< September 3	September 5 >

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

The result was delete. Non existent album. Black Kite 22:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unplugged (David Chance album)[edit]

This is an unnotable album that fails WP:MUSIC. There are no references, nothing to verify it. It is stated that the album by David Chance but he doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, so why should his album have an article? ~~Another thing to note: It said it will be released in December 2007 and yet the album is still in future tense and has the upcoming album template, so it seems the article has been abandoned.~~ Actually, this album was scrapped. Scratch what I said earlier.Tavix (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 23:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mr. Chance is from Ruff Endz, which do have an article. However, that article specifically says this album was scrapped, as Ruff Endz reformed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Renata (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique dela Costa[edit]

This article is about what appears to be a non-notable doctor from South America. It contains vague and/or fraudulent references, and the article's factual accuracy is disputed. It was created by a newbie whose only contributions were to that page. It is poorly formated and would need severe cleanup if it were to be kept (not that this is a standalone reason to delete the article of course). There was an ANI discussion regarding this article. This was a contested speedy deletion canidate. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible hoax. There may be a fisherman with the name Enrique dela Costa, but the claim that there is a great Argentine humanitarian by that name is not shown by any easily-reached sources and can't be shown from Google. There is no 'Enrique dela Costa' or 'Enrique de la Costa' mentioned in Ref 1, which is available on Google Books. The doctor seems to have graduated medical school at age 19. The great humanitarian is said to have taken a four-year sabbatical in Australia, starting in 2004, where he devotes himself to catching large fish. Sometimes we have confidence in the article because we know something about the editor. But in this case, the article is the only work of a brand-new editor, so we can't learn anything from his previous reputation. The ANI discussion of this article is found here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as this appears to be a hoax. Then block the editor who made this. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no speedy criterion for hoaxes unless they amount to vandalism. – ukexpat (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... I can understand why an article about a hoax could not be speedied, but an article about a non-existent thing, person or place that tries to look real is most certainly vandalism, plain and simple. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks hoaxy to me... – ukexpat (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is either: 1) A hoax or 2) a non-notable doctor. Either way it is getting deleted. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 15:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoaxalicious. It makes a lot of grand claims, but doesn't back any of them up. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to meet the criteria of WP:Verifiability. — Satori Son 18:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Suburbs (Online series)[edit]

YouTube video series with no evidence of notability. The only sources cited in the article are links to YouTube. Orlady (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which are essentially extensions of the main article:

Orlady (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no reliable secondary sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party references; I can't find anything to demonstrate notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. It's the author's job to go hunting for references, not ours. WikiScrubber (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable web content. Jfire (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne M. Keller[edit]

This person does not appear to be important enough to have her own article. She is a mayor of a city, but not much else can be said about her. --- RockMFR 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:BIO. Horselover Frost (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Wasilla, Alaska. She is notable within this article. --Pmedema (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than the fact she followed Palin there seems to be very little to say about her. Take Palin out of the picture (e.g. [1]) and I can't see her being a subject of significant coverage by reliable sources. I also disagree with redirecting to the town. We aren't in the business of having town articles list every mayor they've ever had, and she won't be mayor forever. So, once she steps down it isn't clear that Wasilla, Alaska would even mention here (right now she is only mentioned in the infobox). Dragons flight (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Apparently capital "OR" is much more effective than lower case "or". Count me as neutral for now. Dragons flight (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of new sources, which would indicate significant third-party coverage. It's at least enough to demonstrate notability for what text is there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand plenty of coverage of her and the town that is separate from Ms. Palin and I'm guessing at least a small amount of it is significant and non-trivial coverage of the Mayor herself. Though I agree that we need to do our absolute best to keep people from either side of the political spectrum from using the article as a WP:COATRACK. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete? You're kidding right? I don't think at this stage of her career the woman needs a 5,000-word article, but she is definitely notable. She is notable within the Wasilla, Alaska community, which has received a lot of media attention here recently. And shoot me, but I think just about ANY mayor of ANY decent-sized town deserves a Wikipedia listing just because they are heads of local governments and their actions affect thousands of people. 68.12.110.233 (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mayor of a small town deserves the same respect that we would accord a large city mayor. Do not ban information that does not seem relevent to another person, because all information is relevent. jojhutton (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant in relation to Sarah Palin and her past history. I wish people would spend time creating and fixing articles rather than attempting to delete them. Moncrief (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:COATRACK and wholly unencyclopedic seicer | talk | contribs 21:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasilla librarian letter of termination[edit]

Possibly the finest example of a WP:COATRACK I've ever encountered. Acroterion _(talk) 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because not only does the article seem fragmented and not much about a letter at all, it is also thoroughly unencyclopedic because it's about an insignificant incident. Stijndon (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, perhaps you could explain what section of WP:COATRACK you believe this falls under. As you know the Palin article is protected, so no new information can be included there. The present Palin article mentions Palin's intention to dismiss the librarian, and her inquiries as to removing books. I assume the editors' consensus is that that information is worthy of Wikipedia. Wasilla librarian letter of termination elaborates on it in the only way possible, in a separate article, and it presents information that has broken since. It does so along the lines of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. In the same way, a separate article was suggested for the librarian's notice of termination, and I acted on it.

Well, let's see. The article's about a letter of termination to a librarian, which apparently mentions no specific circumstances. Then ... it's all about some possible effort, not clearly expressed, on the part of Sarah Palin to remove library books she deemed unwholesome. Maybe. The appropriate title of the article is probably Vague allegations of intimidation for possible censorship of library materials by Sarah Palin. That she may have views of this sort is not very shocking, but nothing really happened. If she'd advocated issuing 12-year olds copies of The Catcher in the Rye or Judy Blume books, that'd be article-worthy, in the context of her politics. Acroterion _(talk) 01:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you think that way, Acroterion. The letter does mention circumstances. Palin said she did not feel she had the full support of the librarian. The only difference the press has covered is Emmons's refusal to remove books from the library, and the letter comes after a clear effort on Palin's part to see if the librarian was amenable to censorship. Three times in the first few months of her tenure as mayor, Palin asked Emmons about removing books from the library, three times Emmons refused, and twice she was sent a letter. The first letter asked for her resignation, the second told her that her job would end in two weeks. Only after the community rose up to support Emmons did Palin back off. Just because Palin did not accomplish what she set out to do doesn't mean that nothing happened. A lot happened. The newspapers thought it was important enough to write about at the time, and more so now. You mention the context of Palin's politics, but this is her politics, and her politics are news. We don't have many examples of what she's like, so the few we do have, even if they took place in rural small-town Alaska, are significant -- if only due to her sudden rise. Like.liberation 18:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In the references, you'll note the piece in the Anchorage Daily News, published today, citing Emmons herself as saying that Palin approached her several times about removing books from the library. Both facts in italics are new and deserve note, given that Anne Kilkenny is qualified with the epithet "democrat" and that multiple sources, which include the librarian herself, constitute more substantial evidence. Like.liberation 22:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete. per WP:COATRACK Ronnotel (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and take it to the talk page of the protected article. Splinter articles about controversial news do not an encyclopedia make. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear. The facts are not controversial, they are simply facts. They come from multiple sources and have been published in three vastly different newspapers (The Frontiersman, The Anchorage Daily News and The New York Times). They are not editorials nor do they have a bias, which is what I assume Acroterion perceives in this article.

