< May 28 May 30 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Singularity 07:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilium (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, unnotable song with all exceptional claims completely unsourced. Only sources are to Latin bible verses to support WP:OR claims. Failed PROD; removed by IP under claim of "Don't be sneaky, do a proper afd." Nothing in the article to merge into Elfen Lied, the series where it is used as a theme. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 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 per WP:SNOW, (non-admin close). macytalk 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is blatantly biased. I'm sorry but it only talks about scientists opposed to the consensus, yet there is no page that lists scientists that agree with the consensus. Besides, it is a ridiculous list anyway: I mean come on a Solid State Physicist? And his relevance to Global Warming is? Just because he's a scientist doesn't making him relevant, else we may as well let in any politician, economicist, person-in-unrelated-career etc into this article. If this article isn't deleted, I think a lot of this list needs to be purged.

^That's what I wrote on the article's talk page (yes I was the IP sorry I wasn't logged in). Basically, that's why I think this article needs to be deleted. Deamon138 (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry I'm a n00b at all this! Deamon138 (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I definitely agree restrict to astomospheric scientists,that is a definite must. However a list of supporters is impossible to complete but so is a list like this, hence "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness." at the top of it. I assume you meant "A list of supporters would obviously be impossibly massive"? If so, a category would be much better, as then we could have both a for and against category, and not have to go into the detail about each. Deamon138 (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you suggest would duplicate the existing "Global warming controversy" article. I think a list is fine. WillOakland (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is an equal time requirement on Wikipedia: it's called WP:NPOV. Deamon138 (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What title are you referring to that is biased? It doesn't really matter whether the opinions are valid or not, just whether they've been covered in reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, don't divert this into a discussion of scientific merit because it isn't relevant. WillOakland (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article was nominated by a pretty green user (no pun intended). We need to keep this page. Besides, aren't lists supposed to go on WP:MFD or something? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Anything in the articlespace (ie without a prefix and a semicolon before the title) goes to AfD.137.111.143.140 (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about people who disagree with AGW, it's about SCIENTISTS who disagree with AGW, most of whom I disagree over relevance/notability as mentioned above. It also isn't NPOV, since it's very existence without the existence of a counter-article is POV and is a reason for deletion. Why even say, "I'm not going to go into the blatant POV issues in some of the global warming articles" if you're not even going to expand? Regardless of the existence or non-existence of POV on related articles, this articles deserves to be discussed. What are you suggesting? That the existence of POV elsewhere somehow makes this POV right? Two wrongs don't make a right. Finally, a quick perusal of your talk page tells me that you hold a very skeptical view over the AGW consensus. Food for thought methinks.... Deamon138 (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoleetage (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no NPOV issue. The dissenters get this list, and the supporters get to be called "mainstream." WillOakland (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is exactly that: a NPOV issue. They are called mainstream not because of a POV but because that is what it is called. Look up mainstream in the dictionary. But this article in itself isn't biased I agree there, however, it's existence is biased. For instance, on the AGW debate, we have two balanced (or meant to be, I don't know if they are) pages entitled Global Warming Controversy and Scientific opinion on climate change which is fair enough. However, we have this article here as well as Category:Global warming skeptics, which are both articles about on solely skeptics, with no alternative lists or categories describing the non-dissenting views. Surely that, by definition is POV. Deamon138 (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I get it, there are mainstreamers and dissenters, but the dissenters are biased. So let's delete the dissenters so there is no opposing opinion on Wikipedia and only the pro-AGW view exists. And btw, you're a neutral person. Did anyone notice how quickly within like an hour the AFD on the other article was removed, by no less than a green administrator, but this article is still on the list the next day? Mr Schulz must have friends in high places. <<<Disregard, I should have known the why to this statement. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the disenters views are biased, whether they are or not is irregardless to this discussion. And I'm not saying that Wikipedia should only be for pro-AGWs either. The very reason I come to Wikipedia for information is so I can read a balanced, neutral opinion on a subject: this is not what I'm getting when there is no counter-argument article. And as to the stuff you insinuate, I have no idea what you are talking about. Who is Mr Schulz? AfD on what other article? I don't understand. If you are trying ti say I'm biased well I'm not (and remember WP:FAITH, you have no reason to assumen I am biased and am not acting in good faith). I hope you aren't either, though by the look of your userboxes on Global Warming it could be guessed otherwise. I am not whoever going to stoop and accuse you of bias, I will respect WP:FAITH and I hope you will too from now on. Deamon138 (talk) 12:21, 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. No additional sources/references/coverage was added to the article or brought up here. Ultimately, the arguments to consider concern whether this topic is of sufficent note and whether the current content fails WP:SYNTH. Given that the article creator readily acknowledges the original research problem(s), and there lacks substantial evidence of noteworthy coverage, this article will be deleted. However, xoddam or any other editor is welcome to contact me to restore the article in userspace in order to salvage the sources or content for future work. — Scientizzle 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Base load theory[edit]

Base load theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is still a POV essay, despite efforts to fix it. Nothing appears worth salvaging to me. Allen (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, this article's purpose is to counter claims apparently made by the coal industry regarding renewable energy. The principal paper cited in this article does not seem to be peer-reviewed. --Allen (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The references in the article are very much about this subject. Just because they don't use the exact phrase "base load theory" doesn't matter. Per WP:DICDEF Wikipedia articles are about subjects, not words or phrases. The subject has been shown to be notable - if a different title would be better then the change can be made by bold editing or talk page discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, where has the subject has been shown to be notable? All I can see is an OR essay consisting almost entirely of primary source references. WP:DICDEF is not a license to authorise the creation of material from scratch. Any coverage from a reliable secondary or tertiary source indicating that topic has a clear and consistent definition, whether under this title or any other, would be more than we have now. Debate (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "google test" would be best applied to the article's original title, "base load fallacy", since the rename appears to have been a clumsy if WP:BOLD attempt to address POV (turning the article from my original WP:POV essay into WP:SYN). A clear and consistent definition is lacking, though I didn't fully realise this when I created the article, since "base load" as a term of art apparently differs somewhat (in some documents) from the layman's definition (as presented here) and from the progressive (re-)definitions attempted by Walt Patterson and RMI. --xoddam (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if only so the references are readily accessible. I readily acknowledge it was originally POV and now it's mostly awful. I simply haven't had time to do the sane rewrite the topic deserves (haven't logged in for months). A full treatment in this article would necessarily be WP:SYN so approaching this in an appropriately encyclopaedic fashion entails a discussion from first principles under the title base load (which is currently a redirect to base load power plant). --xoddam (talk) 07:43, 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.

Taeho[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete G10 per Rmhermen. macytalk 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to be a hoax/attack, it's unsourced. Re-created after speedy deletion, I think. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:10, 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 - Recommend to merge to Jessica Simpson ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Simpson (album)[edit]

Jessica Simpson (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unreleased album, only one source, can't find sources to verify tracklist Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UM - Than you really have me confused! In your nomination, above you state “…Non-notable unreleased album”. Now you are saying that it was released in 1994? Which is it? You know 99.9% of the time I trust – but verify what the nominator says. This 0.1% I trusted you without verifying! That will not happen again! ShoesssS Talk 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "The record company had financial problems and had to close down, still the Simpsons pressed the CD for their own money and sold it from the car." So technically, it was unreleased because the label went under before the album actually hit shelves. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the industry myself I have to disagree with your definition of a release. If it is made available to the public, whether through a label or independently, it has been released.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so hard on yourself Shoessss, it was a bitch to try and find anything on this because of the title of the album. Oh gawd, I'm sounding like a Jessica Simpson fan. I need to have a shower now, unclean, unclean. I'll update the article soon.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • yup, had that one too, just forgot to add it in. Just got home from 12 hour drive, need sleep, will update it after staring at the inside of my eyelids for a few hours. Good night.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:55, 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 No consensus. The knotty question of whether it violates not or not was not agreed upon. Definitely could do with sourcing though to establish notability, otherwise it's likely to end up back here. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needle Through Thumb[edit]

Needle Through Thumb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

How-to article on magic trick (see WP:NOT). Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hrm...a lot of the parlor magic tricks in that list are not even red link, but black as most of the articles about parlor tricks could never be more than a how to...I can poke around and see if I can find some history, but I would think that the history of all the parlor tricks would be repetitive through each article as they've all got pretty much the same origin. Even the Parlor magic article is pretty lame and needs help. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles may be lame, but that means they need to improved, not deleted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of sources is a concern, I agree. But a lack of sources is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve the sourcing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:29, 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) Clear consensus that the multiple sources that are available about subject are non-trivial and demonstrate notability per WP:N. Darkspots (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girl in a Coma[edit]

Girl in a Coma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article itself is clearly advertising and the first two sources are not reliable in the slighest (not indepenent certain;ly) and the third one isn't much either Weygander (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not quite in keeping with the guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. If an article can be improved, such as by adding sources, then it should be improved, not deleted. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a blog roll of sources will not improve the article. A presumption of notably can not be applied to obviously non notable subjects --Lemmey talk 18:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the extent of coverage in reliable sources (such as the newspapers and magazines I noted above) actually is how Wikipedia determines notability in a neutral way. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:00, 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. Nandesuka (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur King[edit]

