information in the article did not check out when I attempted verification. There is absolutely nothing by this guy or citing him in MathSciNet or Web of Science. The ArXiv also has not heard of him or his theorems. Nothing of relevance in GoogleScholar[13]. You cannot get a "famous physisist" with no publications and no mentions of your work in scholarly articles. Fails WP:V and WP:PROF. I don't think he passes WP:BIO either. GoogleNews[14] and GoogleBooks[15] have nothing of relevance about him or his books. I don't see evidence of substantial coverage by independent reliable sources here as required by WP:BIO. Moreover, given the problems with all the unverified and potentially contentious claims in this article, and given the fact that this is a BLP article, WP:BLP gives us an extra reason to delete it. Nsk92 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The brilliant mathematical discovery from an elementary geometry course is enough to show this is absurd. sounds like a typical schoolboy prank making possibly affectionate fun of a teacher. DGG (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh my, this is ridiculous. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax, random nonsensical vandalism; whatever it is, away with it. There's certainly no notability here. I'm surprised a newpage patroller didn't Speedy this. Merenta (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest suburbs in the world[edit]

Anti-policy (WP:OR), list is compiled from a mish-mash of various (largely uncited) statistics, i.e. a synthesis of published material. Also, subjective / indiscriminate title. While many of these places are within the sphere of influence or metropolitan area of a larger city, it is not necessarily accurate to label them as "suburbs". Deiz talk 08:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not cited, possibly OR, badly written. Atyndall93 | talk 09:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not cited, poorly written, --Bumbliedoo (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pretty much unverifiable. Deciding on a uniform criterion to rank cities by size was hard enough, the concept of a "suburb" is so vague that this list will never really be considered correct. ~ mazca ^talk 12:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR Frank | talk 12:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as unverifiable original research.--Beloved Freak 13:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with all above. Jack?! 14:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – agree with Jack. haz (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If a suburb is defined as an independent city within a metropolitan area, a list of suburbs would be worthwhile. I agree that this is poorly written (a table would be nice, as well as-- DUH -- a mention of what metro area the suburb appends to). Looks like a delete, but no prejudice to recreating this if someone can find a source that ranks suburbs, or at least gives there population. Mandsford (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "if" invalidates the argument though - the table contains satellite cities rather than suburbs, and even that definition is subjective. Deiz talk 00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violation of WP:OR. What is a suburb? Oh, sorry, suburbs with only city proper populations? What about non-Asian countries? What about trying to find sources that have looked into this before and referencing them? No, this is a mess, and someone is doing WP:OR while they are messing it up. Arsenikk ^(talk) 01:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete because there's really no notability here. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unified SCC[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Unified SCC/aigenta.com. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find reference of Unified SCC in any books, new archives or scholar papers, fails notability guidelines Atyndall93 | talk 09:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is unclear; however, this tool is very fresh. Information in this article is correct and objective, as a programmer I found it quite useful. ZealousCoder (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is unsourced, ok, unsourced. I googled it, 723 results. So we have an unsourced article created by an WP:SPA, with low Google hit and low traffic [16] (visited only 441 times in April). Delete per WP:NOTABILITY.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability, unreferenced, SPA/COI. Plenty of reasons to delete not any reason to keep other than useful, which isn't enough. Dimitrii (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a more or less unanimous delete. Sandstein 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Human Rights in Macedonia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This was nominated some weeks back and closed (in a decision I find utterly incomprehensible) with a "no consensus", with a request to the delete voters to first try and improve the article (shouldn't that be the responsibility of those who wanted to keep?) and then come back here if that didn't help. There had previously be a consensus to delete among all editors who actually had tried for months to maintain this article; all keep votes were by drive-by outsiders who never raised a finger to improve it. So, now we're back here. Predictably, there has been no improvement to the article since the closure (in fact, not a single edit). There couldn't possibly be, because there are no sources out there. This has been nothing but a predictable waste of time.

The subject in question is an alleged political organisation representing a nationalist fringe group; in reality it is not much more than a one-man personal website run by a notorious hate propagandist (who also happens to be a wikipedia editor banned for personal attacks and sockpuppetry.) It has no known public activities, other than occasionally writing letters to politicians and newspapers, and publishing crude hate videos on youtube. Information derived from the "organisation"'s own sources is even more unuseable in this case than anywhere else, because lying about itself is exactly the one thing which earned it its only claim to public notoriety (in a limited media incident back when it was founded.)

All the "keep" arguments brought forward in the previous AfD were specious and ought to have been disregarded by the closing admin.

"The organization exists and is registered" (brought forward by an anon, probably a COI sock). — Existence doesn't mean notability. I once founded a registered association myself, does that make it notable? You need 20 signatures to legally register an association in Greece. So what?
"Ethnic issues and minority rights are extremely important in the Balkans" — of course they are, but this "organisation" doesn't represent such an issue, but merely the hate propaganda of a single disturbed individual and a few friends of his.
"There is a longer article about it on the Bulgarian Wikipedia" — which is itself unsourced and can obviously not serve as a source for us.
"It has over 500 members" — the bg-wiki reports that the group's website claimed that (couldn't find the info there though). As pointed out above, any information derived from the organisation itself is ipso facto dubious. This organisation is known to lie about itself; in fact that is the only notable thing it has ever been known for.
A wiki-lawyerish argument saying that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. [...] That means that just because it doesn't have multiple, reliable sources doesn't make it non-notable." — I'm still speechless at this display of logic.

This leaves us with that one small incident when a couple of newspapers reported about the founding of this organisation, its claims of enjoying support from the Bulgarian government, and Bulgaria's subsequent denial. Fifteen minutes of notoriety in a single incident. Additionally, none of the media coverage we found of this incident contains any real information about the organisation itself (who's behind it, what they really want, how many they are, etc.) The media coverage is really more informative about the hysterical over-reaction from Greek nationalists, than about the organisation that triggered it.

In short, the only reliably sourced piece of information we have about this organisation is that the Bulgarian prime minister wants nothing to do with them. That's not enough for an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one source in English to prove the organization does exist, google search, news, books and scholar turn up nothing. Seems to be famous for one isolated incident, fails organization notability criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 10:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge probably into Bulgarians. Not because I disagree with Future Perfect at Sunrise, I rather think that he is fundamentally correct, but part of me also says that the irridentism in Macedonia is so substantial that we need a place to put it. There are two difficulties here. One is that irredentist groups tend to morph and multiply (remember the hysterically funny scene in the Life of Brian with the Palestine Liberation Army, the National Palestinian Front and a dozen other splinter groups). Of course, it's only funny if you are not a member of a dissatisfied ethnic minority, of which there are a lot with a lot of organizations. You really don't want to give each small org. its own page. On the other hand, Macedonia actaully does have ethnic Bulgarian irredentists. the problem, as I see it, is where to put small write-ups of irredentist groups? If you put them on the page of the ocuntry they live in, the material will be deleted by partisans of the nation they don't want to be part of. So, perhaps it is best to put small sectins not on the page belonging to the state they would prefer to be a part of (this might imply government support) but on the page of the ethnie with which they identify. In this case. BulgarianElan26 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure you realise just how marginal this thing is. Bulgarian irridentists in Greek Macedonia? I'm not sure, I've never heard of any, except this one. Sources? This guy is essentially a single person (who probably got some friends to sign up to get his 20 signatures together, sure, but we have no evidence whatsoever that anybody except one or possibly two persons ever were active in this group.) Mentioning this in any way in the context of an article like Bulgarians would almost certainly constitute undue weight. And of course, you still have the sourcing issue. Remember, we have exactly one single factbite about this group that is sourced, and that fact is a negative one (they are not supported by the Bulgarian government). What would your small writeup contain? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll switch my vote to agree with you on this group, which may not may not exist in any real sense. Elan26 (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR Merge into "Bulgarians" Mactruth (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dies Irae (Romanian band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Only one full length album on a non notable label, no tours, no news coverage etc... Delete Undeath (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete search of news and books turns up nothing about the band, has not released a notable album, fails band inclusion criteria Atyndall93 | talk 10:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After almost 2 years this article is still unsourced, so delete per WP:MUSIC.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future warrior: Hero of tomorrow...today[edit]