The incident itself was an important one at the beginning of Palin's political career. If she committed controversial acts, then those should be on the record. Her early and persistent interest in censorship bears on her political views, and is therefore relevant to her present status as vice-presidential nominee. When one reads an article on a politician, that is precisely the kind of information one is looking for. Not the basketball teams or marijuana or pregnancies. That's ancillary.

So if this article is deleted, then the content of it should be included in Sarah Palin's bio. Like.liberation 23:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above. I'm for Obama and Biden all the way, and I think they'd probably agree that this is precisely the kind of information that most people would consider pretty trivial. Mandsford (talk) 23:40, 4 September

2008 (UTC)

I don't think our political views should lend authority to our views in this discussion of whether or not the article should be deleted. The fact of the matter is, almost everything Palin did as mayor of Wasilla is trivial in terms of the consequences to the rest of us back then, for the simple reason that Wasilla's a very small town. But now she is the vice-presidential nominee, with just two years of gubernatorial experience, and many more years as mayor, so what she did in Wasilla is one of the only ways people can get an indication of the vice president she would be.

Now, one of her first forays into governing was to ask the librarian about removing books, and then to fire her when she refused. Let's imagine that happening in any of our towns. How would we feel? Would we draw conclusions about a politician based on that action? It seems like a meaningful incident, and one that deserves inclusion.

If Acroterion or anyone else has suggestions for how this should be stated, and where, please say so. Like.liberation 00:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The news pertains to a controversy. As such, presenting it in a splinter article is exactly what WP:COATRACK is about. Since you agree it belongs in the main article, take it back to the talk page there and work toward consensus. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you'll agree, Ningauble, that controversy is a subjective term. The news here pertains to a series of events that some deem significant. Significance should be a sufficient condition for an event to merit an article.

Articles necessarily overlap with each other, and to include all pertinent articles in any one main article would make it infinite and unreadable. So though I agree that some information contained in Wasilla librarian letter of termination should be in the Sarah Palin bio, I also believe that it deserves its own space, because there are several nuances that perhaps not everyone would want to read. I think some mention in the bio, with a link to a separate article, would strike the right balance.

But I thank you for the suggestion to have some of it included in the bio, and I've presented it on the discussion page.Like.liberation 01:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete Agreed... this is an excelent example of a WP:COATRACK--Pmedema (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coatrack and POV fork. Kelly ^hi! 01:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sarah Palin (in extremely cut-down form). This might be worthy of inclusion in the Palin article, but not notable enough for its own article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (Selectively merge) into the Sarah Palin article. Pare it down a bit. Has 2 refs, and the issue of library censorship is relevant to political philosophy of a politician. Not important enough for a standalone article, but part of a complete picture to provide a NPOV article. More important than her husband liking snowmobile racing. A merge argument is not a delete argument. Edison (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Read WP:SYNTH - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am familiar with it. It does not apply. The reliable sources in the article address the subject withouit the need for original research in the form of synthesis. Edison (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment "the issue of library censorship is relevant to political philosophy of a politician". Sounds very much like synthesis when you use these references to make a point about politics because you believe it to be relevant. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK. It fails the "significant lasting and historical interest and impact" test of WP:NOTNEWS as well - after the election it will be forgotten except by extreme partisans. Incident could maybe have a mention in Sarah Palin if consensus can be achieved that it's important enough. JohnCD (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pick a reason WP:COATRACK, fails WP:N and WP:V, non-encyclopedic, extremely unlikely search term, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NOTNEWS, POV fork, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jasynnash2, you've given one word arguments, most of which are not valid. The article does not fail WP:N or WP:V. The events are clearly verifiable, and have been reported on at length, which should serve as evidence of their notability. The article on Palin has expanded drastically since she was selected as VP nominee, and most of the newsworthy events of her early political life have acquired greater significance, including this one, which has been reported on in Time, The New York Times and The Anchorage Daily News. If the McCain-Palin ticket is elected, it will acquire even greater import, and I think, JohnCD, that you would agree that the vice president's views on censorship and past interest in it is of significant and lasting historical interest and impact. I tried to make the article as NPOV as possible. If you have suggestions, please make them. Like.liberation 18:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Like.liberation (talk • contribs)

Okay. More than one word. It fails the notability criteria and the verifiability criteria because it has not received significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources (even the references in the article don't cover the letter in a non-trivial manner). It fails WP:COATRACK for all the reasons that have previously been stated here and at the other WP:COATRACKy articles that are being created on this subject/person/etc. WP:NOTINHERITED may be abit iffy but, basically saying that claims that the letter is notable because Palin wrote it, etc fall under this. "If the McCain-Palin ticket is elected, it will acquire even greater import," is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Do you really need me to fill up this debate with multiple words explaining why this fails the number of other policies that it fails? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious coatrack. --Crusio (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. Wikipedia is being used to promote and sensationalize in a political contest. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Dlohcierekim 15:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Partisanship has hit a new level. Arzel (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a soapy coatrack. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In all fairness to like-liberation, the author, I read an AP report about this in today's paper, but I maintain that this does not justify its own article. I would call this a dumb mistake, similar to Joe Biden plagiarizing from Neil Kinnock, or John McCain getting involved in the S & L bailouts, or Barack Obama not distancing himself further from Rev. Wright. It should be mentioned in the article about her, since her first act as mayor seems to have been a purge of city officials. But letters of termnation to librarians are not notable regardless of the circumstance. Mandsford (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and as WP:COATRACK. I have requested a much more minimal version of this info be added to the Sarah Palin article - see Talk:Sarah_Palin#Proposed_change_to_Wasilla_section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:COATRACK Captain-tucker (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:POVFORK used as a WP:COATRACK. If anything about this incident is to be mentioned, it should be in Sarah Palin's article. --Farix (Talk) 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to the repeated argument that this article is a coatrack, let me just say this: It's notability has been established by a plethora of reliable secondary sources. An account of Palin's early interest in book removal should be included in Wikipedia as an aspect for her politics, and can be articulated in a neutral manner, which is what I'm attempting to do. Bias is not a necessary characteristic of this piece. If there is bias, I invite editors to help establish a more neutral tone. The only other reason to delete it would be due to an excess of attention on a trivial event. However, as anyone can see on the Sarah Palin talk page, accounts of the library and termination episode, even those proposed by Palin supporters, are running at a minimum of 300 words, and that's just for her bio (doesn't that suggest this incident is important?). It deserves more but there's a consensus for brevity on that page. The "more," which would include a statement from the library, should go in Wasilla librarian letter of termination, although I agree with the anonymous contributor below that the piece should be renamed.Like.liberation 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Like.liberation (talk • contribs)