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

This is an article about the main character of children's book. As best as I can tell this is the only related article on wikipedia, the authors page failed an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Wilkinson) and both books are red links The Legend Of Arthur King and Arthur King And The Curious Case Of The Time Train. I would say either this article needs to be deleted per WP:N or Dean Wilkinson needs to be restored. Jeepday (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It is perfectly possible for a character to be more notable its creator or any of the books it appears in, e.g. Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes. I don't have any opinion on whether that is true here, but the non-notability of the author and books is not on its own a valid argument for deletion of an article on a character. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The author has also done some TV work [6] so if this is kept maybe it would be best to resurrect the article on the author and merge this into it. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 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 No consensus - Recommend to follow the advice by Peterkingiron to merge these two articles into one in which a full century is presented, alongside other material that may provide context about their validity. sources, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

80 in Ireland[edit]

80 in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The source(s) for these article are primary sources, specifically Irish annals, but there are not accepted as having much if any reliability before the 5th century at the very earliest, and more plausibly the 6th: "Irish annalistic records at such an early period are not to be taken as historically authentic" [Fergus Kelly, "Cormac mac Airt", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, here]. Any discussion of a "historical" Túathal Techtmar, always assuming that to be a good idea, belongs in a Roman Ireland article fenced around with if, and but, and perhaps, and with archaeologically imprecise dates, if any.

Also included, since it's in the same era and equally implausibly dated and involves Túathal Techtmar:

There is little point in merging this material as it will be equally unverifiable if merged. The most recent source on Irish chronology is Volume VIII of the Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland and this contains neither of these items. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:47, 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 all. Not a reliable source, therefore not able to be merged. Malinaccier (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

322 in Ireland[edit]

322 in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The source(s) for these article are primary sources, specifically Irish annals, but there are not accepted as having much if any reliability before the 5th century at the very earliest, and more plausibly the 6th: "Irish annalistic records at such an early period are not to be taken as historically authentic" [Fergus Kelly, "Cormac mac Airt", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, here].

Also included, for the same reasons:

There is little point in merging this material as it will be equally unverifiable if merged. The most recent source on Irish chronology is Volume VIII of the Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland and this contains none of these items. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:24, 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Gamma Kappa[edit]

Alpha Gamma Kappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be just WP:OR and I can't find any external sources backing up any of the content other than the fraternity appears to exist and be connected with podiatry. Contested prod LostOldPassword (talk) 20:16, 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 deleted by User:Orangemike. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuking the Fridge[edit]

Nuking the Fridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. A very, very recent neologism (the film came out last week) without enough time to build widespread usage or any notability, let alone reliable sources; as well, in the final sentences, a suspicion of a commercial interest driving the asserted acceptance. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:14, 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 redirect to Magna Carta. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magna Charta Sureties[edit]

Magna Charta Sureties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

content is almost entirely reproduced in Magna Carta, suggest merging anything that's not there and redirecting. Geoffrey Spear (talk) 20:09, 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 all. Malinaccier (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

226 in Ireland[edit]

226 in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The sole source for this article is a primary source, the Annals of the Four Masters, written in the 17th century and not renowned for its reliability, including as it does myth, legend and folk-tales among other material. If there were a battle of Crinna, which is in itself unknowable, it cannot be dated to 226 AD: "Irish annalistic records at such an early period are not to be taken as historically authentic" [Fergus Kelly, "Cormac mac Airt", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, here].

The same is true of the events in:

There is little point in merging this material as it will be equally unverifiable when merged. The most recent source on Irish chronology is Volume VIII of the Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland and this contains no items at all for the third century in Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the source given by the nominator could a verifiable article about 3rd century Ireland be written that includes events that are sourced and a sourced explanation of why it isn't actually possible to know if they took place. Guest9999 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT says, "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." The answer is that no encyclopedia written by experts would have a 226 in Ireland article or a 3rd century in Ireland article, so the answer is that nothing should appear. There's no reason to write a non-chronology of non-events involving non-people when things are this simple. WP:RS says: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history ...". The RIA history fits this in every respect, random websites and primary sources do not. And this is not a case where "material may be outdated by more recent research". Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 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. I have to agree that as currently conceived this article fails WP:V. It pertains to a series of persons or events for which we have little or no reliable sources. Is it possible to turn this into a useful article as DGG suggests? Possibly, but not under this title. We are not losing any real content by deleting this. Anything here that is verifiable can be discussed in Early history of Ireland as noted below and expanded into a new article if that ever became necessary. Before we have the article Legendary History of Ireland in 3rd century (a plausible title change) we would first need Legendary History of Ireland. I'm sure we could construct a good article along those lines, but this article is hardly a good jumping off point. I don't see this article going anywhere or becoming verifiable any time soon which suggests it would be stuck in its current unencyclopedic state for some time which is not acceptable. Thus the delete arguments (which also outnumber the keep ones) carry the day here in my view. If any of this content would be useful in constructing a different article relating to the legendary history of Ireland I'd be happy to userfy it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd century in Ireland[edit]

3rd century in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article contains no credible content, nor is there any content which it could contain which would be verifiable on the basis of writings by modern historians.
The most recent source on Irish chronology is Volume VIII of the Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland. This contains none of these items, and indeed no items for the third century in Ireland. The only referenced entries are for events concerning the "life" of Cormac mac Airt, of whom Fergus Kelly in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, fairly representing the views of modern historians, writes:

Cormac mac Airt ... features prominently in early Irish tradition. According to the annals of the four masters, he became king of Tara in the year 227 and reigned until 266. However, Irish annalistic records at such an early period are not to be taken as historically authentic, and it is likely that Cormac was a purely legendary figure.
Here, not freely accessible.

The remaining material is unreferenced, copied from the Annals of the Four Masters.
WP:NOT tells us: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." The answer, based on the RIA history, the largest collective work on Irish history in many years, and perhaps of all time, is that you would not expect to find any article under this heading. This cannot be fixed by merging, or allowing time for sourcing, or otherwise rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but only by deletion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources seems to suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for the Annals of the Four Masters, either summarised or complete, and with or without commentary. We don't write about fiction as if it were real and we don't write about legend as if it were real either. As for WP:V, that says: "[a]rticles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ..." (not the Annals of the Four Masters then) and "[a]cademic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history ..." (ditto). That really leaves nothing to say about the 3rd century in Ireland in an article like this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support this view - note I have already voted above. Possibly the title should be Legendary History of Ireland in 3rd century. I fear that some of those voting to delete may not understand the nature of the sources. The recording of the events is fully verifiable. What we do not know is whether the events did (or did not actually) happen. Terms such as "in universe" derived from Sci-Fi or video-gaming should have no place here. The tone of the article (implying that the events are definitely historical) is inappropriate, but that is not a case for deletion: it needs the inappropriate tone changing, or tagging for that to be done. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 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 redirect to Dagwoods. All info has already been merged. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiro Krallis[edit]

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

You've done much more than just re-create the article on Krallis, Habs4ever. You've a) been repeatedly adding spam about Dagwoods into Montreal b) created an article on Dagwoods which is very promotional in tone and I have tagged as such. c) possibly violated WP:POINT by anonymously nominating the article on multi-billionaire Subway founder Fred De Luca for nomination (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred De Luca) when one of your earlier articles on the Dagwoods founder was speedily deleted. That aside, WP guidelines require multiple prominent independent sources to establish notability. You've added a link to a Montreal Gazette article and that's one. But until I see multiple sources, my vote is to delete. Sorry, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did much more than add a link. You rewrote part of the History section of the city of Montreal to expound on the glories of Dagwoods and founder Spiro Kralis (sic). Wikipedia is not a platform to publicize this company or its founder. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added to the history section, I did not rewrite it. Any ways, this discussion should be regarding this specific article and not any other. My concern is about this person's significance. I have explained why the person is significant, and I've also brought up why perhaps there shouldn't be an article on him on Wikipedia.Habs4ever (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Your articles on Spiro Kralis (one "l") have twice been deleted. Why did you spell his name differently this time? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the correct procedure would have been to take this up at Wikipedia:Deletion review -- not to create this article for the third time albeit with a slightly differently spelling of the last name, possibly to mask the deletion history. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You inserted substantial content about Dagwoods into a paragraph that was otherwise about Montreal's rate of economic growth in the 1990s compared to other cities in Canada. That's more than just "adding"; even if Dagwoods does get mentioned in the main article on Montreal that's not even close to being the correct section for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am in agreement the restaurant does have a claim to Notability and should be included here at Wikipedia. My contention is that the claim does not extend to Mr. Krallis. The articles that you did provide, do mention Mr. Krallis. However, the subject matter covered in the pieces was primarily about the restaurant and not the owner. With regards, to additional information on Mr. Krallis, concerning Mr. Krallis, I could find none. Sorry, as everyone knows here at Afd I am always willing to say Keep! Just give me a good reason :-). ShoesssS Talk 20:24, 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 A7 per Vegaswikian, non-admin close. macytalk 22:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Berger[edit]