Both rumoured and unofficial sequel to low budget Z-list film Future War that hasn't been released yet, is the debut for everyone involved apparently and searching for it brings back zero results. To say this fails notability standards is an understatement. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-nocontext. JuJube (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't believe this meets speedy guidelines. However, no sources cited and only G-hit is to the Wikipedia article. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Redfarmer (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero results in both google search, books and news. Article is about a a film that isn't even released yet. It fails notability and future guidelines. Also, the creator of the article is a single purpose account. Atyndall93 | talk 10:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 11:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Happyme22 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge (non-admin closure), I merged all the pages to List of characters in Malcolm in the Middle --Coasttocoast (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hal (Malcolm in the Middle)[edit]

Theses are all character for the TV show Malcolm in the Middle. All they have in them are plots and trivia with no real world information. All of them are unsourced and contain original research. The few sources that they do have are from IMDB and Tv.com, both unreliable sources. I doubt theres any secondary sources to establish notability. I did not list Malcolm since hes a protagonist and should probably be listed separately. Either way his article is just as bad. Coasttocoast --(talk) 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Non-notable, should be in main Malcolm in the Middle article, not separate.Renee (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the designation of them as "supporting" cast is entirely inaccurate. Every article listed here (excluding Jamie) were the main characters of the show along with Malcolm as the show used an ensemble cast. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok got rid of that-- Coasttocoast (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Malcolm in the Middle or perhaps into a new list of characters, as the list on the main show page is rather long already. Mr. Absurd (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into (a new) List of characters in Malcolm in the Middle. The show ran for several seasons, won many awards, used to be popular, and I don't doubt that sources exist to write some decent articles (or at least sections). The only thing I am a little concerned about is the original research in some of the characters' articles (especially Dewey (Malcolm in the Middle)), so there is so much necessary trimming that deletion and a fresh start may not be much worse. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per Sgeureka. Malcolm in the Middle was a very important show. I don't think merging all the characters into the show article is helpful. JuJube (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just because an article is currently in a bad state is not a reason to AfD it. Articles should be fixed if possible. That being said, if we are to merge these, Malcolm should be merged too as his notability would be similarly questionable. That being said some more, considering the show ran for seven years or so, there should be plenty of interviews with cast and crew out there, all of which would be lovely secondary sources. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except Malcolm to List of characters in Malcolm in the Middle these characters do not warrant articles of their own as they do not have notability and notability is not inheritable. Atyndall93 | talk 10:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per Sgeureka. I agree that this is the best solution here. Eusebeus (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, including Malcolm (Malcolm in the Middle) to List of characters in Malcolm in the Middle - Malcolm has no more of a claim of notability than the others. There is a similar lack of sources in the Malcolm article as in all the others, and exactly the same problems in that it is SOLELY plot with no other detail. Malcolm has no notability that the others lack - his only notability is that it's his name in the show, and that is adequately covered in the main show artcle. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Malcolm would be notable, but everyone else needs to get a moo-ve on. Ziggy Saw dust 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Malcolm in the Middle characters per the consensus that lists are the way to handle non-notable elements of a notable set. I can see an argument for not merging Malcolm himself, and with enough references, I'll vote keep for him when he comes up. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything to List of Malcolm in the Middle characters. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all characters in the film to List of Malcolm in the Middle characters. Happyme22 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It probably would be possible to put together a decent article on Hal or Lois. There's a lot that could be culled from newspaper articles: [17], [18]. Indeed, there's probably more real-world information about them than Malcolm. For the time being, I'd be fine with moving all the characters into a list, but I do think some of these articles have potential to be pretty good. Zagalejo^^^ 19:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until improved, per Zafalejo's realistic comment. DGG (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done I merged all the pages per consensus. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgewater Bandits[edit]

Non Notable amateur junior hockey teams. It appears that all of the teams in the League got articles at one time or another and at least one was deleted after an expired PROD. This was a contested prod on all of these articles. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable.Renee (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All All are Junior A hockey teams. Junior hockey is the feeder system to the NHL. If anything the articles need expansion and improvement tags. DMighton (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Based on Eastern Junior Hockey League the teams aren't actually Junior A and sound more like a local minor league which have been routinely deleted in the past. -Djsasso (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I believe that back in the day the EJHL was a little shakier than it is now, but my understanding is that it is a legitimate junior league. As you know Djsasso, most of the American junior leagues, including the USHL and NAHL, are relatively new and experience many growing pains. Also, it probably seems that way because the guy who built the page didn't do a very good job. DMighton (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Oh I know, which is why I haven't !voted delete. I don't know enough about that junior league to comment. I could only go on what I saw in the leagues article itself. I know you know your junior hockey so I am more than willing to go on what you say. -Djsasso (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks. I just think these articles are terribly done, I think that is the problem here. I guess I'll have to give them the treatment. Templates, sources, update them a bit, find more history to add. I am very familiar with two of the teams because they used to play in the OPJHL... the articles just need some work. DMighton (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Running a Google News Archive Search on those teams turns up results from various newspapers about the teams themselves and the games they have won/lost. Because of this I think those articles meet notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 10:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Even though individual players are not normally notable, the teams are. --Eastmain (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's notability doesn't appear to be a problem. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Teams are notable, both locally, and within the hockey community. --Bill.matthews (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone supporting these articles please find sources that are more than just scores listed in the papers? I couldn't find anything. And its not a feeder for the NHL, its a high school club league...from the article about the league "The League consists of 14 teams in the Northeastern US. The EJHL prepares players for college hockey. The league is strictly amateur." LegoTech·(t)·(c) 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very inaccurate. All junior hockey is a pro feeder system. The beauty of Junior A is that it provides a level where you can go either the pro or scholastic route (especially for late bloomers). To be a high school team, your team actually has to be affiliated to a high school and have to be strictly high school age. Players in these leagues can usually play up to the age of 21. Also, the word "amateur" in junior hockey is a relatively archaic term... and is loosely fitted to junior hockey. If anything, the article should say that "players in this league are still NCAA eligible, as long as the abide by NCAA guidelines." Also, newspapers are an acceptable statistical resource and are the most common statistical sharing tool for the sport of hockey. DMighton (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Problem is that newspapers will report the scores of whatever you send in...if you want to submit the scores for your local darts league, you can find a paper to print them...I don't see how box scores satisfy WP:RS...history, sources, anything like that would help lots! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fixed that Boston link. You see, with Junior leagues newspapers will actually "cover" the league. This normally includes professional articles and interviews... minimum weekly standings... and yes, box scores. The degree of coverage usually involves how local the paper is to the team or league in question. Also, if there is a "bigger" team in your centre you might get less coverage than normal, like an NHL club would outshine and junior club for newspaper coverage. I find it very rare to find minor hockey standings in a newspaper... although some do. The difference between minor and junior is that minor is the developmental stage, while junior is the fast tracking stage... and the goal of junior is to prepare a player to either go directly into the NHL, AHL, IHL, or ECHL, or if they so choose to undertake NCAA or CIS, to go there and delay they pro jump by four years (perfect for late bloomers). Junior is all about championships, sometimes to the point that amateur status becomes not only shady, but non-existent. Either way, when I get a chance I'll start cleaning up the articles.. I contacted the guy who put the stats in and asked him for his sources so I can add them. DMighton (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the addition and withdrawal of multiple articles during the debate made it a little difficult to determine whether there was any major problem with the process that would require a closing and relisting of the AfD to sort out (hence my first-ever use of ((closing))), it appears that this was not significantly disruptive to the discussion, and the comments presented during the time that multiple articles were listed are equally applicable to the one that stands now.