Keep I don't know wikipolicies well enough to cite, but I can speak personally. I keep hearing people saying "She tried to get books banned! She Tried to get books banned" So I think that this issue is noteworthy. However, I could not muddle my way through all the internet comments, so I think this article is necessary. This page give a good, relatively unbiased, account; it points out that she did seem to be investigating the removal of books, but it gives the explicit phrasing ("How would you respond if I asked this ..." is different from "Do this ...") and it has references for further investigation. Unfortunately, this much information does not belong in the Sarah Palin article. Come on, the whole point of hypertext is that you can have links for expanding issues.

I do think it should be renamed, though. (How about Wasilla Library Controversy, or some such) --162.83.219.74 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 162.83.219.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Williams (disambiguation)[edit]

Contested prod. I see no reason to disambiguate between the singer and their album. I already put a hatnote on the singer's page, pointing to the athlete. Compare Tracy Byrd, which has a hatnote pointing to the boxer of the same name, but no dab for Byrd's album. Doug Stone and Clay Walker also use hatnotes in a same fashion, with no dab for each singer's self-titled albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Delete. I agree this would be much better being dealt with by hat notes given that a hat note from singer to albulm would seem sensible regardless of a whether we have a disambiguation page. With that in mind, IMO, it comes down to how best to deal with the athlete and I see no reason why this can't be dealt with by an extra hat note, especially as the singer seems much more notable than the athlete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs)