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

non-notable person A2Kafir (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first "Michael Berger" article was apparently about a different non-notable person. A2Kafir (talk) 19:30, 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 --Selket Talk 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bartosz Wiśniewski[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards. Also, the page was established for another individual with a similar name (sports team member), but that original person is not listed on the roster of the team. — CZmarlin (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was posted about Bartosz Wiśniewski, an athlete in Poland Revision as of 18:35, September 20, 2007. It was apparently hijacked Revision as of 21:29, December 12, 2007 by someone else with a similar name (Bart K Wisniewski), claiming to be an architect. A quick check of the Polish language link on that article reveals that a Bartosz Wiśniewski does not exist in the Polish Wikipedia. He is not listed in the roster for the current club Znicz Pruszków in English or Polish Wikipedia articles. Therefore, I was not sure what to do with this messed up article. At that time, the page did not seem to qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
However, I have now found that Bartosz Wiśniewski is listed in the team roster for the Polish Wikipedia article: Wisła Płock (piłka nożna). Moreover, A Google (which translates from the Polish language automatically by clicking the "translate" button) finds a page where Bartosz Wiśniewski appears on the roster season and club membership. Thanks for correcting the page to reflect the actual individual. — CZmarlin (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was weird and confusing to figure out. I tried the google Polish translator but it couldn't get me past the same words I couldn't translate myself, so I needed an actual translator, and I couldn't get any of the rosters to show up with a search. But I didn't check the team roster on the Polish wikiepdia--good move. --Blechnic (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being precise, but the article was established for a football player (Bartosz Wiśniewski). The information on this page was deleted and replaced with some text about someone else with a similar name (Bart K Wisniewski, purporting to be an architect). When I noticed this messed up article, I nominated it for deletion because the subject (architect) did not seem to meet WP's notability standards. Purther investigation revealed that the original article was in fact a real sports person. This was corrected by Blechnic, by establishing a new page: Bartosz Wiśniewski (footballer). Therefore, the current Bartosz Wiśniewski article (about "Bart K Wisniewski") should be deleted on the grounds of non-notability. Thanks! — CZmarlin (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Can you relist and put just this up for debate for deletion to try to reach a consensus, as you seem to still think it fails notability, leaving out any discussion of the football, now that there is a discrete article on the architect? --Blechnic (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only mention I can find about "Bart K Wisniewski" and "Bart Wisniewski" on the Internet using Google is that he is listed as an employee of the "A Architects" firm (link here) that located in Woodstock, Illinois. The short bio does not have the AIA title listed by his name. In other words, the article about him seems to be a self-promotion piece that does not meet the WP guidelines. Because the article already has a "request for deletion" notice, I am not sure how to handle another request to remove it. Please do what is necessary to process this change! Thanks — CZmarlin (talk) 20:20, 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. Singularity 07:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minnie Gertrude Matthews[edit]

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

I had originally deleted this speedily as CSD A7-- not notable bio. Then I saw where it had survived a prior VfD. Dlohcierekim 18:29, 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 Speedily deleted as asserting no notability whatsoever. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Star Co-op[edit]

Black Star Co-op (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has little content and appears to be WP:SPAM promoting a business. Mh29255 (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I'm a member-owner of the coop, but this is not intended as spam. I believe this discussion is supposed to be held on the article's talk page though isn't it? I'm trying to put the page into a context that explains its relevance, but I am at work at my day job and really need to wait until I get hime to put some real work into it.chupacerveza 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry, didn't sign that comment. chupacerveza 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chupacerveza (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 Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loving More[edit]

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

Advertisement for a non-notable magazine. Damiens.rf 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – At first glance I was going to say delete. However, after a little checking I found quite a few articles on the magazine as shown here, [7]. Do I agree with the philosophy, No. But to each is own. And more importantly, I do think they meet the criteria for Notability. ShoesssS Talk 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The huge majority of those few articles on your link are not about the magazine at all. --Damiens.rf 14:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? There are over 600 hits. Even with a huge majority, though in my review I did not see that, of 90% not having anything to do with either the magazine or group (who by the way go hand in hand), still leaves over 60 cites from reliable – verifiable – creditable and 3rd party sourcing. Are you saying that is not Notable? Thanks, ShoesssS Talk 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: The article is about both a magazine and a non-profit group. In my brief search, notability is turning up for the group, but I'm not seeing notability for the magazine. I really have no clue if this means the article should be rewritten to focus more on the group than the magazine.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:56, 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. May be notable in the future (perhaps after it comes out), but not at present.--Kubigula (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POHMELFS[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V. No sources or references at all. Looks like an advertisement. Undeath (talk) 17:43, 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. The first keep argument is not valid. Having a category and a list for X does not mean that every X is notable enough to have its own article. We have a list of Canadians and a category of Canadian people, but not every Canadian gets his or her own article, even if we can verify that he or she exists... As for the court case: the case is perhaps notable, but the mall is not notable because of the case. When your case is accepted, there will be documents. This is not the kind of reliable independent sourcing that gives notability (although it is obiously a perfectly acceptable source once you have an article where notability is established). Fram (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frenchtown Square Mall[edit]

Frenchtown Square Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This mall doesn't seem to be the subject of any significant reliable sources. Over a year ago I tried to fix this up with sources, but I ended up adding nothing more than:

  1. An article on Phar-Mor, which merely mentions a store in Monroe and says nothing about the fact that said store was in the mall);
  2. A PR piece about a second Elder-Beerman store being opened — the link wouldn't work when I tried to put it in, so that's just a bare ref)
  3. A (now dead) real estate listing for Office Max; and
  4. A court document pertaining to a case involving a couple gift shops in the mall.

While that court case might make the mall notable, I would say that the near-total lack of any other sources would indicate that there's nothing special about this mall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment' – I am not trying to be argumentative – sarcastic or mocking, but I can’t believe you just made that statement. Please take your pick from the 45 reliable – creditable – verifiable – 3rd party sources as proved here, [8], that show the mall actually exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)
Comment - I believe the following links provide proof of existence of the Mall. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] Finally the actual mall's website [17] And just to make sure the mall really – really existed, I checked Michigan's Official Travel and Tourism Site which gave me this result, [18]. That should be enough proff of their existence. ShoesssS Talk 22:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying! However, there does not have to be extensive - indepth coverage of the mall. In that we have both a category and a list titled Shopping malls in Michigan and the Frenchtown Square Mall is a mall in Michigan, the author has only to prove the existence of the mall to be allowed to write and post an article on the mall here at Wikipedia. If the category and list were stated as Important or Significant Malls in Michigan, I would agree with you. However, the way the category and lists are now structured and defined, I got to say Keep. ShoesssS Talk 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several others have been involved in lawsuits, yes. But how many have been the source of a legal precedent, that is what Case Law refers to. Being the source of a precedent that then carries on to affect all other shopping centres, makes for notability. How long ago it was makes for even more notability as testament that the precedent has stood that long, and is still valid and in use. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere have I said that we are setting a precedent, as I have tried to clearly say above, This shopping facility set a legal precedent in Frenchtown v. Lemston. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere have I said that you said you are setting a precedent. It may not be intentional, but trust me, it happens. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:10, 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 --JForget 22:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludacious[edit]

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

Unsourced and unverifiable dictionary definition of a neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:06, 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola V60s[edit]

Motorola V60s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing unfinished nom for User:64.238.172.212; IPs can't finish AfD nominations. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:01, 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. Consensus is that this family is not notable as such; all notable members have articles already. Redirected to Barack Obama to prevent drive-by recreations.  Sandstein  19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama family[edit]

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

The only notable people in this article (Barack Obama and Michelle Obama) already have articles written about them. Notability is not inherited. This article is no different than previous articles such as Family of Barack Obama and Malia Obama which were deleted after extensive discussion. All of the same arguments for deleting those articles are applicable here. Loonymonkey (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was ended early (due to the unrelated fact that the article was created by a sock) but the consensus was clearly heading towards delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malia_Obama where the final decision was to delete/merge.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:46, 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Numark[edit]

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

Nonnotable person, fails WP:BIO. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:53, 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Glass Casket[edit]

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

Film not listed on IMDb, and nothing is listed on that site under either Dunst's or Coppola's entries. GHITS return 2 results (one being WP) [21] and [22]. Hoax? Lugnuts (talk) 16:40, 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 G4. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Gorgon's Head[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Order of Gorgon's Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A page with a very similar name to previously deleted ones. IIRC content is very similar. Again no references to establish notability (or existence even). LostOldPassword (talk) 16:03, 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 deleted by User:Orangemike (G4: Recreation of deleted material) (non-admin closure) LostOldPassword (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secret and honorary societies at the University of North Carolina[edit]

Secret and honorary societies at the University of North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

IIRC all articles for possibly existing University of North Carolina secret societies have been deleted over the past months for lack of references proving notability of even existence, apart from Order of Gimghoul, search AFD archives for Order of (the) Gorgon's Head (Lodge), Society of the Seven, Secret Order of the Circle, Order of the Cupola, etc. This page is just a merge of previously deleted content with no references, and Order of Gimghoul (which still has its own page). The alternative, if references could be found to establish notability, would be delete the secret societies content and move to something like Honorary societies of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as at least we know the honorary societies exist at that institution by the main article page. LostOldPassword (talk) 16:20, 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ellis (businessman)[edit]

