< May 26	May 28 >

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pride in Paisley Party[edit]

Convert PROD to AfD as described on Talk:Pride in Paisley Party: Non-notable political party: only contested one election, where it received 1% of the vote, and made no press coverage or lasting impact. Political party notability is not yet at a Wikipedia-consensus. Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Political Parties...3F for some editor's opinions of what is and is not notable in a political party. I replaced the PROD with an AfD to help stimulate discussion on notability of minor political parties in cases where Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and related policies don't provide clear guidance. This is not a vote. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as the user who originally placed the PROD). I'm not clear on what the specific notability requirements of political parties should be, but this one definitely does not strike me as notable, for the reasons quoted above. Terraxos (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, I am one of the editors hoping to flesh out a political parties notability policy, and this is one party which would struggle. They have not stood in many elections, and in the one they have stood in, got barely 1% of the vote. Cannot find them in the Scottish Parliament elections, for example. Not notable in the grand scheme of either Scottish or British elections.doktorb _words^deeds 00:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who needs notability, where are the sources? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no sign of notability. rootology (T) 05:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paisley and Renfrewshire South (UK Parliament constituency). All the information in this stub is repeated from there (there are sources but, annoyingly, neither article cites them.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This stub has existed since 2006, hence a redirect may be useful to preserve incoming links from the outside world (and links in WP's history.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Hroðulf - of slight interest only in relation to standing in the constituency. Warofdreams talk 12:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Here is a telling source: [1] zero campaign expenditure in 2005. I will add a source for the results to the constituency article .--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:44, 28 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. Singu larity 03:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Rodriguez[edit]

Delete is a pro baseball team's 1st base coach notable? I don't think so, but may you all do... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question— Where is the nomination? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlossuarez46 is the original nominator. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assistant coaches in the NFL have survived AFD. This guy has an analogous role. There is information on him. Zagalejo^^^ 02:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like the article needs expansion, not deletion. I know this is not an RS so it'd need to be verified [2] but it looks like this guy has a 23 year coaching career including several major league jobs, 3b coach on an olympic team, and multiple full manager jobs in the minors.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a couple of reliable sources which were found in a 30 second google search. There's a lot written about the coaching staff of MLB teams (especially when things are going poorly, as they are for the M's), so I'm sure there's a lot more out there which can be found.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable both as a minor league manager and a major league coach. I've expanded the article and added more sources and categories. Spanneraol (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person has "served as a ... coach, or manager in one of the above-mentioned leagues or affiliated minor leagues." This is one of the criteria for notability within the Baseball wikiproject. Kinston eagle (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable for the reasons cited by Spanneraol and others. RFerreira (talk) 17:53, 30 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. Singu larity 03:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest dams[edit]

This a horribly incomplete list only lising three dams as the "largest" dams. However, the article fails to mention the definition of largest: it could be the size of the actual dam, the amount of water it holds, or even the area it occupies. The list has also been tagged with a factual accuracy tag. There already is a List of world's tallest dams which could be a possible consensus to merge the two lists. Tavix (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Since the nomination, the list has grown significantly. Tavix (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— This can be salvaged. All it needs is some expansion and reliable sources and it could become a legitimate article. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator did not examine the article. User:78.149.157.155 on May 10th made a bad edit with an unclosed ref tag that made the table invisible beyond the third entry. If the nominator had examined the page contents then the other entries would have been apparent. 70.55.84.230 (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, formatting fix shows a decent list, although the talk page dispute points to the need for lists of the largest man-made lakes or annotation of List of lakes by area and List of lakes by volume. Fix any factual problems, of course. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and consider a possible merger with List of world's tallest dams, and using those dynamic tables, which can be sorted. Danski14^(talk) 19:25, 31 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 Speedily deleted along with the other spam --Step hen 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9nyne's Urbanology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/9nyne's Urbanology

Independently released album. Fails WP:MUSIC. Disputed prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:41, 27 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 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baritenor[edit]

Baritenor is not a real musical term and this article is a product of original research. I have searched in several vocal music/ vocal pedagogy books and found no reference to the term. Nrswanson (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verifiable third party sources can be found.Nrswanson (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article defines baritenor as a slang term, which would be fine, but then goes on to treat it as a technical term, which is much more dubious. Would someone like to comment on the examples in section 'Baritenor roles in musicals and operettas' (all of which are apparently musicals not operettas)?--Klein zach 00:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, 'Baritenor' is just as useless a term when applied to both operetta and musicals. At the WP:MUSICAL project we have not defined any such term and there is no agreement that it means anything. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable slang term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Ev (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unverifiable term. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 28 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. Entirely gameguide material. Black Kite 09:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Commands[edit]

Fails to meet the WP:GNG general notability guideline, since there are no reliable sources that can assert the notability of this article that are independent of the subject itself. Randomran (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely delete, there is no sources whatsoever, and the quality of the article seems to be quite poor.--EclipseSSD (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that grounds for cleanup, rather than deletion? May as well put a Keep here to keep things even. SAMAS (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not game guide. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters. However, as the vast majority of information in the current article is already present in the merge target, I will simply redirect the current article, leaving the history visible in case anyone wants to expand the merge target down the road. --jonny-m t 08:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carth Onasi[edit]

Fails to meet the WP:GNG general notability guideline, since there are no reliable sources that can assert the notability of this article that are independent of the subject itself. Randomran (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters. He's not notable enough on his own, but as part of a pair of successful games, he at least merits a mention in there. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge and do this for similar articles without bringing them here. DGG (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Nanda Jha[edit]

Fails WP:N - nominal Ghits are Wikipedia mirrors or sites like Geocities. Last substantive edit was March 2007 (at creation). Cricketgirl (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is unsubstantial and may be little more than a stub. Not enough WP:N. It also has hints of WP:POV because one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Artene50 (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stub is not a reason for deletion. If it is, hit the botany pages and start deleting thousands of plant articles. POV? What's POV about it? Oh the martyr, I'll remove that. If he is the assassin and was executed for the assassination attempt, which is well known for impact the King's and his brother's life, then he earned an article. But I don't know if this name is correct or anything. If it's POV change it. --Blechnic (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for removing the POV. Cricketgirl (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. But that was pretty basic, and it probably took you more time to mention it here than delete it there. In my opinion the longer total crap stays on Wikipedia the worse the encyclopedia looks and that was pure crap. It seems so easy to remove it, it's hard for me to understand why it should be discussed instead of removed. --Blechnic (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the editing policy? This is nominated for deletion in part because its "last substantive edit was March 2007," and I can't find the wiki policy about number of substantive edits required. Again, I'm thinking close to 75% of species articles on Wikipedia, which are mostly stubs with few edits, are going to need to go up for deletion to comply with these policies. --Blechnic (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. deletion reason seems to be that it's not referenced properly and is a stub, not that it's not notable. 136.142.117.156 (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IP poster is correct, this hasn't been nominated for a valid reason. "nominal Ghits" are Wikpedia mirrors is not a deletion reason. And nominator hasn't justified how last date of edit is a policy for deletion, seems to have lost interest if there was any in the nomination. Date of edit isn't a deletion policy. Two wrongs make nothing. --Blechnic (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article fails WP:N This is a Google search on his precise name:here Many of these hits are from answers.com or wikipedia and just mirror copies of this article. That is sufficient reason to remove this article. Artene50 (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still don't see proof of notability here. "nominal Ghits are Wikipedia mirrors" - I know that Ghits are not the be all and end all - but usually they are a decent measuring stick. My comment about "last substantive edit" was to indicate that the article's creator appears to have abandoned it, not as a "we should delete this because it isn't active". If someone edits the article to show notability (and preferably references it) I will gladly withdraw the nomination. But last time I checked, failing WP:N was a pretty good reason for deletion. Cricketgirl (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article's "creator" does not own the article, so your point is more confusing. Throwing ghits at other editors is not basis for deletion, either. Precisely why do you think that the attempted assassin of a sitting king is not a notable subject for an enccylopedia? Maybe if you elaborate on why you think regicide is not notable, others can understand where you're coming from. Regicide is one of those crimes that tends to get extensive long-term international attention. This particular attempted assassination is mentioned in Britannica and a couple of other on-line encyclopedias. Again, if you can help establish why Wikipedia should not note this particular regicide or the person who committed it (the name not available through a free glance, only the king) then others could understand where you're coming from and might agree with you. But, to repeat, "owner gone AWOL" isn't a reason for deletion on an encyclopedia where there are no owners of articles. --Blechnic (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slippery John[edit]

Appears to be a hoax. No references at all. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoaxy. A Google search comes up with no results outside of Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, albeit a fairly clever one. Its creator might consider other venues for his work. PhGustaf (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G3) as something made up in a bar one day. —BradV 01:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no way this qualifies as a G3. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CSD says that G3 is for "blatant and obvious misinformation." I think it qualifies. —BradV 23:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see it as a close call. I'd tend to call it "nonsense" rather than "hoax" because there's no real attempt to deceive the reader — it's a pretty obvious prank. But no harm in doing it this way. PhGustaf (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's still less a G1, which is quite explicitly not for hoaxes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per WP:HOAX. If this drink really exists, there would be independent sources for it. Artene50 (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:HOAX being the guideline that states that "hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates"?
- WP:HOAX also says "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real". There are so many bits of blatant nonsense here that it's no such attempt. J. M. Lee, for example, is a real hoax, with no obvious cues to the reader. PhGustaf (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did enjoy that the ingredients for this drink add up to 125%. Must be some drink! :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has nobody noticed the arithmetic in the first line? I think this is within speedy for nonsense. DGG (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. i mean, come on. "Joprph-Tuesllwdawy Jowyb"? Ironholds (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This drink is no doubt in existence and enjoyed all over England, however it did not come from Wales! (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, DGG brings up a very good point. This isn't really nonsense or a hoax, as it obviously is quite legible and doesn't make much of an effort to hide its foolishness. However, it is vandalism, though not blatant enough for a G3. FusionMix 14:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. Not only is this total nonsense, the percentages (85 and 40) add up to more than 100.evildeathmath 16:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the percentage thing is deliberate! (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.107.111 (talk) [reply]
Delete - I'm 40% sure it's a hoax. I'm 85% sure it isn't notable. I'm 125% sure that I am unable to find confirmation that it is notable and that no evidence is provided or forthcoming. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, likely a speedy deletion candidate. RFerreira (talk) 17:54, 30 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.-Wafulz (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Soule[edit]

A little bit of this, little bit of that, but at the end of day this person doesn't add up to the WP:BIO notability standard. Nothing much in Google News. brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, interesting career path, but not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No disrespect to Mr. Soule, who sounds like a good dinner guest at least, there's nothing here that demonstrates notability, and no particular place to redirect. --Lockley (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as his ten years as Vermont State Historian should make him notable as a historian but some additional referencing would certainly be called for here. I agree he's not notable as an actor or as a radio personality, per se, but few historians are. - Dravecky (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Apart from having been a Vermon State historian, there does not seem to be much else to indicate notability per WP:BIO or WP:PROF. He did not seem to have made substantial impact as a scholar based of googlescholar and googlebooks results. Regarding being a Vermont State Historian, unless one views this position itself as a major award or honor (which it does not appear to be, at least to me), it would not make him pass either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. In the absence of other evidence of notability, this looks like a delete case to me. Nsk92 (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Renata (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fling (band)[edit]

I declined the A7 on this one, but it looks quite unlikely to clear WP:BAND, with just one minor third party reference in the article at the moment. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable band with no notable albums. References are not reliable. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notable reference has now been included on the page at the bottom. KROQ is a radio station that has played the band and there is a link to the playlist on KROQ's official website under the references section.Blue Gillian (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, references have been updated to meet notability standards.Blue Gillian (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FYI, this user is the creator of the article. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 01:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep with the new references. Fulfills the WP notability criteria, with multiple independent sources. Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've removed the unreliable sources; the OC source was the only one worth keeping. Find more like it and I might go for weak keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, local station playlist doesn't count for much and certainly doesn't satisfy WP:BAND. It's been speedied 3 times already...Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 01:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another third party link has been added to the references section.Blue Gillian (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a page for the band Letter Kills links to The Fling page Blue Gillian (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject to my question below. AndyJones (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Blue Gillian, can you take a look at WP:BAND and tell us why you think this band fulfils the definition there (assuming you do)? AndyJones (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer It meets multiple guidelines of WP:Band.

1. "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles..."

There are at least two articles from magazines/newspapers under the references.

2. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable..."

Dustin was in Letter Kills, a band that sold over a 100,000 records for Island Records, which is a major label.Blue Gillian (talk) 17:49, 28 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. Renata (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Kelly[edit]

Jeopardy contestant; fails WP:N / one-event notability. slakr^\ talk / 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a record holder on the show who meets the baseline notability standard of coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is not just a run of the mill contestant on the show; she's the all time money leader among females and third all time in money winnings. Croctotheface (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, several other Jeopardy contestants--David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant), Frank Spangenberg, Jerome Vered, and arguably Eddie Timanus--all have articles that assert notability only for Jeopardy appearances. As far as merging, what's there now could be merged, I agree, but the article has existed for all of 10 minutes and could certainly be expanded. Croctotheface (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jeopardy!. Borderline notability, this information could easily fit into the article on the game show. Ani Mate 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable certainly exists because she is the all-time leader among females, and third (as of 5 minutes ago) highest all-time in total. She just extended her streak by one show a few minutes ago, too. Gary King (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons enumerated above by Croc.--HughGRex (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, non-encyclopedic. Merge, as a last resort.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: User:Jimintheatl has demonstrated animosity toward me, as shown at this diff and at Talk:Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. This is quite likely just a case of stalking/agitating me. Croctotheface (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment quite likely reflects a case of exaggerated self-importance.Jimintheatl (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the others said Knowitall (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it'd make any difference, but my vote would be Delete for now and recreate when she attains notability. I've been watching Jeopardy! with interest lately and I think she might achieve something more than just 3rd-best, but we'll see. JuJube (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has proven that by being the all time leader for female contestants she belongs. she has also become the third highest money winner and anyone not wanting her listed in jealousy.Ducatigary (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jealous of what, exactly? JuJube (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All-time female champion is a sufficient claim to notability. She'd at least merit a mention somewhere, so outright deletion is unnecessary. Zagalejo^^^ 03:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More and more, people have started garnering interest in Larissa. Larissa DOES show that she has the makings of a Jeopardy! champion (pardon flowery language) and lately people haven't been this interested in the show since Ken Jennings' appearance. And now she's won over $220,000, already on the show six times, a rarity in itself these days.

Changed my vote to Delete. I second Reywas92's decision to recreate in case Larissa does very well during the Tournament of Champions. Iamwisesun talk 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If she wasn't the all-time winner for women. She is, so thats notable. rootology (T) 05:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe The previously-discussed (but unofficial) guideline regarding notability of Jeopardy! contestants has been that only the record-holders deserve their own articles. Obviously, being a female record-holder is only a sub-distinction. At some point, one has to draw the line at creating new sub-distinctions; perhaps being a female record-holder is noteworthy, but is being a hispanic female record holder, e.g.? or senior citizen hispanic female record holder? etc. With sufficient dichotomization, any champion can be said to be a "record holder" amongst some classification group. Still, it would be reasonable to ask to let the article stay at least until Larissa's run has ended and the extent of her actual eventual notability is determined. Robert K S (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly harder to discern characteristics such as ethnicity, though; male and female contestants are easier to tell apart. Gary King (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some such groups that are probably not universal enough to by themselves merit attention. However, it's also unlikely that if, say, the all-time record holder among Hispanic women over 65 won two or three times, there wouldn't be coverage in sources that establish notability. Otherwise I agree with Gary that being the all-time money leader among women is not similar to some silly classification system that makes everyone a record holder. Croctotheface (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Short mentions at the bottom of television newspaper columns do not merit notability. Also, Dan Pawson won more games; and he doesn't have an article (nor should he). Recreate the article if she hits 20 games; until then, delete the thing. Andy Saunders (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "a short mention" by any means. Croctotheface (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too would vote to KEEP. Other Jeopardy! winners have articles: Ken Jennings, Dave Madden, Jerome Vered, Frank Spangenberg, Eddie Timanus, maybe a dozen others. (Where is the article on Chuck Forrest?) Larissa Kelly is at least as deserving as the lesser of those luminaries. I wouldn't want to clutter up Wikipedia with an entry for every 5-time winner, but I think Kelly stands out above the crowd, and not only because she is a woman. Patzer42 (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If not only because she is a woman, then why? Robert K S (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think (though I'm having trouble finding a cite) that she holds other records as well: highest cumulative score after winning five games, or something like that. AJD (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that she's lost with only 6 wins, does this make anybody change their mind? Andy Saunders (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per most other editors reasoning (record holder, etc). LotLE×talk 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But she's not the record holder. Celeste DiNucci is the female record holder. If you include her $250,000 Tournament of Champions win, Celeste has over $100,000 more than Larissa does. Andy Saunders (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Spangenberg could likewise be gerrymandered out of holding any sort of record. Jerome Vered, too. Most money won by a woman in for non-tournament games is a valid record to care about, as most editors here seem to agree. Croctotheface (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Why do we need a seperate article on her biography???? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the show's article, with all the ones named before, including Celeste Dinucci! None of these people need an article of their own. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Unless there is more to say about this person, a line in the main Jeopardy article would seem to suffice, or perhaps a list of record-holding contestants. But an article like this, doomed to never be expandable past a few sentences, shouldn't stay gnfnrf (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeopardy!. It should be noted that she was the first woman to win more than five games, but that's not enough for a separate, very short article. --Neferkiti (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be expanded. This was nominated for deletion about ten minutes after it was created. Assuming there's nothing more than Jeopeardy to write about, there could be relevant details included from the interview article and about the games she played, if the issue of shortness is a problem for people. There's no need for this to be a stub forever, but expecting it to be more than a stub after existing for a few days strikes me as a bit unreasonable. Croctotheface (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa lost on the May 28th Game Sure, she set a record, but it wasn't much. My vote is ~~Delete~~, for now at least, as the article is only two lines long. Recreate if she does well in the Tournament of Champions in a few months. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about why "doing well" in a tournament setting would make the difference. Kelly has already demonstrated exceptional success on the show: at least one record (non-tournament money winnings for a woman) and possibly others. (She must at least be up there in terms of most money winnings in someone's first 1, 2, or 3 shows.) She's third all-time in non-tournament money winnings. I could understand arguing that nobody could be notable for Jeopardy alone, but I'm not sure why we should dismiss someone with a major record if it's not accompanied by "tournament success." Croctotheface (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote to Abstain Reywas92 ^Talk 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For pop culture archival value. Mabuse (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Larissa deserves her own entry. Just as Ken Jennings has and deserves his place Larissa's Jeopardy accolades are noteworthy within the shows history. Her husband was a previous contestant who's appearance was held to one episode by Ken Jennings, She is the winningest female in Jeopardy history (of regular season play) by number of returns and dollar total and her average daily winning was also commendable. She was a pleasure to watch and quickly won the hearts of many viewers with her genteel demeanor and aggressive wagering on final rounds and daily doubles. She is the only contestant I ever cheered for out loud as if watching my favorite sports team in a squeaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKIJOHNNY555 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC) — WIKIJOHNNY555 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I am on the same page as those who argue in favor of keeping due to her being the highest winning female in the show's history (regular season). However, I believe that (as stated) we shouldn't go beyond the distinction between male and female and start to create pages for the highest winning white, black, mexican-american, kenyan-american, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDalessandro (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there is a lot of potential from reliable sources, even if the article is bland right now (and my gut instict says that she does not deserve a page, but this is not a valid reason). –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Larissa has not only achieved relative celbrity status (which alone is enough to give cause for keeping the article), but also is the holder of several important Jeopardy! records. Ryan King (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.47.226 (talk) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 03:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dilithium (Star Trek)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a regurgitation of plot elements from various episodes of Star Trek. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not even a Star Trek fan and I know about Dilithium crystals! The dilithium crystal concept has been a staple of space-faring SciFi (both real and parody) since Star Trek introduced them, one notable example being Galaxy Quest. This easily falls within WP:FICT. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A somewhat reluctant keep, my deletionist heart aches but Dilithium is rather notable (as far as fictional fuel sources go.) L0b0t (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Done a little searching, it looks like there is probably evidence to support notability. There is the article by a mineralogist on Star Trek's minerals that has a section on dilithium and is already cited in the article, which says "The most famous and the first to be named of the imaginary “minerals” of Star Trek is dilithium". There's also a book called The Physics of Star Trek (see first result) which appears to discuss dilithium. There's no preview so hard to know how significant the coverage is, but it's listed in the chapter contents so presumably somewhat significant. Apparently dilithium is raised in a Journal of Popular Culture article on Star Trek, but I don't have access so can't check the significance of the coverage. Dilithium is also apparently discussed in a Clinical Toxicology article on futuristic poisonings. It is also discussed in numerous setting guides, but I haven't referenced them because the independance of the publishing is harder to determine in those cases. In combination these disparate references already suggest a notable fictional subject, and my search was only shallow. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Core concept from Star Trek that's escaped the fandom ghetto to be known among the general population. I'm sure this is covered in a plethora of sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept has long escaped the meger confines of the show. Don't go near the warp core if we delete this one. --Blechnic (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dilithium crystals are well known as a source of power from the original Star Trek days. This Google search revealed 46,000+ references to it: here Artene50 (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup there are tons of pop cultural references to this material, like kryptonite with Superman, this is notable outside of Star Trek. 70.55.84.230 (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, and close per WP:SNOW. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this AfD is still standing in a bit, I can likely check the Journal of Popular Culture article, though that's just redundant. iIt appears that core Star Trek concepts can be assumed to be worth a search for sources and references... which should be done anyway. --Kiz o r 12:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was weird. The journal article discusses a single episode from a Jungian episode, dilithium is only mentioned in passing. I am still for keeping due to all the rest of the sources and the subject's central status in a huge phenomenon as well as influence outside its borders. --Kiz o r 18:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles -- article in its current state is just trivia and plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I believe the article should barely be kept. If the article were shorter, I would say merge, but there is enough information to stand up as an article by itself.--LAA Fan 21:54, 28 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). None of the parties to this discussion disagree that there are multiple sources in independent publications about Rebecca Snyder; the question of her notability hinges on whether those sources are trivial mentions only related to one client, or if, instead, they demonstrate clear, durable notability. A strong consensus is established below that the coverage does in fact add up to notability that exceeds the standards of WP:N. This article is currently not a coatrack for Khadr; despite most of Snyder's notability deriving from this one event, the article is focused on her. Darkspots (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca S. Snyder[edit]