I still think hat notes is the better way of doing this but given the arguements below which suggest other pages do it differently I'm changing my delete to a weak delete. Dpmuk (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One hatnote is preferable to two if one can accomplish the same task. Articles about singers/bands who have produced self-titled albums should make this distinction by way of disambiguation. The fact that the Tracy Byrd article does not adhere to this standard does not negate the value of this aspect of disambiguation. Even if it was determined that these two secondary entries are not sufficient to constitute a disambiguation page (even though I believe them to be sufficient), standard practice would be to redirect the disambiguation page to the primary article so that if another "Lucinda Williams" was eventually given an article and a user attempted to recreate this disambiguation page, he or she would not question the recreation out of a fear that a consensus had already been reached stating that the disambiguation page should not exist. Neelix (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to mention two standards there (a. self title albulms should have a disambiguation page and b. the disambiguation page should be redirected to the primary page) without mentioning any specific policy, documetation, consensus etc. Is there an actual wikipedia policy or similar or is this just your take on usual wikipedia practice. If there is a policy, or even just a prior consensus, you can point me to I'd be willing to change my vote. Dpmuk (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the first standard that you mention, self-titled albums do not necessarily require disambiguation pages; they simply require disambiguation. A simple distinguishing hatnote would suffice in many cases, but where other entries are also possible (as in this case), a single link to a disambiguation page is generally preferable to multiple distinguishing hatnotes. The guidelines on Wikipedia:Hatnote tend to emphasize the importance of limiting the space taken up by hatnotes while making sure that they sufficiently cover the articles requiring disambiguation. Self-titled albums are (in my opinion) covered by the purpose of disambiguation expressed on Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic." For example, The Beatles (disambiguation) lists The Beatles' self-titled album. Because of this first standard, I do not believe the second to even come into play. I mention it only because I believe that this discussion should not be a deletion discussion but simply a discussion on the disambiguation talk page. A lot of the work I do on Wikipedia deals with disambiguation pages. I don't know of any official policy to redirect disambiguation pages to their primary articles when not in use, but I come across examples of them very frequently. Constantine (disambiguation), for example, redirected to Constantine until I re-established it. Neelix (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete We don't need a disambiguation if the hatnote has already done its job. This is yet another example of a disambiguation that isn't needed. Tavix (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hatnote is sufficient. ff m 22:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Obviously canvassed votes have been given little weighting; there has been no real response to the concerns about notability and verifiability. Neıl ☄ 11:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando Gomez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article, authored primarily about its subject, was subject to a previous AFD in July 2006. There, there was no real consensus, as much of the page was flooded by the subject/author's pleas to keep the article. As it stands, the article does not really demonstrate that the subject is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I was originally directed to this article because of its authorship and questionable content for notability purposes. It is time that this autobiographical puff piece be sent into the trash bin.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, but where's the claim to notability? And the sources? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not properly sourced, probable conflict of interest.--Boffob (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems notable as primarily as author. No doubt a COI, but no outrageous claims are made. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The links quoted should be sufficient to establish notability. The article already went through one AFD, how many AFD's do articles go through? I believe there are underlying reasons to the deletion, as stated above, "I was originally directed to this article because of its authorship and questionable content for notability purposes." What does this say for Wikipedia, that those with deletion powers can be biased based on perhaps a stalker, competitor, or jealous person's remarks? Why not post who directed you and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.15.133 (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC) — 72.191.15.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment I don't think the article should necessarily be deleted, as I think the subject passes WP:N, but the information must be properly sourced, and only information from reliable third-party sources must be used. It would need the Heymann Standard for a keep. Jeremiah (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, see *Lexar Elites as just one of many examples for credible sources--this is from a publicly traded corporation on the Stock Exchange that honored Gomez with "Elite" status over six years ago along with other notable photographers listed on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.112.174 (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand The article passed the first AFD, it looks bad if Wikipedia will constantly challenge articles, that have only been updated but not violated any standards. AFD 2nd nomination? What happens after it passes the 2nd? Do we do a 3rd, in two years? Think of the precedence these additional AFD's will cause for additional workload on voting member editors? What are we doing here? Now to answer some proper sourcing, simple "Google" will bring you to see outside source information, like the non-profit, Palm Beach Photographic Center organization, http://www.workshop.org/pages/rolando_gomez_glamour_lighting.html or Imaging Info, http://www.digitalimagingmag.com/publication/article.jsp?id=1477&pubId=2 or http://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=3&id=65&pageNum=2 and more examples, http://www.glamour1.com/about/tearsheets/rolandogomez.php and http://www.henselusa.com/rolandogomez.html and http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Sep06/showpage.taf?page=24 (the latter a national publication and written by author Michelle Perkins) http://www.lexar.com/dp/pro_photo/rgomez.html (a publicly traded corporation) and http://www.samys.com/newsletters/2007-02-consumer.php (the largest camera store chain in California) and http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0202/lajes.html (U.S. Airforce) to name a few. What more sourcing do you need, his DD214 from the U.S. Army? A copy of his diploma? Would we require everyone in Wiki to send copies of their college diploma's, honorable discharge certificates, birth certificates, etc? I'm sure they could be scanned and provided, but that leads to privacy issues with social security numbers. Thoughts? 74.38.112.174 (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 74.38.112.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep~~ I am appalled at the inputs questioning the integrity of Rolando Gomez in reference to the information listed on Wikipedia. I have known Rolando for almost 10 years. I am very familiar with his background, experience and achievements and I have seen his official DD Form 214 listing his military time in service, awards and decorations. I can also confirm that he earned his bachelor’s degree in communication and electronic media while working at the Air Force News Agency in San Antonio and his selection as the agency’s 1997 senior-level civilian of the year. Rolando worked for me as chief of multimedia at the agency and it was a great loss to the Air Force when he decided to leave the agency to pursue his current endeavors. He is now one of the top glamour photographers in the country, an exceptional speaker and a noted author on the subject of glamour photography. I served 26 years in the Air Force as a combat photographer in Vietnam and public relations officer in Saudi Arabia during operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield, and I am upset over innuendos besmirching the career of a fellow military veteran. I do not know if those commenting have any military experience, but if they do, they know that military records are official government documents and Rolando can provide any documentation of his military and civilian achievements to squelch these malicious comments. I still work at the agency as an Air Force civilian employee in senior management and proud to serve beside military service members and civilian employees like Rolando. -- Jeff Whitted, deputy for public affairs operations [jeff.whitted(at)afnews.af.mil] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.15.133 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please understand that the questioning of this article is not in regards to "the integrity of Rolando Gomez in reference to the information listed on Wikipedia." The issue is whether there are enough available third-party sources (see WP:N and WP:V) that can allow an editor to write an article without performing any original research. Jeremiah (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP has already commented on this discussion, and it appears that all individuals who are using it have a vested interest in whether or not the article remains on Wikipedia. The IP who brought the article to DRV is the same who said this article should be kept here, and now it was said twice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources means that this article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no verifiable third-party references to establish notability.freshacconci talktalk 16:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per AFD, if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. This does seem to be an accomplished, award-wining photographer who has authored several books on the subject and speaks and advises on the subject. Clean-up, add sourcing and spell out notability upfront and clearly per WP:Lede. ::Banjeboi 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, per AFD, if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. I'm very aware of this photographer, I've seen him speak at national conventions and I have spoken along side him. These events have included Photo Plus Expo in New York and Photo Imaging and Design in San Diego, and I can attest to his notable credibility. He has authored several books on the subject and speaks and advises on the subject in many venues. I might add, from my 20 plus years of professional experience in celebrity and advertising photography, you cannot "just speak or lecture" at these notable venues unless you have some serious credentials. To sum it up, clean it up, add sourcing as recommended. Jerry Avenaim (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "Keep per AFD" mean? I'm suggesting that this article should be deleted because there are no non-biased third party sources that support that this man is notable. All that was there was a list of external links to his works, references in another sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were plenty of links, which you deleted, off the original article-that were from third-parties, but somehow you label them as biased? On what grounds? When Lexar selects and Elite Photographer, does that make that photographer's biography on their web site biased and inaccurate? When Photo District News (PDN) posts a news release, in PDF format, does that make PDN biased--when in fact PDN is a monthly news magazine on photography. When an author of another book dedicates an entire chapter on Gomez, does that make that editor biased and does that mean their comments in their own book are inaccurate? You are splitting hairs here and accusing others that have selected Gomez to speak or feature him at their venues as biased? Doesn't make sense. I think there needs to be a serious review of what makes an link biased or not and you also appear very biased at deleting, instead of being proactive and helping, because you were the original admin that deleted this article and now your own pride is involved--that is a perception that is apparent simply by looking at the logs of this debate and the article where you keep deleting links and moving discussions over to other pages--I can assure you this comment will be moved by you unfairly as you've done others, but yet your comment for Mr. Avenaim, will stay. Now where is the bias? 74.38.112.174 (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Please remember to assume good faith when commenting here. There is nothing wrong with this deletion nomination. No one has a right to be in Wikipedia. If the subject is notable and there are verifiable third-party sources, then the article will most likely be kept. However, per Wikipedia guidelines, the subject does not appear to pass notability standards per WP:CREATIVE and appropriate sources have not been brought forward yet. freshacconci talktalk 03:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If any of those wishing to help save the article would like I've listed the links on the articles talkpage. What's most helpful is published articles about Rolando Gomez and referencing awards, him speaking, his work and books reviews. I'm not in the mood at the moment but I'll look to rewriting this as there does seem to be able evidence backing what the article states. More sources are better, in general so feel free to list them here or there and I'll follow the links to what's usable. -- Banjeboi 03:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete.. Or at least a stubbification. Not sure that the notability hits the bar required, but there's too much unencyclopedic stuff in there anyway. SirFozzie (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unsure how many books he's authored but at least three are here. -- Banjeboi 04:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why is this even a discussion? The article has already passed one AFD. Additional citations could and probably should be added. But that does not mean that the current version should be deleted. Where is the legitimacy of even considering this for deletion? There are no false claims, no apparent error of fact. Within the world of photography, Rolando Gomez is notable. That is a fact, not an opinion. I'm not suggesting that this is a personal attack on Mr. Gomez, but I certainly do not see a legitimate argument here. --Agletp (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC) — Agletp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Yes, additional citations should be added, but they haven't. That Mr. Gomez is a "notable photographer", at this moment, is merely an opinion, not a "fact". There are no verifiable third-party references. The legitimacy for considering this for deletion is found here: WP:CREATIVE. This is the process that Wikipedia has established. Any editor can bring an article to AfD and a discussion then takes place. Just because you feel there should be an article does not mean that an AfD discussion is not warranted. Present a compelling argument as to why this article should be kept. Attacking other editors' opinions or the validity of the AfD process is not useful. freshacconci talktalk 11:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is now obvious that there is some outside group canvassing to get this article saved. Two IPs and now an account with no edits other than the one above have commented here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Regarding the above post, please do not try to make any "obvious" statements about me. You know nothing about me. I am a long-time user of Wikipedia, and I was looking for one of the references that USED to be listed on the article in question. When I saw that it was up for deletion, I created a user id and posted my opinion that it should be kept because there is no compelling reason not to. I am not part of any group. I have found this article useful in the past, and I do not see any validity in the arguments to delete it. That's it. Any further assumptions based on my postings undermine any credibility that may otherwise exist with your opinion.--Agletp (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of my own comment above about assuming good faith, sometimes WP:DUCK does apply. You just happened to be looking for the article and stumbled on the deletion discussion. That's convenient (the argument about a reference that "used" to be here, is telling; there's either a campaign or some sockpuppetry happening). Anyway, as for Mr. Gomez's apparent conflict of interest and use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes, I've found this interesting tidbit. Rolando Gomez's blog states this: "Also, one of the few photographers listed by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolando_Gomez" which is found here. freshacconci talktalk 10:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Weak notability established but the article needs a lot of work seicer | talk | contribs 21:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthless Rap Assassins[edit]