Richard Ellis (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Odd one...According to the NY Sun article listed and some found here, the Ellis involved with Catequil (deleted, non-notable) was Robert, not Richard. It could be moved to the proper name, but there's no evidence he's notable simply for founding a hedge fund. The dispute about the company appeared briefly newsworthy but I don't think a co-founder is notable. Paul Touradji, the other founder is a re-direct to his new company. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:08, 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 and redirect. --Selket Talk 03:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Durham[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:BIO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiselfpromotion (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 no consensus. Regarding the opinion of the participants in this debate, I see no consensus here for deletion, so any deletion would need to be hard-policy based. Regarding policy, my concern here is that the sole source cited in the article is IMDB, and that source is at best semi-reliable. However, that the subject is the twin brother of Brendon can be reliably sourced [24], and his career also appears to be reliably sourcable [25], and in line with the IMDB entry. There is also a tv.com source here. In my view, there does not appear to be any BLP problems which cannot be easily fixed. Regarding the merge suggestion, I will abstain from doing so, since that would mean redirecting Mr. Donovan to his brother's article. From a "respect the subject" perspective, I think it is more respectful to have a short bio on someone, than to define the person as nothing more than the brother of someone famous, but that discussion is for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Donovan[edit]

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

The twin brother of Nicholas Brendon, who played Xander on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Mostly worked as Brendon's stunt double, though he did appear in an episode where Xander was split into two identical people. All in all, though, he doesn't seem notable enough. Clerklines (talk) 15:54, 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. DS (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APITI[edit]

Is this an ad? Is it notable? Adoniscik(t, c) 14:53, 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. Singularity 07:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outrepreneurs[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Contested PROD. Google search turns up nothing. —BradV 14:52, 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 Speedily deleted as blatant advertising. Entirely promotional tone, no assertions of notability, poor/self-sourcing. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideablob[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:41, 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 closed as SPEEDY DELETE, recreation of previously deleted material in violation of WP:SD#G4. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoshopContest.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, volkswes 5/30/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkswes (talk • contribs) 13:58, 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 Keep, without prejudice to any future merge proposal. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation[edit]

Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable, third party sources. Withdrawing nomination, see discussion below. --Explodicle (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've read point #7 and you definitely bring up a valid point but I think that the article can still fit within SELFPUB. Like I said, the Watchtower or the article report only on their own beliefs and their beliefs are really only governed by themselves and the Watchtower. I find it reciprocal enough that self-published material can safely be used in an article such as this one. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that these direct sources are useful in establishing the accuracy of the article, I don't think they establish the notability of these beliefs outside the Jehovah's Witness community. If the discussion with Shoessss below yields some third party sources with which an entire article can be written, then I'm all for using the Watchtower sources to supplement them. --Explodicle (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which one of those hits is a reliable source? --Explodicle (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe your first question is the relevant one. The rest are totally up to personal interpretations. So here you go! The second one down is the USA Today. The third one down is the Miami Herald the forth one is the New York Times the fifth one down is the Sun Herald the sixth one is from the Buffalo News. Do I need to continue through all 7,000? ShoesssS Talk 15:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which search are you talking about? Please provide the direct links here. --Explodicle (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Comment I must interject here just to say that the Google search as you performed it does not offer concrete proof of availability of sources on this topic. Using "Jehovah's Witnesses" Salvation as a search string brings up a lot of hits that have nothing to do with this subject rather it brings up many articles that contain the the words "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "Salvation Army" in the same article, such as the first hit in the link you provided. The Google search is inconclusive. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not a problem - What you suggest is a valid question. In the first 10 hits, out of 7,000, at least 6 dealt specificly with the topic we are discussing here. Two dealt with the ongoing fight with the "Salvation Army". And the other two, i did not even look at that closely. Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 15:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So... Exactly which sources do you think we could use? The burden of proof is on you; I'm not going to go on what might be a futile search for good sources I couldn't find in the first place. --Explodicle (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes articles that shouldn't exist slip through the cracks for a while. I don't think article age should be a factor in deletion discussions. --Explodicle (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter how much you respect the Watchtower, they are not a third-party source. --Explodicle (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also don't know how "clearly written" an article is has anything to do with a topic's verifiability. --Explodicle (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the Watchtower establish the notability of their beliefs on salvation outside the Jehovah's Witness community? --Explodicle (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the same reasoning, you'd have us delete an article on transubstantiation on the grounds that it has no currency beyond the Roman Catholic Church. If the Jehovah's Witnesses are a notable community, as they are, then the organization of articles about their distinctive beliefs is purely a matter of convenience and readability, with the only caveat being to fork out detailed sections about particular doctrines if it seems that otherwise they would receive undue emphasis. The detail here seems long enough to support a separate article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Actually, several other viewpoints are described in that article, but that's not what we're discussing anyways.) Notability is not inherited just because it is part of a series on a notable topic. WP:V, one of the core policies Wikipedia is built on, clearly states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (my italics) --Explodicle (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that you're questioning the reliability of the sources in this article. But, since you italicized the words third-party, are you suggesting that the sources in question are not third-party sources at all? Or did you just mean to italicize the word reliable? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-Comment - My two cents! Explodicle does make a valid argument, in that a vast majority of the references, both in the article and the Keep positions expressed here, are from Watchtower, which is the publishing arm of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, (thereby being biased in the fact that they are the publishing association for the Jehovah's Witnesses’s). However, the contentions I pointed to earlier, even discounting Watchtower, who I personally have read and found no problems with regarding reliability and creditability (within reason), was that there is more than enough independent – reliable – verifiable sources to pull from. Which would than make this piece suitable for Wikipedia, with some additional references, cited within this article, from these additional sources. ShoesssS Talk 02:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not exactly sure what the main argument for deletion here is (whether the sources don't qualify as third-party sources or if they are not reliable) but, according to WP:RS, a reliable source is one whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I think there may be disagreement over whether or not the authors of the Watchtower are trustworthy or authoritative in the field of medicine but I would really hope that their trustworthyness or authority are not questioned when it comes to the religious doctrine of the Witnesses. If not the Watchtower, who would we consider the ultimate authority on that? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My claim is that the Wathtower, Awake!, etc are not third party, and thus are not a suitable basis for an article. They are only suitable for verifying or clarifying claims made by third party sources. I will drop the whole thing if either of you post the URL to a reliable, third party source that addresses the subject directly in detail right here. Not a search where I have to find the source myself, not a passing mention, not an opinionated blog post, but something that could be used as the basis for a quality article. --Explodicle (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to jump ahead SWik78 Here you go Explodicle [30]. ShoesssS Talk 14:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I guess that's what I asked for. It'll be hard to make a neutral article out of that, but it's at least an indication of notability. As promised, I'm withdrawing the nomination for deletion, and now think we should merge to Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. Once that section is well-referenced, I think it has the potential to be its own quality article. --Explodicle (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to differ. The Watchtower and Awake! are most definitely third party sources. Issues of reliablity and self-publication notwithstanding, those two publications are separate from material existing on Wikipedia (1st party), they are not original research by the author (2nd party), rather they are separate from both of those parties and, thus, constitute the 3rd party. I think you may have made a very fundamental mistake in your reasoning for the unsuitability of the sources in question. "Third-party" and "reliable" do not mean the same thing, hence WP:RS specifically mentions both terms in its description. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not you think something written, published, and distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses is seperate from them is now moot, as Shoessss has fulfilled my request. --Explodicle (talk) 14:57, 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 speedy deleted by User:Chrislk02. -- KTC (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mugwum Card Game[edit]

Mugwum Card Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No significant coverage reliable sources. Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:26, 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 deleted by User:Allen3 under WP:CSD#G12. -- KTC (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-release english 2008[edit]

Pre-release english 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Personal essay. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:23, 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 deleted by User:Chrislk02. -- KTC (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Accountants[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:20, 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 G11 Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Real Estate[edit]

Epsilon Real Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bit self-promotional. Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad. munchman | talk; 14:14, 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. Consensus is that the band is notable, this album is not (yet, perhaps).--Kubigula (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upravleniye Otbrosami[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSIC, requires substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. (One blog from September 2007 had the album coming out in November 2007, but they needed a label...) Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:52, 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 merge and redirect to John Burdett. Non-admin closure per total consensus (including nominator) and the uncontroversial nature of this topic. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok 8[edit]

Bangkok_8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a stub and I think always will be. The three novels together in toto are discussed under the author's page John Burdett section Work and I think always will be. It works out better that way I beleive and no one (aside from me) has seen fit in recent months (many of them) to contribute except by me to the latter article. No doubt a Bangkok 8 (film) will arise if and when the film is published but that will be a different article although someone else may see fit to create a detailed novel then but given its age - author is now up to his third in the series - I say delete this exisiting stub for now. As right now it is just an annoying say nothing link from the John Burdett article proper.