That being said, my initial impression of this discussion was that it was fairly split, possibly even a no consensus. However, the comments supporting deletion note that the article violates Wikipedia's ban on original research, one of the criteria for inclusion and indeed one of the concepts on which the encyclopedia is founded. As the keep comments do not address this fundamental issue, it seems there is a policy-based consensus to delete. --jonny-m t 07:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of stock characters in comedy[edit]

Completely OR, unencyclopedic cruft. If references were found, it still wouldn't be worthy of inclusion. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:~~

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There certainly are "stock characters" in comedy and other forms of fiction. I disagree strongly with the nominator's claim "If references were found, it still wouldn't be worthy of inclusion" as being contrary to the Wikipedia notions of notability being established via reliable sources. That said, the article as it exists is weakly sourced and contains much original research. Considerable research would need to be done to bring it up to standards. Edison (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While stock characters surely exist, I don't see how a list of them would ever meet true notability standards. The stock character article itself is completely OR, I don't see how this list could ever fare better. Being well-known does not signify notability; 'Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"'. Notability is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", even a few references wouldn't necessarily mean notability. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. If sources could be found for these different archetypes, I think it would be worth keeping. As is, no sourcing and seems to be OR.Renee (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Encyclopedic subject. [19] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a distinct difference between "mentioning" something and "covering" it. Just because many books mention it, does not mean it is notable or encyclopedic. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, and most likely does have sources to be found. Not sure if this version is on the right track or not, but that's what editing is for. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, maybe a merge with Stock character? I haven't looked at it in depth, but since it is the main article on the subject, it might be the best starting point for a good version. This "merge" could even mean keeping two articles, but replacing this article's content with some found on Stock character. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is encyclopedic, meets notability criteria and also is very interesting. Most of the sources can be found in characters' articles linked. And, as Ned Scott well remember, new editions are welcome to improve the article's sources. About merge the article with Stock character, we have four another lists of stock characters to merge. It may be a problem. (Caiaffa (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy Keep The List of female stock characters was discussed here just a few days ago and so it is too soon to bring it back here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the others, but missed that one. List of female stock characters withdrawn. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lists are almost entirely OR, but if there was a chance of finding sources for this I would be arguing to keep. While the topic is interesting, and a lot of work has gone into it, my concern is that there is ultimately nothing solid backing it up that would enable it to transcend one editor's insightful, but nonetheless subjective analysis. Per WP:SYN, it would not be sufficient for these articles to provide a series of references to individual characters unless those references themselves explicitly referred to the characters as archetypes/stock-characters (and even this would still, arguably, be problematic). An alternative approach would be to use a list of archetypes from a particularly notable, reliable source, but this would almost certainly require reworking the articles nearly from scratch. Debate (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Authority figures in comedy, as per User:Debate above, without prejudice against sourced re-creation. I don't deny there might be a possibility of writing sourced articles about these subjects, but if that were to happen it would mean rewriting these from scratch. There is, after all, an academic field called literary criticism that certainly has some relevant literature. But the authors of these wikipedia pages (except the one I noted, which has some reasonable source) have evidently never read a line of that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just rewritten the SF list. It didn't take long. Such activity is more productive than deletion and recreation. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm... well, in the reference you provided there is no entry for "Alien invader", "Caveman", "Fish out of water", "Lotus-eaters", "Machine", "Mad Scientist", "Martian", "Sex object" and "Shapeshifter" (aside from "Redshirt" and "Little green men", which are also absent and which you didn't reference). "Absent-minded professor" is a film, not a stock character reference, "Demon" is only a cross reference to "supernatural creatures", "Zombie" is a cross reference to "Dawn of the Dead", and the only mention of Hitler is "Hitler Wins" (ie a theme, not an archetype)... of the remainder, references to archetypes are marginal in several and there is no indication in the article why these "stock characters" (archetypes) are chosen and not one of the thousands of other entries in that 1300 page encyclopedia. Perhaps there's a reason why it didn't take long to add the references. Suffice to say that this article still looks like OR to me. Debate (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started with that encyclopedia's entry on Clichés (pp 234-5) and then added entries from the checklist of Themes (p xxiv) which were stock characters. If you don't think that such entries from Alien invaders to Zombies are not SF stock characters, then you are obviously not familiar with the genre. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that clichés, themes and "stock characters" are not the same thing, although further discussion of content should no doubt best continue on that list's talk page. Whether or not I'm familiar with the genre is irrelevant, since I'm not a reliable source. ;-) Debate (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please keep in mind the notability aspect. Is the idea of "stock characters in science fiction" itself notable? Has there been "significant coverage" of this idea? One book that mentions similar ideas is not notability. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 14:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Stock characters if sources to prove that these are indeed stock characters, then merge into main article, if they cannot Delete all the articles due to lack of references or proof of notability. Atyndall93 | talk 10:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the hell is this? It's not even comparable to most lists here on Wikipedia. It should be in paragraphs not bulletin lists, and this article is NOTHING but bulletin list. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support the idea of a list of stock characters in comedy, but this is not a good one. It's missing some very well-recognized ones, like straight man, schlemeel, schlemazel that are used all the time in film criticism. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidenote - are you sure you aren't thinking of the opening theme song from Laverne & Shirley? [20] ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was waiting for someone to mention that. But they really are common terms among movie critics. Think, respectively, of Jerry, George, and Kramer from Seinfeld. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete all While these are enjoyable to read, and there's a grain of truth to these, there's no excuse for this being purely original research. I recall that movie critics like Roger Ebert have written about movie cliches. As far as stock characters on Wikipedia, this one was written by the "rules schmules" guy, and this comes down to a battle between the verse-quoting geeks like me, and the mother hens who believe that the articles will improve on their own. The decision will be made by one of several stock characters... most likely the "because-I-said-so" one who will announce a decision with no explanation, or the "fretter", who will make a decision and describe the agony that went into making the decision. It's a tossup on whether there will be a response to this from the "please-be-civil" character, or the "easily offended reader" who worries that I might be talking about him. Mandsford (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that selection is a problem, but the method of preparing the list seems reasonable. And probably there are reasonable actual sources that discuss this--many books do. Some of the above comments simply object to lists altogether, which is of course contrary to Wikipedia practice.DGG (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've realized something that has been irking me, which is that these are not even stock characters. These are clichés, or commonly used character types, but not stock characters. A stock character is totally interchangeable, and they usually have the same names. A stock character has the same personality and the same sorts of reactions, so the audience already knows what to expect although they've never encountered this incarnation before. Stock characters do not exist anymore, as they went the way of the Chorus. Steve Urkell from Family Matters has a totally different personality than Wilson from Home Improvement, and would not react the same in the same situation. And Wikipedia can't list every clichéd character type that exists, so why list some of them? Also, information that is not referenced and that does not assert notability can be removed. If these articles should not be removed, then these problems should be fixed. I don't feel the argument "these are notable and have sources because I understand the basic idea" is really valid. If these are notable and have contextual sources then please share. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why? Because this article gives you some really good insights and well-written knowledge about stock characters, which are a very important part of comedy. And most of us can verify this for ourselves. 92.237.21.186 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind, while you're at it, verifying it for Wikipedia as well? Insight is great if it's valid, but these articles are unreferenced, non-notable, and the very idea they are based on is inaccurate. These are not verifiable, because these are not stock characters, and if there is anyone that disagrees with this statement, please prove me wrong. Unless the information can be shown to be factual, and the subject notable, these articles should be deleted. If, after that, someone were to write a completely different article that was verifiable and notable, there is certainly nothing stopping them. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would, but I have no idea, and I don't really have the time, to put in verification. 92.237.21.186 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this AfD changed from one article when I first commented to multiple articles. Please remove all articles put up for deletion after the AfD started and people commenting. My comment was appropriate for the original AfD and no longer represents my feelings after the scope was changed. I could update my comments, but instead of trying to follow a moving target, the target should go back to what it was originally or the AfD should restarted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other articles withdrawn. This debate is now (and again) only about List of stock characters in comedy. Apologies for over-complicating things. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Tag. I believe the majority of WP articles have at least one cleanup tag (it seems like it, at least); many have 2 or more. There is no question that this article needs improvement, but that is no reason to delete what is otherwise a valid subject of study. Tag this article for WP:OR and WP:CITE; maybe we could get this added to WikiProject Film. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou conjecture[edit]