Unsourced article about a band, prod was contested. Around 8,000 ghits but I did not see any which would amount to non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly weak keep Showing my age a bit, but I seem to remember this group having minor cult success and getting a moderate amount of coverage in the music press in the ~~late~~ early 90s, even before Kermit joined Black Grape and became semi-famous. Still the article is unsourced and not in great shape, and I'm afraid I'm not going to do a four hour drive to see if my old NMEs are still in my dad's attic in the course of this AfD, so I'm afraid I can't be more specific. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep "It yielded two minor hit singles in "Just Mellow" and "And It Wasn't A Dream" (a duet with Tracey Carmen), which both hit #75 in the UK." That translates into two chart singles, which if they can be verified, should be good enough to meet at least one criterion of WP:MUSIC. The article is indeed a wreck, however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can confirm that the Guinness Book of British Hits Singles and Albums (18th edition), the UK chart "bible", does indeed confirm that both songs got to number 75 in the UK singles chart -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the current state of the UK singles chart that equates to about 100 sales :-) Guy (Help!) 08:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but remember that we're talking early 90s. It would have been, oooh, at least 150 sales in those days. ;-P I have no idea how many sales are actually needed Still, notability isn't measured solely by commercial success, and if the reviews quoted are to be believed (and they're consistent with my own recollection), they do seem to have achieved significant critical success. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep aside from the chart 'success' mentioned above, their album has a fairly lengthy review at Allmusic (no biog there, mind). Further sources would of course strengthen the argument for keeping, but I also do not have the time to sift through a pile of NMEs.... sparkl_!sm ^hey! 22:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty clearly notable via releases, chart hits and subsequent membership of notable bands. They also recorded a session for John Peel's Radio 1 show ([2]). They had quite a lot of coverage back when they were going - given the dates in question it's not surprising Google doesn't come up with much. There's a 1990 article from City Life reproduced at the Manchester Music Archive [3] and [4]. The group was covered in the book And God Created Manchester by Sarah Champion, although I don't have it so can't tell how much coverage is in there. They are also covered in the book, The Allmusic Guide to Hip-Hop ([5]). --Michig (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I DRV'd it last week. Meets criterion #2 (had 2 #75 hit singles), #6 (Paul "Kermit" Leveridge and Jed Lynch joined Black Grape and Lynch drummed with loads of people), #7? (I can't really think of anything more Manc, but that's just me). And a big cult following. I think that justifies it. (Before the DRV it had little claim to notability, but I saw their entry in the Guinness Hit Singles, revived it and cleaned it up.) Spec ial K 16:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), Ending period of discussion, voting indicates keep. _∞Fr33kman^{talk APW} 03:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FreeHeadset.org[edit]

Article does not establish notability. Moved to AfD as a contested speedy. Ryanjunk (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I've added 3 refs including the New York Times. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per A.B.'s improvements, although normally one should make the improvements but leave the decision on the speedy for an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am an admin. I was just taking off the old speedy tag from the article after I restored (undeleted) it. ^[6] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 21:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliteanswers.com[edit]

Article is basically an advertisement/press release for the company in question. Moving to AfD as a contested speedy. Ryanjunk (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per G11, as already tagged prior to Afd ukexpat (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Falls into the Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING area. Although it is written well, it still does not cross over to the relm of encyclopedic.
weak keep It seems to meet WP:NOTE, I have tagged it as advert and for cleanup Fasach Nua (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author was warned that it read like an advert before moving it from their userpage. At present it looks very much like "referenced" spam (which doesn't actually appear to have any coverage from reliable 3rd party sources in any non-trivial manner). Put it back in userspace (sandbox) and allow creator and other editors to rewrite and reference appropriately if need be but, definitely doesn't belong in article space. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly, possible speedy delete as blatant advertising and patent nonsense to boot. The article's language full of empty buzzwords and peacock terms is only masquerading as English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems more like advertising than a legitimate article, and I see no assertion of notability. --Eastlaw (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 21:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Crash[edit]

If not actually a hoax, this is a lot of hype erected on a very flimsy foundation of Youtube-movie type activity.

I can't find any trace of "CGH Online Magazine" which is claimed to have voted her "most entertaining thing on earth".
Her "first hit song Hmm Hump" which became a "global cultural phenomenon" is on Youtube with under 2,000 views.
The short film Samurai Movie, a "sensation in the global film community" which "Scholars say... is the single most important sociological and art experiment in the 2000's" is also on Youtube with about 100 views.
She has a website at www.katecrash.com full of psychedelic colours, but little information; if you click on "Shows" you are taken to her Myspace page, where there are links to these movies, and to "Kate Crash Tokyo 2008", four minutes of a young blonde clowning about before puzzled or indifferent passers-by in a Japanese street, which I suppose is her "contribution to youth art culture in Tokyo".

Some of her Youtube videos were posted by "starface01" which is also the name of the user Starface01 (talk · contribs) author of this article and of Hiro Super - see AfD below. The article does its credibility no favours by saying that Crash is aged 74 and by nonsense about her being raised by polar bears and wolves.