Is not notable, per WP:N. Bstone (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Notability is not inherited. Bstone (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I started this article, about half an hour ago. I am still working on it. Nominator placed a speedy deletion tag on it, four minutes after I started it. I challenged that tag. I want to assume good faith, but I am afraid I really can't reconcile a nomination for deletion so shortly after the article was started with the wikipedia's stated goal of reaching decisions through consensus -- not turning the wikipedia into a battleground. Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree here, both in terms of overzealous use of WP:CSD#A7 and also with AfDing articles so very quickly after they are created. ~ mazca ^talk 14:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, she is a notable lawyer who has taken on one of the most notable legal cases in the past ten years. Notability is certain. Sherurcij ^{(Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear)} 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. e.g. this search. Individual is thus notable per WP:N (disclosure - I declined the original speedy by the nom) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the hits in the foregoing link refer to her. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the first link technically links to multiple sources - perhaps not my finest piece of external linking Fritzpoll (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absolutely passes WP:N (added by User:Legotech)
Keep Even the incomplete version that was originally tagged as a speedy had sources from major newspapers in two countries. . DGG (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Omar_Khadr Vote changed from keep after doing some fact-checking; this article looks more and more like a WP:Coatrack.Certainly not "one of the most notable legal cases in the past ten years", not even one of the more notable cases on the court's docket that day but she is notable. L0b0t (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC) L0b0t (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frizpoll. A lot of publicity, many good sources, certainly is a notable lawyer. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She has not recived signifiant coverge. Any coverage that mentions her, mentions her in passing as part of coverage of Omar Khadr. Notability is not inhereted. Moreover (and consequently) this article looks like a WP:COATRACK for Omar Khadr.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the article is short it seems adequately referenced and she seems to be moderately notable. ~~If nothing much more can be added that's notable, though, it may be cleaner to merge it to Omar Khadr.~~ (scratch that last bit, Omar Khadr is long enough as it is. ~ mazca ^talk 12:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm not impressed with Bstone's CSD tagging. The article is by an established editor, and it demonstrates notability beyond question. --Aude (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My tagging this non-notable article is at issue, not your personal attitude to me nor your personal attitude to the author of the article. Please keep that in mind when you opine in an AfD. Bstone (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he is free to offer you constructive criticism, as others in this AfD have, that you acted too hastily and did not assume good faith when an established editor with thousands of edits created a new article. Rather than clean up the article yourself, wait to see the finished product, or ask him to add more references or detail, you immediately jumped to calling for its deletion. Sherurcij ^{(Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear)} 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I disagree with Geo Swan's criticism of the nomination. Contributors should start new articles on their own hard drives or user pages and work on them there. Post them to the namespace only when they can survive AfD. Once it was posted, Bstone was entitled to assess it immediately for notability. JamesMLane t c 20:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And according to WP:N, "it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be."--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No actual deletion rationale. No reasoning as to why article doesn't meet WP:N. --Smashville^BONK! 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reasoning, as I understand it, is that there seem to be no references to the subject of the article apart from her connection to a single case for which she is one of the co-counsels. The only references that mention her outside the context of the Khadr case are directories of attorneys (where she can be found alongside all the other lawyers in the U.S.A.). While the Khadr case is certainly worthy of an article, notability is not inherited and it does not follow that one of his attorneys is notable enough to have an article without some notability of her own unconnected to the Khadr case. Another issue facing this article is that it looks like a coatrack for Khadr. Use of POV language like "captive" rather than the actual designation "detainee" or even the vulgate "prisoner"; there was even an unattributed pull quote dropped willy-nilly into the middle section. None of that has any place in an encyclopedia. L0b0t (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "captive" and "prisoner" are both more neutral than the sanitized "detainee" which is a recent invention created for a specific purpose. But again, that's an issue for the talk page, not an AfD. Sherurcij ^{(Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear)} 01:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Notable counsel, I too would tend to disagree with critics who say it was nominated for sppedy and AfD to quick.BigDunc^Talk 20:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't find any indications that she is not notable, and certainly the nom doesn't elaborate upon anything. Notability established and explained and a couple of independent sources provided in article, so can't support nomination for deletion that doesn't even support itself. --Blechnic (talk) 22:37, 30 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. Singu larity 03:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Estefan's Forthcoming World Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gloria Estefan's Forthcoming World Tour

The article reads like promotional material, plus I don't see how the tour in of itself is or will be notable. The tour is also covered in List of Gloria Estefan concert tours, which seems sufficient, if still even necessary. I'd boldly redirect, but with the name of this article, it would be pointless. Wolfer68 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As fast as it can be done. Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. L0b0t (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable info on this tour yet; WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you remove everything about what is not known, and everything that is unreferenceable, you're left with a list of one date, and two sentences - one of which reads like advertising. -Freekee (talk) 02:45, 29 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. Singu larity 03:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flour Bluff High School[edit]

Random non-notable public school. ~~ N (t/c) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a high school that performs a significant and notable role in its community. Separately, reliable sources are available that meet WP:N. The way forward with such pages is to improve, not delete, them. TerriersFan (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent edits. Passes WP:N.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With improvements it's an acceptable high school article.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable high school like any other. We don't dispute the notability of train stations or other localities, and need not clutter this place up with high schools any longer either. RFerreira (talk) 17:55, 30 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trellium-D[edit]

This article was AFD'd previously and still asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just plot repetition. As such, it just repeats information already found in episode articles and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'keep, & Expand to include Trellium-A. DGG (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we add even more unnotable information about fan trivia when there is already an article full of it just waiting to be deleted? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because its Star Trek. 137.111.143.140 (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The AfD nomination appears inaccurate. The first sentence of the article is not "just plot repetition:" "Trellium-D is a fictional chemical substance from the Star Trek universe, introduced in the series Star Trek: Enterprise." This was not in the plot of Enterprise. Sadly, I'm in the know about that. --Blechnic (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Impulse (Star Trek: Enterprise) -- which I have just done, with improvements -- hope that is acceptable, especially as there was no AFD template on the article. There was support for that action in the multiple nom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mallora as follows, including the present nominator:

Merge and redirect I can agree with merging these into the various lists of Star Trek characters. The articles are mostly about charcters that appear in only a few episodes, or even just one episode, and are of almost no importance to the Star Trek universe let alone our own, real universe. As for Trellium-D, it can be merged into the article on the episode it appeared in, "Impulse" Johnred32 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've now proposed that Delphic Expanse be merged into a list of regions, see draft at User:Fayenatic london/List of Star Trek regions of space. Trellium-D could still go into that section, or into "Impulse"; it's significant in other episodes e.g. "Damage" but "Impulse" may be best as that is where its effects were introduced. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect - Would be really good to do as they are all non -notable stubs on their own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/archive4#Trellium-D and no better suggestion was forthcoming.

I guess I should not now close this AFD but leave that for someone independent. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you hijacked the discussion and did whatever resulted from the input of none? Well, that seems about wiki-right. --Blechnic (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had already done all the other mergers agreed at AFD/Mallora (see Archive 4 again). Because of another merger that I recently offered to do, I remembered that this one was outstanding, so I carried out the merge as previously discussed and apparently agreed. Then, when I checked incoming links, there was a current AFD which had not been notified on the article page! Sorry, I should have explained that. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Having searched Google and IMDB to confirm my own recollection of 1980's TV, I deleted Damn, That Bitch as Fine. User:Anthony Appleyard beat me to Nicholas G. Prodzenko. Nicholas G. Prodzenko did not assert notability, so was eligible for speedy deletionin either event. Both obvious hoax articles deleted as vandalism. Closed by Nawlin as I was too slow with the keyboard. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas G. Prodzenko[edit]

Most likely a hoax, can't find any source that notes Nicholas G. Prodzenko Boccobrock•T 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax, along with Damn, That Bitch is Fine in which he supposedly stars. So tagged. ... discospinster _talk 21:18, 27 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.

Drew Roode[edit]

The article has already been deleted under G5 as it was created by banned User:JB196. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small time wrestler in small time promotion. No third party coverage. Fails WP:N. Nikki311 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 20:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted. The only reference is a link to the article itself, WP:V. ——Ryan | t • c 21:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comment above. Article lacks notability. Artene50 (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 10 google hits (including 2 message boards and 6 wikis). Article does not make any claims to assert notability. Fails notability requirements for multiple reasons. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:57, 28 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. Singu larity 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This website, while useful, fails WP:WEB and lacks non-trivial references by reliable third party publications. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale I've provided as nominator. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2 previous AfDs and former featured article status. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Former featured article status has nothing to do with notability. All votes with regard to this former FA status should be treated like WP:ILIKEIT or WP:PRETTY. Lakitu was a former featured article too, but its just a minor creature from Mario and is now rightfully just a mere paragrah in an article on mario enemies (and one could argue it doesnt even really deserve that). Ex-wikipedian ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's referenced in official Star Trek publications, per Colonel Warden. Must we go AfDing every wiki site article on WP every few weeks? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Official Star Trek books do mention the site, but I'm not sure as to how in-depth they get about it. This was once a featured article?! My how Wikipedia has evolved. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Google News search shows sustained WP:RS coverage to satisfy general notability. Memory Alpha is one of the more prominent wikis out there. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The attempt to delete Star Trek material and move it to this particular site has now reached the peak of absurdity. DGG (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - come on, folks. This site has a whole bunch of mentions in reliable sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep frankly, I find the nom a bit ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former feature article = clearly notable. Any problems it currently has are signs the article needs improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, if it was a former featured article, it was considered notable at one time. And once notable always notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not every wiki is notable but this is one of the premier ones. JamesMLane t c 20:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this is borderline notable, consider renominating again in a few months.--Otterathome (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment This site is certainly noteworthy, but that does not mean wp:notable, there is clear consensus to keep, however votes aren't how we measure notability. Could someone beef up the references, and put this beyond doubt? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not cleanup. It is not about votes, it is weight of evidence, and 3rd-party coverage is obviously out there to fix this article in due course. That coverage establishes notability. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The google books reference does not ascert notability, the usage could be just as definitive as Joe Bloggs in any other book, notability needs ascerted Fasach Nua (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - On reflection, this wiki is linked in every Star Trek article on WP, due to our own familiarity as a result of constant exposure to the name on this site, it may cause us to think it is notable, when outside of the wikiworld it may be irrelevant. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep. It's clear that it has been mentioned in a lot of reliable sources and is therefore notable. That said, I don't buy the argument that just because an article was once a Featured Article that that automatically means that it's notable (I think it's moot here, since it's otherwise notable); just because an article was at one point judged to be well-written and sources doesn't obviously indicate that the subject is notable. Xihr (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions don't count towards notability.--Otterathome (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colonel Warden's finding books on google. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 31 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'm actually surprised it wasn't speedied under WP:CSD#A7.-Wafulz (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive secularist[edit]

non-notable blog ju66l3r (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, why is this blog less notable than, say, Twenty Major or United Irelander? I gather the former has won awards and the latter has been nominated, but lost out to Slugger O'Toole, but are those the only criteria for notability in a small country like Ireland?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Autarch (talk • contribs)

Honestly, I'm not so impressed by the notability of most of those other blogs that you listed either. At least one or two of them won awards and/or were featured in secondary sources like a newspaper article about the blog. Here are the notability guidelines for web content. It doesn't matter if the blog/blogger is from Ireland, the U.S., or Burkina Faso. ju66l3r (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to fall within guidelines on web content - no secondary or news coverage, no awards, etc. Guliolopez (talk) 17:02, 28 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 per the inherent notability of the topic as well as an apparent WP:HEY job by User:Wasted Time R. --jonny-m t 02:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the World (Dixie Chicks song)[edit]

Non-notable song; fails WP:MUSIC. Unreferenced since June '07, full of original research/fancruft ("ominous fashion"), et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:27, 27 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)} 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Non-notable, nothing sourced so nothing to merge. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Per WP:MUSIC, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." While this song was not ranked, it won the Grammy Award for Best Country Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal. And it has been performed independently by notable artists: It exemplifies the work of a critically-praised songwriter, Patty Griffin, and its delayed appearance in a Griffin recording illustrates that artists' up-and-down fortunes in the commercial music industry. It also exemplifies the role the Dixie Chicks play in giving songs like these much wider commercial exposure. As for lack of references etc., the solution there is article improvement, not deletion. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I have been steadily adding references to the article, since I wrote this first response. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the music video for the song was nominated for two MVPA Awards. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Wasted Time R. The article needs copy editing and sprucing up (Infobox, single details, etc.) for sure, but a Grammy-winning song in a significant category and by a major act seems notable to me. --ShelfSkewed Talk 15:37, 28 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 List of treaties in Star Trek. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Algeron[edit]

This article is just a repetition of the plot of several episodes of the Star Trek series, and are adequately covered in those articles. As such, this is duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Khitomer Accords and Organian Peace Treaty into a new List of treaties in Star Trek. This proposal received support here but I hadn't got round to it. I even see that the nominator here did support that proposal. Would you be prepared to withdraw the nom if I do it this week? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Fayenatic's suggestion. That sounds good to me. It would be better than a series of stub articles on similar topics. As for the nom, yes the article's content comes for ST episodes, but that does not justify deletion IMO. Having all the information related to a single topic grouped on a single page is helpful and convenient for readers. -- Ritchy (talk) 13:43, 28 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 Results was speedily deleted. _GB^T/C 13:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Griener[edit]

Disputed prod. No reason to believe this neologism has any but the most limited usage (a single bar), no reliable sources or notability Accounting4Taste:talk 19:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, could find no information. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7, this article is ridiculous.L0b0t (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This article lacks notability and appears to be a form of WP:SPAM Artene50 (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No references. Geo Swan (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:41, 28 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. Singu larity 03:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Carmen[edit]

Delete unsourced one-line bio: she won an awared signifying that the was at the threshold of stardom, but alas never crossed that threshold apparently. No other claim to notability is asserted. She's so, nn we don't know when or where she was born, or even whether she's still alive ... Red flags of non-notability in a modern bio. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm getting a bit tired of all of this nominator's AfDs claiming that lack of birth date/place is evidence of non-notability. What evidence do you have that articles created without these details are on less notable subjects than articles with them? My experience is that these details actually appear more often in vanity articles than in ones about subjects who are notable for other things than when and where they were born. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Poor stub, yes, but we shouldn't mistake a poor stub for a poor subject. Jean Carmen appeared in at least 20 films according to IMDB and many of them were leading roles. Her birth and death dates and places can easily be found with a quick Google, as can many other details. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google Books results show sufficient sources for an article. Lead in several B-movies and a serial. (Also a minor appearance in the serial drama known as Marilyn Monroe.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – More than enough third party news sources to establish notability, as shown here [3]. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung, hopefully this can be improved using the WP:HEY method. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal keep. The movies are pretty obscure, but the serial and Broadway plays make her notable enough for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep I believe there is barely enough information and references to hold up the article. --LAA Fan 22:33, 28 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. Singu larity 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M2SYS Technology[edit]

Spam. Non-notable company, article created primarily by its own president who has also been linkspamming as well as removing links to his competitors elsewhere on Wikipedia (see contribs for M2arman (talk · contribs) and 72.151.108.254 (talk · contribs)). Mikeatsc (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable company. I added some references, including one article from the Kansas City Star. --Eastmain (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:CORP with three valid references. I took the liberty of some copyediting. As for the nomination rationale, please provide evidence that User:M2arman and User:72.151.108.254 are the same before such accusation. I agree that an affiliated of M2SYS should not be making their own company article, but it is in my opinion not spam, and seems to encyclopedic in norm. Meets notability requirements. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet general notability guidelines given the reliable sourcses added by Eastmain and Arsenikk. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets general notability guideline per the references provided. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:54, 27 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. Bearcat (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mesquita Maputo[edit]

That team don't exist.. you can see in [4] and [5]. That team is not listed in any level of Mozambique football leagues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calapez (talk • contribs)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to verify info in article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:11, 27 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. Singu larity 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Cunningham[edit]

He's written a few singles for notable acts, but I am unable to find any reliable third-party sources pertaining to his notability. (Shame, since he's a hell of a songwriter, at least from the songs of his that I've heard.) A search is turning up only false positives. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable 3rd party sources show up showing that he wrote x, y, and z. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do we need to refine the notability criteria for songwriters? I would suggest making the composer and lyricist for a notable song automatically notable themselves, even if the reliable references deal with the song rather than its creators. --Eastmain (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even finding references for the songs (besides the liner notes to the Jason Sellers album). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, how can a biographical article be written if there are no reliable sources dealing with the composer's or lyricist's biography? Deor (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If notability can be established through the song credits or otherwise, then it is permissible to use non-independent sources (including the songwriter's own website) to fill in the empty spaces. --Eastmain (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found these credits at Allmusic. Are they enough? http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=AUSTIN%7CCUNNINGHAM&sql=11:hvfexqy5ldfe~T4 --Eastmain (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. He's worked with notable acts (Pat Alger and Melodie Crittenden), but that doesn't make him notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 07:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:MUSIC as well as WP:BIO more generally. --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 30 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 redirect to Take a Bow (Rihanna song). Non-admin closure. (P.S. If you want an article to be merged or redirected, then be bold and do it yourself.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna take a bow[edit]

Contains nothing that Take a Bow (Rihanna song) does not. Asenine 17:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TrayPlayer[edit]

Product which fails both WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE, I am unable to locate reliable and non-trivial third party publications about this one. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not meet any semblance of notability according to the relevant guidelines for measuring such. RFerreira (talk) 17:56, 30 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 for the third time by Gwen Gale . Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harold the Bear[edit]

Possible merge into Brunswick School, but the relevant article does not exist. Asenine 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

DONT DELETE HAROLD I LOVE HIM!~!1 Haroldthebear (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything on the TV show he's supposed to be in, either on Google or here. Doesn't appear to be a notable fictionale character. I'm confused why a merge is suggested by the nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, fails verifiability and notability. No evidence the claimed TV show exists. No reason to merge anywhere. Edison (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an intentional hoax created in bad faith. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax. so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete endorced but USER:Pecopteris removed the tag with "Removed speedy deletion tag" as the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, see below _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shelton Intermediate School (Connecticut)[edit]

~~Article does not assert notability of subject and is unlikely to do so in the future.~~ Withdrawn Per my comment below, I hereby withdraw my AfD nomination of this article. Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shelton Public Schools and redirect per precedent and WP:SCHOOLS, this didn't need to come to AfD _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Chgange to strong keep per Terriers' sourcing, hadn't found those _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested and be done with it. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a Blue Ribbon School, the highest award that an American school can achieve and FWIW also meets the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL. TerriersFan (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can substantiate that status, please do. I will withdraw the AfD nomination if reliable third-party sources citing the awards are supplied. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK; this will be reliably sourced within the hour :-) TerriersFan (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The offical source is here. There are plenty of sources on other issues, including a controversy over the use of the school's former site, but they are mostly behind paywalls so I'll have a look later to see what I can obtain in an affordable manner :-) TerriersFan (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per blue ribbon school references. Easy pass for WP:N.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While most middle schools will have great difficulty establishing notability, the blue ribbon recognition, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, established notability for this school. Alansohn (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regular keep per the changes made to the article, I believe the current sources confer notability and satisfy WP:N guidelines. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:09, 28 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. Singu larity 04:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Count of Ciantar-Paleologo[edit]

Another in a line of articles on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). While the article has been in substantively the same form since 2004, actual published sources (most unavailable to Wikipedia editors) were only added in 2006 - coincidentally, right after a blanket AfD was filed on these articles, and identical to the Marchese Drago article, also up for AfD - and the sources upon which this article was actually based are the creator's own website and "unpublished research papers." Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. Ravenswing 16:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Charles 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP is not a medium for vanity publishing. andy (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been deleted the first time through VFD in 2005. Quale (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 17:56, 30 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} 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Halverson[edit]