Non-notable and highly-likely-to-be-incorrect conjecture by a non-notable mathematician, Zhou Haizhong, whose article I am separately nominating for deletion. A previous version of the biography was successfully prodded, and at the same time the material now in this article was added but then removed by community consensus from Mersenne conjectures, an article about some more notable conjectures on the same general topic (the distribution of Mersenne primes). Rather than try another prod, I thought it would be best to go straight to an AfD. David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I did a quick Google search and a few third-party scholarly sources came up (see this and this. I think the article needs to be expanded a bit to explain it more for non-mathemeticians. Renee (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I've added two new scholarly references to the article.Renee (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- The Weymark and Huang references appear to be about something unrelated. Zhou is a common name among academics; you have to be sure it's the right Zhou. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete. Thanks. You're right. I went and examined the references of the full articles and the former refers to an L. Zhou and the latter (Chen-Hsu-Zhou) conjecture is by a J. Zhou. I've changed my vote. Thanks for catching that.Renee (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Reneeholle. Could not find anything at all related to this conjecture in MathSciNet. A non-notable conjecture by a non-notable mathematician. Nsk92 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a paper was published on this in what appears to be a peer-reviewed journal. That's nice, but it doesn't make a subject notable. A note in the Chinese version of SciAm really doesn't, either. It's not nothing, but it's not enough to establish notability in this rough crowd. Merenta (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The conjecture, as presently stated, is meaningless (the variable p appears in the if part, and not in the then). If there is an article here, better to start over once notability is established. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable (scholar) article about a neologism. (Does the paper by Zhou himself call this the Zhou conjecture?) silly rabbit (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bartok twins[edit]

Unreferenced article about twin brothers who are apparently Czech porn actors. No assertion of notability, they do not meet WP:PORNBIO guidelines. The lack of references could infer BLP issues as well. Risker (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability and WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Happyme22 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Haizhong[edit]

Nothing of interest appears in Google scholar nor does his name appear to be in MathSciNet at all. No indication of passing WP:PROF. I am separately nominating Zhou conjecture which, as his only contribution claimed as notable here, appears highly likely to be wrong. The similar article Hai-Zhong Zhou was successfully prodded a few weeks ago but rather than attempt a second prod I thought it would be best to go straight to AfD. David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also could not find any references in MathSciNet; GoogleScholar gives 4 hits that do not appear to help here[21]. Of course, with a Chinese name, there is a possibility of a misspelling or of inconsistent transliteration of some sort, but in the absence of positive evidence it will have to be deleted. Fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability? Non. Delete? Oui. The preceding comment was added by User:Merenta. Nsk92 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. There is no assertion of notability. Also this is a recreation of a previously deleted page. Wow, that's two speedy criteria! silly rabbit (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, there is an assertion of notability (known for his study of Mersenne primes), and G4 is only for pages previously deleted after a full discussion. So I don't think its eligible for speedy. — David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke and Taylor Young[edit]

Article about twins who apparently acted in pornographic films in the 1970s. They do not meet WP:PORNBIO notability guidelines. Poorly referenced, inferring BLP concerns as well. Risker (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Edison (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO or WP:N. Tabercil (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd shinobi wars[edit]

Naruto-based modification for Warcraft III. Can't find any substantive coverage of the mod in reliable sources, so it doesn't appear to meet the notability and verifiability guidelines for inclusion. Was proposed for deletion by User:Dreaded Walrus, but the prod was removed without explanation. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable videogame mod. Could I also bring attention to Naruto Uzumaki SW, an article technically created by the same person - there is no need to bundle, as the prod has not been removed from that article, but that article is about a character from this mod (basically the mod's version of Naruto Uzumaki), which I certainly can't see being worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable game mod, written more like a game guide than an encyclopedia article. JIP | Talk 11:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not game guide, and non-official mods are not notable. Maybe this article is appropriate in some wikia, but not Wikipedia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some third-party mods can be notable. See Defense of the Ancients, for example, a featured article on a third-party mod for the same game. See also List of Half-Life mods and List of Half-Life 2 mods for just two lists of mods, many of which are third-party. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm confused, There a page on dota, This is a popular game, I don't see whats wrong with this page, the guy just trying to show information on it all, like other game pages such as kingdom Hearts that is a popular game the people who made it just trying to show facts about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.16.191 (talk • contribs)
- Re-read my nomination. Popularity isn't the only thing that matters here; a subject also has to meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:notability. The games you mention, as well as DOTA, meet those guidelines; I can't find any evidence that this mod meets the guidelines I mentioned. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Confuse:First improve this article, then it can be kept.--Freewayguy ^{T C} 03:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable mod. No reliable verifiable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friendonomics[edit]

Apparent neologism, no evidence of notability. Purpose of article may merely to astroturf game/website of same name. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Reliable sources for neologisms. Also, NN. There is some evidence that the term is in use within marketing circles, however I cannot find any secondary sources documenting its use and the coinage (ca. 2007) seems too recent to have achieved any particular penetration. The game website is still in beta and even searching the Forrester Research website returns no hits. Debate (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pathetic attempt by the author to coatrock his way into a spam article. JuJube (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no secondary sources; only one "real" ref - the second merely quotes the first - plus the "board game" issue. I agree with some of the previous editors here that this appears a bit spammish. Not notable; therefore delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merenta (talk • contribs)
Delete nothing in News or Scholar to indicate a term in general use, it's a neologism and not a particularly notable one at that. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 22:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteworthy. Artene50 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-onomics 101. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy closed, merged discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Chris and The Dickens". Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris and the Dickens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chris and the Dickens

Another AfD for the exact same page with a (seemingly) error in the title going on (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Chris and The Dickens". Band that fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC. Has some WP:CRYSTAL characteristics. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 03:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of this AfD should be deferred to the one below (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Chris and The Dickens"), as these are essentially the same article on the same topic, and that one already has discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris and the Dickens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Chris and The Dickens"

Contested PROD. Non-notable band. Only references provided are myspace and youtube. Roleplayer (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. provincial notability, fails WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC with a little bit of WP:CRYSTAL mixed in! What a twist! phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 03:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No references or sources to show notability per WP:BAND. Also, most of the info in the article is unverified and fails WP:V. Nsk92 (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable per WP:MUSIC, no WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I combined these two near-duplicate pages and their respective AFDs into one. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many thanks to you Dhartung. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 04:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails every critereon of WP:MUSIC. It reads like a press release for the band and seems to use Wikipedia as the website for a band who are too lazy to open a LiveJournal. Come back when you meet WP:MUSIC (Opening for The Toasters does not make you notable by itself). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 10:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Jack?! 14:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have refrences to radio stations, a newspapers, also prominent punk rock forums and websites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.128.242 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added refrences, and am proceeding to add more, Emails have been sent out to many websites requesting confirmation on information. The information is creditable, maybe not the MOST note worthy, but is in soem sort fo demand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatfootedninja (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What will be needed to make this more notable I read WP:BAND, and tried to match but I am assuming there needs to be more. I have this article's design saved, so I can add to it offline and hopefully make it notable enough.tutamensinenoism 02:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)fla4tf00t3dn1nja —Preceding comment was added at 02:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refrences should be enough for now, WRFL.fm doesnt have a sensible way to search playlist, and I am serching for another radio station in Cincinnati, this effort to prove notabilty is a 10 man effort right now.flatfootedninja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 02:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Flatfootedninja (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. I don't think you're fully understanding. The article MUST pass WP:MUSIC to be able to pass this. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 08:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Hús ö nd 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Ledger Independent can verify. They have been played on UK's radio station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.225.35 (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dont DELETE! notabilty can be on anyscale,a this band has made a HUGE regional impact, and SKa right now is almost a dead genre, it's completely underground with the new 4th wave, there may be only a few dozen ska bands that tour nationally, thsi band has made movements to conenct two regions essential to SKA's growth --flatf00t3dn1nja 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatfootedninja (talk • contribs)