Conclusion: this is all hype, and probably self-promotion; a few Youtube videos with viewing figures in the hundreds do not show notability, and no reliable source confirms any of the grand claims in the article. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not even popular by youtube standards (not that being popular on youtube would get someone an article even if true, of course, but still...) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verging on Speedy. Unsourced and fantastic claims (suvived on polar bear milk from age 3 to 7) strongly supports the idea that this article is a hoax. Arakunem^Talk 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, maybe speedy per IAR. Clear cut hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Comes close to WP:CSD standards, and per above. Also, the passage about being raised by polar bears was hilarious. RockManQ (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as vandalism (deliberate misinformation). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly not notable, even the parts that aren't obviously a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 21:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiro Super[edit]

The credibility of this is suspect by association with Kate Crash (see AfD above) it's by the same author, Starface01 (talk · contribs), who has posted some of their movies on Youtube, and Super and Crash are involved in joint projects. The sources are his blog, his Myspace page, "Hanger Magazine" which reproduces his blog, and links to his three films. I have not checked on the early part of his career, except to fail to find any trace of the "Rentaro Taki award" he is said to have won; but his claimed notability rests mainly on his films:

The short film Samurai Movie with Kate Crash, "which critics are calling one of the funniest movies of the year", and (in her article) "the single most important sociological and art experiment in the 2000's" - Youtube, 4:24, 103 views.

Hard Crick - "classic psychological drama" - Youtube, 5:19, 465 views

Blue Moon - "stylish cinematic experiment... much praised" - Youtube - 5:17, 241 views

The Spirits of Tuckavania: Finger Trap of Evil - "hailed as crowning achievement by major critics". To quote Super's blog on this: "Even though we deliberately chose not to go wide release with this one, because we don’t want the audience to think this is another mindless special-effect-filled fantasy extravaganza, the movie is generating significant buzz on the Internet." Youtube - 4:37, 164 views, 32 Ghits.

Conclusion: none of the grand claims about what the critics say are sourced or verifiable. Hype and Youtube movies without reliable sources do not show notability. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more of the same as Kate Crash, above. Possibly even speedy delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Likely hoax, user's other contribs are fishy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as vandalism (deliberate misinformation). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A poor attempt at self-promotion for a non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to no evidence of notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ff m 22:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cha Cha Cha (MC Lyte song)[edit]

This page fails to meet the standards of musical notability.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 23:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like it hit #1 on Billboard's rap chart. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's the link to the charting. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thats a Speedy Keep then, per WP:MUSIC Criteria #2: Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. Arakunem^Talk 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oops, thanks Xymax. I would still go Keep based on the charting rank, though without opposition to a merge into the artist's article, especially if the song stays as a 1 line stub. (Well 2 lines after I added the Billboard cite). Arakunem^Talk 20:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're looking at the performer section. The songs section isn't broken out with individual criteria. Still, #1 on a national chart and appearance in a major video game = notability for me. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is this song specifically notable and not just part of the artists article? It is not currently mentioned as being a single in her article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now, check the singles discography. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Song was a #1 single on a major Billboard chart, and was featured in a video game. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Criteria G7 (page blanked by author). --Allen3 ^talk 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blunders of advaita[edit]

Seems to be WP:OR. Ironho lds 19:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Rambling, incoherent essay, no context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Page has been blanked by original contributor. ~ 66.81.249.246 (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strang delete Incoherent quasi-religious rant. For full effect, try reading this out loud at the top of your lungs at the bus station while wearing no pants. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 misinformation under WP:CSD#G3, "pure vandalism." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Bakkum[edit]

I suspect this article is an outright hoax, but am not 100% certain (which is why I am bringing it to AfD rather than going ahead and speedy deleting it). Aleta ^Sing 19:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. Actor credit can be proven false. No trace of this person outside Wikipedia. Unverifiable purported autobiography in which the time line just doesn't make sense. Now where have we seen that before? Borderline CSD#G3. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nonsense. I removed the BLP-violating paragraph, even if it is a hoax. Corvus cornix_talk 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:HOAX. Created by same person - User:Brandon Bakkum. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax, or outright falsification. Quick fact check: Claims to have played Cha-Ka on Land Of The Lost 8 years before he was born. (was played by Philip Paley according to the wiki article on that series) Arakunem^Talk 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hilton Hotels Corporation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton HHonors[edit]

Other customer loyalty programs have been deemed not sufficiently interesting as distinct topics separate from their parent companies (see Priority Club Rewards, OnePass, SkyMiles, Mileage Plus, WorldPerks, AAdvantage, all of which are redirects to the parent company. All of these programs are more or less the same; use the services of company X and its affiliates repeatedly, earn free services from company X. It also reads like an advertisement, and that is almost unavoidable when giving a lot of detail about a company program like this. Also see parallel nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starwood Preferred Guest. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hilton Hotels Corporation. The rewards program, like all others, is not independently notable (no real sources to speak of), but it's a likely search term, so a redirect wouldn't hurt. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for the reasons eloquently stated by nominator and TenPoundHammer. --Orlady (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), on AfD I take merge to mean keep, will add merge tag _∞Fr33kman^{talk APW} 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood Preferred Guest[edit]

Other customer loyalty programs have been deemed not sufficiently interesting as distinct topics separate from their parent companies (see Priority Club Rewards, OnePass, SkyMiles, Mileage Plus, WorldPerks, AAdvantage, all of which are redirects to the parent company. All of these programs are more or less the same; use the services of company X and its affiliates repeatedly, earn free services from company X. It also reads like an advertisement, and that is almost unavoidable when giving a lot of detail about a company program like this. Also see parallel nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilton HHonors. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 01:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide. It's notable enough to be mentioned, but things like the various point levels and soforth are better covered on their own website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the hotel chain in question, not notable enough for its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for the reasons eloquently stated by nominator and TenPoundHammer. --Orlady (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--my mind was changed by reading the very rational reasons listed by Andrew Lenahan and TenPoundHammer. I would hate to lose any detail in whatever gets moved to the main Starwood page, as I refer to this article any time I need to know about point requirements and elite tier status, etc. cluth (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth McLaughlin[edit]

Non-notable, contested prod. Child actor with several guest spots on TV shows. No major roles, no independent coverage/reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actors should fulfill criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. This person fulfills none of them at this time. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable actor. Schuym1 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Neıl ☄ 11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straight No Chaser (magazine)[edit]