A WP:BLP nightmare: Non-notable person whose only claim to notability is that she's been involved in a disciplinary action over her work as a judge (in a minor US court), with a some negative coverage in local media. The fact that judges in Nevada are elected for office unfortunately causes much of her personal information to be public, so there are plenty of "reliable sources" around – but no notability that I can see. This article serves no other purpose than mud-slinging. It is precisely the kind of topic that Wikipedia really, really should have no business dealing with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just editing the article because I followed a talk page entry, and was intrigued. Meh, it's either way as far as notability goes. The only thing notable about her is the accusations imo. I'd also like to note that I hadn't heard of her until I saw the article. I think that we can do the article and follow neutrality easily, using WP:Policy. Although it appears there are editors who are personally involved with the case... I think I can, with policy on my side, create a neutral article. But really, I don't care, I was just intrigued. I won't stand in the way of deletion, that's for sure! Beam 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not personally involved in the "case", I just object to your additions of POV style writing. Proxy User (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for your baseless accusations. Please goto the talk page and defend your accusations, instead of repeating them in places not meant for such pettiness. Beam 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! You made a baseless accusation against me above and now pretend to chide me for the same thing? What balls! You need to calm down. This is not the place for you to attack me, my Talk Page would be more appropriate. Proxy User (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, don't fight with each other here. You're both decent, fair-minded Wikipedia editors, no reason to throw accusations around. Just say here if and why you want the article deleted, and be done with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are no BLP issues, the article is well sourced, and doesn't contain libel. The behavior in the censure runs over several years. I would say judicial misconduct subjects are a worthy topic. Notability doesnt mean the best or the fastest, or the smartest. It just means that mainstream, reliable media has taken notice of you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think there is no reason that this person should not have a Wiki bio, certain editors wish to make it into a POV soapbox. Serious WP:COATRACK issues. Proxy User (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteHas some WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK issues. A judge at this level generally would not have a Wikipedia article. I feel this does count as "one incident" since the previous every teacher, or every doctor who gets some disciplinary hearing. Edison (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her judicial position doesn't make her notable, and this incident doesn't seem to me to have lasting signficance. The article appears to exist mainly to embarrass her, which is a problem per WP:BLP, and I don't think her notability is great enough for us to need an article about her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doubtful that a judge at this level would normally achieve notability, and none is shown other than for this scandal. We're not a judicial misconduct database. (And I'm starting to question the whole point of electing judges anyway, which practically no other country does. This is partly why, I imagine.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator and Dhartung seem to be arguing that she shouldn't be notable because Nevada shouldn't elect judges. I'm sure she's gotten more press coverage than she would have if her position were appointive, but the question for us is whether she is notable, not whether Nevada should change its laws or whether the mass media frequently pay too much attention to scandal while ignoring more important topics. JamesMLane t c 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Uhm, no, that is not what I said. My point was that the election and judicial documentation system create an artificial impression of notability, owing to the technical availability of public information, which however stands in no proportion to "notability" in the true sense, i.e. a well-documented public perception of importance beyond that short-term issue of gossip and mudslinging. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:51, 28 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, no consensus on redirect. Singu larity 04:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor-Made[edit]

Non-notable album, no reliable third-party sources, no cover art, no reviews, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:37, 27 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)} 16:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless refs can be found to show notability. Edison (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Taylormade-adidas as plausible search term. --Smashville^BONK! 18:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect I agree with Smashville... The article has WP:RS issues along with WP:N issues but a logical search process should have to redirect to Taylormade-adidas or if an article was made for Taylor Made Golf... --Pmedema (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, but to Taylormade, not to Taylormade-adidas. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Taylor Horn As the original creator of this article, I say just go ahead and delete it. Doesn't really matter to me. I've already added the original track listing to the Taylor Horn page.Fanficgurl (talk) 12:43, 28 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Muslims[edit]

This article does not appear to even assert notability (I'm not tagging for speedy deletion as previous versions may have asserted notability). No third party sources at all. A Google search didn't reveal any independent sources (However, I can't conclude that there aren't any, as "Young Muslims" isn't a sufficiently specific search term :) ) Has been tagged with ((notability)) and ((primary sources)) since April. Rami R 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Also includes Trivia which is not meant to be on wikipedia Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepAdded two references found via Google News Archive [6] which discuss "Young Muslims of North America" which is a more specific search term than merely "young Muslims." Still, not very extensive coverage for a national youth religious organization. The article is promotional in its point of view and relies mostly on the organization's own websites. There was criticism of the group, but on websites I could not confirm as meeting Wikipedia reliable source standards. Edison (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assuming that "Young Muslims of North America" is the same organization as "Young Muslims", the foregoing links do not establish notability. None of the links had the group being the subject of the coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:N does not require that the subject be the "only" or "primary" subject of an article, just that it receives "substantial coverage" which is the case here. Still, this is two independent reliable sources with substantial coverage, which barely satisfies "multiple." Edison (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[[reply]
Young Muslims is a legitimate organization - the youth wing of ICNA (www.icna.org). It hosts its own website (www.ymsite.com), and hosts the annual Youth Conference for young Muslims across the United States parallel to ICNA's annual convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.34.55 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 18:49, 31 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 19:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roundel: The little eyes that never knew Light[edit]

I'm contesting the CSD nomination. I can't say it should be kept, but it's not eligible as a speedy. 9Nak (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unpublished song, not notable in any way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the intersection of Swinburne and Elgar is interesting, but without apparent notability as an individual work. --Dhartung | Talk 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article should be merged with Edward Elgar who reportedly sung it. It is unnotable on its own. Artene50 (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:20, 28 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. Singu larity 06:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marchese Drago[edit]

Another in a line of articles on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). While the article has been in substantively the same form since 2005, actual published sources (most unavailable to Wikipedia editors) were only added in 2006 - coincidentally, right after a blanket AfD was filed on these articles - and the sources upon which this article was actually based are the creator's own website and "unpublished research papers." Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. Ravenswing 16:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been deleted in July 2006. Quale (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ravenswing Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom andy (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Charles 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as with the others originated by this author. RFerreira (talk) 17:56, 30 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. Singu larity 06:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaden Rosencrans[edit]

Completely unsourced article article that appears to be part non-notable, part subtle hoax. PubliusFL (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons: no sources and the appearance of an elaborate attempt to create the impression of notability where none exists:

PubliusFL (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Taking the article at face value, and assuming that all information on there is true, notability is not established. Looking on Google, I find a high number of hits about this person creating a number of strange organisations and countries such as the Asteroid Miners Alliance and Gemnoviag. This, plus the fact that I cannot find anything of note anywhere else seems to reinforce the hoax aspect. I suspect that the person does exist and has made an album or two, but nothing noteworthy has happened yet. I would recommend that the following articles are also reviewed should the article be deleted: Black and White (Jaden Album), Gimme More (Jaden Song) and Crystal Clear (Jaden Album). StephenBuxton (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have added the articles you mention to this listing. PubliusFL (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As my original !vote was just for Jaden, I should add that I will also !vote Delete for the other articles too. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Could find no articles what-so-ever concerning this individual. At least not in my world. I did not search the Micronation nations, for sources. But allas, I do not believe they would count. SorryShoesssS ^Talk 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. This is not MySpace, where the articles would be more appropriate. Edison (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - {cough} vanity {cough} "Hey look at me" article" that fails WP:N and WP:RS.--Pmedema (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons above, fails WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 28 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. Singu larity 06:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barons di Baccari[edit]

Another in a line of rambling essays on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). The article has been in substantively the same form since 2006, and the sources upon which this article is based are centuries out of print, if indeed they are legitimate. A major WP:COI issue, as with an uncomfortable number of these Maltese nobility articles, is that that the alleged holders of this title is the creator's own family. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:COI. Ravenswing 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been deleted in July 2006. Quale (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Charles 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:50, 27 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Treanor[edit]

Child actor, with no major roles. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER notability standard. brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two films would appear to be notable (certainly a notable distributor), and it looks like he had a major role in the films, so I would say that he does meet notability. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't the main actor in any of the films. And assuming arguendo that he was, WP:ENTERTAINER requires multiple major roles. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Not quite what I said - I didn't say main role, I said major role. Just to clarify what I do mean as a major role - by being one of the three ninjas mentioned in the title, I would say that a title role can class as a major role. The only exception I can think of to that rule would be anyone named as playing the title role in Waiting for Godot. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was one of the three leads (brothers who learn to become ninjas) in two films (which aren't classics, but stalwart favorites in the "family" genre). While that's not a lot, it is sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lead actor in two noted films, so he meets the criteria. --Mickea (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 Ninjas Knuckle Up grossed barely more than $400,000 [7], so it is not that major a film.--FreeKresge (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 28 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. — Scientizzle 15:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Abi Shaheen[edit]

notability issues, not referenced Eli + 14:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not state why it is notable. If it was to be significantly edited and stated its notability with references, i may change my mind. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 28 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. Singu larity 06:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chedid Al Azar[edit]

notability issues, no references... Eli + 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not state why it is notable. If it was to be significantly edited and stated its notability with references, i may change my mind. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BLP and WP:RS. --Pmedema (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, barely even asserts notability let alone offering any evidence for it. Unless the mentioned publications are a lot more notable than this tiny article currently implies, I can't see that this guy meets WP:BIO at all. ~ mazca ^talk 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BLP as well. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment not enough information to find anything. DGG (talk) 04:16, 28 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. Singu larity 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frigenuini[edit]

Another in a line of articles on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). The article has been unimproved since creation, and the sources upon which this article was actually based are the creator's own website and "unpublished research papers." A major WP:COI issue crops up in that the alleged holders of this title is the creator's own family and the alleged current claimant is the creator's mother. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:COI. Ravenswing 14:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been deleted in July 2006. Quale (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thinly veiled vanity article that fails verifiability. Charles 19:16, 27 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. Whether this deserves mention in United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest article is another issue. For the sake of convenience, I am going to also merge the meager amount of current content as a subsection to the UK article. No prejudice to re-creation should Scotland ever actually enter the contest.. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland in the Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

Article is about a rare possible entry into the Eurovision song contest therefore violates WP:CRYSTAL. There is no Broadcaster who has yet confirmed that they would like to enter for Scotland. Plus it has already been confirmed the the UK will be entering, therefore making it not possible for Scotland to enter as they would be able to vote for two countries. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator per above Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's quite complicated, but even after editing it to remove the bias I think it still fails WP:CRYSTAL ninety:one 14:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Per WP:CRYSTAL. The article is entirely guesswork and speculation about an event that may never happen! --Cameron (T|C) 15:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was a consensus not to include Scotland on the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 article, see here. Ijanderson977 (talk)
Delete, still speculation, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 17:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit heavily. This issue has been brought up many times by Scottish politicians, for decades, but should perhaps include less speculation and more about the campaign.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ with Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest because it's speculation. Under current EBU rules only Council of Europe members can join + countries from North Africa and Middle East that fall into some UN broadcast area (and Kosovo and Scotland is not CoE or UN member).--Avala (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly true... you can't really compare the two. The reason Scotland doesn't take part is because the BBC has the broadcast monopoly... different to joining the EBU, which basically anyone can do. But why am I saying this, I agree with you! Ignore...ninety:one 21:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to Keep per this.

Comment User MacRusgail suggests we keep it but edit heavily. We can't edit it heavily because there is no more information to add as it is based about a future event therefore violates WP:Crystal. There are no more sources saying new things on the topic. As it is not going to go ahead. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it doesn't have to be about the future, as I've already said. Politicians, and not just the SNP, have been going on about this for at least 20/30 years. Therefore it is something ongoing, and has a history. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a history of WP:CRYSTAL ninety:one 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that is a reliable source. Further, there are similar articles of countries that are not part of the EBU, why not this one and the other yes? Besides the issue was discussed in the scotish parliament, is not a rumor either. Goddess (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article is not a source. The other articles are either because they have a documented history, or because they stand a very real chance of entering because the EBU say they can (Kosovo). We can't have articles for every crackpot scheme discussed in parliaments or Wikipedia would be full ;) ninety:one 11:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to be more interested in judging the votes of the other users than the article itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.45.111.67 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest - Some content about possible Scottish participation is already in there, until Scottish participation comes more likley it would be beneficial to merge this article with that one and redirect appropriately. Also a good compromise option. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as proposed by Camaron | Chris. There are lots of hypothetical Eurovision entrants and any Scottish entry would invariably impact on the UK entry making that article the best place to handle such schemes. This is most definitely not a comparable case to Kosovo. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Chwech 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise for merging and redirecting as opposed to deleting. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because no sane country would want to be in the contest as it is now. I've watched the Contest since 1958 when there were only 6 countries - very restful !!! And all in beautiful black and white.... Renata (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principe de Sayd[edit]

Another in a line of articles on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). While the article has been in substantively the same form since 2005, actual published sources (unavailable to Wikipedia editors) were only added last year, and the sources upon which this article was actually based are the creator's own website and "unpublished research papers." A major WP:COI and WP:COATRACK issue crops up in that the alleged holders of this title is the creator's own family and the alleged current claimant is the creator's father, whose own personal article is up for AfD. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:COI. Ravenswing 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ravenswing. Also it should be noted that it seems like an essay. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been deleted in August 2006. Quale (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PERNOM. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thinly veiled vanity article that fails verifiability. Charles 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nehha (as they say in Malta -- though they also say Delete). The lack of notability is fairly obvious. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:00, 27 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 Non-admin closure: speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCC Greenawalds Day Nursery[edit]

Non-notable preschool. ukexpat (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete A7: absolutely no claims of notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't sure whether school articles could be speedied otherwise I would have so nominated. – ukexpat (talk) 14:12, 27 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. Singu larity 06:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of International Builders[edit]

Unnecessary and arbitrary list. Created by user repeatedly trying to include listing for Populaire Group Pte. Ltd. or Populaire Group. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no real criteria for inclusion. (That's not the same Turnberry that used to own Genesee Valley Center, is it?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and User:TenPoundHammer. JIP | Talk 17:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; no criteria for this list that has three entries so far. Although it "references builders operating internationally (in more than a single market)", two of the three operate only in a single market, so maybe it's a list of one builder.Mandsford (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:DIRECTORY. Also, the list is created by a single-contribution account, so i suspect WP:SPAM. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:50, 28 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. Singu larity 06:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baron of Bauvso[edit]

Another in a line of articles on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). This article is sourced only by a genealogy supposedly published in Spain in the 18th century and by a second source dating from the 15th century and purportedly held in the National Library of Malta; the title of neither registers on Google Scholar, in either case is unavailable for verification, and could provide no sourcing for the most recent couple centuries of this genealogy. The article has been substantively unimproved since 2004, and a major WP:COI issue crops up in that the alleged holders of this title is the creator's own family. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI. Ravenswing 13:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impossible to verify the claims of this article. The WP:COI mentioned in the nomination also is a consideration in that the information that is impossible to verify was placed by a family member. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been deleted in July 2006. Quale (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thinly veiled vanity article that fails verifiability. Charles 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable Maltese offering. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:01, 27 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 Michel Fournier (adventurer). For the record, when bundling nominations together, please follow the directions at WP:BUNDLE. --jonny-m t 08:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand Saut[edit]

This is a future event which failed to happen. As of now, there is no announcement if there will even be another attempt. The article now fails WP:FUTURE because it does not meet the almost certain to take place criteria. The same logic goes for Michel Fournier (adventurer) as well. If the jump ever does happen, the article(s) can be recreated then -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of the above: my intent in this nomination was that both Le Grand Saut and Michel Fournier (adventurer) be deleted. That doesn't mean the debate can't go in different directions, but I just wanted to clarify my original intent. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, fails WP:FUTURE as it is not almost certain to take place. Even if the event does take place it is not almost certain that the records will be broken. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason not to have an article on the attempt which failed. Rmhermen (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The attempt itself was already notable, based on the media coverage alone. A future successful jump would just make it more notable. Skybum (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Michel Fournier (adventurer). I still think it's notable, but one-article rather than two-article notable. Skybum (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is sufficient sourced content here so that WP:CRYSTAL isn't violated, but I don't think it's enough for its own article. Merge to Michel Fournier (adventurer). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect back to Michel Fournier (adventurer).--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect - Article already merged with Michel Fournier (Adventurer) so it can be ~~deleted~~ redirected there. --Pmedema (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually no, merged articles in general should not be deleted, when not deleting the target article, as this violates the GFDL unless special measures are taken. Editors do not transfer the copyright on their text (unless they've specifically said so); they only license it, and the license requires that attribution be preserved. --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See merge and delete. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge What do you mean it did not meet the "almost certain to take place" if i recall i saw pictures of the baloon drifting off.. it actually did take place.. The attempt failed but it was very special and it did happen. After the press confrence tonight we'll have even more infomation to put on here. 142.206.2.14 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skybum. --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please merge, there is little reason to have a separate article just because it has a website and a fancy name. Michel Fournier (adventurer) is not bursting at the seams. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per foregoing reasons. This is all over the mainstream news outlets. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Something being all over the mainstream news outlets means it's current news. That doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia. If another attempt is not made (or if one is made, but fails), does this pass the WP:RECENT ten-year test? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it's a judgment call, of course. My feeling is, WP not being paper and all that, it's reasonable to keep it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Le Gran saut into Fournier and very strong keep for the Fournier article. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:55, 28 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, default to keep. Several users agree that Dodgson's proposed method should be documented somewhere on Wikipedia. There is also agreement that Smith's interpretation and coining of the term "asset voting" is not widely recognized, being mentioned only in self-published materials. However, since Smith's work is not the only analysis of Hodgson's voting system, there is sufficient basis for an article describing the system itself. Concerns over promoting Smith's neologisms could be addressed by renaming the article or merging its text to a fuller exploration of Dodgson's work in the field. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asset voting[edit]

Delete. Original research. Neologism. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article has been created by Sarsaparilla who has been blocked indefinitely. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Be careful about this AfD. See Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. This is an SPA dedicated to AfDing articles that are in some way connected to opposition to Instant-runoff voting, such as the theoretical basis for Range Voting Bayesian regret, the Center for Range Voting, etc. He often is technically correct, for example, CRV was probably not notable when he nominated it. However, many Voting systems articles are about topics well-known in the field, written by experts, and thus, as is common, improperly sourced. Removal of all this material leaves behind a POV imbalance. I'll make sure that relevant editors are informed of this AfD, what has often happened is that nobody familiar with the field notices the AfD. Asset Voting is indeed a recent term, a neologism, but the basic method is very old, it was first proposed by Lewis Carroll in the 1880s. If, on searching for sources, it turns out that the article material belongs elsewhere, what of it that can be established by reliable source, I may change my vote to Merge and Redirect. The modern inventor of Asset Voting is Warren Smith, of the Center for Range Voting, and he is notable in his field, probably should have an article. When Asset voting was created, Sarsaparilla was an editor in good standing, the block had to do with later events. Bringing in an ad hominem argument re an AfD is typical Yellowbeard behavior, see his contributions. Sorry to do that myself, but you really should know, he's sucked a lot of editors into quickly voting Delete without having any grasp of the context and details.--Abd (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could do with expanding though Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - the article itself supports the idea that it is a neologism and b) that the sourcing is original research. If 3rd party reliable sources were presented, I would consider my position. --87.114.131.46 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC) According to Abd and EconomicsGuy this IP is probably a sockpuppet of community banned user User:Fredrick day. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Edited by EconomicsGuy to clarify the situation EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC) See also [8] for a related note by admin User:Sarcasticidealist and note, in that AfD, the allied participation of Fredrick day and Yellowbeard. Fredric day is known -- and was blocked -- for harassing inclusionists (such as myself, User:Kmweber, and User:Sarsaparilla), and Yellowbeard for selectively AfDing articles on voting systems, with no significant article contributions in his history, and he was 24-hour blocked for canvassing after warning. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC) And Abd is known for getting personal when challenged. Yellowbeard (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor also, at [9] implicitly acknowledged being Fredrick day, and we may presume that Yellowbeard knows it, because he participated in that discussion. I'm prepared, if need be, to defend what I've written about Fredrick day and Yellowbeard before ArbComm, it is not a violation of WP:NPA, whereas Yellowbeard has quite frequently introduced ad hominem arguments, such as the nomination in this AfD, which brought in a totally irrelevant issue about the article creator. The identity and possible POV motives of a nominator are relevant, because in many AfDs, early voters will take statements of the nominator at face value, assuming good faith, but WP:AGF is a rebuttable presumption, and a bit dangerous with AfDs. Note that I argued on AN/I that problems with Yellowbeard should not be allowed to interrupt the AfD, because I considered the notability of Asset Voting a legitimate question, and, obviously, legitimate editors may disagree on this. However, Yellowbeard has done enough, with this AfD and what he's done before, that a block may be justified, but I'm not planning on proposing this until the AfD closes. I think it is not relevant to this particular AfD and Yellowbeard is unlikely to do significant harm before it closes.--Abd (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This exemplifies my observation that Abd gets personal when challenged. Yellowbeard (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Center for Range Voting.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The Center is not known for Asset Voting and doesn't promote it, it just happens that one of the founders of the Center re-invented Asset voting, web-publishing in 2004. The Carroll material is far more interesting to me, and has reliable source.--Abd (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has considerable scholarly discussion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An academic self-publishing papers on his webspace at his place of employment does not represent "considerable scholarly discussion" - not in the slightest. Have any of those paper been published in peer-reviewed journals? Conference proceedings? What you have listed is just plain old original research. --87.114.151.195 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)— 87.114.151.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP edit has been acknowledged on AN/I (section diff as being from the blocked User:Fredrick day. I have deleted other comments he made in this AfD, none of them add arguments not presented by others. They may be seen in History, and if anyone thinks them relevant, I'd suggest putting them in Talk for this page. I left this one because Celarnor had made comment on it. Fd's His comment about "place of employment" was pure speculation, it's not true, but I would agree with him that there has not been "considerable scholarly discussion." There has been considerable discussion outside of peer-reviewed journals, there is self-published material from a notable expert, possibly usable with attribution, and some reliable source exists for the Lewis Carroll connection.--Abd (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Four of the five papers mentioned by Celarnor have been written by Warren Smith. The fifth paper is not on asset voting. Yellowbeard (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well,, the fifth paper might be about asset voting, I can't tell from the summary. Perhaps Celarnor can help us out. "Asset Voting" refers to candidates receiving votes being able to reassign them as if they were their "assets," an idea which was stated first by Carroll. Focusing on Warren Smith is a mistake. He's a notable voting systems advocate (which might make his papers usable in certain limited ways), and he independently invented it, apparently, but Carroll was there more than a hundred years before.--Abd (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter who wrote them? If I were to look up all the important papers on string theory, I would find that most of them were by those who created the field. That's only natural. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? you've pretty much just established it's OR. Scholarly debate is not a single academic publishing unreviewed papers on his personal webspace. Scholarly debate is established by the response of other academics to works published - generally as conference proceedings or in peer review journals or as citations within either of those types of works. What you have selected, in nowway, shape or form represents academia discourse. --87.114.151.195 (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.64.105 (talk) [reply]