Notability in general can be on any scale, but to be notable for Wikipedia this band still has to meet Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wpverifiability shouldn't be a problem, right nwo the arguement is what is consider notable,and if it is on a national or regional scale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatfootedninja (talk • contribs) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, it appears to be neither... just another local band with a few gigs in the greater Cincinnati area. --Kinu ^t/_c 12:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the magnitude of shows is not what makes CATD notable is the impact they have had on the 4th wave, which cincinnati is one for the major cities, for someone who follows ska, they reconize that its a movement underground. wiki users are judging them on the idea that they have never heard of them, but in ska and to ska fans we hear of new bands everyday. --flatf00t3dn1nja 17:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

the ska toolbar is also a HUGE search engine for ska fans, and CATD is a featured band

No, Wikipedia editors are judging this based on WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Blanket assertions that this band is making an impact on this genre of music, without any sort of third party evidence to that fact, do nothing for the sake of this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

third party information is hard to find, but i woudl consider airplay,newspaper write-ups,a dn the ska tool bar to be enough --flatf00t3dn1nja 11:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't help. Please read WP:MUSIC. We need more than the local newspaper writeups and local airplay. That simply means that the band is popular locally and there are thousands of bands in that case. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Golbez (A7 (group)). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cuernavaca lake basketball[edit]

Contested PROD of a non-notable basketball game . Appears to be something a couple of kids made up, and have provided zero sources (None exist, including the hoax references at the bottom of the article). Fails our basic criteria for inclusion. XRK (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. CSD A7. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as the references are even hoaxes themselves. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. The only Google hit to Thorax Publishing is this article and I can't find evidence for the existence of the other source either. I'm not sure that this is an obvious Speedy candidate, however, as hoaxes generally go to afd unless they're obvious nonsense. Debate (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Cho[edit]

Cho did not prevail in the 4th District NC Congressional primary, which is what he was notable for. At this time I do not believe he meets notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles. Gloriamarie (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What policy does this break. Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~. Delete I believe that this article does not pass WP:POLITICIAN at this time. A Google search, however, of Augustus Cho with quotes returns over 5,000 results. I do believe that this passes WP:BK, seeing that he has five books written. I think an expansion of this article is necessary, along with some good ole' sources. I have changed my vote to delete in lieu of Dhartung's information. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 23:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone mentions below that the books are self-published on Lulu.com.-Gloriamarie (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But expand to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can expand the article, not the person's notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 14 hits in GoogleNews[22], insufficient coverage by WP:RS to pass WP:POLITICIAN at this time. Also, a bit of BLP1E case. Nsk92 (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bunch of stuff which don't really add up. The media coverage that he has recieved has only been recent, in reaction to his lost election. His books don't appear to be that notable. Nor is county chairman of a political party that significant. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I agree with PhoenixMourning that the subject might have more of a claim on WP:BK than as a politician. His political career at this point is nothing more than a footnote. But I disagree that five books grants him automatic notability. I think we would have to at least establish that any of the books pass the criteria for notability. Montco (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah I didn't really read into his books. I was just browsing some sources that said he'd written five books. Whether or not those books are notable is beyond me... but I'm going to bet not. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 04:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have looked and not been able to find a concrete source for the five books (that doesn't mean one doesn't exist, just that I have not found it).--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO; candidates (especially those who lose a primary) are not inherently notable. His books are self-published using Lulu.com and I can find no independent and credible reviews thereof. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung, who sums up what I was able to find. Deor (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:POLITICIAN. And his "books" are out from vanity presses, failing WP:BK. Big deal: Some guy loses an election and then pays a vanity press for publication. This article has no business on WP. Qworty (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moment (Framing Hanley album)[edit]

Page which fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. The parent article, Framing Hanley, has been nominated for deletion twice (passed) and deleted a total of four times. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good Article. Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not keep articles based on the quality of them. They must be notable (in this case, passing WP:MUSIC#Albums is a must). phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no evidence it passes WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS and it's a very unlikely search term so a re-direct is not needed _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable album by a red link singer. Fails WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete or move to Wiktionary therefore default Keep. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ureotelic[edit]

Dictionary definition, no potential for expansion. Powers ^T 02:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and should be moved to the Wiktionary. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to Wiktionary where it belongs. -- Alexf⁴² 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Unsure~~ about this one. Although it looks like a dictionary definition, it actually refers to a technical scientific term rather than to a mundane everyday concept. No problem with reliable sources here[23]. Couldn't this actually be expanded into an article about how the process of excreting urea actually works in different types of organizms? Nsk92 (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete and move to Wiktionary per LtPowers' comments below. Nsk92 (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- We agree that it refers to a "technical scientific term". Articles about terms, however, are precisely the domain of Wiktionary and explicitly not the domain of Wikipedia. As for your final question, the answer is yes, and that article is at Urination. Powers ^T 14:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This scientific categorization belongs in Wiktionary just like this does. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikitionary: it belongs there. It's a dictionary definition. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary. Can not be expanded beyond dictionary definition. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikitionary because it is a definition, and only a definition. Happyme22 (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge/redirect. This can surely be expanded, although perhaps a better title would be ureotely, which is the noun, instead of the adjective. For example, an encyclopedia article can go beyond a definition and discuss the evolution of ureotely, its metabolic aspects, its regulation, its ecological impact, how it varies between species, and so on. At the very least, such a plausible target for linking and searching should be redirected somewhere reasonable. Urination, suggested above, is not. It deals mostly with human urination and talks about urination techniques but never even mentions urea. A more plausible target would be something like Urea#Physiology. --Itub (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many reliable sources available to demonstrate notability. Per Itub, I believe this could be expanded into an encyclopaedic article.--Beloved Freak 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There's a great deal to be said here. I'm not quite certain what form of the word (or possibly a phrase) should be used for the heading--the noun is rather uncommon. DGG (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand --Kyknos (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. To address some of the points above: If Urination is currently primarily about urination in humans, I see no reason that couldn't change to be about urination in general. Ureotely is an aspect of that process, for sure, but I don't see any evidence that the concept is distinct enough from urination and/or urea to merit its own article. It's easy to say "keep and expand" but without some indication of how this article could be expanded without overlapping the two other articles, I have to remain skeptical. Powers ^T 14:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Public Schools[edit]

Directory of Public Schools in Newton, MA, including phone numbers and secretaries; a reasonable listing is already in the Newton, Massachusetts page, and there is nothing encyclopedic about elementary schools per se. Rjyanco (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out !vote with no reason attached (WP:JUSTAVOTE). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poor job of being a page, because it just looks like a directory (see WP:DIRECTORY). I think with a few major adjustments, we can change this into a page similar to Pinellas County Schools. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 02:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, this is the recommended method of dealing with schools where they are not otherwise able to support an individual article. The article itself needs a rewrite, but as a topic, I don't see it all that problematic. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removed phone numbers, addresses, "mission statements" and all that other stuff. Since its a school district and every other school district seems to have an article, I think the article should stay -- Coasttocoast (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In general, school districts are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I think snow is in the air. Not only are school districts notable as government bodies and an integral part of states' management of schools, they are the accepted merge target for nn schools. TerriersFan (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article about a city's entire school system, and the article about the city is too long to merge it to. This is the kind of article we should be encouraging editors to create, so we don't have individual articles on each elementary school. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator did not alert the article's creator to this AfD but I have done that now. TerriersFan (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as snow. This article in its current form is the accepted method to treat nn schools, per consensus at hundreds of AfD's. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocalciuria[edit]