weak assertion of notability, minimal secondary sources provided -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 03:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was nominated for AFD on 31 August, but I somehow failed to list it on the 31 August AFD log page. It is now listed on the 4 September log page. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No meaningful evidence of notability provided, none found. Not notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The following were easily found, which between them demonstrate that the magazine is significant: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Article needs improvement, but I see no good reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - (1) tells us it was "a fiercely independent magazine aimed at the jazz, jive and soul aficionado", not significant coverage. (2) is a bare mention. (3) is a blog (posted by the mag's Editor+ Publisher, no less), not a reliable (or independent) source. (4) is also a blog. (5) is open source (wiki-like) and not a reliable source.(6) is also a blog. The point here is simple, we need substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. We don't have it. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. (5) isn't a wiki - the fact that their content is under a GNU licence is irrelevant. I'm not convinced the others you labelled as blogs are all blogs. Yes, the article should have better sources, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable.--Michig (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - (5) is, per itself, "our approach is purely subjective.... Some of these periodicals are... smaller and obscure, virtual even.... Visitors to the Chimurenga Library can join the conversation but adding comments and updating information." Yes, it's opensource. Which of the blogs do you not think is a blog? The lack of reliable sources is exactly what we are discussing here: "if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - Mdsummermsw (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. Once again, content licenced as open source can be copied elsewhere - the article in question does not appear to be editable. Open source and wiki are not the same thing by a long chalk. The article has only existed for a week - how about tagging it as needing better references rather than trying to delete it? This suggests it had a circulation of 100,000 copies worldwide, and it's easily verifiable that it was published for 19 years - sounds to me like something we should have an article on.--Michig (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - (5) says you can edit it, you say you can't. Great: who wrote the text at (5)? All we can say is it presents itself as something that may have been written by just about anyone. Long story short, (5) self-indicates that it does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" -- it's "purely subjective". It isn't saying SNC is meaningfully notable -- it might be "smaller and obscure, virtual even". Based on its own description, I cannot begin to imagine the the source in question is reliable. Failing all that, you argue SNC might be notable, we might find sources, etc. Heck, we might find reliable sources discussing the pebble stuck in my sneaker. Until then, it's discussed at length in my blog... - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. Ok. Cheers. I couldn't find any way of editing that article, but I'm sure you must be right. I didn't find anything better after 5 minutes of Google searching. It must be a small and obscure publication despite a 19 year history and 100,000 circulation, so let's delete it (Not). --Michig (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment. The magazine is mentioned, however, in this book as one of the niche music publications that the author considered worthy of inclusion.--Michig (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think there can be any doubt that El Mundo [13] and the New Grove Dictionary of Jazz [14] are reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As with Michig's last comment above, neither one is more than a mere mention. We're looking for "substantial coverage in reliable sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdsummermsw (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 September 2008
Delete due to lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyworld[edit]

Airline doesn't appear to exist. No third party reliable sources are provided nor could I find any, which generally would be expected from a new airline being formed. Most Google hits for Skyworld Airlines are related to Denver Ports of Call, a defunct airline that for a short time in the 1980s used the name Skyworld and to a Microsoft Flight Simulator add on. Interwiki link to Italian Wikipedia leads to a deleted page. Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to exist only ref is self website which includes Terms and Conditions which are made up and includes a false ATOL number, claims that contracts are covered by Scottish laws. Probably a cut and paste from other airline websites. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above, no evidence this airline is anything more than a figment of the web designer's info. TravellingCari 18:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable, secondary sources to support the existence of this 'airline' and even a search engine query brings up next to no information on it. As far as I can tell, it's fake. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "reservations" phone number on the website is National Westminster Bank. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: whois.net ([15]) claims that the site is owned by Afrijet Airlines. But the owner's email contact is to a gmail address. Corvus cornix_talk 20:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as vandalism (deliberate misinformation) Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created this account, based on the website, but save on the body which runs the airport of Venice, are not specified flights of this airline. I think it is still being developed. Marco1990 (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Dollin[edit]

I've found it hard to find sources on this person which ATM fails with no reliable sources and just one External link. If he was notable it would be easy to find but I've also come up with a actor under the same name. Bidgee (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vans named a shoe after him - [16]. Volcom named a pair of jeans after him - store.skatelink.com/vojedudo.html (spam filter wouldn't let me supply a link to this page). He has a skateboard named after him - [17]. There's a bio on him at the volcom.com website - [18]. Thrasher magazine apparently had an article on him, though I can't find it on their website - [19]. Corvus cornix_talk 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I remember submitting "PissDrunx" to AFD a few years ago. I added a reference from "The Stranger". Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin was on the cover of Thrasher's November 2002 issue. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the coverage in "Thrasher" magazine probably pushes him over the notability threshold. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pakistan-administered Kashmir. I will protect this, for obvious reasons, and the previous article will remain in the edit history. Whether or not choosing to use Nichalp's alternate version for Pakistan-administered Kashmir is an editorial decision. Neıl ☄ 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan occupied Kashmir[edit]

I wish to close this AFD. Please see The talk page =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE! I propose that I, as an outsider, perform a non-admin closure of this AfD as I have NO conflict of interest having never participated in it (I just do NACs). After that an admin can come and clean up the bits later. At least this way, a neutral party decides that there is no consensus, and thus a keep by default. The debate is not reaching a consensus and looks like it won't. Discussion of this topic should be dealt with by a breakout group of some kind and try to reach a compromise consensus there. Yes/No? _∞Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely incendiary and POV title that was converted from a redirect to a content fork and immediately caused an entrenched war among involved editors meco (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Do you have any proof of kashmircloud (talk · contribs) having urged editors to delete his canvassing messages? __meco (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL look at his contributions then reply it clearly states in bold red writing "URGENT" and at the bottom says "delete before voting" how much more proof do you want? Also look at cast788 aka kashmir cloud sock and his contributions too its all very obvious 86.158.235.148 (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)86.158.235.148 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this. Could you show some of the edits where this is written? __meco (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at User:Cast788 and his contribs, Kashmircloud didn't post the messages using his main account. Pahari Sahib 16:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Cast788 (talk · contribs) contacted five users with the canvassing request, none of whom have so far turned up here. __meco (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! such a comlexed network for canvassing. The style it's written looks really attractive. S3000 ☎ 18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you people make it sound like it's against the rules! I know he/she's been blocked, but that doesn't make it a bad thing that he/she is trying to get others involved, considering all the votes as of the beginning were opposing the article. Frankly, I am glad I was contacted - the reasons listed may be somewhat true, but can be fixed by the lot of you without a speedy delete. The name is there for a reason: it is widely recognised internationally. Your input is greatly welcomed ;) BlackPearl14 ^[talkies!^•^contribs!] 23:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying is fine, but not canvassing (i.e. requesting a certain kind of vote, e.g. "vote for keep") S3000 ☎ 10:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, regardless of a notification/canvas, I would have voted against a delete, so his comment didn't really add to anything ;) BlackPearl14 ^[talkies!^•^contribs!] 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure where it may have forked from but article is definitely POV and most of it seems to be covered anyway at Kashmir, Pakistan, and other articles already. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, PoK is a POV term used in Indian government statements and newsmedia. The term (and the Indian territorial claims) should be mentioned in the leads of the Azad Kashmir and FANA articles, but we don't need a separate PoK article for that. Likewise, the Pakistani claims should be mentioned in the lead of the Jammu and Kashmir article. --Soman (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POK is a term used exclusively by India and indians it is not a widely used term its usually just called pakistani administered kashmir. 86.158.236.25 (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, anonymous 'votes' are not valid in XfDs. --Soman (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find you are incorrect on that and that any contributor to the project is allowed an opinion although, an effort to have the discussion more inline with policies and guidelines may be appropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry didnt no i wasnt allowed to vote 86.158.236.25 (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are, but it's not a vote. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25 6 September 2008 (GMT).