When all papers are by the same person and when none of these papers has ever been published, then this can hardly be called a "considerable scholarly discussion". All papers by Warren Smith on asset voting are non-notable per this policy. Yellowbeard (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I've written, in [10], a discussion of what I know about the topic, with some sources. The best source is the paper by Duncan Black that is referenced from the Article. While the term "Asset Voting" was not used by Carroll, he uses quite the same analogy to describe it, candidates may "treat these votes as if they were their own personal property." --Abd (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it shouldn't be used - what you describe represents original research and novel synthesis on your part. The source has to make an EXPLICIT linkage, you cannot do it and claim he uses "quite the same analogy". --87.114.139.108 (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article should be kept since it gives a valuable description of one of the election systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topjur01 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I posted a neutral notice to an off-wiki mailing list, Election Methods, knowing that many Wikipedia editors knowledgeable about voting systems read that list -- and this is a neutral list. Later, I'll post a link to that notice. In the meanwhile, Wikiproject Voting Systems should be notified as well, I do that later if nobody gets to it before me.--Abd (talk)

I have also placed a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Voting systems .diff The email notice disclosed above may be seen at [11] and see also Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Asset voting--Abd (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word for that is "canvassing", no matter what weasel words you place around it. --Calton | Talk 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there was canvassing there, Calton. There is a seeking of comment, evidence, and argument from experts, who may be far more familiar with the literature than I or anyone else here. In any case, here is a link to the email:[12]. Canvassers don't normally announce what they have done to the AfD.... but if it is improper, I'm sure that a closing admin can deal with it. --Abd (talk)

Delete - Little sign of actual real-world impact or notice, and plenty of sign of using Wikipedia to promote someone's fringe idea. --Calton | Talk 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little real world impact or value as judged by uninvolved/unrelated third party sources. Existing sources are mostly tied to this topic's proponent, and not valid here for notabillity... so, delete. And canvassing? Yuck. rootology (T) 19:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, canvassing, Yuck. Did Rootology see any evidence of violation of WP:CANVASS before making this comment? As to the sources, has Rootology looked at the Lewis Carroll sources? I agree, it's easy to conclude that there is too little out there, particularly if you only pay attention to the claims about Warren Smith and the Center for Range Voting. Both of them are now notable, Smith is an expert, and original research by notable experts *may* under some circumstances be usable, with attribution, not claimed as fact. There is a reason why Rule Number One isIgnore all rules: rigid adherence to rules, no matter how good they generally are, can harm the project, and our standard of judgment isn't conformance to guidelines, but community practice and consensus. Guidelines, when well written, tell us what we can, more or less, expect to see when the community decides. I voted Keep, not based on the strictest application of WP:RS but in the interest of having a verifiable, reliable, informative, and interesting encyclopedia. And the purpose of this AfD is to determine if the community agrees. I trust the ultimate decision, particularly given that the fuss is attracting wider attention. AfD is dangerous when only a few rule-bound and distracted editors make snap judgments about topics they know nothing about, based on a wikilawyered nomination by an SPA with an axe to grind.--Abd (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The topic clearly exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the sake of completeness of our coverage of voting systems. JamesMLane t c 21:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We had a vandal a while back who was making up "voting" schemes and writing hoax articles about them. He was finally blocked for his vandalism but in some parting comments, he asserted that we had not yet found and deleted all of his hoaxes. (He used a number of IP and sockpuppet accounts to carry out the vandalism.) I have not yet had time to research this particular article but I would urge all participants to be particularly skeptical about unsourced or poorly sourced articles on the topic of voting. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This vandal was Sarsaparilla, who also created the article on asset voting. Yellowbeard (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of any hoax articles written by that user. This article isn't a hoax, obviously; he didn't make it up, nor did he make up Liquid democracy, or what he moved it to, Delegable proxy, the sources, whether it's decided they are RS or not for encyclopedic purpose, prove that. Nor was he a serious vandal (unlike Fredrick day, whose edits to this AfD Yellowbeard has replaced). So, really, I'd like to know who Rossami was talking about.--Abd (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to a new article on C. L. Dodgson's (Lewis Carroll's) work on voting methods. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia includes only passing references to this subject -- including a link in the Voting system article to an article on Dodgson's method that doesn't exist yet. (Dodgson's method is a Condorcet-compliant single-winner method completely distinct from asset voting.) The main article on his life and career doesn't mention this aspect of his work at all, and it should be covered. As things stand right now, Warren Smith's re-invention is, I think, original research until it is available in sources that Wikipedia recognizes. But the article I have mind would need to mention Smith in connection with the name, asset voting, because apparently Dodgson himself didn't name his creation.Bob Richard (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the new article existed, I'd be happy to go with Merge. In the long run, this idea of Dodgson could be the most enduring of his contributions, but you'd have only my opinion for that. Tell you what, I'll get it published and someone can put it in. What a great idea! Anyway, for now, we do need an article, there is plenty of source for it, and I have the books on order. --Abd (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still not notable despite the campaign to pass it off as such. Where are the sources other than an article describing the basic idea without calling it asset voting. Try spending less time campaigning here and on ANI and more time adding sources. Also, support what Rootology said above. EconomicsGuy (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Keep per my discussion with Abd I trust that he will be able to and intent to expand this into a broader article that would effectively remove the concerns raised on this AfD. basically I think we've been talking past each other here and the edit warring over a banned user's !vote didn't help. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this (last part) appears to be a personal comment directed at me, I'll respond to it in Talk for this page.--Abd (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which discussion motivated EconomicsGuy to change his mind, but there was also some discussion on his Talk page. He and I did not edit war at all, the edit warring was really on the part of a blocked sock and the nominator. It didn't become a full-blown edit war because, instead of edit warring when reverted, I took it to AN/I, then made one more edit based on discussion there, which was reverted, and EconomicsGuy then assisted, asking for AGF, which was all too uncommonly nice.--Abd (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge) - does not appear to meet notability requirements, as it lacks significant coverage from third-party sources. Terraxos (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has been editing the article to remove citations. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Colonel Warden has been editing the article (after the nomination) to add citations although the added citations have nothing to do with asset voting. Yellowbeard (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving an article while it is at AFD is normal practise. Your contention that the citations are improper OR is a fair point but other editors should have the opportunity to review these sources while forming their opinion of the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden, did you read the citations you added? Adding citations that have nothing to do with an article is not "improving an article". Yellowbeard (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read enough of them to satisfy myself that they are not spurious. If you wish to challenge them I suggest that you add appropriate tags to the article, indicating your concerns. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge We have enough sources to retain this as a stub. The title and direction in which the article develops are matter of content editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. Delete, because "Asset voting" is a non-notable neologism based non-notable original research from someone (Smith) self-publishing outside his academic area of expertise. The only part of this article that is appropriate for Wikipedia relates to Dodgson, primarily for historical/biographical reasons. The meager amount of material relating to Dodgson, for now and apparently in the near future, best fits in the existing article on Dodgson. From there, in due time, it could always expand into its own section(s) or even its own article. In voting system articles especially, quality will be improved by more carefully respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, rather than institutionalizing fringe-advocacy-motivated exceptions. DCary (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge may indeed be appropriate, though probably not to Lewis Carroll; rather to a new article on the man's work on voting systems which, it turns out, was voluminous and has multiple published sources. Just not on the internet. I have books on the way. At this point, Smith's work on Asset may be worthy of a brief mention in an article (he's notable in this field, and that can be proven and maybe he's finally worthy of an article, another topic entirely). (Notice that it's brief here, and I just reverted out an IP editor's attempt to add substantial material on the details of Smith's method. It was true, but out of balance.) Smith's academic field is mathematics, and his work has been an application of mathematics to voting systems theory, then he became involved in advocacy. He's a quirky writer, but his work is widely recognized and described (in brief) in reliable sources, and he co-authored a a paper with Ron Rivest and Rivest has cited his work (not on Asset voting, though). My position on his work is that it can't be used as reliable source yet, except for direct verification of attributed content, which may be usable, that's really up to editorial consensus (he's notable for voting systems advocacy). For now, whether or not Merge is the result, my plan is to create, at least, a section in the Carroll bio. But pretty quickly, the available material will fill its own article. Carroll is one of the most fascinating Victorian authors I've encountered, and his work with voting systems was way advanced for his time. We have reliable source on the importance of Dodgson's work in this field, so the view that this is only of historical/biographical interest is incorrect. (The "field" is voting systems in general; what this article calls Asset Voting was called Candidate Proxy by Forest Simmons and Mike Ossipoff[13]. -- this is a mailing list, not directly usable, but if a peer-reviewed article quotes it, it's good to go... Not yet, as far as I know. Carroll describes the idea, but the significance of it was only noticed recently.) It was apparently too brillig for its time, and the slithy toves were busy gyring and gimbling in the wabe. (If Carroll wrote for Wikipedia, we'd block him quickly. Definitely not encyclopedic, hoax.)--Abd (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR; there's no real question here - Wikipedia does not represent this kind of original work as encyclopedic content. Eusebeus (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: Abd concurs that Smith's paper's are not reliable sources. Do others who want to keep the article under its current entry disagree? If so, on what basis? If there are no reliable sources for the term "asset voting", why keep the article under this entry? I've not seen anyone justify keeping the article under its current entry in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If it should be an exception, what distinguishes this article? For those who advocate completeness, are you advocating that every voting system and voting system neologism should have its own entry in Wikipedia, and every assessment of voting systems should be represented in Wikipedia, regardless of considerations of source? If not, where/how would you draw the line? (I ask these questions in the spirit that this is supposed to be a process of discussion and consensus, not merely voting for a result?) DCary (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly more complicated than DCary stated. Smith's papers, at this point, not being subjected to formal peer review, can't be used as reliable source for fact. For example, if Smith says that Range Voting has the lowest Bayesian regret of all single-ballot voting systems -- and it does --, we can't just put in an article this fact about Range Voting based on his paper stating that. But we may be able to put in a statement that "Warren D. Smith, of the Center for Range Voting, claims that Range Voting has the ... blah blah." If editorial consensus is that he is notable as an advocate, or possibly as an expert, it's possible to use it. In Asset voting, the reference to Smith is being used to source that he proposed the method and gave it that name, with possibly a little detail, but nothing controversial, in fact. I have seen Asset voting attributed to Smith many times, and not one challenge of the fact (and no challenge here, the challenge is only technical). But the method is something else. I found, and noted in Talk:Asset voting, prior modern mention of the method, from Forest Simmons (2002) and Mike Ossipoff (2000). (Mailing list posts, well-known as coming from them.) For Smith, the source verifies the text, with no reasonable doubt left. He did coin that name, and there is no other simple name that is so well-known. DCary asks a very general question, and it is asked with hyperbole, so I'm going to answer it literally. No. Only notable systems, which could include every system where, when I write to the Election Methods list and ask a question or make a comment about a system by name, I will get few, if any, responses that ask, for example, "Hybrid FuzzyMath Voting? What's that?" Of course, if I ask about Hybrid FuzzyMath Voting, I'm going to get no response or that Huh? That is, one measure of true notability is that experts will recognize the name and know what it is. Experts who have been following the field in recent years know what Asset voting is. Some of them, indeed, would know Candidate proxy as well, though probably not as many. (Candidate proxy and Asset voting are the same thing.) This, of course, leaves us with a problem. If it is well-known among experts, but it isn't in what we define as reliable source, does this mean that (1) we can't use it at all, or (2) we can use it by consensus. I'll tell you what actual practice is: the encyclopedia is full of such information, and deletion of it, which is, in fact, happening, isn't improving the encyclopedia in fact even though it may be in theory. That is, I'm claiming, what is in fact well-known, which is, by definition, not controversial, may not need reliable source, even though it's better to have it. What I've seen, quite commonly, in AfDs involving this field, is deletion based on lack of reliable source, even though what RS was being sought for was actually not controversial in the least, and could be readily verified. The objection is based on the guideline, which is ... called wikilawyering, if one wants to be rude about it. To me, the interpretation of policy by consensus trumps guidelines, and guidelines themselves are not "law," but exactly what the name implies, some general guidance of how the community operates, not binding on the community at all. Ah, shades of Kim Bruning! Now, as to this AfD. If Smith's paper can't be used at all, and excepting the possibility that Asset Voting has been mentioned in print, by that name, we probably can't keep the article under its present name, though it's possible a redirect could be in place. As has been mentioned by another editor, it's quite likely that if this AfD closes as Merge, or even if it closes as Delete, there will be an article written on Lewis Carroll's work on voting systems and proportional representation, which would mention his "as if they were private property" idea, and it is hardly significant synthesis to equate this to "as if they were the candidate's assets," and, thus, there could be *brief* mention of modern echoes of Carroll's ideas. Smith's paper could be cited there, I would propose, properly framed and attributed. That is what I would do if it were my decision. It is not. It is the community's decision.--Abd (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer: The article name Asset voting is justifiable under Verifiability, which is policy. And, I'll submit, nobody here, or in the article, has challenged the accuracy of this. Only technicalities of sourcing are being challenged. Now, easily, the community may decide that Asset voting isn't sufficiently notable to have an article; in that case, we would be looking at Delete or Merge and Redirect. Merge and Redirect is better, because people are going to look it up. Do we need RS to have a redirect? What to redirect to? Well, I could create a stub on Carroll's work pretty quickly. Probably not this weekend, though. I've got my girls to take care of. --Abd (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we could discuss Warren Smith's papers to the death. Fact is: Warren Smith is a self-proclaimed voting system expert. His papers have never been published somewhere. There is no publication in a peer-reviewed journal that mentions or even discusses Smith's proposals. If Smith's proposals were notable, then everything would be notable. Yellowbeard (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual fact is that Warren Smith has been noticed as a significant voting system proponent by publications like The Economist and other reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I and apparently others do challenge it. If the article under this title is to be justified, the facts and rules need detailed substantiation and citation. At best, Abd confuses the criteria for including incidental or supplementary material with the criteria for having an article to begin with. Similarly, Abd confuses Smith's academic area of expertise with his broader academic discipline. Having a Ph.D. in history does not mean one has an academic area of expertise in Russian history, let alone 19th century Russian history. Similarly, a background in mathematics or even applied mathematics does not mean one has expertise in all areas of applied mathematics, let alone all areas in which mathematics can be applied. If anyone wants to make a case that Smith's area of academic expertise is some portion of voting theory or voting systems, please identify it and make a case for it by giving the details, for example peer-reviewed publications, academic appointments, Ph.D. thesis, graduate level courses taught, academic sponsors/teachers, formal course work taken, etc. Even academics are allowed to have and write about their avocational interests, and this, along with many other bloggers and EM participants is what Smith has appeared to do with voting systems. But there is a distinction that Wikipedia policy makes. Being mentioned as a voting reform advocate, even in the area of voting integrity, hardly qualifies one as a notable expert for proposing asset voting. DCary (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another citation has been added. This demonstrates wider usage than the voting theory community. The article seems to be coming along nicely. The main bone of contention seems to be the title and the corresponding inventive claims. But note that this is irrelevant to our purpose here since the title of an article is not a matter of deletion - it can be changed by any editor, using the move button. Likewise, a merge into a article such as Proportional representation or Proxy vote is not a matter of deletion. Since we have a good topic and several reliable sources now, deletion seems quite inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation of the IEEE conference paper has been removed by Abd because this paper has nothing to do with asset voting. Therefore, this paper doesn't demonstrate that there is "wider usage than the voting theory community" or that "we have reliable sources". Yellowbeard (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paper does have something to do with asset voting and that is obviously why I cited it. It seems that Abd doesn't understand something about this but he has failed to explain his difficulty. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I follow the link I see an abstract of the article, not the article. My "difficulty" is that I don't see the connection with Asset Voting. It may be in the paper, or it may be that the connection simply is obscure to me. If Colonel Warden would explain, in detail, the connection, I'd certainly reconsider. I think I asked for the same thing with regard to another user asserting this source, so, indeed, if the other editor and Colonel Warden have, perhaps, seen the actual article, either one of them could explain. It's moot for this AfD, in fact. The basic concept of Asset Voting (that candidates treat votes as their "property" (Carroll) or "assets" (Smith) or that they are treated as proxies for the voters (Simmons, Ossipoff) is verifiable. Relative notability is another matter, and I've elsewhere stated what Colonel Warden agrees with above, and which has also been cogently proposed by at least one editor who at first voted Delete: there is material sufficiently notable and reliable to be a matter of mention in another article, or more than one article. In particular, an article on the voting systems work of Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) is definitely in order, and that there have been modern reinventions of the same process *may* be noted in that article. As CW points out, these are editorial decisions, not AfD decisions. --Abd (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the IEEE conference paper has anything to do with asset voting because this paper talks about choosing missions. But missions cannot "use, distribute, or redistribute votes they received in the election, negotiating with each other to put together a coalition of enough votes to win". Yellowbeard (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is about autonomous systems. These, by definition, have sufficient intelligence to haggle over multiple mission objectives. Such systems are needed for robotic probes to places like Mars. The paper describes how theoretical political systems such as "asset voting" were used to construct and simulate the performance of such systems. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Only cited reference that actually mentions the term was by the person who coined it. No evidence of any reliable sources independent of the person who originating the term actually using it... and discussion forums are not reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken as this cited source uses the term. In any case, such use of a novel term is not a reason to delete. The guideline WP:NEO states In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.. So, if there's a problem with asset voting, we just move the article to something like Voting systems in which the candidates recast their votes as proxies. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CW is correct. The fact, though, is that the name "Asset Voting" is a very good very short summary of the method, and, as I noted, widely recognized in the voting system community. The term "Candidate Proxy" is also recognized. There was another similar system called "Candidate List," where vote transfers are controlled by lists published by candidates prior to the election, which then grays into the use of party-list in Single transferable vote. These mentions (of all but the STV thing), though, are generally in mailing lists or on wikis or web pages, which is how, since the mid-1990s, the voting methods community has mostly communicated, peer-reviewed publications being rare. I allowed -- or added -- references to mailing lists *only* to show mention and timing of mention, not to show characteristics or other original research. This is an example of how guidelines can be interpreted as rigid rules and used to exclude what isn't controversial at all. The general objection to mailing lists is twofold: first, no proof of identity, allegedly, and second, no peer-review process. However, Ossipoff and Simmons are both highly notable in the field; in fact, those are their real names, definitely for Simmons and probably for Ossipoff (if Ossipoff is a pseudonym, it would be one that he has used continuously since the 1990s until the present, I simply don't know if his RL identity has been verified); Simmons is a math instructor. If those posts had not been theirs, we'd have heard about it. From them. As to peer-review, it's not relevant to what is sourced from the article, for what is sourced is only mention of "Candidate proxy" and to descriptions of the method so that any reader can see that the method is the same concept as Asset Voting. None of the objection to this has been based on dispute of the fact, only on the alleged nonconformance to RS requirements, which are general and not necessarily binding in a specific case like this. We make fine distinctions on what is allowed and not allowed on an article by article basis, and depending on what precisely is being sourced, thorugh editorial consensus among those who actually take an interest in the subject as distinct from the presumed rules, which is what AfDs tend to focus on. Smith is a notable expert on voting systems, and that can be established by RS, mostly through extensive quotation of Smith by William Poundstone, in Gaming the Vote, and then through discussion of this by other writers in reliable sources. So the argument could be made that Smith's paper on Asset Voting could be reliable source for some purposes. This would be one. No controversial claim is being made from this source. Nothing that peer review would have any impact on. The raw fact is verifiable directly. The paper could be absolute garbage of no notability otherwise, and it would stand as clear verification of what the article takes from it.--Abd (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cited article by Abel and Sukkarieh illustrates the pitfalls of using unreliable sources such as Smith's self-published papers, public forums such as the elections method mailing list, or various self-proclaimed or advocacy-declared experts, not to mention careless wiki editing. The cited article does in fact use the term asset voting, but in a significantly different way than Smith uses it. The article uses the term "asset" in a military sense, a combat or military intelligence resource such as troops, tanks, reconnaisance aircraft, etc. The paper applies a voting model where the assets are just voters voting for candidates. The candidates are not autonomous negotiators for a winner or winners in a second phase of the election. Assets are not the bargaining chips of the candidates. Rather, the winner is determined by a system predefined, central command tabulation procedure based on declared positions of the candidates. Apparently the election is a simple, single-stage plurality election. In short, this does not validate the usage in the unreliable Smith sources. DCary (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, this discussion would take place on an article Talk page, and I'd want to see a lot more from the paper in question before concluding either way. We now have two apparently independent users who claimed the article was one way, and now one, with more information, claiming it is a different way. And it could take more time to resolve this, in my experience, than we have time left in this AfD. If Cary is correct, I'd expect Celanor and/or Colonel Warden to acknowledge an error; if they disappear, and if nobody else reads the paper, the reference would obviously come out (and note that I took this out on sight, and only relented when it would have taken edit warring to stop it, plus I saw from the abstract that it was possible it was relevant.) As to the point made about "self-published papers" and "mailing lists," perhaps Mr. Cary would care to fix the "problems" with Schulze method which does both. I just read that article today because it's referenced from the WMF board election. It includes self-published material by a series of authors, and explicit references (i.e., "mailing list" is in the text, not merely in the reference) to mailing lists for exactly the same kind of text we have in Asset voting: history of the method, see History of the Schulze method.--Abd (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that Colonel Warden simply made a Google search for "asset voting" and didn't check whether these hits are really about asset voting, as defined in this Wikipedia article, or whether these hits are only accidential juxtapositions of these two words. Yellowbeard (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to jump to conclusions, that's a reasonable speculation. Personally, I'd rather read the article.--Abd (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I had searched for Asset Voting and had found this article and hadn't used it because I couldn't read the article to confirm, but this is the text that shows in the search: "The voting mechanism is split into an asset voting model. and a party algorithm model. ... adopted for both asset voting and party algorithm mod- ..." I find it difficult to read Cary's interpretation into this snippet of text, for this reason: Asset Voting is a method of dealing with vote reassignments in STV elections, that is how Carroll described it, and so is Party-list proportional representation. At this point, I'm not able to reconcile Cary's account with the search result and the comments of Celarnor and Colonel Warden, plus that snippet of text. It's possible that Cary is correct, and it's also possible he, himself, jumped to conclusions. We'll have to see the article to resolve this. The article itself, in its detail, should seal it.--Abd (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found a similar paper by the same author.[14]. This article doesn't use the term "asset voting" but similarities in the abstracts make it clear at the outset that the topics are similar. What the authors are doing is applying political science models, voting technologies, to robotics. "Weighted aggregation," I'd start with, could mean Range voting, and, in fact, range voting techniques are used in robotic systems. But I don't have time at the moment to really study the paper that I found. Based on what I've seen so far, though, my suspicion remains that when they mention "asset voting" in their later paper, they mean Asset voting. From multiple searches, I was able to reconstruct this much text from the 2006 article: "The voting mechanism is split into an asset voting model and a party algorithm model. A linearised constant velocity process model and linearised observation model is adopted for both asset voting and party algorithm models. From the system assets’s perspective, what is important is the estimation of the vector of mission objective weights (‘policy position’) of the party algorithm. The party algorithm estimates its own vector of weights as it adapts over time. The state vector at time t may be defined as: ..." However, in the other direction, the article does not appear to cite Smith, the search comes up empty if Smith is included as a search term. This fact would tend to point toward the use of "asset" as being with a different implication. --Abd (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waste Management (album)[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of any references or information about the subject. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources listed, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 14:48, 27 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)} 17:54, 27 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 Software development process. --MCB (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Development life cycle[edit]