An administrator might like to take care of this for me as it is a no brainer. Regards, Mattjs (talk) 19:32, 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. Singularity 07:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creswell Hall[edit]

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


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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred De Luca[edit]

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Habs4ever (talk • contribs) 2008/05/29 06:30:59

Keep and Comment This appears to be a bad faith nomination or a violation of WP:POINT. The unsigned nominator has been creating articles on the founder of a local Montreal sandwich chain "Dagwoods" (founder article twice deleted), the sauce used on its sandwiches (deleted) and has been warned about twice adding spam about Dagwoods to the Montreal main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Try this link, [32]. I think you will find that they due substantiate Notability for a stand alone article. Cheers. ShoesssS Talk 20:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had done a gnews search, and unfortunately almost all the hits are pay or register sites. :( I did go back through the first 6 pages of hits and looked at every freely available one; of the 4 I found, one wouldn't load, two were really about the company, not the person, and one focused on Fred De Luca. I added that last one to the article, but I'd really love to see a couple more.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 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); nomination withdrawn. I was not aware when nominating this that introductory articles like this were allowed. Apologies. tgies (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Systolic geometry for a beginner[edit]

Systolic geometry for a beginner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sort of a how-to article. Don't think there's anything to WP:SPEEDY this under. tgies (talk) 12:55, 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 to delete the article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Matthews Band yet-to-be-titled album[edit]

Dave Matthews Band yet-to-be-titled album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL, the album hasn't yet been recorded, and it's not known if or when it will be released. There is of course no issue with recreating this article if and when it is actually released. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 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, as there certainly is no consensus to delete or merge. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bossy (Lindsay Lohan song)[edit]

Bossy (Lindsay Lohan song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:MUSIC#SONGS, this song is not notable and should redirect to an appropriate article. Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - What is wrong with you people, the song has already been released on May 27, 2008...and is the first single off the album.....its 10000% notable....im very shocked your all saying "Delete"......instead of wasting ur time trying to delete on OFFICIAL single, you should go try and delete pages that are worthy of deletion and that are truly not notable ex: Mariah Carey's song Migrate -Migrate is not even a single and has a page, and not body is saying anyhting about it or nominating it for deletion, while Bossy is an official single form lohan's upcoming album....and it has already been released...and ur saying u want to delete it?? im very shocked.....KEEP KEEP KEEP......OOC OCD (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for that.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The number of references is irrelevant if they're not reputable. In this case, one of them is Lindsay Lohan's My Space page! 209.247.22.161 (talk) 14:01, 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. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nova fractal[edit]

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

Article on non-notable fractal without reliable sources, which consists of unsourced OR claims and pretty pictures. Variation on the Newton fractal, on which we already have a substantial article. Author removed prod tag and promised to provide evidence of notability over a week ago, but has failed to do so. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

author's response[edit]

I would like to see some more input about the lack of notability of nova, why did you decide it wasn't notable? is it just because it didn't google very well?

I don't feel that just one objection should be enough to have the article removed, just as no doubt you don't think that my own input is enough to show nova's notability. So, how do we ultimately decide whether the article is kept or not?

I genuinely felt that I was adding something that is really out there when I created the article, it is not a selfish thing in any way, it's not advertising, I don't gain anything from sharing this information, it's just a formula after all. I do feel that it is relevant information about fractals and that others could benefit from it.

I would be willing to accept that this article be reduced, my interest in nova could be argued to be original thought. But the fact remains, that Nova is out there: there are implementations of it in most major fractal rendering applications, it has been explored quite a lot by the fractal art community, and I think that this is enough to make it a distinct entity of its own that is just as notable as its relative the newton fractal.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, Danwills (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision on whether the article is kept or deleted is made and implemented by an uninvolved closing admin who determines the consensus of a 5 day period of discussion between interested editors at this page - see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure. If you have reliable sources that support your assertions of notability, you still have an opportunity to add them to the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:17, 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. Even discounting the IP's and SPA accounts who showed up here to !vote (which I did), I don't see a consensus to delete here. There are some available sources (the most detailed being the PhD dissertation) which suggest that we might be able to maintain an article based on verifiable information. Many (or perhaps just one or two) of the partisans of this article did themselves no favors here with their pile-on votes to keep and the article still needs work. Future AfD's are not, I would think, out of the question.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grama Vidiyal[edit]

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

Article is mostly advertising and all of the sources point to company websites. TN‑X-Man 11:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki does not seem to focus anymore on advertising than any company's wiki. There are as many references as other corporate websites. Most financial information, of course, comes from the company.

Please reference specific areas of controversy...your post is rather ambiguous. 125.22.250.12 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 25.22.250.12|125.22.250.12]] (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interesting diff FelisLeoTalk! 12:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (Blanked the Page)[reply]
please note (in case it is improtant that it is the talk page that was blanked and not the article itself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I do not see how this is blatant advertising. The listing of products is useful information for anyone interested in microfinance. The people that receive Grama Vidiyal's services do not even have access to the internet, so this is not being aimed at them. The information is useful for anyone trying to get a rough sense of what Grama Vidiyal does. Other banks websites, e.g. Goldman Sachs, offer a listing of their financials and profits (this information comes from their website for most part) and no one objects.

It does not show up in Lexis Nexus because it is a small company located in rural India. Check out www.mixmarket.org and you will find a listing. I simply think you guys are not familiar with the microfinance industry, which is quite small and developing. However, it is notable as many academics are studying the field as a means to alleviate poverty. It is comparable to other microfinance firm on Wikipedia, SKS microfinance. 125.22.250.12 (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it didn't show up in Lexis-Nexis: I was able to find its press-releases easily. It is not, however, mentioned in any major news or business publications. Can you find reliable, independent sources that cover this institution? Kafka Liz (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the mix market global 100 ranking of microfinance institutions. It is the #4 MFI in the world and leading MFI in India. www.mixmbb.org/Publications/001-IND/01-IND.ANLS/02-IND.ANLS.MFI/Global%20100%20Final.pdf. 125.22.250.12 (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grama Vidiyal doesn't appear anywhere in that pdf reference.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 13:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's the "GV" in India listed in the report several times. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is fine as is. It simply is telling us what this firm does. Since its microfinance, it obviously is not advertising because its clients do not have access to electricity, let alone wikipedia Ted46530 (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC) — Ted46530 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. TN‑X-Man 13:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The claim about being the leading microfinance firm in India can be found in the mixmarket report I linked above. 125.22.250.12 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I strongly sympathize with you on this (if you note the history, I was the one who originally tagged it COI and dealt with the socks), we really should be debating the article on its own merits, rather than the antics of its creator. We don't "punish" editors for their behavior by deleting their articles, since they don't own them anyway. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly comparing this little company to the likes of NASA and IBM? Very large organizations are often referred to by their initials, especially when their full name is unwieldy. However, by no stretch of the imagination is Grama Vidiyal a "large organization with an unwieldy name". The use of their initials in the Mix Market report was ubiquitous. EVERY company listed in there was referred to by its initials, because the report was a summary report on the industry. Nearly all of the additional sources you found using the GV name are either the Mix Market report we've already seen or their own press releases, which we've also already seen. A mention of this company in a single book doesn't really make for "multiple" sources. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking though a few of those Google hits its still looks like mostly primary sources. (press releases) and publications that are directly based on those primary sources, which are also not independent because the are all by sources that are affililated to microfinance in general. This is also the big difference between the SKS Microfinance article and this one. That being said, the Grama Vidiyal could stay if some secondary sources are introduced to establish notability. FelisLeoTalk! 08:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As mentioned in the article, the company currently registered as an [NBFC] and henceforth goes by its full name. You will find many other companies of similar size and scope as Grama Vidiyal on wikipedia. For instance, [SKS Microfinance]. I don't think being a Fortune 500 company is a requirement for having a Wikipedia page as some of you seem to be proposing. The business does significant work in India, and most people with knowledge ofa microfinance have heard of the compny. No offense to anyone in particular, but a misfortunate practice of wikipedia is to allow administrators with no knowledge of a subject to control the information that is presented. I have studied microfinance, and Grama Vidiyal is certainly a notable name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie1858 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment I probably would say that too if I worked there. I think its better to leave the editing of an article about the company you work at to other editors, but that's me. FelisLeoTalk! 08:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As I have said many times, I do NOT work there. There was a miscommunication that fails to go away. Charlie1858 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you said so yourself, at least that is what it says when you follow the diff I linked before. (this one) And to be honest I do not care if you work there or not as long as your edits dont reflect this. (WP:COI). FelisLeoTalk! 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What, then, did you mean when you typed, "This is an organization I work for and am creating the wikipedia page for"?--Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made that up since I thought you had to be someone with direct knowledge of subject to write a wikipedia page...obviously it's the exact opposite :) charlie1858 76.208.60.114 (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]



[http://www.snhu.edu/files/pdfs/Hishigsuren.pdf] dilli2040 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment what is mentioned here in the grama Vidiyal wiki page is a very balanced information which is provided to any person who is interested to know about the organisation. There is no bias towards anyside and every information is definitely supported with the relevant note document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.248.29 (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the page is in a different language click the EN link in the page to view it in english

http://www.ingmicrofinanciering.nl/home/index.php?a=YTozOntpOjM7YToxOntzOjQ6InBhZ2UiO3M6NDoiMjU4MSI7fWk6NDthOjE6e3M6NDoicGFnZSI7czo0OiIyNTgxIjt9aToxO2E6Mjp7czo0OiJ5ZWFyIjtzOjQ6IjIwMDgiO3M6NDoicGFnZSI7czo0OiIyNTgxIjt9fQ==&child=2&mlinkid=2579&2linkid=2581

Video case study of a Grama Vidiyal client

http://www.ingmicrofinanciering.nl/home/index.php?a=YTozOntpOjM7YToxOntzOjQ6InBhZ2UiO3M6NDoiMjczMyI7fWk6NDthOjE6e3M6NDoicGFnZSI7czo0OiIyNzMzIjt9aToxO2E6Mjp7czo0OiJ5ZWFyIjtzOjQ6IjIwMDgiO3M6NDoicGFnZSI7czo0OiIyNzMzIjt9fQ==&child=3&mlinkid=2579&2linkid=2581&3linkid=2715&4linkid=2733 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.248.29 (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


http://news.planetfinance.org/documents/FR/Nominees_MIA_270725_ppt.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.127.142 (talk) 06:06, 6 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 to delete the article.