unsuitable for Wikipedia, perhaps move to wiktionary. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' But Expand. Delete Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have the tone for wikipedia. Moving to the wiktionary? I'm not sure.--Ryan Cross (talk ♠ Review) 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a WP:TROUT for nominating this page four minutes after it was created. This is clearly a genuine medical condition and I assume the creator is planning to expand it — even if not, someone at WP:MED is presumably in a position to expand this easily, given the number of major reliable sources even a 30-second Google-skim turns up. (In this instance I don't propose to expand it myself, as I don't have the specialist knowledge and I don't want to risk introducing errors into a medical article for obvious reasons.) — iridescent 02:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iridescent. I would like to give this article a chance before deleting also.--Ryan Cross (talk ♠ Review) 03:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per iridescent. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and cancer and heart failure. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per iridescent; give it a chance since it's so young. Trout to the nom for AfDing so soon; and a second trout to Trees Rock, for providing a !vote with no reasoning attached again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - give it a chance to be developed. Many reliable sources out there to demonstrate notability. And yeah, per Brewcrewer. --Beloved Freak 09:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be an encyclopedic concept with plenty of future potential for expansion. No reason to delete, it would be nice if the nominator had provided more of a rationale than "unsuitable". ~ mazca ^talk 12:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a stub for an encyclopedic topic. It needs expansion, not deletion. Klausness (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iridescent -XxKibaxX Talk 16:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In contrast to hypercalciuria which is a very noteworthy topic this one is and will remain nothing more than a dicdef. Btw, current definition and references refer to hyper- not hypocalciuria. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer - Do give undue weight in this instance to Eleassar who knows more about the topic than I (or I assume any of the others) do. — iridescent 17:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Iridescent - Is this sarcasm? If so, please refrain from arguments ad hominem. Otherwise, my apologies. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all - I'm assuming that, as the only !voter here who's actually a part of WP:MED, you're more likely to know if this is expandable. — iridescent 17:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The symptom is quite notable. I have rewritten the article to correctly report its meaning and significance. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this had a link to it that was dead, ALSO there was no page discribing Hypocalciuria. This is a notable/signficant medical condition and needs a wiki page! Please forgive me as Im a newbie when it comes to makeing wiki pages as this was my 1st one. What can I do to improve it?? (I was very suprised that it was nomiated like the minute I wrote it.....lol) Medicellis (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Any discussions on merging can be taken to the proper channels. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incest pornography[edit]

This contains nothing that couldn't serve as a section in Pornography, Incest or Incest between twins, and normally I'd just split-and-merge it (although I'm not convinced the sum of all human knowledge would really suffer were it to be deleted altogether). However, given that this article has been up for four years and seems to have been edited by a disturbingly high number of editors at one point or another, bringing it over to get some kind of consensus as to whether it should be deleted/kept/merged. — iridescent 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One Ewww. Second its a just a list of incest porn. Third Ewwwwwwwwwww. Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since I specifically haven't given any reason for outright deletion in the nom and this is a procedural nom to determine if there's consensus to delete, merge or keep, any particular reasoning behind the deletion !vote? Not saying it's not a viable choice, but you need better deletion grounds than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — iridescent 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ditto - Since I specifically haven't given any reason for outright deletion in the nom and this is a procedural nom to determine if there's consensus to delete, merge or keep, any particular reasoning behind the deletion !vote? — iridescent 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mind I'm just tired. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, AfD is not a forum to discuss merges. Powers ^T 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did mention deletion as one of the choices. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've taken a look at this one; the majority of redlinks in this article lead to articles deleted because of lack of notability; I've nominated the articles on the two blue linked twins because they don't meet WP:PORNBIO either. At best, this might be worth a line or two in Pornographic film, but none of the names mentioned should be carried over. The article itself is completely unreferenced, and the external link leads to an article in a source of questionable reliability (perhaps someone from Wikiproject Porn could discuss). Risker (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources to satisfy the requirements of validity and notability. Edison (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are reliable sources out there, with substantial enough coverage to demonstrate notability. There is a mention here. There is a section in this book called "Incest Pornography and the Problem of Fantasy", would be useful if anyone has access to it. It is quoted here. There is more coverage in this book. Couple of news stories: [24], [25], [26]. Some of these may seem somewhat trivial in their coverage, but I think that taken together, there is enough to demonstrated notability. There may be more coverage on the web, but inevitably, it is hard to search for as you have to wade through literally millions of porn sites. I think there could be a good little article there about the connection with incest, child pornography and child abuse. I would potentially support a merge, but as far as I can see, Pornography would not be a great destination because it does not seem to give much attention to any of the sub-genres beyond listing them. I think that it would also take focus away from the child porn / abuse aspect, giving undue weight to the hot twin-on-twin action. Similarly, it could be merged to child pornography, but then it may unduly swing the focus the other way. --Beloved Freak 09:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, there doesn't seem to be any child pornography issue with this article at this point. Risker (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I realise that. That seems to be the focus of the sources I looked at, rather than consenting-adult type incest.--Beloved Freak 14:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 09:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as one or two lines into Pornography, which is only 41kb anyway, as barely notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as per Casliber. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book section mentioned is sufficient for notability--the article can be expanded. DGG (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to present any notability of specific trends or genre categories outside of a few obscure skin flicks. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was visited 20,000 in April (here) so the subject is relevant to readers and Belovedfreak has provided sources.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Delete --JForget 00:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of aviation[edit]

I'm loath to AfD this, as someone's obviously put a LOT of work into it — but I can't see any way it could ever be a viable article. Despite the 17 references, it's clearly a piece of original research. ("Its meaning is generally conveyed and well understood despite the lack of formal and objective definition", a direct quote from the current version of the article, pretty much sums up the problem here.) This is hopelessly non-neutral and unreferenceable, and despite the work that's gone into it I think it needs to be deleted; I can't even see any viable content to salvage and merge into existing articles. — iridescent 01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry. But your right it could never be a viable article. Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunate as it is nice and obviously they have put some time into it, but it smacks of OR. -- Alexf⁴² 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially pure OR and the concept of the article is such that is couldn't really be anythings else. Unfortunate but there it is. Nsk92 (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those aren't references; it's a directory of external links. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically POV, belongs off-site if anywhere. WillOakland (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as much as people have put much work into creating this article, it's inherently POV. JIP | Talk 11:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay, original research, something made up in one day, and possibly somebody's idea of a joke. "Acting in the Spirit" indeed. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, probably a hoax. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:NOT. Happyme22 (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and Nonsense. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Advise – all points received, some seem most unfair. If the article is indeed OR then it shouldn’t be - how else does one capture its definition? Perhaps far better understood and appreciated by the pilot community?! (not designed to provoke) If it’s nonsense - why? If it’s a joke – why? Please explain and perhaps it can be worked on and moved to a more appropriate place? I believe that the article is objective, but if it belongs off-site, then by all means delete and please advise. Perhaps advise how to bring it in line with expectations, try to be positive! corpdash (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
suggestion How about rewording it as an article specificaly about the phrase. DGG (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Consensus is to delete all with one exception. The articles are grouped here because the nominator feels that they should be discussed together, and all of the articles fail WP:N and are possible hoaxes.