No references at all; has the tone of original research. It was tagged for lack of references in October 2006; yesterday I came upon the article, added tags for OR and uncategorized, moved the refs tag up to the top and cleaned up a randomly placed sentence at the bottom, and then I noticed that random sentence had been placed in May 2007, which was the last time this page was edited. Given that the page has basically been vandalized for a year, and tagged for references for eighteen months, it seems unlikely that adding more maintenance tags is going to prompt improvement. Propaniac (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to Software development process. Seems like an attempt to generalize that article using a slightly different phrase ("software life cycle" being another equivalent). I appreciate the intent but it does seem to be OR unless it can be shown that such a thing is referenced outside the context of software. The article does not even attempt to properly demonstrate that, as it still draws on software as an example. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Software development process. "Development lifecycle" is usually a term that applies to one of the lifecycle models outlined in that article. Kate (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and fix it. Deletion is not the remedy for low quality articles. Or, if it should be redirected, discuss on the talk page of the article, or the relevant workgroup. AfD is not the place for that DGG (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The title is a good one and an imperfect start is better than nothing. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Kate. JIP | Talk 17:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The scope between Software life cycle, Software development process and this article needs to be resolved; but the lifecycle predates software development and it's utility extends to all forms of product development/engineering. -Verdatum (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Software development process which covers the scope of the topic under a better title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not redirect if this is merged, then rename the page history link to something else. If kept then rename. This is an inappropriately generic name for a software concept. It could refer to biology, or construction. 70.55.84.230 (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Googling on the term, all I can find are pages like "software development life cycle", "database development life cycle" and "network development life cycle". No sign of biology or construction. While the term sounds generic, it appears to be mostly used in IT. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per User:Kate. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Software development process - the topics clearly overlap and are better dealt with in one page. There is nothing obvious to merge but this article can be mined by the editors of Software development process if they so wish. Smile a While (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow reconcile this mess with new product development and software development process. Wikipedia's coverage of IT project management is in such disarray that this article is duplicated a dozen times over under different acronyms and newly publicized approaches. Come to think of it, deleting this pile is a good first step. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alefox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not notable. Few if anyone uses the software, it hasn't been updated in two years, and it's just a theme. I don't think it's even notable enough to include in the small Alex Albrecht article.--Theymos (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons outline by the nominator. This fails WP:SOFTWARE as well. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 -- Mark Chovain 06:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. <sarcasm>So this is what the Microsoft shills were trying to warn about when they FUDded about forking of the Mozilla code base, back in 1998.</sarcasm> Looks like unmaintained joke software that quite likely didn't get that much publicity to begin with. Would consider merge material to Diggnation/Alex Albrecht if this had been a bit more widely publicised. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there was even a passing mention somewhere perhaps it could be bundled with the Albrecht page, but I'm just not seeing it. RFerreira (talk) 17:59, 30 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 ——Ryan | t • c 06:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin close endorsed. --jonny-m t 08:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about a possible entry into the Eurovision song contest, and thus violates WP:CRYSTAL. There is one source listed, which states that the broadcaster would like to enter, but isn't sure if it is eligible.TN‑X-Man 11:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As RBK has stated that they wish to enter Kosovo for the 2009 Eurovison. Even if Kosovo does not gain EBU membership, this is still encyclopedic information. This article should be listed as a stub. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails future events policy as Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place and this event is not almost certain. Atyndall93 | talk 11:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep. The likelihood of Kosovo joining the 2009 contest is much higher than say Scotland, Liechtenstein or other countries awaiting their big moment. One recalls Montenegro, which split from Serbia & Montenegro two years ago (and fairly acrimoniously at the time), but already one year later were competing in the 2008 song contest (as they did this year too) and of course getting 12 points from Serbia. The likelihood of Kosovo taking part next year is almost a given: the EBU has already said that Kosovo is eligible, but they haven't yet applied. They will certainly do so. Whether or not other countries will then withdraw in protest remains to be seen. However, whereas there is a relatively strong reason for deleting the Scotland in the Eurovision article (although I would prefer Scotland be listed instead in a new article on countries with aspirations of joining, including Liechtenstein, who are currently ineligible because they do not have their own TV channel, in spite of trying to join twice before). San Marino joined this year for the first time, so who knows... I think the consensus is that Kosovo WILL join, or that they will try and join and this will cause an international furore with some countries threatening to leave. In either case, having an article on Kosovo's currently potential inclusion is useful and valid, and therefore should not be deleted.Tris2000 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is sourced an is not guesswork. The afd is not comparable to its Scottish equivalent above. --Cameron (T|C) 15:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TN‑X-Man said there was only one source saying that the broadcaster would like to enter, there are now three sources. This is an increase of certainty. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No crystal work here; is a decent stub with verifiable info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly going to make a bid for EBU status and an entry into the 2009 ESC. 90.209.255.78 (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (TheProf07)[reply]
Keep Its not written as a crystal ball and the information is verifiable. Its reasonably notable too. Artene50 (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that Kosovo has been removed from possible Eurovision Song Contest 2009 debuts by Avala (talk · contribs) with reasoning given at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2009#Official membership criteria. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Re above comment from Camaron | Chris, I've noticed that Avala is the admin of the Serbian wiki, and therefore there could be a conflict of interests here. The consensus is to keep the Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest page, and I would recommend that assuming this goes ahead that it then becomes protected, as it is likely to become a polemic subject.Tris2000 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's speculation. Under current EBU rules only Council of Europe members can join + countries from North Africa and Middle East that fall into some UN broadcast area (and Kosovo is not CoE or UN member).--Avala (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure Avala is right. This map shows the three main regions of the ITU (the EBA is part of Region 1), and judging by the definition of the European Broadcasting Area in its own article Kosovo falls well within it. From what I can see, the EBA is a geographical area, and whether or not Kosovo is recognised by the UN has little or nothing to do with whether it is part of it. I could be wrong, though. Chwech 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment There may be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are inconsistent. You voted for deletion of the Scotland in the Eurovision Song Contest which is the same thing as this article - speculation.--Avala (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because Scotland is entering Eurovison as the UK. Therefore that article is not needed. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This shouldn't get into a debate about Kosovo's independence. However, as majority of European countries recognize its independence (Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png), it is potentially a future member of EBU. Keep the article as reference --Kimse (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well sourced. Europe22 (talk) 00:45, 30 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 per CSD (G12). Tikiwont (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accounted-For Obligation[edit]

Basically a dicdef of what appears to be a specialized economics term; it doesn't look approriate for Wiktionary and might very well be an attempt to spam on the part of article creator Liminzhong (talk · contribs). Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for copyright violation of this page. Also note that the ref PJM points to the disambiguation page PJM. Have tagged for speedy deletion and notified author. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD (G12) is a copyright violation as stated above. Atyndall93 | talk 12:02, 27 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. Singu larity 06:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sentinel Tower Southbank Melbourne 3006[edit]

Declined G11 speedy deletion nominee, but still appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE. Google doesn't show any reliable resources. --RyRy5 (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question on nominator: why did you decline the speedy? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes, why? Atyndall93 | talk 12:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd speedy delete but its already declined so, it fails to assert its notability and performing a google news, archive, books and search turn up nothing to indicate notability. Fails notability guidelines Atyndall93 | talk 12:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is properly named The Sentinel (Melbourne)[15][16], as redlinked in List of tallest buildings in Melbourne, but that tells us that this 34-stor[e]y apartment building is only the 45th tallest in that city. There is probably notability for either Central Equity, the owner/developer, or Southbank Central, the Central Equity complex in entire, but not for each individual building therein. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is correct - Delete.--VS ^talk 04:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Dhartung suggested Southbank Central, under whatever its correct corporate name is, is probably notable. Orderinchaos 08:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. Building itself is not notable, but the complex it is a part of may be. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 30 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. Bearcat (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Forensic Accounting[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:COI. Article was created by an account who spammed links for their employer, R. T. Edwards Publishing, Inc (Publisher of Journal of Forensic Accounting). Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. This is a peer-reviewed academic journal, perhaps suitable as a source (in an apropriate context), however not as its own article. Has a few links but they seem to be self-refereces and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement for R. T. Edwards Publishing, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been thinking about this one for a bit, so please forgive me if I'm not as succinct as I should be. My understanding is that academic journals do not specifically come under any of the current notability guidelines. The most likely place in the future is WP:SERIAL, but that's merely a proposal and doesn't currently cover journals. Given that, I'm forced to use WP:BK which is the only guideline that speaks to academic works. It is still a poor fit, though, and it mostly suggests relying on common sense. :) My major concerns, then, were whether or not the journal is peer reviewed (yes), whether or not it is widely cited (seems to be), the quality of the editorial board (they seem qualified, but this isn't my area of research), and how the journal is regarded in the field. For the last one, I noticed two things: the ranking provided by Australian Business Deans Council, which ranks it as a "B", and various mentions of the journal in lists of journals covering this area (occasionally, as in the case of the "Encyclopedia of White-collar & Corporate Crime", as the only journal in the subfield). The "B" ranking isn't great, (A and A* are above it) but does mean that it is regarded as a "well regarded journal in the field or subfield", which seems like a good sign. Overall, given that journal rankings are a somewhat subjective and difficult area in academia, the journal meets various academic requirements, and that the journal seems to be significant in its subfield, I think that it is worth keeping the article. - Bilby (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after looking at the policy myself, I agree with User:Bilby with his statement on the journal's notability and that the journal does not have its own notability but is a source of notability (paradox anyone?) and we really need a policy on this kind of situation. Atyndall93 | talk 12:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the article is well-sourced (in the sense that every claim in the article is verified, rather than that the references themselves are ideal, which they are not) largely overrides any COI concerns for me. That leaves the question of notability. Unfortunately, the main notability criterion of 'significant coverage in independent, reliable sources' is not really suited to academic journals. For instance, even a prominent journal such as the Journal of Peace Research–one of the top five journals in fields of political science and peace and conflict studies–would have some trouble meeting that criterion. The field of forensic accounting is significantly narrower than political science, so I think that the article is worth keeping in this case, per Bilby's analysis (the journal is peer-reviewed, relatively widely-cited, and relatively well-regarded). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The Journal is cited extensively, as shown here [17]. Along with the arguments made above. Strong Keep. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is too minimal a journal for me to defend. The journal is held in only a few dozen libraries. Hundreds of universities teach the subject, only 40 or so have the journal. Harvard Business doesn't, nor Columbia, nor NYU, nor Wharton--not even British Library, or LC, or National Library of Canada. Most tellingly, Louisiana State, where the editor in chief is an emeritus professor, seems willing to list in in their catalog~~. U Texas Arlington Accounting department may like it just a little--not in their top category-- but they didn't convince their library.~~ It apparently has 325 paid subscribers accordingto Ulrich's, --that wouldn't bother me if it were a journal of Assyrology, or Bhutanese history, or Gnostic studies, But when its a major field of accounting,... Journals publishing books as "special supplements" often mean they don't have enough content in the way of journal articles--such supplements are almost never actually peer-reviewed. It's only a semi annual, two issues a year for seven years--14 issues in all. Only one very specialized index covers it, one of the Proquest supplementary indexes--not the major business indexes-- not Factiva, not Lexis, not any of the Wilson or Ebsco indexes or major Proquest indexes. The publisher is essentially unknown, except for a few similar titles--how does it expect to make money?--here's how: on the journal home page, it says " R.T. Edwards, Inc. is offering the following related internet domain names for sale: CPA-FORENSIC-ACCOUNTANT.ORG, CPA-FORENSIC-ACCOUNTANT.NET, CPA-FORENSIC-ACCOUNTANT.COM. Call R.T. Edwards, Inc. today to get your firm the hottest domain name in the profession!" [18] Hu12 and I often disagree, but not this time. (Journal of Peace Research,given as a comparison is notable: 1325 subscribers, held in over 400 libraries, published by Sage, a leading publisher, since 1964, in over 50 indexes. That's more an order of magnitude different in every criterion. One clearly notable, and one clearly not. . DGG (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also agree that the advertising on the publisher's page is worrying - not exactly a positive sign. The lack of indexing is also a problem, but less of one to me - I know a number of significant specialized journals that aren't widely indexed, but I'm happy to accept that being widely indexed would be proof of notability. I'm not sure that the Journal of Peace Research is a good comparison, as I gather Black Falcon's point was that JPR is highly notable. Given that, JFA's subscription rate of 1/4 JPR's doesn't seem too bad, although, once again, a higher rate would have made things easier. (I tried running comparisons with journals in my field that I would rate as about the same, but Ulrich's had no subscription info on them). I'm still more interested in the ratings by the ANU and the Australian Business Deans Council, as I understand why those ratings exist and they have a good methodology, and both place it roughly in the middle of the rankings. Also, Herron and Hall's paper "Faculty perceptions of journals" ranked it in the ~~exact~~ middle in terms of quality (50 out of ~~100~~) (on re-reading, the scale goes above 100, up to about 106, but it still sits more-or-less in the middle), and gave it 3.4 for "publishing feasibility" out of four, which meant that it was considered a good place to publish in the auditing field by the academics surveyed (it also gave it one of the higher ranks for auditing, with the highest being a 3.6). As far as I can gather (noting that my field is IS, so I'm only peripherally related to Accounting, and have nothing to do with auditing), it is very much a mid-ranked and highly specialized journal. At any rate, I'm glad this has come to AfD, as I'm interested in seeing where consensus ends up on these types of publications. Ignoring notability, I think I'd rather have articles on them, if only to help with establishing reliability of sources from a NPOV perspective, but that's probably a different issue. - Bilby (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No big deal, but you mentioned that U. Texas at Arlington liked it, but didn't convince their library. WorldCat disagrees. [19] Also, if by LC you mean Library of Congress, they, too, have it.[20] Further, it looks as if the data Ulrich has is from 2005, would you agree? If so, would it be safe to say that the distribution has most likely increased as the periodical has aged more than 50% since 2005? Finally, the notability of these special supplements are debatable and the reasons behind them ultimately unknown -- my contention was and is that the journal is notable, not necessarily the special supplements. However, attempting to attribute a purpose to them other than just being that which they are, supplements, seems a bit foolish. Jheiv (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are right about arlington. sorry. DGG (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Comment I had planned on staying out of this discussion but I would like to note some things that I've read in other positions. First, in response to the "Accounting and Tax Index" reference. It doesn't look to be as specialized as you seem to think. CSU-LB calls it "The most comprehensive index to the literature of accounting." [21]. In fact, the index seems to be quite comprehensive and notable: Clemson notes that it "provides citations to articles about virtually every aspect of accounting and taxation." [22] Second, the journal is cited in many other accounting and auditing periodicals, including:

Journal of Management (A Sage Publication) [23]

Journal of Financial Crime and Managerial Auditing Journal (Both Emerald Group Publishing Publications) [24] [25]

Journal of Consumer Policy and Journal of Business Ethics (Both Springer Publications) [26] [27]

Critical Perspectives on Accounting (An Elsevier publication) [28] -- among others.

As well as books:

Forensic and Investigative Accounting [29]

Research in Accounting Regulation [30]

Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting [31]

Encyclopedia of White-collar Crime [32]

... among others [33]

For such a relatively new journal (8 years old) the citations are somewhat impressive but more importantly demonstrate clear significance in the subfield. Disclosure: I am the primary author of the article in question. Thanks! Jheiv (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the point about the index is that this is indeed the most specialized index in the field, an index which tries to include every last one it can. and is therefore not selective. That's why inclusion in it is not a RS for notability. DGG (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am tempted to say delete per ShoesssS, as the citation record for this journal is very unimpressive. The journal's most cited article has only 18 citations, and that is the only article with a citation count in the double digits.[34] Furthermore, the ratings are not impressive. The Australian Business Deans Council ratings confirm that it is not among the top-60 journals in accounting and finance and may not even be in the top 100. The University of Texas at Arlington Accounting Department, like the Australian Business Deans Council, places the journal in its third tier. Throw in DGG’s excellent analysis, and I cannot justify keeping this article.--FreeKresge (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that among other journals with the same rating, in the same tier we have Financial Markets and Portfolio Management and International Review of Financial Analysis. We also have journals with articles that were ranked in lower tiers Journal of Investment Management. None of these article on similarly ranked journals have their notability in question. I admit, being ranked as "Quality" or similarly is not sufficient for notability, but it shouldn't simply be dismissed as FreeKresge suggests. Jheiv (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment to some extent this is a policy question: how far down the list do we want to go? In practice, I have o problem with the journals in the fields covered by Web of Science that are included there --but this field isn't. And not that all the ones not in are automatically non-notable--some are too new or too old. Beyond there I do not know of many really trustworthy criteria. The chance of being included in the middle of a non-critical list is not really sufficient. I'm going to double check some b-school libraries on the chance that the WorldCat holdings have not been updated. As for citation, it's a curious fact of academic journals that even the very worst journals tend to have one or two decent articles. There's a very wide distribution at the bottom end--otherwise known as the Long Tail. If we really do want to include them all, I am not sure I have an actual strong objection. --DGG (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If no one minds my two-cents or soapbox, I just want to say, I continually come back to Wikipedia for the fact that I am consistently looking for information and surprised at what I find on a day-to-day bases. Not necessarily popular information, or fashionable thoughts, but more important to me, reliable – creditable and verifiable information. I can understand our concerns about inclusion in Wikipedia of hoaxes – intentional misinformation – WP:POV and other fantasy’s of some of our editors. However, what I cannot understand is the thought process that many individual editors have that seem to believe that we are limited by space or size. Even using the expressions that this piece or that article is not encyclopedic enough, worthy enough, or notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Since when have we been tasked with the “Higher Than Thou” value? Personally, I have always believed that once the information has been proved reliable – creditable and verifiable, it should be welcomed with open arms. Not nit-picked, in such ways to say that it only fell into the middle of the pack on this list or that it was only cited 110 times versus 204. It is both a positive and a negative that we are each left to formulate our own criteria for inclusion with this project. It may be time to start to formulate some basic metrics that all individuals and articles are held to before going through this process. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, admittedly weak, but I think the citations in a few notable journals makes an academic journal worth having around... I do agree to a great extent with DGG and it's clearly not as notable as some of the keeps say. Perhaps I have a low bracket for journals where it's hard to tell. But, it is perplexing why this was created before some clearly more notable journals. gren グレン 09:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the citations are either listings and rankings or come from the publisher. So there is not enough independent in depth coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:N, still the basic notability guideline if there isn't anything more specific. This is a problem for many journals, so they can be included if reasonable rule of thumb criteria are met that indicate that we definitely should have an article on it (which is the general idea of secondary notability criteria that actually often arise from discussions like this). In this case, I don't see anything here that comes close. The journal is neither old, nor widely distributed nor widely cited nor ranked as top tier. It seems not even to be cited inside Wikipedia itself which should put the idea of having a separate article on what essentially is a source of information for this encyclopedia into perspective. Rather we now have the journal included in the 'See also' section of an uncited article forensic accounting which puts the cart before the horse.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated by Bilby, and because of the B rating from ABCD. DGG argues against it on the grounds that not many universities subscribe, even though they teach the subject -- I assume he means that they teach accounting, not necessarily forensic accounting. Forensic accounting is a specialist field requiring a good few years of experience in practice, and is therefore generally a Masters subject rather than a particularly suitable specialism to teach undergraduates; and although some MBAs cover it, MBA students are mostly interested in big-company management rather than investigative careers; so it doesn't bother me that not many Uni's subscribe. Gren asks why this article was created before others -- seems simple, the article was started by an editor connected with the publisher, but I have no problem with that provided the resulting article is objective rather than an advert, and the creator allows the article to develop objectively. I've helped at least three other articles that started with apparent COI to become quite decent treatments of their subjects. So, Keep. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yamato: A Rage In Heaven[edit]

non-notable novel by non-notable author Rapido (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything for this book other than customer reviews and blog comments. Nothing to indicate that there is anything particularly notable about it. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any sources to suggest that this book is notable, it also fails all other criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 12:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doesn't Wikia:Annex take this kind of article? If so Transwiki. It was a mildy interesting book, but not overly... 70.55.84.230 (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:26, 28 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. Singu larity 06:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merik Tadros[edit]