Freddie Mercury Duets 08[edit]

Freddie Mercury Duets 08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax based on you tube video. Already denied by former Queen member Brian May [35], so sanity check please and speedy close. Tikiwont (talk) 11:54, 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 --JForget 22:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real democracy in america[edit]

Real democracy in america (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research political essay; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The author objected to a PROD on his talk page here and asked for "some brainstorming on this", so I bring it here. There is an existing article National initiative about a similar proposal by Mike Gravel, a former US Senator and presidential candidate, which sets out the facts: I do not think this adds anything except the author's opinions. He wrote another short article National Initiatives and Referenda which defined the terms and said that they "could become part of the American system of government soon"; rather than include that, I have redirected it to National initiative. JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 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 merge to Sewing machine. --jonny-mt 01:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needle guard[edit]

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

Page was created 4 years ago with the comment "This is an educated guess (I have never used a sewing machine}". Since then, edits have consisted largely of altering pronouns and there has been no attempt to expand the article. Hardly surprising, since it would seem to be capable of no more than a dicdef anyway. Emeraude (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a very short article, and indeed it looks like a dictionary definition. I'm not even sure there's anything worth merging here, but again I'm not an expert in the area so I'm not going to go for a keep or delete here. I'm not convinced, though, what Google turns up could provide us with sufficient reliable in-depth sources for a standalone encyclopedia article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But that link refers to guards for hypodermic needles, not sewing machines. Also, look in any good dictionary and you will see definitions for two or more word usages: The OED for example has a defintion of "needle in a haystack". Emeraude (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Love the thimble-ism comment - had me in stitches. But, let's be clear here; this article is not about a thimble (I not suggesting that above editors think it is) but about a very small part of a sewing machine. Just so we don't get sidetracked. Emeraude (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See search. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, we may be having the old "divided by a common language" thing going on here. Just about all the pictures I saw in your UK list would be called a "finger hook" here in the US.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 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, consensus is that the article meets the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian (band)[edit]

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

No claim of meeting WP:Notability or WP:MUSIC in article. No professional reviews found at metacritic or allmusic; albums have not charted. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the guidelines I use for myself, if nothing decent can be found online, does the record label have its own article and have a "decent amount" of blue links to bands. If it's notable to have its own article then fine, however if someone then decided that the record label article is a load of crap too, and puts it up for AfD, then like a house of cards, the whole lot should fall. From what I've seen in these discussions, there seems to be no consistency in what makes a record label notable or not, especially when it comes to fringe type music like metal and classical, who don't typically get main stream media coverage (ie Google), but who maybe big in their own genre.
    (pauses for breath) With all that said, my preference is to try not to use the term "weak keep", you're either for it or against it. Although, by my own guidelines this one is a case of a weak keep. All IMHO of course.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely something to think about. However, I get leary about using blue links (or red links for that matter) as a guide, because all it means is that someone did or didn't make an article, not that notability for that link has been established. I do wish there was more consistency (and a better guide) for what makes a record label notable. It would be a big help. --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree totally on a guideline for the labels. With every band and his dog starting their own labels, including my own band, it's not going to be an easy job coming up with something fair.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:04, 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, Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 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. Singularity 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of parents who homeschool their children[edit]

List of parents who homeschool their children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivia list. Only one attested example is some guy called Jimmy Wales. Troikoalogo (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you may want to have a look at Wikipedia arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 13:20, 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. Singularity 07:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PxSpot[edit]

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

This page looks like spam; content does not seem to meet Wikipedia standards. It contains numerous typos and even shows another photo sharing site "Zooomr" in the Infobox (cut and paste?)Photoact (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional references to this service to meet the needs of noteworthyness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistolhip2 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use this service and I think it's great. It should not be deleted. --Chad M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.133.72 (talk) 18:53, 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 --JForget 22:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle vic tap[edit]

Uncle vic tap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No results, therefore possible hoax. Fails WP:N anyway.  Asenine  08:38, 29 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 speedy delete under G7 - only author blanked the page. --Oxymoron83 08:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Aquino Concepcion[edit]

Andrea Aquino Concepcion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of the repeatedly CSD'd Andrea Concepcion. Fails WP:BIO both external links provided are dead with marginal Ghits – Zedla (talk) 07:47, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haperlosertamostifal[edit]

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

Non-notable, and a protologism. Fails WP:NEO.  Asenine  07:44, 29 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 Redirect to Conor Oberst#Conor Oberst & The Mystic Valley Band (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Oberst & The Mystic Valley Band[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Conor Oberst & The Mystic Valley Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band that lacks outside sources or critical commentary. No indication of contributions to genre. MBisanz talk 07:27, 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. Singularity 07:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollin C Thomas[edit]

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

Rollin is not (yet?) a particularly famous astrophysicist. (I'm sure he will be someday, but not now.) He doesn't even have a tenured position. And he himself has expressed the opinion that he's not really worthy of a page in Wikipedia. (While it's true that he loves his Chumby, he considers the persistence of this statement on his page as proof of the previous statement.) So we should probably delete this page. No offense intended to the original author . . . I know both of them. Mk421 (talk)

The article says he discovered several supernovae, but this isn't verified (where are their names even?). In an age when supernova searches are increasingly automated and depend on high performance computing, collaboratively-written software tools, and international collaborations, who in these groups can be credibly credited as "the" discoverer of a supernova? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.142.242 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SZF (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rcthomas3000 (talk) 07:04, 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 --JForget 22:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eve of Dreams[edit]

Eve of Dreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book by non-notable author. Possibly a hoax. AniMate 07:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia, I have no intentions of displaying inappropriate content. Being that the article about Eve of Dreams is entirely factual and inspired by many fan's interests, I hope that you will reconsider allowing the article to remain. I will be more than happy to continue to update the article with references. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdog717 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 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 Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11, blatant advertising: Protector Plus Antivirus Software is the ideal antivirus protection for your computer. . . - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protector plus[edit]

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

Non-notable, advert article about a company. No coverage in critical sources. MBisanz talk 07:10, 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 Withdraw nomination (non-admin closure) following the very recent decision to merge. WilliamH (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pup-play[edit]

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

Article contains original research in violation of WP:NOR, is inadequately sourced and much of it is a direct copy of the more generalized & previously created page Human animal roleplay. Mh29255 (talk) 06:49, 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.  Sandstein  19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nvision[edit]

Spam for a non-notable (or not-yet-notable) event which relies solely on primary sources, providing nothing but forward looking speculation based on said sources. Crystal ball gazing and nothing more. --Carlos Herradura 06:36, 29 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 - Alex Muller 08:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cohler[edit]

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

I believe this does not meet the standard of WP:BIO. The subject's company obviously does, but not someone who's just an early employee who now works as a vice president. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 06:00, 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 --Selket Talk 03:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Adjusters[edit]

United States Adjusters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP notability standard. References presented are in regard to "public adjusters" in general or other public adjuster corporations, they don't concern this specific corporation. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:42, 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, then create a redirect (no need to keep the history, not merged). Fram (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'ni Guilds[edit]

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

Fails to meet wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. Article is not notable because there are no reliable third party sources to show this is a notable topic by wikipedia standards. Randomran (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After inadvertently typing "D'ni guilds" into WP search, I realized that the information contained on the page "D'ni Guilds" is actually already part of the Myst canon page. The article "D'ni Guilds" is mostly a redundant copy of "D'ni guilds" which has already been merged and redirected with Myst canon.
Redirect this page to Myst canon, as has already been done with D'ni guilds. — OranL (talk) 22:21, 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. Number of editors is not a reason to keep an article, and the fact that it is not a hoax but fictionally exists is not a keep reason either. And the general consensus is that the subject of articles does have to be notable... Fram (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahyoheek[edit]

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

Fails to meet wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. Article is not notable because there are no reliable third party sources to show this is a notable topic by wikipedia standards. Randomran (talk) 05:34, 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. --MCB (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorian Hemingway[edit]

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

I noticed today that an anonymous IP had removed the claim to notability on this article--specifically, that the subject (the granddaughter of Ernest Hemingway) was a Pulitzer Prize-nominated author. Upon doing some digging of my own, it seems that this edit was correct and she was not a finalist in the nomination process and is thus not officially a nominee. (Information on the related work can be found here.)