Culturenga[edit]

This series of articles all appear to be hoaxes. The tenants of the stadiums are also at AfD. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.D. Moma) Delete because they do not exist. ~ Eóin (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire lot. No references anywhere. Either hoaxes or completely unnotable. Either way, fail WP:V and WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The stadia are not likely to be hoaxes, based on my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.D. Moma. Notability probably needs to be assessed individually, and not in a lump nomination. Neier (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the entries should be assessed individually. Actually they are all hoaxes EXCEPT the "Estádio do Costa do Sol". I know this one exists because it is not far from my house.The rest dump them, their names do not even make sense. Teixant (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken "Estádio do Costa do Sol". I bundled the nomination because if all the articles were separate, arguments could be scattered and lost. If the AfD does need to be split I am okay with it happening but I think the way things are set up now is best. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete all. Can't find any verification on google, no references. Everyone one of them seems to be a single copy. Hoax.— Ѕandahl 12:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very nice catch Eóin. Delete all per Teixant and per lack of sources.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Although the discussion shows a pretty even split between those calling for a merge of content vs. those calling for outright deletion, the comments supporting deletion (with the exception of one) raise the fundamental issue of the content's notability as well as the fact that its presence runs afoul of the principle that Wikipedia is not a game guide--issues that are not addressed by the merge comments. --jonny-m t 03:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Kerwan[edit]

Collection of non-notable articles from a video game (I've realised the pointlessness of PRODding this type of material, so straight to AfD). This is one of those dreaded multi-AfDs, but I've taken care to be sure that there's nothing here that can ever be claimed as notable (a case could possibly be made for the "List of..." article, of course).
Black Kite 00:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:

Merge All into List of Planets in the Ratchet & Clank series Nakon 00:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what, though? There's nothing sourced and nothing notable to actually merge. Black Kite 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There appear to be plenty of primary sources. No secondary sources, granted, but the information could still be merged. Powers ^T 02:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree with Nakon. Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Game-guide material. Original research with no assertion of notability. They are all unreferenced, and it is not an editor's duty to clean up and add references to things that the original contributers could not be bothered to do. If an editor does not want information deleted, it should be referenced at the time it is written. Also, please keep in mind that AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and as such simply referencing someone else's comment adds nothing. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, pish posh. It adds weight to the original comment. How much weight is variable depending on the closing admin, of course. And I totally disagree that editors shouldn't clean up and source articles they didn't write; your statement is against the very spirit of a wiki. Powers ^T 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say they shouldn't, I said it's not their duty. If an editor feels a piece of information is valid and useful, then it is their responsibility to defend it by properly sourcing it, and asserting it's notability, at the time it is added. If it is not OR, that means the original contributor had a source. Not bothering to list the source creates double-work for someone else, who then has to find a source, and then list it. If it is OR (or just made-up), the other person is looking for a source that doesn't exist. I've had things deleted for this reason, and it sucks, but it wasn't anybody's fault but mine. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cautionary delete - I've played all the games, and while it's one of my favorite series, the planets themselves are highly non-notable and pretty much interchangable; it's a setting for a mission for all that matters. Only a couple are important as they come up a couple times in the series, so there's potentially a merge possibility here, but first blush? Non-notable, and strictly game-guide and should be deleted. --MASEM 04:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this material obviously isn't making any money for Jimmy or Angie while it sits here. --Pixelface (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per ongoing consensus that pure in-game material with no secondary sources and no assertion of real-world notability is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. --Stormie (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into List of Planets in the Ratchet & Clank series. Even though it is completely unsourced, deletion is not the solution to that problem; finding the sources to verify it is. Razor flame 19:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buhawian[edit]

This article is an original research essay and an ad, apparently for a dance company, and it would require a complete rewrite to address the issues. And even then, the notability of the subject is tenuous at best. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rambling essay/promo, thoroughly unsourced. JJL (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But wikify could be saved. Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JJL CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search did not come up with independent reliable sources.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay. -- Alexf⁴² 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom says it best. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 03:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, as it appears to be an essay on a relatively unknown topic. Happyme22 (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research/essay. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COGITA Business Services[edit]

NN company, just a reseller and local rep for International companies and products. Not doing anything else interesting nor especially big ( < $NZ 50M/year revenue) SimonLyall (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —SimonLyall (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my nom - SimonLyall (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment— Er, I don't think you have to comment, necessarily, since you already nom'd the article, I think that basically counts as your 'vote'. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --Kinu ^t/_c 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't be sourced sufficiently to where subject meets WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Advertisement. -- Alexf⁴² 03:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You would think that somewhere on the net would be an actual news story as opposed to press releases that the company issues. Without any sourcing, this is just a non-notable IT reseller. Montco (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP, and it's reads like an advertisement. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article with no assertion of notability. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion below indicates that the issue is simply with the state of the article, not the overall verifiability/notability of the topic. --jonny-m t 02:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radiohalo[edit]

Appears to a be a topic of pseudoscience/creationism, lacking sources and explanation of anything.

Redirects: Polonium halos, Polonium halo, and Radiohalos.

Delete, but allow for creation if anyone can get an article-worthy stub started. Paper45tee (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Cite it. Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was first created in 2002. Isn't 6 years of no scientific citations in a bad, unhelpful, anti-scientific article enough? Paper45tee (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless before the end of this AfD someone does a major revision of the article. Ordinarily, I would say that notability is a primary concern but in this case WP:V is a bigger problem. From looking at the article, it is really hard to figure out the context or what is really going on here. Loads of 'citations needed' tags and unverified data in the article and only a couple of direct citations. Six years on WP is more than enough time for this article to have been brought to WP:V standards. The article can't really stand as it is. If someone knowledgeable about the subject can produce a reasonable stub while this AfD is open, it could be kept. Otherwise, better to delete the whole thing. Nsk92 (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Citations are badly needed and WP:V is an issue. Happyme22 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely should NOT be deleted. I came to this article because a creationist was trying to convince me that radiohalos prove that the Earth is young. He sent me a book talking about it. So it was very helpful to be able to look up the subject on Wikipedia. These radiohalos EXIST, and it's a very interesting subject. By the way, the article does give sources, I even added one myself a few weeks ago. If you don't like the article, improve it yourselves. Once it's deleted, all the work is lost. It would be a crime to delete this article just because some people think it's a creationist thing! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I just discovered the push for deletion because I came back to this article to get a reference, in connexion with evidence for a super-heavy nuclide. This was prompted by an article I read recently whose authors claim to have found such a nuclide. Nothing to do with creationism. If this article had been deleted, I would not have the reference I wanted! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before and as Paper45tee notes below, in its present form the article is a giant WP:V disaster which can't stand on its own and has been this way for 6 years. If you can revise the article quickly to make it into something reasonable, fine. Otherwise, I'd suggest that you copy the current text to some subpage in your user space and work on it there slowly. If deleted now, the article can be re-created later then. You/we can also leave a note to the closing admin here. In situations like this the closing admin is usually willing to provide the deleted content to some-one who is asking for it in order to re-create a better version of the article. Finally, there is always the deletionpedia. Nsk92 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - If you want it kept then add WP:V to it and I'll withdraw the nomination. Until that happens it remains a loosely organized collection of uncited anti-science ramblings; there's nothing to save. Paper45tee (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know what you mean by "add WP:V to it". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is a page that outlines wikipedia policy on sourcing of articles, i believe the editor meant that the article needs some sources that comply with that policy. --neonwhite user page talk 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be provided as evidence of notability. --neonwhite user page talk 22:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a really major aspect of young-earth creationism. They use this example a great deal in their discussions, and there are sources available. We should take the opportunity to write a decent unbiased article. That;s our role. DGG (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main problem is with the lack of in-text citations. There is a pile of references at the end of the article (or was, until all of those written by the main proponent were inexplicably deleted by the nom). Someone with enough time and interest needs to go through these references and attempt to provide proper citations for the article. Remember that lack of in-text citations is not a deletion rationale. The relevant policy is that the article be verifiable. But there are references, so go and confirm or disconfirm. And while you are doing that, please provide in-line citations. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are suggesting here is unreasonable. Listing a "pile of references" without providing inline citations to them is not what WP:V has in mind and does not, in my opinion, constitute compliance with WP:V (in fact, it could even be viewed as an attempt to subvert WP:V requirements). Finding all of these references, reading them and then trying to figure out which if any statements from the article they confirm places an unreasonable burden on the editors attempting verification. The fact that the article has been on WP for 6 years and it is still in such an unsatisfactory state confirms this. Nsk92 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many of the references were added by User:Filll last year (see this diff). If you believe that his intention was to subvert WP:V and undermine the article, then perhaps he can be contacted to supply the missing citations. My understanding is that he remains quite an active Wikipedian. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was making a general statement. In fact, in this particular case the references, as they are/were arranged, do mean something, since, at least at some point, they were separated into categories "Disputing a young earth interpretation" and "Favoring a young earth interpretation" which actually conveys some meaningful information. But that is far from sufficient in terms of verification of the numerous 'citation needed' tagged statements. Nsk92 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to help supply some citations, but my institution lacks an online subscription to Nature and Science, so it's sort of inconvenient. But it doesn't look like such a chore. The article isn't that long, and much of it at least indicates who is making a claim. It shouldn't be that difficult to track which reference attaches to which statement in the article. Any volunteers? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded the 1975 paper (its very short) from "Nature" called "Spectacle haloes" that is mentioned in the article. But it is written in a terse technical jargon and I can't make heads from tails there... Nsk92 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a second attempt, it sounds like the author of that paper is putting forward an alternative explanation for the existence of halos from that proposed by Gentry. Something about "migration" of lead under high temperature conditions or some such thing. Still very difficult to understand what the author is talking about without having some specialized knowledge. Nsk92 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also do not revert the removal of unsupported claims. If you want something left in, the burden of proof is on you to back it up. If you really think legitimate journals support a young Earth then give a WP:RS. After all, science considers a young Earth to be non-science. Your revert is a fine example of why this should be deleted: claims are unsourced, unsupported and dubious in nature. Paper45tee (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What unsupported claims did I add? I added references back in which you deleted, all the while thumping your chest about WP:V here at this AfD. My edit summary indicated that, if you want to change the section title, then that's fine. But the references you removed appear to be quite important ones from the perspective of verifying the contents of the article. Ok? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the burden of improving this article should be on us who think it should be kept. The article is important for various reasons. It's not our fault that it was written in a way that doesn't exactly conform to Wikipedia standards. So it's not fair to threaten to delete the article just because people like me and "silly rabbit" don't take it upon ourselves to improve the article. Why can't you who want to delete it fix it instead of complaining? (And fixing it does not mean deleting the references!) By the way, I do not believe in a "young Earth" and I think the subject of radiohalos is fascinating in its own right. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An afd isn't a permanent decision on a subject, articles can be recreated later on if sources become available. An article can also be copied to a user page to preserve any text but the point of an afd is to determine whether an article should be kept, what it might happen is never an argument for keeping an article. You need to provide evidence of notability here if there are any. --neonwhite user page talk 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of evidence of notability. Have you checked out the references in the article? I'm currently in the process of improving the citation style in the article, but your bald assertions that the article is unreferenced or that its subject is not notable simply do not hold. Some of the references are in top-notch journals like Science (journal) and Nature (journal). The lack of footnotes notwithstanding, the material in the article is actually relatively easy to verify to anyone willing to follow up on the references listed. Furthermore, apparently this Gentry character has caused quite a flurry in creationist circles, as the Talk.origins archives dedicates some space to debunking his claims, and on the other side of the fence, Creationists have also used the work of Gentry as part of the R.A.T.E. project. It all seems fairly notable to me, and the article does provide evidence of this notability, so your delete rationale simply doesn't gel. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The above notes say that this fails WP:V when in fact, it doesn't. Sure, it doesn't have any internal citations, but deletion isn't the answer to that problem; finding references and citations for it is the solution. Razor flame 19:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. A clearly encyclopedic subject, which is the the subjects of books and papers, and a controversy. That it is currently badly referenced, doesn't mean it's unverifiable. The books and papers mentioned could be used for this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There was a weighty consensus that the content should be kept, in some form, and little support for outright deletion. A combined article with Deloitte Football Money League has great attractions since there is significant redundancy between the two pages. However, the question of a merge is a matter for an editorial action, after this AFD. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richest football clubs[edit]