Autobiography, evidence is creator's userpage is "User:Mtadros". This anime's article creator is Yelyos. This one, on the other hand, was created by WhisperToMe Sgt_Pikachu5 08:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable autobiography. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. The article itself has no resources that established notability. --RyRy5 (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an autobiography. It is impossible for us to look for reliable sources about the subject. Also, notability cannot be established. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above (vanity). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable actor. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either a copyvio of the IMDb page or an autobiography. Gnews only gives a single passing mention, gsearch not coming up with notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:29, 28 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. Singu larity 06:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Xi Epsilon[edit]

Non-notable local fraternity. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find anything on google about this particular fraternity in a third-party source. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all student fraternities and clubs as inherently non-notable (with the possible exception of those very few groups which have received national press coverage). Stifle (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable "fraternity" or "sorority". JIP | Talk 17:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable third-party references. Non-notable fraternity. Cunard (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in an obvious losing effort; all chartered fraternities and sororities at accredited institutions are inherently notable. --CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sigma Xi Epsilon is one of only two fraternities on the Long Island Campus of St. Joseph's College, New York. Although it is smaller than many Greek organizations, it is well-known on Long Island and an entry in Wikipedia had proved useful in providing information to those seeking it. Sigma Xi Epsilon publishes an annual yearbook, and past yearbooks could be listed as references, as well as information that St. Joseph's College provides about the organization on its Web site. Would any of these changes be sufficient to keep the entry? 05:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inmy92stang (talk • contribs)
- Comment Creator of article actually admits to violating WP:SPAM. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG, no references, news search shows nothing. An excellent specimen of an article that should be deleted. Begone. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:43, 28 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 recreated content, A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Populaire Group[edit]

No evidence of wide and independent coverage

Delete Ordinary, wonted, ~~big~~ building contractor, no meaningful independent coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This group bought out a Javanese Contactor named Graha Utama that has build hundreds of homes around the older Eastern areas of Surabaya (Galaxy / Dharmahusadah, Kertajaya and others) as well as many notable homes in the Western suburbs of Surabaya (Bukit Darmo, Graha Family, CitraRaya and Pakuwon). Will update the article to link to more of these notables.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumbo mike (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 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, default to keep. This does not rule out a merger or redirection to a parent article, if consensus later determines that, as suggested by some editors, this content or topic is currently better suited for inclusion in another article. Sandstein 21:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serfdom in Tibet[edit]

This article was originally created as Slavery in Tibet by a single user, Foxhunt99 and his sockpupppets to advance the fringe view of the enslavement of the Tibetan people prior to the invasion of that country by the People's Republic of China. The article originally appeared as that user's essay on the evils of the Tibetan government and reverted any and all changes that did not reflect their highly charged, nationalist POV. Article's sources are dubious, unverified and highly biased. Anna Louise Strong is heavily quoted as an authority on the subject, though she is a known sympathesizer (and alleged agent) of communist China. All other sources in this article are cited to books which have either not been verified, or do not support the statements to which they are sourced. It is doubtful that any reliable, unbiased sources exist for this topic and there are certainly not enough to warrant an entire article on the subject. As a fringe topic, this information also shouldn't be merged into Tibet, as it is highly POV. If the vote for deletion is successful, Slavery in Tibet should also be removed because it is a highly biased POV title and neither one of these articles should be redirected to any article relating to Tibet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an attack page. Tibetans were severely disparaged on this one. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We do not have separate articles on unfree forms of labor on every single country and region in the world and I see no reason why we should have one in the case of Tibet, especially since the topic not very well understood and there are very few reliable academic sources.--Amban (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion has been declined. Since the author of the article has made attempts at sourcing the page, and the statement "Tibetans have engaged in slavery" is no more disparaging to Tibetans than "Americans have engaged in slavery" is disparaging against Americans. I don't think anyone will be particularly hurt or demeaned by the content, and issues of NPOV and OR are for this AFD to decide. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several scholarly sources have already been added to the article; it is worth mentioning that sources are not required to be neutral, the information presented just has to be properly attributed so that the reader can evaluate for themselves. The topic is critical to understanding Tibetan history and historiography and Wikipedia should at least make an effort to cover the research on it. Phasing out the Strong sources wouldn't have a deleterious effect on the article; if they are so offensive, they can be removed. The title has already been changed to a "less POV" title: Serfdom in Tibet. The topic is in no way fringe and appears in every reliable history of the region. The fact that other articles do not exist simply points out the holes it Wikipedia and is not an argument for deletion. Since its initial posting, the article has been edited for biased language and it would be helpful if deletion proponents could point out specific instances of remaining bias so that I could fix them. I believe I've addressed the points given above, if not, please let me know. Gimme danger (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well to start with, virtually every sentence in this article is biased. They were all written by the same person with the same POV who was pushing the same agenda, so none of it is anywhere close to NPOV. The article would therefore need to be completely rewritten. There are no verified sources for this article, which is about as good as having no sources at all, so there would probably need to be more sources too I guess. I have not read any contemporary history of Tibet which talks about the enslavement of the Tibetan people or widespread feudalism in the country before the invasion of the People's Republic of China, so somebody would need to demonstrate to me that there are actual sources for this. Then, there would need to be countercitations from reputable, academic sources which talk about those things objectively, otherwise this article would continue to fail NPOV. I don't think you or anyone can do any of those things so I think that this article should be deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus Clouds, this page is to comment on an AfD. If there is a single point in all your comments on this page that is grounds for deletion I have failed to see it. Everything you have mentioned, such as "Anna Louise Strong is heavily quoted as an authority on the subject, though she is a known sympathesizer..." or "virtually every sentence in this article is biased", or "The article would therefore need to be completely rewritten", or "There are no verified sources for this article", etc, are editing problems and not grounds for deletion of an article. AfDs should not be used as a means to resolve editing disputes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you're willing to accept my points is a matter of your own personal philosophy on inclusionism. There is clearly an issue here with how this article has been edited since it was created, it is obviously being used to push a point of view and it obviously fails the criterion at WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Whether or not you choose to ignore those issues is entirely up to you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the issue here is that this article does not obviously fail any of the above criteria. If you could point out specifics it would help me out, because clearly I'm not getting what's so obvious to you. --Gimme danger (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that several times and you've been unwilling to accept it because it does not agree with your point of view. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you've brought up:

The original editor is biased: this doesn't matter since virtually none of their text remains. The article has been completely rewritten, as you requested, by several editors, as you can see from the diff between the article before my first edit and it's current revision. I fail to see how an article's state three days ago has any relevance to discussion of deleting the present article.
Anna Louise Strong is biased: well, she's not in the article anymore, so what is your objection here?
Israel Epstein is biased: he's also not cited anymore
There are no reliable sources: there's one reference to a scholarly journal and the many others are to published material by historians of varying merit. There's at least one reliable source now, and more that have yet to be incorporated can be found in Owlmonkey's commentary on the article talk page. Also see the sources provided below by GeoSwan.
Fails verifiability: if there are reliable sources, as I've pointed out above, the article can't fail

Did I miss any of your arguments? They've all been addressed, as far as I can tell. And if you're going to claim that the text itself is biased, it would help if you would provide a specific passage.

As far as Owlmonkey's concerns go, I think the article should have a wider scope than simply the living conditions of your average Nyima Dawa in Tibet in 1850. I would keep the title as Serfdom, simple because that is what English speakers will refer to the system as.--Gimme danger (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've already tried to reinsert Israel Epstein's quote at least twice, so I'm not sure you actually understand the concern there. Nobody has independently verified that the material being cited from books is actually contained in those books. Since they were written by a puppeteer pushing a nationalist agenda, I view them with great suspicion. One mediocre reference to an academic journal has never warranted an entire article on the subject and, besides, there is a much better treatment at Tibet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one source supporting the existence of Tibetan serfdom, as I noted. So even if we throw out all the original sources, we have those that were added by other editors since the article's creation. There are even several newspaper articles hosted online provided by GeoSwan that you can verify for yourself. I've tried to retain the Epstein material because NPOV does not, as popularly believed, mean a totally positive viewpoint; it means that Wikipedia does not take any position. Lots and lots of published, verifiable sources make claims about Tibetan feudalism and it is our job as editors to report those viewpoints. The official opinion of the government of a sixth of the world's population, even if factually incorrect, is notable enough to have reporting. And if you can find sources that say that there was no serfdom in Tibet, then I guess we'll have quite an article going. I am looking at this article with a view of expanding it and given the sources that I've listed above I think it'll be quite an interesting one once it's gotten going. But I suppose if you insist on excluding the PRC viewpoint, I can live with that. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, vote stacking is against the rules and people usually get blocked for it. If you do it again, I'll report it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. I was acting in good faith, not realizing that there were rules about this sort of thing.--Gimme danger (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the tangent. I'm still pretty new to wiki-ness. But if Gimme danger posted to Talk:Tibet, that doesn't look like vote stacking to me. The WP:CANVASS page is talking about messages to specific people, right? (I may have missed something if you actually did message individuals on this, Gimme danger. (I'm more interested in the procedural point than this AfD.) Thanks. Cretog8 (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I did not message any individuals. I posted messages to the WikiProjects directly involved, as is often done when a related article is going up for AfD. I also posted to Talk:Tibet because the WikiProject Tibet page is essentially inactive and, following the topic coordination guidelines, that talk page serves as a defacto project space. The tone of my message, regrettably, left something to be desired and I apologize for losing my cool. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You specifically canvassed for votes supporting your position on each of those pages. This contradicts the guidelines at WP:CANVASS. It has nothing to do with the tone of your message, but the content therein. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I read WP:CANVASS differently than you, CC. Those rules look to be pretty explicitly about messages to individuals (or many individuals). An entry on a talk page wouldn't count. Cretog8 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read that guideline carefully it pretty explicitly states that canvassing includes any attempt to recruit voters to support your point of view in a discussion on Wikipedia. Gimme danger obviously violated this rule when she left messages on the talk pages of several articles requesting that users come here and support her vote. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the statement "Tibetans have engaged in slavery" is no more disparaging to Tibetans than "Americans have engaged in slavery" is disparaging against Americans." Couldn't have said any better. Centrallib (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has three edits, this being the first and all subsequent edits being to Talk:Tibet and Serfdom in Tibet. This is a sockpuppet of User:Foxhunt99. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of this article, it has changed many times tho. We are a group of students at University of Vanderbilt, who started this project. What you want is denial of slavery, take a look at your editing in this article. Bell had 2 comments for slavery in his book, one is about children being sold as slaves, the other is about mild slavery, you selectively delete the first one. Those are sourced, from the same book, and same page written by Bell. And you give this as another reason for editing "israel epsteinwas a member of the communist party of china and is an unreliable source", even if Epstein was a communist, it doesnt mean it is unrealiable source. I work at central library here in Vanderbilt University, we have over 100 Tibet related books, Epstein's book is here for anyone to reference. In fact, I briefly looked through all the books, no author ever denied the existence of serfdom or slavery, plenty authors give reference or support on serfdom or slavery. You edited out all parts regarding to Anna Louise Strong too, her book is here at the library too. Your view is clearly biased, your goal is to deny the existence of slavery.Centrallib (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are an admitted puppetmaster, so unfortunately this means that most of your edits will be reviewed and deleted since they were made by somebody who freely admits to abusing the processes and procedures of this encyclopedia to push their own POV. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if I look at how this could be an extension of or expansion of a topic in the main Tibet article, I'm not sure where it would live. I can easily see expansion generally about the historical periods of Tibet and the socio-economics of the periods. That might be less contentious than this article. I find this one problematic and unsalvageable. If another article is started I suggest socio-economics generally discussed first: like a Socio-economics of Tibet article. Then wealth distribution and power dynamics could be presented within the proper context, not starting with wealth and power inequities — not unique to Tibet in any way — and then trying to find context from the inequity. For example, how do nomadic tribes relate to farming regions? Did feudal territory grow out of tribalism, and did subjugation and wealth distribution relate to tribal conflict? What has scholarship said about the relative wealth distribution generally over each period? I also think the Slavery in Tibet redirect should be removed per nom.- Owlmonkey (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a long discussion of my concerns to the article's talk page. Additional points: (a) the ontological use of feudal and serf implies a comparison that is probably not appropriate nor correct (see Barendse (2003) The Feudal Mutation: Military and Economic Transformations of the Ethnosphere in the Tenth to Thirteenth Centuries) and to avoid that misleading comparison we would need to carefully qualify and discuss any such usage and therefore certainly not use the term "Serfdom" in the title of the article; (b) the power and wealth inequity that the article takes as a focus is more likely specific to nomadic and tribal situations in that region including mongolia, etc. and are not specifically Tibetan (see Barendse again). To call them out as Tibetan implies that they're unique to Tibet in that time period and not just a feature of agrarian and nomadic culture; is the article really talking about something uniquely Tibetan? again the title is problematic if we add the necessary context (c) records were so poor there how do we know all of the different systems used by all the plurality of tribes there? the article's core tact, discussing how serfdom as it relates to tibet, is problematic because it generalizes the dynamic and also diverse situation there and it's unlikely that research has enough to make a statement about all of Tibet across all time aside to say it was tribal. If it were about a specific period that we have details about, that would be better. But these points to me imply that "Serfdom of Tibet" is both a problematic title and focus. It would need to be more generally Socio-economics of pre-industrial Central Asia and then the comparison of that to European Feudalism is certainly fine as an article but what does it have to do with Tibet? Therefore, and after more research, I still think it's better to delete or start over completely. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - This article is less than 2 weeks old, give it more time for more editors to edit. Also Cumulus Clouds is obviously a biased editor pushing his POV, he used to delete well-referenced paragraphs on the tibet page. - chenyangw

This user has a history of pushing nationalist Chinese propaganda on Tibet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus Clouds, this comment is one of several on this page that is incivil (WP:CIVIL). Please stop making uncivil comments about other editors participating in this AfD, such as the one above that implies bad faith of a user. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs further expansion, and a careful watch, but the feudal history of Tibet is perfectly real. DGG (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say perfectly real, which sources do you have to back that up? And how would you respond to Owlmonkey's concerns of historical context for this article? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 1000 Google Scholar hits of articles referring to serfdom in Tibet and approximately 750 Google Books hits. Sources are easy to find unless you are trying not to find them. Gimme danger (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first book hit I saw from that link included this quote interestingly, "The Chinese created most of the available statistical data about serfdom in Tibet most often cited by western academics". Does that imply that there are inherent POV issues in this? But I added notes to the article talk page and above about the use of the term serf in the title or feudalism and the focus on Tibet specifically. I find it a troubling focus and comparison because the scope is off. If we enlarge the scope or context i see less inherent problems, but that means changing the title yet again. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China might have made up or exaggerate a lot data, but none of the resource cited in this article are from Chinese data. Most western authors wrote based on their own travel experience to Tibet. Cumulus Coulds has delete almost all the resources he think is unreliable. Every author mentioned "slavery" is labeled as communist or communist sympathizer. Are all communists liars? I think maybe the article can be merged into Tibet History article, but the double standard on pick and choose resources has to stop. There is no Tibetan historian who denies the existence of serfdom or slavery. Most part of the world was once a feudal society with serfdom at some point in the history, Tibet was no exception. Centrallib (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't declare Hamas a real authority on issues of Israeli history, nor would we consider Israeli politicians a reliable source for Palestinian history. There are fundamental agendas these groups are trying to advance and they have an investment in seeing things from a very narrow point of view. The People's Republic of China is not an authority on a subject which would directly benefit its claims on Tibet because there is a conflict of interest in that source. The authors you inserted into the article were either agents of the Chinese government or they were full fledged members of the Chinese Communist Party. Most of the sources in this article are cited back to either Anna Louise Strong or Israel Epstein and this speaks volumes about the POV within the article. No scholarly sources have yet been sourced in this article to independently verify the existence of serfs in Tibet. I don't believe any will be found and this is why I have sent this article to AFD. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Said by (talk) : No scholarly sources have yet been sourced in this article to independently verify the existence of serfs in Tibet. Charles Bell was no communist, he travelled to Tibet, and documented slavery himself, you selectively deleted one of his quotes. Tomas Laird is a pro-Tibetan author, even in his book he mentioned serfs many times.

Stuart Gelder and Roma Gelder were travellers to Tibet too. The double standard of resource choosing is amazing. The first sentence, of the article "Prior to Communist takeover, Tibet was a feudal society[citation needed]. ", someone put citation needed by Tibet was a feudal society, I don't see people put citation needed in other article about feudualism. Also, many of the resources on Tibet human rights articles are from Tibetan websites, why is that ok then, by same standard only third parties are allowed. We may well delete this if the double standard keeps up. I will try to merge this into the history of Tibet part.Centrallib (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Stubify. This is pretty obviously a failed attempt at propaganda, not a serious attempt at an encyclopedia article. One possibility would be to stubify it and allow it to be re-expanded using only cited reliable sources. Failing that, it should be deleted. --FOo (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tibet has two short paragraphs on this topic. Those two paragraphs already suggest a balanced treatment of the topic. The topic merits elaboration, but it can be done right there in the Tibet article, where the work has already begun. If the topic builds out enough with legitimate material, then it can be forked off into an article on its own. Bertport (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bertport. Cricketgirl (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What I see here is a page that has been put up for deletion primarily because "Free Tibet" people don't like what it says. Not saying it should be kept, not saying it should be nuked, and not ignoring the fact that this page was probably created primarily to piss above-mentioned people off, but just making an observation. Миборовский (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you actually read this page you'd find there was a lot of reasoned discourse on why this page is unfit as an encyclopedia entry. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I think if there are legitimate sources on this topic then this should be a subsection on a wider article about Tibetan history. If it's a fringe theory then it should not be accorded a lot of space. In this case it's clearly a propaganda attempt, but that doesn't mean the subject itself shouldn't be treated properly in another article.--Asdfg12345 02:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shouldn't this be redirected to History of Tibet? Although the extent of serfdom in pre-PRC takeover Tibet is still a controversial subject amongst PRC scholars and Tibetan exiles, serfs did exist in the Tibetan society. This article should be rewritten so that it provides both the views of academics, the PRC government, and Tibetan exiles.--PCPP (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Nominator's arguments, while interesting, aren't really relevant. Whether this article belongs should depend not on the current state of the current authors, at the time of nomination -- but rather on whether the topic itself merits coverage. If Tibetan citizens social relations were some kind of serfdom then the topic merits an article. It topics current coverage is biased it should be fixed, not deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tibet's Economy Depends on Beijing (September 20, 2006). "Tibet's Economy Depends on Beijing". National Public Radio. Retrieved 2008-05-29. Quzhen was still young when the Chinese government took control of Tibet in 1951 and ended its feudal system. Quzhen's parents were "chabas," landless serfs who worked on a feudal lord's manor.
- Ed Douglas (April 17, 2003). "Slow death of an ancient culture: Tibet, Tibet". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-05-29. The real Tibet has little to do with the West's aspirations for it. The line of Dalai Lamas achieved its pre-eminence off the back of the Mongols' military brilliance. Execution, torture and repression were all features of Tibet's feudal theocracy, despite the presence of powerful religious masters who lived the Tibetan Buddhist ideal of nyingje - compassion.

It does not merit its own article because there is nothing that can be said about it except that there once were serfs in Tibet. This material is covered in its entirety at Tibet. Forking that material will serve as a dumping ground for Chinese propaganda for as long as it exists. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you feel about the article Slavery in the United States? It's odd—that article says quite a bit more than that "there were once slaves in the United States". Everyking (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Slavery in the United States isn't being used by nationalists to justify the invasion and occupation of a foreign country. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stunned by this response. First of all, it doesn't matter whether historical facts help justify something you consider wrong—it's still history, and information is what we do. That you think your personal, political opinion about Tibet should override the need to document the history of Tibet is preposterous and galling. Secondly, let me point out that it's just as easy to argue that Slavery in the United States is "being used by nationalists to justify the invasion and occupation of a foreign country". Would you find such an argument to be ridiculous, offensive, perhaps even a "fringe view"? Me too. Everyking (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical fact" in this instance is not objective. Whether this information is, and to what extent, part of the history of Tibet is disputed by a wide range of governments and NGOs. That most of the sources in this article came from the Chinese government should indicate to you the means for which it is being employed. This article could be rewritten to include an opposing view which would essentially say that there were no serfs in Tibet or that serfdom was used in such a limited extent that it was not historically part of Tibetan society. These sources would all likely come from the Tibetan government or its supporters and so you would have an article which, for its entire life, would be a political battleground between two opposing groups of people. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it is for this reason that this article should be removed and the content relegated to Tibet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a little faith in the system. There are plenty of people, myself included, watching Tibet-related articles to keep PRC propaganda from leaking in. Sadly, according to the NPOV policy, we must report what that propaganda says, but that's life. We keep the tone of the prose as neutral as possible while reporting all relevant opinions. This is why I keep asking for examples of biased text; I genuinely want to change the instances that I've overlooked. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Cumulus Clouds, (1) you assert "there is nothing that can said about it..." -- can you explain how you came to this conclusion? (2) I've got to agree with others comments -- you are raising concerns here that are editorial concerns that should have been raised on the article's talk page; (3) WRT to your concern about dumping of propaganda -- sorry, that is just something we have to live with. The wikipedia has means of dealing with cruft. Deleting articles on perfectly valid topics, because they might be the target of abuse by propaganda pushers is not one of those means; (4) I agree with others, you could be making a greater effort to be polite. Geo Swan (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, highly notable subject. Slavery/serfdom in Tibet was very real (although the nominator tells us that this is a "fringe view"!), and despite the fairly poor quality of the article at present, this is something we must have an article about. Everyking (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fringe view is that Tibet was an oppressive society liberated by the Chinese into freedom, and therein is the rub. If you go back far enough in time, you'll find power and wealth inequity to greater and lessor extents for every culture. But that was not the intent of the article to point out, it was to promote propaganda in my opinion. It needs to be restarted from larger socio-economic context or reintegrated into the Tibet article. - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article certainly needs work, but its editing problems are not grounds for deletion. The subject seems to be notable, and I do not see any other grounds for deletion that would apply. I think it could be developed into an interesting article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It seems that this AfD is a way to get around actually improving the article. Gimme danger (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a notable subject of which several sources have been written on. I don't see how this is an attack page, it simply documents a practice that was common in Tibet long ago. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 21:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, Geo Swan, Everyking, Malcolm Schosha, etc. The notability of the topic itself recommends an encyclopedia entry regardless of bickering about political contexts. — Athaenara ✉ 02:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Tibet's History -- I agree the article belongs in History of Tibet, this is the easiest way to put it in better context. Dates would be good too. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If further coverage occurs, WP:DRV may be a valid option. — Scientizzle 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letter of British Jews on 60th anniversary of Israel[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:COPYVIO. Non notable letter/one time advertisement in one British newspaper. No different from any other open letter in the paper all the time, for all sorts of political views, it should not have an article. Notability is not attested. The article claims "the letter stirred much controversy in Israel and in Jewish communities worldwide" but the source for that is just an article discussing what the letter is about (WP:OR). There are almost no sources on Google News other then from the actual newspaper (The Guardian).