More digging, including standard Google searches and looking through the news archives, revealed a lack of significant coverage--the most prominent mention I could find of her was here, when she is quoted in an article about her late father. Given this lack of coverage and absence of other verifiable claims to notability, I am not convinced that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines for biographies and creative professionals, and so I am nominating it for deletion. jonny-mt 05:22, 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 Merge and Redirect (Non-admin closure). Seddσn talk Editor Review 18:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISS Enterprise (Star Trek)[edit]

ISS Enterprise (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of several mirror universe episodes. As this information is already covered by those episode articles this is duplicative and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:16, 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. Yeah, no. If the creator of this had even bothered to read up on his science, he'd know that you could be setting off sun-sized nukes on one side of a black whole and they couldn't ever pass through the event horizon. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow hole[edit]

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

Most likely a hoax. Anyone want to defend it? 650l2520 (talk) 04:18, 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; no Google hits aside from mirrors. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks2: Master of Blocks[edit]

Blocks2: Master of Blocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged as ((future game)) but in Category:2007 video games. Last non-bot edit was on February 1, 2007. Zero sources to establish notability. Comment on talk page reads "Upcoming game for Dreamcast WTF???", casting doubts on the article's factual accuracy. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 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. Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayzad[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BIO, WP:N. There are no sources and the only external link is to the author's website of dubious quality. Millbrooky (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Per nom.  Asenine  08:41, 29 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 --JForget 22:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetorical Strategies Of The Reproductive Rights Agendas[edit]

Rhetorical Strategies Of The Reproductive Rights Agendas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

OR Essay, the original editor made it easy with this edit summary "(A work in progress. This intentionally unfinished outline is part of a graded university project.)" LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:39, 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 delete. Singularity 07:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Galerkin[edit]

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

Contested prod.non-notable designer, no secondary sources offered or easily found, possible WP:SPAM.(According to the article's talk page,the creator of the page interviewed Galerkin and used this for the article) Paulbrock (talk) 03:26, 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science[edit]

Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

After an extensive search, I could not find significant discussion of this article's subject, "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Zero hits in an index of book reviews in InfoTrac. Zero hits in (3) different databases of archived news articles, save for 2 which were advertisements put out by organizations affiliated with the book's publisher and the Church of Scientology. No significant discussion in scholarly works. Mentions of "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" in books do not discuss the book or review it in any sort of depth whatsoever, but only briefly mention it in a list of Scientology-related publications, or briefly note the date it appeared as an article in Astounding Science Fiction in a passing mention. Virtually all of the hits from a simple Google search lead back to Scientology-affiliated websites or booksellers, not to any sort of in-depth analysis or discussion in secondary sources. Whatever brief discussion of this there is (as I was not able to find significant discussion in secondary sources) should already be discussed in the article Dianetics. As it is extremely unlikely that individuals would be searching for "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science", there is no need for a merge or a redirect IMO but rather recommend deletion. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No significant discussion appears to be given in those scholarly sources, as I had already mentioned in the nom. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's really nothing more than passing mention of this in any of the sources, then I'd be willing to support merge & redirect to Dianetics. As 23skidoo points out below, the author is notable, the publication is notable, and the church/cult founded on the principles introduced are notable, so there's adequate notability to keep it as a separate article, but as such a small stub without much more to say about it, merging is fine by me. — λ (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect Google Books search, which yields results not directly related to this book. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" at Google Books gives 61 hits, and as I had already stated in the nom, most are only a passing mention, included in a list of works published by the Church of Scientology, and are simply not enough of an in-depth discussion of the book "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" itself. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, we are not talking about a book here, we are talking about a magazine article. There may be some confusion there. If this article is intended to be about the first exposition of Dianetics in Astounding then it is notable indeed and my search was fine and shows notability. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" is the title of this article, and "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" is the book that this article is about. And I was unable to find any book reviews of either the article or the book. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is the article named correctly? What was the title of the Astounding article introducing Dianetics to the world? That article is extremely notable even if the later book is not. That article is what the 184 Google Book hits are about and seeing as Dianetics was incredibly popular in the 1950's I am sure that press from that era would mention the Astounding article also. There is no question as to the notability of the article - much more notable than, say, the 1991 Time article that you did so well with. I am sure that you could make a nice article here instead of AfDing if you cared to. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:FA-rated article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" has been discussed in-depth and in significant detail in numerous secondary sources, book, etc. "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" has not. I don't see how we can have a stand-alone article on "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" when there are virtually no secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that discuss the work in any detail. Cirt (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IDK, did you look at the 184 books that Google came up with? The Gardner book looks interesting. How about Google Scholar? 74 hits there. 26 hits in Google news archives and that is only recent. What about news from the 1950's? Here is one hit from the NY Times, July 1950. All due respect my friend but I think you are not trying. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is going in circles, and thus I will refer to my first reply to your initial comment that your search terms are incorrect and do not go to this specific article about "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science". You can have the last word. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I can have the last word then why did you take it by repeating your argument. But go ahead, you take it. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being redundant . . . IDK, did you look at the 184 books that Google came up with? The Gardner book looks interesting. How about Google Scholar? 74 hits there. 26 hits in Google news archives and that is only recent. What about news from the 1950's? Here is one hit from the NY Times, July 1950. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I gave your searches the benefit of the doubt, and gave them a look-over. They are all of the type Cirt mentioned. They typically don't contain much more than a statement of fact that the first Dianetics article appeared in Astounding, even that Gardner book you mentioned. None of them go into any detail about the contents of the article. I happen to agree with you that the article is important in Scientology, being the first introduction of it to the world, but it's only notable for the fact that it was first. That's a notable fact for another article, but there's just not enough content in reliable sources for it to merit an article of its own. --GoodDamon 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mon. My point is simply that the article in Astounding is extremely notable and the numerous mentions of it speak to its notability. Certainly some off-net research would be needed to make the article into much more than a stub but that is not reason to delete it. There is no real reason to delete it. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that an article like this could ever become much more than a stub. Everything about the subject's content is covered elsewhere, and while I agree that the fact of its existence is notable, I'm not sure it should be a separate article. It's part of the history of Scientology, and perhaps deserves the first spot on any Scientology time-line. But there's not enough material about the article subject itself to expand it beyond a stub, at least that I can find so far. My suggestion, if you'd like to change my mind, is to dig up some of that "off-net" content and get it into the article post-haste. --GoodDamon 17:56, 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 --JForget 22:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archimania[edit]

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

Nonnotable architectural firm, no independent sources cited, reads like an ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:14, 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 g3 vandalism, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Thompson[edit]

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

Contested prod. Cannot find a evidence of this person, appears to be a complete hoax. TN‑X-Man 03:14, 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. No consensus to delete; article is notable. Malinaccier (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featherproof books[edit]

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

Non-notable vanity press; Zach Dodson is up for AfD as well.

Also listing the cofounder:

Jonathan Messinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Featherproof is not a vanity press, no one other the AFD initiator has (per Google) ever described it as a vanity press, and nothing on its website indicates it to be a vanity press. It's a new, small, independent publisher which has attracted a nontrivial amount of attention in the media which focus on small presses. This jihad conducted by a number of meanspirited editors against the user who created this and related articles violates WP:BITE, not to mention Wikipedia's policies regarding good faith, personal attacks, and civility, as well as the policies regarding campaigning on matters like this. This sort of contagious, poisonous behavior has nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been a notability tag sitting on the page since September last year, I think that enough good faith has been assumed. The first [Special:Contributions/Justinhoffman editor] to edit these pages has contributed nothing outside these pages. The same is true of the [Special:Contributions/MegBaker second editor]. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that justifies lying about the press and abusing people associated with it? Thats a disgusting notion. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally wrong. There are notable indie movie, music, and video game creators who self-publish, especially now with digital distribution, who work out of the owners' homes. No reason why not the same in books. Working out of one's home has nothing to do with notability. (Tolstoy worked out of his home.) I'm voting delete below but definitely not for this fake reason. Tempshill (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really mean anything, for multiple reasons. First, that could be because no one's bothered to write the articles yet; it isn't necessarily indicative of a lack of notability per se. Secondly, the notability or lack of notability of a product doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the notability of the producer. The company could be the subject of multiple independent pieces of coverage, as this one is, while their product is not. Celarnor Talk to me 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a feature on the subject, but its more than a trivial mention; it discusses the subject for about 6 sentences. Celarnor Talk to me 16:29, 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 --JForget 22:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Dodson[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Primary claim to notability is writing a graphic novel, but it's published by his own company (AFD) and apparently not due until Fall 2008. His company may, may, be notable, but Dodson himself is given only passing mentions in reliable, independent sources. —Cryptic 02:47, 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. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hullah[edit]