Entire substantive content is copyvio from http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/34/biz_07soccer_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Rank.html Kevin McE (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Facts can't be copyrighted. Article should be moved to Richest football (soccer) clubs, though. Powers ^T 00:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A noteworthy topic, article could do with expanding. And it appears referenced. Shall we not reference to any copyrighted sources now? Oh for the love of God. Francium12 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. A table cannot be copyrighted. D.M.N. (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Deloitte Football Money League, which covers the same ground, but is up-to-date (which Richest football clubs is not) and goes into a different level of detail. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deloitte Football Money League per Struway2. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Football is the most popular sports in the World. Many people are interested in the richest football clubs. This is a notable list. Perhaps the name can be changed to List of richest football clubs or similar. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deloitte Football Money League. Well, I didn't know about that article! Very good argument by Struway2. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and definitely no redirect. One article is a summary of data compiled by Forbes magazine, the other is compiled by the Deloitte accounting firm; one has information about annual revenue, one has information about revenue, operating income, and estimated worth of club; that doesn't mean that one is "better" than the other, nor is there any reason that we must choose between one article or the other. It's not as if Forbes and Deloitte are playing a match against each other. Mandsford (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Evidently consensus is clearly against deletion. No problem, but what should we do with an article that is not a summary of the Forbes article, but is essentially identical to it, and has neither meaningful selective editing nor additional comment? Kevin McE (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge merge both articles into a more general article covering football wealth using both tables. --neonwhite user page talk 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per neon white. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy subject. Facts arn't copyrightable. Tresiden (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very good info. I like it and looked for for a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.233.37.252 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Boettiger[edit]

Non-notable, full of tons of peacock terms, direct copy from the subject's website with the copyright holder's permission. Despite all of the flowery terms, there are no reliable sources and nothing really there which explains why this non-notable presidential descendant should have an article. Corvus cornix_talk 00:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a resume of a non notable person. Montco (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and completely unreferenced. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete RS exist but they cover him in the context of his position, which does not appear notable. It's no different tan any other business person. OTRS or not, a copy/paste of your web bio is not an encyclopedic article and there doesn't appear to be sufficient information from which to build an article _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly written with no assertion of notability. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My reverting the copyright violation notice because of an OTRS ticket does not speak to notability etc. of the article, only that there is permission of the copyright holder. --Benn Newman (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep --Hdt83 ^Chat 02:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pensacola Christian Academy[edit]

Unnotable Christian fundamentalist school. This was created in June 2005, and since then has never had a single WP:RS to show notablity/importance. Paper45tee (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There seems to be a fair amount of content here; it's fairly common to have articles about schools here on WP - what makes this one any less notable than all the other schools with articles about them? I can't think of any reason to delete this at all. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:SCHOOL: "a school is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage[1] in secondary sources." There is NOT a single secondary source. Everything from the article is from the school's webpage. Thus, its an ad for the school's webpage and doesn't show notablity. Also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a criteria for inclusion. What make this notable? Paper45tee (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:RS. Also, just because something exists, there is no need for WP to take note of it. Drieux (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability established. The amount of content is not a reason to keep. It is the quality of the article and meeting WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SCHOOL, and WP:N. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a high school, and there is coverage of it in the media. There's enough precedence that articles on high schools stay. If it needs cleanup it should be tagged as such, not brought to AfD. —BradV 14:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notwithstanding the fact that notability cannot be inherited, I perceive this school as notable due to its connections with two notable entities in the world of ultraconservative evangelical Christian education: Pensacola Christian College and A Beka Book. The school was founded in 1954 by the same person (or couple) who established Pensacola Christian College 20 years later, and this school is the place where PCC's A Beka Books curriculum was developed. If this school is where PCC and A Beka were formulated, the school should be documented in Wikipedia. Furthermore, it's apparently a very large school, with 2,537 students. I have concluded that the article can't be merged into Pensacola Christian College (unlike the A Beka Book article) because I can't find evidence that the school is part of the college (although they are still supposedly led by the same couple). --Orlady (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Can we get WP:RS that says that in the article? I disagree that this is notable for being related to other articles because the world of fundamentalist Christianity is a small one (A Beka Books doesn't even have its own article). Paper45tee (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. You say "the world of fundamentalist Christianity is a small one." I am relieved to hear that you feel that way. Speaking for myself, as a person who is not a fundamentalist Christian but lives in the Bible Belt, I often have the impression that the world of fundamentalist Christianity is overwhelmingly large. I appreciate articles such as this one as information sources regarding the world that surrounds me. As for A Beka Books, it formerly had a separate article, but the article was merged into Pensacola Christian College (see the article history). --Orlady (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources are available that meet WP:N. This is a large, notable school in its community. Also per Orlady's well-reasoned arguments. TerriersFan (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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