Wikipedia is not a news site or a place for soapboxing one's political views. The article goes on to show the entire letter (WP:COPYVIO), and then link to several unrelated anti-Israeli articles at the bottom.Epson291 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominater, per above, and fails notability, it is a insignificant editorial/ad - Epson291 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It received significant press outside of just the placement of the letter itself, as a google news search can demonstrate. The government of Israel made an official response to it. The entire news cycle with respect to the issue may not have even completely played out yet. The WP:COPYVIO issues are easily resolved short of deleting. There's definitely enough here for at least a stub article. Let's look at it in another 6 months or a year and we'll have a better perspective on whether it is worth keeping or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It did not recieve significant press coverage which a Google News search can demonstrate. Notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future" Epson291 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep: Due to press coverage. Copyvio issue needs rewriting. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems an effort to use Wikipedia to promote a very minor news item to soapbox political views. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add (to my short comment above) that out of the "more than 100 prominent Jews" who signed this letter, twelve are have Wikipedia articles (and if I had the time I would nominate some of them for deletion because their notability seems doubtful), and of those not as single one has qualifications to be used as a source on the subject of this letter in a WP article. Not only that, it is claimed that these signers are all Jews, a statement that is unsubstantiated, and probably could not possibly be substantiated, and even if it could be substantiated seems devoid of meaning because there is no reason to think any of the signers would be more inclined to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Israel, just because they might be Jews, than any other English citizen (if indeed they all are British citizens). The whole article amounts as nothing more than blatant political advertising for a document that has no notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOTABILITY Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's notable because 1) the event discussed - the 60th anniversary - was all over the press and was widely reported, and 2) the letter is surprising and newsworthy in that it runs contrary to the official Israeli line that the State of Israel somehow represents all Jews worldwide, and that all Jews are proud (or should be proud) of what it's doing today and what it did in the past, and 3) it's signed by more than 100 prominent, well-known Jews who have achieved significant accompolishments and are public personalities, and 4) Israel's most widely read newspaper online - YNET - published a whole article about it, and interviewed one of the initiators of the petition, and 5) the Israeli government itself thought it significant to justify issuing an official government response, and 6) in general it represents a trend of Jewish voices today expressing independent, criticial views on the subject of Zionism (virtually unheard of in the past). Accordingly, the links at the end of the article are related (they certainly have merit as Further Reading on the subject). No copyright problem of quoting the petition because it's a fair use of an open letter intended by the drafters to be shown and quoted all over the web. It's balanced and neutral because the WP article does not endorse, reject, or opine in any manner of form on the ideas quoted in the letter. Finally, there are many open letters and demonstrations, representing minority views, that have articles on WP. See, e.g., A Common Word Between Us and You, The Blood of the Hungarians, J'accuse(letter), Open Letter to Hobbyists, March 17, 2007 anti-war protest, and more. Why is this article singled out for deletion? SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to SelfEvidentTruths Because it fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:COPYVIO, therefore it goes against wikipedias policies. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to SelfEvidentTruths Those points do not make it notable

1) Yes, the 60th anniversary of Israel, was all over the press and widely reported. This editorial was not. Notability is not transferable.

2) Saying the letter is 'surprising' is WP:OR. There needs to be WP:RS saying this, which I doubt exists.

3) The fact that it was signed by "more than 100 prominent English Jews", 88 of them which don't have articles, why should these English Jews be more inclined to celebrate an Israeli holiday any more then any other English citizen.

4) Yes, YNET wrote one article on the editorial. That does not satisfy notability.

5) Yes, that YNET article has a quote from Israel's Ambassador to England on the editorial.

6) WP:OR, Do you have any WP:RS saying this is part of a general trend of "Jewish voices today expressing independent, criticial views on the subject of Zionism (virtually unheard of in the past).", Again I doubt it. You cannot just form your own conclusions. Epson291 (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak Delete Notability is too marginal to justify its inclusion here. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I am not confident of this event's notability without more comprehensive sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTABILITY. Time will tell if this letter will be as important as J'accuse (letter) or A Common Word Between Us and You. But at this point in time this Letter is not important and does not deserve its own article on Wikipedia. Jason Schwartz (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008

(UTC)

- Comments to Jason Schwartz and Epson291 ***Comments to Epson291 What is your definition for notability? Apparently, reporting in two main newspapers with millions of readers, both in Israel (YNET) and worldwide (Guardian), is not notable for you. Do you see the absurdity of your reasoning? Editors in respected journalistic entities whose very job is to decide what is notable and what is not have decided this was notable enought to publish in respectable venues. But for you, with (probably) minimal experience in journalism - it's not "notable enough"??? Are you pretending not to understand why Jews have a special relationship to Israel? And why Jews who are dissenting from the official view that Israel "represents" the Jewish people and is the homeland for Jews all over the world are representing an opinion that is worth reporting about? You must be living on some other planet...Truth be told, it seems that you would like to censor this article precisely because of POV reasons (namely, nobody is allowed to hear about the internal debate Jews have about Zionism and the State of Israel, the Nakba, etc.) And I ask: Why is it that some editors on WP cannot stand to read about events or ideas concerning Israel which they find personally offensive, and cannot respect the fact there is an intense debate out there? Why concoct ridiculous reasons, using WP policies as excuses, to suppress truthful reporting? What was notable enough for millions of British readers of the Guardian and millions of Israeli readers of YNET and for the Israeli Embassy itself is not notable - in your own personal opinion - for WP readers? Who are you to be the gatekeepers? Why this intimidation and suppression? You are clearly motivated by ulterior motives. The same way I support reporting about this, I support inclusion of articles about celebrations of the 60th anniversary or organized statements of support by world Jewry! As long as it's true that the statement was published and it ties in to an important issue, I do NOT think it's right to suppress the reporting of such an event. Unless, of course, I had a political agenda to hide from the general public that such an event concerning Israel has occurred. And this is precisely what supporters of deletion have - a political agenda. Do not turn WP into a front for your political opinions. To be objective and trustworthy, WP must report about the marketplace of ideas" and this is a significant idea, expressed by well-known people, concerning a well-known event, tying in to a larger, intense debate about one of the major conflicts of our time. It certainly seems to have at least the same, if not more, importance and significance than March 17, 2007 anti-war protest.SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments to SelfEvidentTruths If you think we are censoring you, then maybe you should write your OWN webpage. This is wikipedia it is an enclopidia, for inclusion in wikipedia articles need to be notable for more people then just you. I have been following this article since it has been created and every attempt to improve your article was reverted and every critisim was followed by an angry rant at the critic. Please have a cool head and stop attacking people. Jason Schwartz (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to SelfEvidentTruth You must be able demonstrate notability though, that it is an encyclopedic event, which has not been done, that is Wikipedia policy. Just because it was in The Guardian does not necessarily mean there should be a Wikipedia article on it. Epson291 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of actual lasting notability. The list of signatories shows the true nature of the article. Merge somewhere perhaps, without the list. DGG (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on deletion but if kept, move to We're Not Celebrating Israel's Anniversary, the title under which the letter was published. [35] Epson has already responded to SelfEvidentTruths' points but I have an additional comment on point 2. The idea that "the letter is surprising and newsworthy in that it runs contrary to the official Israeli line that the State of Israel somehow represents all Jews worldwide, and that all Jews are proud (or should be proud) of what it's doing today and what it did in the past" makes it seem that Jews who are critical of Israel are normally unheard of and thus the open letter is something nobody would have expected. This is hard to believe given that Category:Jewish anti-occupation groups has 22 entries (including this article). As to point 3, "it's signed by more than 100 prominent, well-known Jews who have achieved significant accompolishments and are public personalities" is belied by the fact that so many of the signatories are not actually that prominent or well-known. In fact, for some of them, a large number of their Google hits seem to come from their association with this letter. Finally, the article may purport to be "balanced and neutral" but the article seems to give undue weight to the letter by quoting from it, then reprinting the entire letter, then reprinting the entire list of signatories. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor blip in the grand scheme of things. Do we actually need an article on every skirmish about Israel in the public domain? This belongs on WikiNews, if at all. JFW | T@lk 06:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please. This is a letter to the editor that got a little notice elsewhere. It'll be forgotten in a month if it hasn't been already (except on this page). It apparently only attracted notice in an online newspaper, and Wikipedia is not news.

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.

Does anyone honestly believe that this will have a notable impact on history, comparable to J'accuse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson (talk • contribs)

Delete, it could deserve space on 60th Anniversary of Israel or some article like that--which very well could be notable with hundreds of articles about the 60th anniversary.... but we don't even have an article about that in general. gren グレン 08:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely reported event (In the Jerusalem Post and ידיעות אחרונות among others. The full text can be moved to another wiki media project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by גרב (talk • contribs) 09:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this user's first edit was on May 25 and has since only made a couple unrelated edits and participated in two deletion discussions regarding Israel. Just to note, "ידיעות אחרונות", which he/she mentions, is the exact same thing as the YNET article menionted above. Epson291 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't warrant its own article. A mention in Yom Ha'atzmaut will be sufficient. -- Nudve (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - copyvio removed, but nonetheless, WP:RECENTISM and NN letter to the editor by self-righteous ignorants not a representative cross-section or a significant/notable organization. May they one day realize the error of their ways. Don't even think worth a mention anywhere else. The 60th anniversary is also not notable event, no where as significant as the 50th anniversary (anyone remember it?). Just as notable as George W Bush speech to the knesset. --Shuki (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at least two users, Al Ameer son, and SJP, were asked to vote keep here as well as gather up other users to vote keep in clear violation of WP:CANVAS by SelfEvidentTruths here and here. Now neither of those users have voted here yet, but nonetheless, I would not be surprised if others were canvassed as well. Epson291 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In another message, canvasing a third used [36], SelfEvidentTruths has clearly gone outside the bounds of civility (WP:CIVIL) by writing "...Letter of British Jews on 60th anniversary of Israel has caught the ire of some WPians who want to delete it and control what people are allowed to read...", implying that all the problem is with biased opposing editors, and that none of the problem is with the article. SelfEvidentTruths' claim also reinforces my contention that the article is, by intention, blatant (political) advertising, which is in itself grounds for deletion ([37]). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This should be part of a series on "Dissenting Jewish Voices." There are several such viewpoints which are generally ignored by English-speaking corporate mainstream media which are every bit as authentic and legitimate as the censored version of history which Americans are normally fed. Neturei Karta should be linked, for example, as well as Anna Baltzer. Wowest (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 18:45, 31 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. Singu larity 06:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Truman[edit]

Claimed as hoax by IP editor - supposedly a character in Will and Grace TV show -character name gives no Google results in connection with show except to Wikipedia. Note: if it is a hoax then parts of other Will and Grace pages here need sorting to remove references to it. Hunting dog (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If search for Darren Truman + Will & Grace, google search shows only 3 ghits [38]. Fails WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, I can find no evidence to support this. The article is poorly written fan fiction and isn't support by any sources. Gwernol 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same search as Otel, same results. Simply no coverage here. I will try to follow up to determine if it is a hoax to see if this affects other W + G articles. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From this search, I can't see how it's not a hoax. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't watch the whole series, but I watched enough to know this was all but impossible. The Diane character only ever appeared on one episode. His "stepfather" Leo appeared on many and if he had a stepson, it never came up. This will need to be edited out of related articles. --Dhartung | Talk 21:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references or external links. This proves the article has little notability.--LAA Fan 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Might the original editor have been thinking of Jordan Truman? No matter. Fictional character with no real world notability. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:41, 29 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. Singu larity 06:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Istartedsomething[edit]

This appears to be just another non-notable blog Grahame (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable blog. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its not really notable Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable blog. JIP | Talk 17:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't think this is that clear cut; the references I looked at amount to trivial mentions from my perspective, but it's arguable. Townlake (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ideletedsomething. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the iRiver notwithstanding. Orderinchaos 08:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability per WP:WEB, even if I do love my iRiver. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:04, 30 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. Singu larity 06:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES AND THERE IMPACT ON INDIA[edit]

Contested prod. Violates WP:NOR and WP:NOT. This is a student essay, which seems not to be fully WP:NPOV either. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 06:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par being the nominator Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 06:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, add WP:NOTOPINION to that list – Zedla (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user today provided a source for his article: 'GOVT.OF INDIA RECORDS,GDP,GNF OF INDIA AND VARIOUS NEWSPAPER.' However, how reliable a source are 'various newspapers?' More to the point, Wikipedia is Not a word for word repository for each and every government policy. This article should either be merged with Government of India--economic policy--or deleted ASAP. Bearing in mind the length of this tedious article, I lean towards the latter option. Artene50 (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. (ONE COMMON PROBLEM IN WP IS THAT PEOPLE THINK ITS FOR POSTING THERE OWN IDEAS OR RESEARCH.) ;) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 10:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, personal essay, original research. (The lack of paragraph division makes it hard to read the entire article.) JIP | Talk 17:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written article that fails WP:NPOV and [WP:NOTOPINION]]. Fails WP:N due to no reliable sources present in the article.--RyRy5 (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm laughing hard as I type this, which is not the reaction most encyclopedia articles are expected to elicit. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — it's an essay, not an article. --Haemo (talk) 03:23, 30 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. Singu larity 06:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Towers[edit]

Non-notable residential apartment block like millions of others around the world. Harro5 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN building. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is not even a university property. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article about a non-notable building. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and almost entirely self sourced. The links also appear to be dead. Think outside the box 13:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I usually err on the side of keeping individual buildings, but nothing about this one appears to be notable at all. --Lockley (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an unremarkable structure, whichever way you look at it. Possibly good value for nearby students, but that doesn't equate to notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:58, 30 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. — Scientizzle 15:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fellowship (Ultima)[edit]

Failure to meet the general notability guideline of independent coverage in reliable sources. No references exist to assert notability. Only sources about Ultima games in general. Thus fails WP:N. Randomran (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several policies. For extensive argumentation, see User:Krator/Gamecruft. User:Krator (t c) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete because no sources assert notability. Does anybody have a copy of the referenced issue of Game Developer magazine, perchance? ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 13:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the original article author. A strong plot element in one game (U7BG), and heavily referenced in two others (UU2 (I think, I haven't actually played it =) and U7SI), plus a few other scattered remarks... but that's about as far as notability goes, and it's not pretty. The Editable Codex article is already vastly more extensive than this... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 29 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. While there are a number of calls for merging the content to Vulcan (Star Trek), there are also a significant enough number of comments in support of keeping or deleting it outright. Since it is clear from the discussion below that there is no firm consensus on what to do with the content, the default result is keep.

However, since this decision comes from a lack of consensus rather than a clear mandate, those in favor of merging the content can certainly pursue this course through the regular merge process. --jonny-m t 07:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan (Star Trek planet)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just plot repetition from the Star Trek articles. As such, it is purely in-universe duplication and is already covered in the article on Vulcans, the Vulcan characters, and the episode articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup as there's tons of pop cultural references to the planet. Just add references and clean up the cruft. 70.51.9.17 (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC) — 70.51.9.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as there are plenty of real-world references to Vulcan serious (like [39] or [40]), scholarly (like [41]), and fluffy (like [42]) outside the direct realm of Trek fiction. Yes, the article needs reworking but that's not an issue for AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- note. That scholarly source, Rise of the Vulcans, refers that other Vulcan, the Roman god of the forge. The pop culture references may be worth a merge/expansion at Vulcan (Star Trek). • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. Think outside the box 13:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of references and redirect to Vulcan (Star Trek). If someone jumps in and adds cited real-world material/information, then merge that content to Vulcan (Star Trek). I don't see a compelling reason for this article to sit separate from the article for the race. --EEMIV (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources makes this article a bunch of original research. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect per EEMIV. The article is fan fiction mixed with original research. It is essentially a mirror of the Memory Alpha entry. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, one of the most famous planets in Star Trek. Of course I'm biased towards Star Trek, but hey, this is the homeworld of the most famous non-human race in the whole Star Trek franchise. JIP | Talk 17:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My Star Trek bias is showing. Vote changed to merge to Vulcan (Star Trek) per the comments below. The race itself is obviously and utterly notable, but the only notable fact about their homeworld is about how unbearably hot there is. JIP | Talk 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Merge and) redirect to Vulcan (Star Trek). The race has a reasonable defacto claim of notability with Spock and all, the fictional planet hasn't. Real-world information like design, development, reception and cultural impact likely does not exist for the planet, i.e. major notability and NOT#PLOT problems. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Merge and) redirect to Vulcan (Star Trek). Fails WP:N and is full of in-universe pseudoscientific nomenclature. Edison (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect' to Vulcan. There is nothing here that warrants a standalone article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marge and redirect - I'm a trekkie myself, but I don't think this has anything of note that can't be on Vulcan (Star Trek). --Explodicle (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as desired. This is a major recurring setting for a major science fiction franchise, on par with (picking at random) Tatooine and Skaro. If it was just a one-time planet like so many others in the Trek franchise, then I'd say kill it, but this is Vulcan we're talking about. It's the No. 2 planet in the whole franchise next to Earth. I don't see the sense in redirecting or merging to the article on the race, because the planet exists separately from the race, especially in a SF context (put another way, if a future Trek storyline exterminates all Vulcans, the planet would continue to exist; if the planet were destroyed the race would continue to exist. (For another example from another franchise, see Time Lords and Gallifrey). 23skidoo (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although merger and redirect are a good second choice, the article Vulcan (Star Trek) is pretty massive already (59,543 bytes) and a split off article about the planet itself seems like something that would need to be done eventually. I see no reason why two articles can't exist. As others have pointed out, it's arguably the most famous of fictional planets, with multiple references made to it in the past 42 years. Mandsford (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in terms of WP:SIZE Vulcan (Star Trek) is not bursting at the seams. The only way I see this content signifigantly growing is through abuses of WP:PLOT. If it grows with good stuff, split it off later. -Verdatum (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no "bursting at the seams" policy for size of articles. It's a credible topic on its own. --Blechnic (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply WP:MERGE reasons 2, 3, and 4, combined with WP:SPLIT; or WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Being a "credible topic" is not sufficient criteria for the existence of an article. -Verdatum (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice, but limited try There's neither a "bursting at the seams" in WP:Merge nor reasons "2, 3, 4," by the way. But I'm guessing you knew that when you threw these out. --Blechnic (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reasons 2, 3 and s/he's talking about are probably the overlap, text, context reasons. --EEMIV (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you EEMIV, you are quite right. I didn't think that would be too terribly hard to figure out since they are the enumerated content after the phrase "reasons to merge" at the very top, but Blechnic seems more interested in being "Right" than reading and understanding policies that reflect concensus. -Verdatum (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, you mind reader you. But, wait, there's a policy against mind reading. Try to stay on the topic, it's the planet Vulcan, not me. --Blechnic (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup unsourced stuff, sure, but this is a viable topic. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and trivia. No encyclopedic content to merge. Redirect is unnecessary as "vulcan" itself is the likely search term and the species is already included on the DAB page. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm reluctant for a merge and then (possibly after the new ST film, which may add more info,and will no doubt see a few books will new info at least) fork at a later date, keep it seperate and save the trouble. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Vulcanis was the forge that made the Vulcans the way they are; the two are inextricably linked. It will improve the Vulcan (race) article, and no harm will be done. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to [[Vulcan (Star Trek)]; the same process has been completed for every other home planet of Star Trek races. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect; no need for there to be a separate Vulcan (Star Trek) and Vulcan (Star Trek planet) page. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth Tank[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Violates wikipedia's policy on notability, particularly the general notability guideline that calls for coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject itself. Mammoth Tank has not received coverage outside of Command and Conquer, and should thus be deleted. Randomran (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several policies. For extensive argumentation, see User:Krator/Gamecruft. User:Krator (t c) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to CnC Wiki (at http://cnc.wikia.com ) SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without any reliable sources the article is original research. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existence of numerous reliable sources that even demonstrate that real world models have been made beyond the appearance in the games, which means the game guidelines alone cannot suffice in this case, WP:ITSCRUFT is never a good argument, it is consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on video games or a specialized encyclopedia on toys/models or a specialized encyclopedia on fictional weapons, etc. Our reader are clearly interested in this article. In order to reach a real consensus, I encourage these editors to be notified of this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Models and action figures aren't independent of the subject and don't meet the general notability guideline. This is a non-notable topic until someone can prove otherwise. Randomran (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Models and action figures are indeed independent and reflect a degree of notability (not all tanks in games are made into real world objects) and thus notability has been proven. Saying it's not notable at this point would be akin to saying a banana is an apple. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not because they're not secondary sources. Please read more about notability and stop making this about personal opinion. Randomran (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are, because they are covered in secondary sources. Please read more about notability and stop making this about personal opinion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there any opinion in there? Please see WP:PSTS. "Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims." Primary sources include artistic and fictional works. Action figures are NOT a secondary source. Please stop ignoring policy. If you want to make the case that this is a situation where we should ignore all rules, please do that. But don't simply make up rules. Randomran (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action figures are not video games and so the relevant guidelines here are not simply video game guidelines, but whatever would cover a combination of BOTH video games and toys. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being deleted in compliance with the general notability guideline, and so it doesn't matter if this is a toy or a game. That said, the game guidelines are based on the general notability guideline and highly important to quality control. Randomran (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Google test cannot be used to assert notability. --Izno (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Izno, it must be kept. Since Google does not have every written and spoken word, itcannot be used to check things. Besides that, Wikipedia policy is so often discussed and there are so many guidelines that it doesn't make sense anymore. It would be wise to use WP:Common sense instead of all the other bullcrap. Mallerd (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. The fact that google cannot assert notability argues for deletion, not to keep the article. Further, you cannot say that it doesn't make sense anymore: There are other articles here on Wikipedia which fail the guidelines / policies and which are deleted every day. --Izno (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability due to the lack of independent and reliable sources. Edison (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absence of secondary sources causes it to fail WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:N. Jakew (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the exact same reasons cited by Edison, fails WP:N due to lack of non-trivial coverage by third party publications or sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikia --SkyWalker (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've copied the information to Wikia, in a rather unfit manner, but the job is done. The page history links back to here. --Izno (talk) 19:37, 29 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 per WP:CSD#A1 (not enough context to identify subject). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut Fred (character)[edit]