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

No apparent notability; sources don't seem substantial. Related to Teenage Dog Orgy AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notice the article's seen improvement while this discussion was ongoing (very much appreciated). If not notable, Hullah does seem to be approaching that benchmark. I notice replies made later on are more likely to favor keeping the article. Might be a no consensus close? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Qworty, is it possible to critique an article without being so unbelievably rude about it? Maybe the man fell in love with and married a Japanese woman. Maybe he heard a calling to do something different with his life. Whatever the reason, surely you could have judged the content, rather than disparage the person. --Faith (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Being the editor of the author/estate-sanctioned edition of the collected poetry of a major literary figure like Iris Murdoch, coupled with a reasonably sigificant publishing history, ought to be sufficient to demonstrate reasonable notability to anyone moderately familiar with English-language literature. This AFD is a sad display of the meanspiritedness, ignorance, and incivility of the several of the editors involved. User:Qworty's comments violate Wikipedia's policies on civility, against personal attacks, requiring an assumption of good faith, and otherwise indicate deficiencies in basic human decency. To post a disparaging rant against a living person based solely on the nonsensical idea that an English-language academic who has chosen to teach in Japan is inherently incompetent, second-rate, etc., is vile behavior, well below Wikipedia's standards of civility. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Agree entirely. Qworty's is an uncivil and unreasonable personal attack on the subject of the entry, not the entry itself. --stupelo
  • Comment: This is incorrect, as my post immediately above this one shows. One of the books was cited in two different journal articles; it was also cited by the Australian government (http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/pubs/convict-sites.pdf) in "Convict Sites". WP:ICANNOTFINDIT isn't a good reason for deletion, as someone else has found it. --Faith (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment (since the text was edited): Subject also has two eleven journal entries and several respectable books, all sufficient for notability per WP:NOTE. --Faith (talk) 03:50, 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. Singularity 07:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty of the United Nations[edit]

Sovereignty of the United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A personal essay, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:32, 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 Article speedied by User:Cobaltbluetony, blatant advertising TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-IN²[edit]

C-IN² (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be advertising. No third-party sources given to establish notability. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:31, 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. Singularity 06:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Dog Orgy[edit]

Teenage Dog Orgy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

After a brief discussion with DragonflySixtyseven, neither of us has been able to confirm this band's erstwhile existence as of yet. In the article, the group is described as a four-person group active in 1985 and 1986 which produced no albums and gave a handful of live performances (at unspecified venues in Scotland). Of the listed members, only Paul Hullah has an article, and that article happens to be the only other major contribution of Blescoe (talk · contribs) (who I believe claims to be Hullah himself while uploading Image:Redshirt.jpg); the Hullah article itself might also be a candidate for an AfD.

The article does cite three sources, but beyond confirming the existence of such publications I can't speak to their contents just yet. I'm a bit torn, here. Am I not finding confirmation because I don't know where to look, or because it's not so much there to be found? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:26, 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. Not an easy one to close, admittedly. Wizardman 15:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soundview School[edit]

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

The notability of this school does not appear to be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:26, 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, article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Culture[edit]

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

Obscure band with no obvious notability Ecoleetage (talk) 02:15, 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.  Sandstein  19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solage (poetry)[edit]

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

Notability for this style of poetry appears to be lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment By the way, this is my first ever deletion discussion, so apologies in advance if I accidentally break etiquette. Please AGF. -- De Guerre (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bon jour, De Guerre! Welcome to the AfD orbit! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't winning an Australian state prize in poetry make you at least stub-worthy? I would have thought so. Anyway, I'm actually more concerned about losing the edit history (for GFDL reasons) than losing the article, which is why I proposed a rename (it would be a merge if he actually had a stub) instead of a delete. Still, I'm happy to go with the consensus. -- De Guerre (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response In concept, yes. But you need to add that information to the article. Mr. Semmens is not represented here, unfortunately. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:46, 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 per WP:SNOW. –Cheers, LAX 15:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE wins top 10[edit]

WWE wins top 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unnecessary page that will almost certainly be out of date frequently. It also contains no content except for a poorly formatted table. Mblumber (talk) 01:52, 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 - WP:SNOW and this was already deleted once before under another name which elludes me at the moment. -Djsasso (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NHL Quarterfinals Riot, Montreal[edit]

2008 NHL Quarterfinals Riot, Montreal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not the news. This riot isn't notable, it sounds like something typical. Also it seems like an attack page: "were commited by those who weren't necessarily fans but also by social deviants such as Communists, Anarchists and Punks." and "the city looked upon itself in shame considering that it was only the Quarterfinals and celebrations such as these shouldn't be normal until a Stanley Cup victory" Coasttocoast (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can have that viewpoint, and you're free to nominate for AfD whatever articles you choose. Do you have examples? What made this riot particularly noteworthy? Contrast for instance with the Richard Riot, which was significant in the franco/anglophone Canadian context. Franamax (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This riot was one of the first in Montreal's history to be captured not only live, but also by fans capturing the event on their hand-held portable devices such as videophones. 56 arrests were made thanks to videos that were put on websites such as YouTube. This was the first sports-related riot in Montreal since the 1993 Stanley Cup Riot and was the first riot to put on YouTube, where the (majority?) of criminals were identified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habs4ever (talk • contribs) 15:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary coverage is there; had the article been written in a more encyclopedic, non-POV way, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Habs4ever, you might want to check the Wikipedia style guide for future reference. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 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 Speedily deleted as obvious hoax per lack of verifiable sources, though the pseudo sources add to the allure. Dlohcierekim 01:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joquiste[edit]

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

This looks like a hoax. A google search for the term turned up nothing. —BradV 00:51, 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 speedily deleted (G7) by User:Gwen Gale (non-admin notice). ~ Eóin (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kory Robertson[edit]

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

Player was undrafted in the 2008 NFL Draft and signed with the Dolphins in May. He has decided to retire as indicated here. I will admit I created this article too hastily, and seeing as how Robertson has never played professionally and merely taken part in some practices in the offseason, he is not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:49, 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. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Weaver[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable actor. No reliable sources present for article (just a lot of claims). "Most notable role" was as a recurring on a TV show produced by a local network that only aired 14 episodes total. Declined speedy. Also, probable COI. Cquan (after the beep...) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone who is not at work might want to consider retagging for Speedy Deletion. I do not see where the speedy was declined. I only see that it was dettaged by the creator of the article. Cheers,
I took it as a declined speedy when an admin (User:DGG) didn't restore the tag/delete the article, but restored the COI tag. Cquan (after the beep...) 07:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. He's pretty thorough. Macht nichts, in the long run. Maybe something will turn up that changes my mind. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:41, 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 deleted already by A7. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Dukes[edit]

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

I created this article when Dukes was signed as an undrafted free agent by the Miami Dolphins in 2007. However, he left the team shortly after signing, returned to school at Clemson and has never been heard from since. As you can see here, left the squad last August and was let go from the team this year. I admittedly created this article too hastily, and Mr. Dukes is not and likely never will be notable enough. He has never played in the NFL, played in the preseason or even taken part on training camp. I think this is an open and shut case. ►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pats1 has deleted, can someone close?►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:25, 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. Singularity 06:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Danish Hasan[edit]

Syed Danish Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rather good high school math student. Significant independent sources do not exist for the subject. The best I could find was this. Does not satisfy notability, delete. ~ Eóin (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir,
First of all I am Mr. Rakesh Singh. I am writing it because some of the people on my wikipedia talk page have claimed that I am Danish myself. This is definitely untrue else this would have been self promotion. I am the current P.A. of Mr. Jagdish Gandhi(article on him is already present on wikipedia), the founder manager of City Montessori School,Lucknow.
This article has been added to wikipedia to present forward the achievements of Danish Hasan who has been the most commendable student of the institution itself. His achievements are present on the article itself.
Besides, as a reference, I would like to state that Danish is now well known in India and abroad for several reasons.
(1) To be in the ICSE (Indian Certificate of Secondary Education Examination) prescribed Merit List is not a joke. He has secured 9th position among 1,586,547 candidates appearing for ICSE 2008 Examination.
(2) He is Gold Medalist at International Mathematics Competition 2007, Singapore.
(3) He secured All India 1st position in AAT 2006 in the subject Commercial Studies.
(4) On 20-5-2008 Danish's interview was tsken live on 'Sahara Rastriya', Indian Hindi news channel.
(5) His ICSE achievement was published in over 15 newspapers.
Sir if you still hold any doubt about the reliability of the text, I can email you all his certificates & cuttings from newspapers at your email address. So kindly send me your email address on our account for Danish - danish14011992@gmail.com
Lastly, you can check out the official website of CMS- www.cmseducation.org/
City Montessori School(CMS) is itself the Guiness Record holder for maximum number of students in a single college. Rest you can check out on the website.
Thanking you,
Rakesh Singh.
--Danish14011992 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC) (diff)[reply]


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

The result was A7 by Gwen Gale , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Jefferson[edit]

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

De-prodded by IP address, who based off the articles history appears to be the articles creator. Unsourced non-notable poker player with no substantial accomplishments or independent coverage. –– Lid(Talk) 00:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Greenwash. Incidentally, pure transwiki and merge discussions don't require AfDs, so feel free to be bold in the future. --jonny-mt 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic detoxification[edit]

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

Several reasons to delete:

My recommendation: move to Wiktionary and merge leftover content to greenwashing.

Novasource (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the majority of those results are scholarly research or testimony, that actually buttresses the idea that this is not a common term. That means it doesn't need its own page. Novasource (talk) 18:26, 7 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.
More