A nonsense article that provides no context, no assertion of notability, and no references. Speedy was declined because the subject is fictional (!). —BradV 05:17, 27 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. Singu larity 03:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biosyn[edit]

This is a minor, non-notable, fictional company from the Jurassic Park franchise. Ani Mate 05:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too in-universe to require an article treelo _talk 09:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of any sources makes this original research. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biosyn doesn't merit a separate Wikipedia article for a fictional company. Artene50 (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:02, 28 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. Singu larity 03:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sammie Pennington[edit]

Non-notable biography. Brianga (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete not sure whether being a cover model on those mags is meets the notability requirements but, the statements at least need to be sourced properly. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: She's certainly been on a great many covers and in a great many mags, with nearly 400 unique hits on Google UK; does a Page 3 girl fall under WP:BIO generally or WP:PORNBIO? Was there an attempt at a sourcing tag first? RGTraynor 13:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't been on that many covers namely two or three for Zoo and front... If u let this model in, u will have to allow all the models who have been on three or four covers as well. Should Wikipedia be a forum for glamour models and porn stars??? Plus she's virtually unknown outside the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.136.50 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 27 May 2008

Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the "American" Wikipedia, the degree to which Pennington is well known outside the UK is irrelevant. RGTraynor 21:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Just about notable, but the article needs a lot of work to be even passable. Bienfuxia (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If she was on so many magazine covers surely she would recieve significant coverage in reliable sources. But until that's manifest in the article, she has not met the notability guidelines. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means she does not meet the criteria for an encyclopedic article. I am influenced by the complete lack of ghits in Google news, both google.com[43] and google.co.uk[44]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps she is known in the Uk but she is hardly a houshold name except among young me from the age of 18-24. The article shows little to demonstrate why she deserves an entry. Maybe she does, but the article needs to be rewritten and referenced better. As the article stands regardless of whether she deserves an entry or not is almost irrelevant. The article itself is not authoritative enough as it stands at present and for that reason alone should be deleted. I for one do not feel that Wikipedia should be a forum for promoting models or porn stars. In some cases I could understand this say Pamela Anderson or Anna Nicole Smith as they transcended their respective fields and were well known generally. However, as the previous author states surely if Ms Pennington deserves an entry then almost all glamour models do as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.23.128 (talk) 21:10, 27 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. Renata (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worriedaboutsatan[edit]

Not notable Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:MUSIC - musicians or ensembles should be considered notable if they are the subject of multiple non-trivial sources independent of the subject. I can see a BBC review, and the Sandman Magazine article. The article certainly needs a bit of a cleanup and more independent referencing is desirable, but I don't see a need to delete here. I will see if I can dig up some broader coverage tomorrow Fritzpoll (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets musical ensemble notability guidelines due to BBC and Sandman Mag reviews. Atyndall93 | talk 04:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC#C1, or any other criteria for that matter. Sandman Mag isn't a reliable source, so let's remove that. What's left is one BBC review. One BBC review falls far short of the significant coverage required for notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:52, 27 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 CSD G3, appears to be part of a collection of hoax articles created by a single editor/small group of editors. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Izuwa Yashikaru[edit]

No WP:RS I'm unable to find any in English, perhaps someone who reads Japanese can find any if they exists...the claims in the article are pretty far fetched and the links at the bottom of the article are to video games...perhaps rather than being a non existent person, he is a non notable video game character? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:12, 27 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. Singu larity 03:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 03:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Danes[edit]

completely unsourced page with nothing at all in the way of info (such as a list of notable "Dutch Danes", government census info, etc.) to suggest that "Dutch Danish" constitutes a notable ethnic group Mayumashu (talk)

Delete the article does not assert the notability of the Dutch Dane ethnic group, no information about the ducth danes, famous dutch danes etc. Atyndall93 | talk 04:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This editor really needs to be brought to heel as most of his edits are disruptive, non-notable and most have already been deleted. ww2censor (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is simply not notable and is completely unreferenced. The user, Hashmi, tried to recreate 2 articles that were recently deleted judging from his edit to his talk page here: [45] This action is counterproductive. Artene50 (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This info should be in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.--LAA Fan 22:14, 28 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 per CSD G10, a blatant and obvious hoax. brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Sgt. Tong lee[edit]

No reliable sources back up the claim that this person leads the "special G.H.O.S.T (Governmental Hostile Operation Special Task) squad formed by directive order of the President of the United States." Since we don't know if he exists, he hasn't even met the threshold requirements of WP:BIO. brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Delete medal of honor twice? only 5 awarded since Vietnam --Lemmey talk 03:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a hoax. No Tong Lee has been awarded the CMOH, There was a Howard Lee and a Milton Lee in Vietnam, but no Lee since. And the last time anyone was awarded the CMOH twice was WWI. [[46]] I'll tag it for speedy LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD (G1) is a hoax, on the checking of information in article. Atyndall93 | talk 04:09, 27 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. Singu larity 03:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal Cold War[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of about half of the plot of the Star Trek television show Enterprise. As the article on the show and all the episode articles cover this information in greater detail, there is no need for this one since the Temporal Cold War asserts no signifience outside of the show and its episodes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this subject is covered in 22 books according to Google [47], seems to convey notability. Atyndall93 | talk 03:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About half of which are Star Trek fiction, and a handful do not relate to Star Trek at all. 137.111.143.140 (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is embarrassing when anon users know more about policy and the uselessness of random google searches than regular users do. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP above appears to have not looked at the results in very much detail. Out of the 16 results I saw, five - "The Physics of Star Trek", "American Science Fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate and Beyond", "Science Fiction Television: A History", "Supernatural fiction writers: contemporary fantasy and horror" and "Beyond Representation: Television Drama and the Politics and Aesthetics of Identity" - seem to contain some mention of the Temporal Cold War in an out-of-universe context. Of the rest, ten were Star Trek novels, and one was a coincidental hit on a Congressional hearing transcript. Those five should suffice for a keep, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. The IP again (but on a different computer). I may have been slightly off in my breakdown. Lets try again: The Physics of Star Trek has no preview, so I cannot comment further; Science Fiction Television: A History mentions Enterprise and the TCW on pages 186 and 187. All I can gather fom reading these two pages is that the TCW is a recurring plot point, a threat to humanity (but what isn't in Enterprise?), and the show's only dalliance in time travel; American Science Fiction TV, has a single part-sentance mention of the TCW on page 10, in a paragraph on time travel in science fiction. Basically: "sci-fi uses time-travel as a theme and plot device. Enterprise used this."; Supernatural fiction writers: contemporary fantasy and horror has only one hit in the text for the phrase TCW, which appears from the snippet view to be a 1-2 paragraph summary of the plot. I count eight unique fiction books (one of which duplicates for nine). A tenth fiction book has nothing to do with Enterprise, unless the episodes I missed dealt with the Continumn, Durgan, Daka, and Cedeo. I acknowledge the Congress document as being one of the results. A Google Scholar search for the phrase in quotes gives only 5 hits... two to aforementioned books and three to unrelated articles. Based on this, I do not believe that a reliably sourced and verifiable article of decent (<stub) size can be written without becoming a glorified plot summary. However, because "Temporal Cold War" is a likely search term, it should be redirected to the article on the series, linking directly to the article's plot section if possible. There is as much of a summary there as appears possible with the current Google-accessible scholarship on the subject, and the prominent link to the list of episodes will allow further investigation of the subject. 211.30.232.226 (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The IP above appears to have researched the matter, weighed the evidence, and come to a conclusion based upon the actual evidence--something I've seen very little of on Wikipedia. Nice. If I were doing anything useful or worthwhile on Wikipedia I would change my voted based upon this. However I'm not. So I do want to point out, instead, that the web is not the only, preferred, or necessarily best source for researching serious topics. --Blechnic (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources makes this article a bunch of original research. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of sources provided above. Hobit (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussion above is just based upon Google Books. Google News has a bunch of hits too. Also, these searches are just on the exact phrase and there may be other sources using a different form of words such as Enterprise Time War. Since we only need two sources to establish notability, we have more than enough. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the tests of notability of a fictional creation is whether it hss any real-world significance, and the case can be made for this storyline; it was one of many continuity abberations that the writers of Enterprise inflicted upon the Star Trek franchise. Mandsford (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. It should never be allowed to go quietly into that good night it attempted to un/re/forward/backward/create. Mrs. Hitchcock would have been horrified. --Blechnic (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major theme in the series, and good to have the material together--much clearer than relying upon episode lists. There's no rule that the different aspects of fiction can't be treated this way for the most notable fictions. Sufficient sources have been listed above. There needs to be a distinction between the treatment appropriate for the most notable and the less notable fictions. DGG (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - It should probably redirect to the series page. But I know this plotline was the target of a few printed criticisms of the show, and Berman/Braga also did a variety of interviews about the plot line's development -- but those, along with the Coto commentary there now, would be more apt in the series article's section of development and critical reception. The article in its current form is ~~absolute, unadulterated in-universe~~ mostly cruft and original research. --EEMIV (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:57, 30 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, without prejudice to any editorial proposal to merge. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capricorn (manga)[edit]

WP:N Lemmey talk 01:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems to be an actual manga [48], [49]; we have pages for most of those. Nomination should be more verbose. JJL (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As nominated there is more sourced content on this page than the nominated one. --Lemmey talk 02:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it meets WP:N, per the above and a page at the New York Times ([50] -- taken from All Movie Guide however).
Keep per all comments above, the above sources seem to convey notability. Atyndall93 | talk 03:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone. Really, a nomination needs a little bit more than alphabet soup to be viable. JuJube (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, the article itself doesn't have any sources so it actually fails WP:N. I'll add some now.--RyRy5 (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added a ref.--RyRy5 (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N now that a reliable source is added to the article.--RyRy5 (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, adding a self-publisher personal website at Angelfire does not mean a reliable source has been added at all (and that has bene removed). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Johji Manabe. It is listed at ANN[51][52] and the anime OVA is licensed. However, very little else is said about beyond a plot summary. Little to no coverage in any actual reliable sources beyond directory listings (like the NY Times link above), despite it being licensed. Fails the book notability guidelines on all counts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, the book notability guidelines don't apply to manga. And I quote, "this guideline does not presently provide notability criteria (though it may be instructive by analogy) for the following types of publications: comic books; magazines; reference works", etc, etc, etc. So, "though 'book' may be widely defined", it seems those guidelines don't hold comic books to the same standards as novels.--Nohansen (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the concensus of WP:MANGA (documented here) that WP:BK does apply to manga, with one additional possible criterion. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per AnmaFinotera. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per AnmaFinotera as expansion possibilities appear highly unlikely. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps two more external links will help in establishing notability: EX and Anime Jump.--Nohansen (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge due to low level of apparent notability and lack of references. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nominator did not provide a rational as to why this article should be deleted. --Farix (Talk) 11:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although not documented as such, it has been the concensus in the past of WikiProject Anime and Manga that, given the status of OVAs in Japan, an anime adaptation is equivalent to a theatrical or television release for the purposes of WP:BK C5. Between that and the NYT notice provided above, this two convince me this is indeed a notable manga per our guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete: the partial title argument holds sway and there is no need to leave a mere dictionary entry. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Canus

No disambiguation called for Wloveral (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page Canus redirects to different species through only the species epithets. These are not unique in biological taxonomy. Only the full scientific name of an animal or plant species is unique. There is no ambiguity here since the partial names are not used by themselves. This page opens a bad example, as did the page Miserabilis. In both cases, the search function should be used, not a disambiguation page. I made the first nomination for deletion of this page Canus but did not understand how complete the process until now.--Wloveral (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not needed, unlikely search term. Atyndall93 | talk 03:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete disambig pages are never used for every word in an article title. Ditto for scientific names. Shyamal (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably be a redirect to canis as an easy misspelling. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems fairly reasonable that a readers may type in Canus when looking for any of the entries on this page, if they had half remembered the name. Indeed they may even think that the bird or rodent they are seeking is actually called "canus". IMHO this is an acceptable, if slightly marginal, use of a disambiguation page. Abtract (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note - this should be considered together with miserabilis and the same decision made for both. Abtract (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems a clear violation of WP:DAB#Partial title matches. Deor (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- note - Partial title matches reads thus: "Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." Abtract (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At worst this does no harm. At best, it is not that unusual to refer to the species name only when the context is clear--and considering how communications are so rapidly transmuted, it is quite easy for the original context to not be so clear. older ≠ wiser 12:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a case of a partial title match. Species epithets can be used by themselves, as has been pointed out. As such, species epithet disambiguation pages are valid disambiguation pages. Neelix (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Canus is merely a Latin adjective meaning "hoary" (as miserabilis is one meaning "wretched"); it has no scientific significance in itself. We don't have articles with adjectival titles, and we shouldn't have such dab pages either. I've never seen species names "used by themselves", except perhaps in a journal article discussing multiple species of only one genus, and even then the almost invariable practice is to abbreviate, rather than omit, the genus name (as, for example, "L. canus" for Larus canus). Organisms' binomial names are, in effect, inseparable compounds. Deor (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violation of WP:DAB#Partial title matches. Binomial nomeclature says that the species name is a two-part name. As Deor says, species names are meaningless on their own--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not uncommon for species in specialized literature to be referred to as "X. species", where X. is the first letter of the genus name and species is the species name (cf. "T. rex", "D. melanogaster"), but this would suggest that it would be useful to have a DAB page for, e.g., L. canus or S. canus, but not for "canus" alone. Doing it this way seems to violate WP:DAB#Partial title matches. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this seems a clear violation of the "partial title matches" rule, and that species names are "inseparable" from the genus name. However, I was wondering if one could draw an analogy to people's names. We have probably thousands of disambiguation pages for "partial matches" on people's names, both for surnames and given names. For example, see Maxwell. I think no one would suggest deleting those. So, is it fair to say that people's names are "separable", unlike species names? Probably, as it is common to use just the surname (or sometimes the given name) of a person when writing about them when there's no ambiguity due to the context. This all leads me to believe that deletion is the most appropriate choice, unless it can be shown convincingly that species names are indeed commonly used separately from the genus name. I doubt it. Has anyone seen writings that refer to humans as "sapiens"? --Itub (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think this article should be kept. It is possible to write in the word Canus for time. --LAA Fan 21:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete May be a little useful, but I don't think any of these species are actually referred to as "canus", and thus this is merely a page on a latin word. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a latin dictionary, for that matter. Danski14^(talk) 19:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. See the related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulgaris‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miserabilis‎, both closed as "delete". Deor (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Williamson (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

First AfD resulted in a weak keep consensus based off misreading the WSOP ME as a sports competition and thus simply competing is a sign of notability, when it is not. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker[reply]

Delete Article created by Gutshot Poker Club to link to and advertise the Gustshot Poker Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.236.226 (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN, WP:BIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. She plainly meet WP:BIO... Assciated Press/MSNBC, the Guardian, twice, plus this, and this and innumerable other online references that can be summed up as "worst poker player in the history of the universe". Notability doesn't need to be for skill. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Slam dunk, if reluctant, keep. 2005 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She has not recieved significant coverage. The aforementioned links revolved around the media finding an interesting story about an African-American woman attorney in a poker tournament. The story is very interesting, but that doesn't casue her to meet the notability requiremtns of WP:BIO. All the coverage revolved around one event, i.e. a classic WP:BLP1E. Not every semi-interesing person meets the wp:bio requirements becasue of some media coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - article seems to assert some notability, but the subject fails WP:BLP1E. She seems only notable for that one event. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources, and a poker career that extends beyond one event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent coverage. The few news hits from 2005 seem to solely mention the novelty of a female in the tournament, but do not seem to be profiles of her. Notability does not seem to be established. Reliable sources are not even referenced in the article. (I could be convinced with independent coverage, but...I couldn't find anything significant.) Frank | talk 03:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say that being a pioneer woman poker player is her notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She is pioneering in no significant way. No significant notability should be ascribed to her for that. Women previously finished higher in the WSOP main event than her. She is the highest finishing black woman, but no coverage that I am aware of highlights that. 2005 (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need to trim Wikipedia down to just the gold medalists in the Olympics. Why cover more people than necessary. Notability isn't being number one, it is when the mainstream, reliable media take notice of you for whatever reason. The Wikipedia threshold is when more than one media outlet, independent of the subject take notice, and the new addendum, is that it can't be for a single event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is a strawman, no one here is saying only winners of poker tournaments are covered or that even you need to win poker tournaments to be covered. I can list off the top of my head about a dozen notable poker players who have not won a major tournament but have had significant coverage or substnational monetary careers without outright winning. This article is not being unfairly put out in some deletionist ramapage, she's simply non-notable for her poker "accomplishments". –– Lid^(Talk) 01:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say that the sources above to convey some notability, and my motto is "when in doubt, keep!". Atyndall93 | talk 03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per 2005 and Richard Arthur Norton. Dismissing the coverage as "the media finding an interesting story" seems to me to be a conclusion, not an argument. Also, I think Lid's assertion that the WSOP is not a sports competition requires a bit more explanation, especially if the first AfD resulted in a keep because the opposite was considered the case. Maxa megalon 2000 06:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Notes number eight: Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, subsequent to that afd a strong consesus was reached int wo venues that merely entering a poker tournament is not similar to being a major league baseball player or PGA Tour golfer. So her entering conveys no notability. 2005 (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"except the most prestigious events". Which her winning was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She did not win. She came in 15th. 2005 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – I agree, that a majority of the news coverage around Ms. Williams was in 2005. However, as the Google News search shows [53], Ms. Williams is still well enough established in the Poker mania to at least be mention in a news article as recently as of January of this year. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An amateur finishing 15th at the 2005 World Series of Poker Main Event is pretty notable (the highest female since Annie Duke in 2000), and her antics in the process and the other players' annoyance got plenty of coverage to add to that notability (stalling, looking to the crowd for help, walking away from the table). She was definitely not your run-of-the-mill player, and no, she also was not "the worst player in the history of the universe." You don't finish 15th in the WSOP on luck alone. Eauhomme (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 02:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD G3, obviously made-up, vandalism, etc. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Tariq Bhoja[edit]

This has all the characteristics of a hoax. "Muhammad Tariq Bhoja" gets no google hits outside of Wikipedia, and the content is closely linked to the probable hoax Bhojian Economics (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhojian Economics). This article should therefore be deleted per WP:HOAX, WP:V and WP:NFT. And even if it were all verifiably true, it would not make the subject notable enough for Wikipedia. Either way, delete. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete its a hoax. Gwernol 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per Gwernol's statement and nom. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 01:05, 27 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. Singu larity 03:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Fidler[edit]

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

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

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

Prod removed by IP address, non-notable poker player. Many poker players have proteges however being simply a protege is not a sign of notability and if that is ignored accomplishments aren't enough to satisfy notability. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker

Delete does not meet notability by a mile. Hasn't won a major tournament nor made it to the Hall of Fame. Balloonman (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article refers to a non-notable poker player. According to the Hendon Mob database [54] he came second in a WSOP circuit game?! So what?! As per nom being a protege of Daniel Negreanu doesn't infer notability Nk.sheridan Talk 00:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN, WP:BIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, placing 2nd in a circuit event doesn't make one notable. Merely being Negreanu's protege doesn't confer notability either. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appear to be articles purely about him, including on ESPN. Thus meets WP:N as there are multiple independent secondary sources... http://news.google.com/archivesearch?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS251US252&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22Brian+Fidler 68.40.58.255 (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see all of two actual articles that mention him. The rest are either a) PR Newswire press releases or b) about other Brian Fidlers. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found three. One is an ESPN article about him. Meets WP:N. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I still don't think that this poker player is notable, despite having an ESPN article. It must have "significant coverage" - this person does not. Additionally, the article provides no evidence that he has won any significant award. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few articles about his involvement in one (i.e. WP:BLP1E) poker tournament doesn't staisfy the "significant" requirement of WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have to say that this person is only notable for one event, and as such, fails human notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 04:02, 27 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 CSD G3, obvious boredteencruft, hoax/vandalism. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhojian Economics[edit]

The only Google hits for ""Bhojian Economics" are the Wikipedia pages Muhammad Tariq Bhoja and Category:All dead-end pages. This is very little for "a major branch of industrial economics." The article reads like a hoax. Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:V and WP:NFT. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete looks almost certain to be a hoax/vandalism. Unless reliable sources can be provided, this should be deleted. Gwernol 00:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per Gwernol's statement and nom. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 01:05, 27 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.