Delete POVfork with a POVed title Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant POV - inflammatory title and article contents, an article called British occupied Ireland or Russian occupied Finland would have no place on wiki and neither should this. Pahari Sahib 04:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is non sequiter. Russian-occupied Finland is not a term used by a contemporary political body. Similarly, British-occupied Ireland is not a term used by a government, only by bloggers. That would constitute WP:OR. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you it is okay to create a POV fork ostensibly on the basis that it is used officially by the Indian government. Rather than just noting this in the relevant article, why should there be an article on one nation's POV? Pahari Sahib 14:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again your logic is false. I've mentioned that the article be redirected to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Is that a POV? Indian-administered Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir are the same topic as far as area is concerned. Is there a single article on Wikipedia that covers "Pakistan-administered Kashmir"? If so, we can redirect it the same way it is done to J&K. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note see here and here Pahari Sahib 15:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete : PLEASE allow editing to take place in this article so that it gets balanced; disabling editing and then crying unbalanced is hypocrisy!!!..As we all know we didn't delete european union article just because there was an "england" article or "france" article or "germany" article (which are part of EU nevertheless) ... Similarly we did not destroy soviet union article just because it is divided into 15 parts..Further it is very very clear that POK is not the same as azad k as pok also includes trans karakoram tract...pok term is used by most if not all non pakistan media.so ip and soman contention invalid.. i think it is not "fork" since contents are not identical, verifiable, has reliable sources and differs from the other articles like "trans-Karakoram tract" or "Northern Areas" (at the maximum, there is a passing reference in the summary(if this is considered fork) style with redirect links to sub regions).So, i am opposing this high handed move based on ignorance..rather i suggest that those who suggest it as non neutral contribute towards making this neutral, if it is not already neutral..pahari sahib's contention of inflammatory not substantiated both in talk page of pok or otherwise..so DO NOT DELETEKashmircloud (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. Clearly Pakistan occupied Kashmir is a term of note, and if sufficiently different in meaning from other temrs needs at least an explanation of its meaning and use. If considered synonymous to another term it should be redirected and the usage explained in that article. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25 6 September 2008 (GMT).
Delete: Blatant POV fork of Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it but must rewrite it is because the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is not only comprise Azad Kashmir and FANA areas. There is also some more areas, like the one that was passed to People Republic of China in 1960s era for use against India. If remove, then got no article to centralize all of Pakistans Kashmir regions. Differ from Indian Occupied Kashmir that is only Jammu and Kashmir province so all centralized already. But when read, it is clearly written by some Indian fellow 100 sure%. Hence we must still keep this article, but rewrite and make it neutral. No question of delete. --Blackeaglz (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article it is the Indian viewpoint just like Pakistan has got Azad Kashmir viewpoint. This article must remain to keep neutrality.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only as redirect with caveats: Delete present history. Recreate with protected redirect that points to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Expand PaK on lines of User:Nichalp/Kashmir Update: =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir is the term used by the Indian government, and for legal reasons followed by the media and Indian publishers
2. The term is POV on Wikipedia, but it is real, because it exists, and cannot be *deleted* away.
3. Redirecting PoK to Azad Kashmir is not the solution. Geographically, Azad Kashmir is a small region of the area labelled as PoK. Therefore, territorially speaking, it is inherently false.
4. Additionally, the term Azad, which means free, is also a POV. Free in what sense? From Indian administration?
5. As a responsible encyclopedia, it is our responsibility to mention what the term means, the area under it, who has dubbed the name, usage of the name, the reasons why it is called, and legal usage in India, Pakistan, and major countries/groups. The page should not be more than two-three paragraphs long, and must point to the articles on Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmir, the Kashmir dispute, Azad Kashmir, and FANA.
6. I support the page be redirected to "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" that consists of the above suggested text.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 11:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is an official term used by the Indian Government, similar to "Indian Occupied Kashmir" (which redirects to Jammu and Kashmir) used by Pakistan government. It is as neutral as Azad Kashmir or Northern Areas (Jammu and Kashmir), both territories are claimed by India and refered to as POK or PAK (Pakistan-Administered Kashmir). I don't disapprove of the article being redirected to PAK, which links to Azad Kashmir, and Northen Areas and gives the legal standings of India and Kashmir, also a para about the dispute and control of the region.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Nichalp and Redtigerxyz. Mspraveen (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment, Would you support an article called "Indian-occupied Kashmir" with or without caveats? The Kashmir conflict article is the best place to expand on the dispute. This shouldn't be a one way street where it is okay to have an Indian POV fork (thus creating an imbalance against Pakistan), that happens to link other articles. This is not being neutral Pahari Sahib 13:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your question: "Would you support an article called "Indian-occupied Kashmir" with or without caveats?" is Ignoratio elenchi. The POV fork is necessary as "PoK" territories in question do not come under a single umbrella. Had Azad Kashmir referred to the same area as PoK, then the discussion would be on equal footing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the reply by Ganeshk before posting your reply to me? The territories to which you refer to are convered under the Pakistan-administered Kashmir article so perhaps his discussion is on an "equal footing" after all. You have also stated that "The term is POV on Wikipedia, but it is real, because it exists, and cannot be *deleted* away." This seems be an implicit recognition of the fact that is indeed POV and that if conflicts with Wikipedia's NPOV policy - NPOV should be sacrosanct. I hope you will review your objections. Pahari Sahib

No, I did not see the reply. Pakistan-occupied Kashmir was a redirect to Azad Kashmir not too long back. I was not aware that this article did exist. My objection is to the article from being *deleted". Do note that my caveats mention at it be redirected to the PaK. So I guess we are now on a similar footing, with only a disagreement on deletions? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, I think it should be deleted and then be a protected redirect to prevent recreation. Pahari Sahib 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kashmircloud editing to get more votes from Indian editors

if you look at his edit history([20]) he has been lobbying indian editors into voting for the article to be saved obviously the indian editors will see it as neutral i urge neutral editors to lobby for User:Kashmircloud to be blocked from editing. 86.158.235.148 (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Another thing is that he is using the same old sentences and copying and pasting the same comments on user talk pages to push his biased veiw through is this allowed? 86.158.235.148 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes canvassing and vote-stacking shouldn't be allowed. Pahari Sahib 13:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is kashmircloud allowed to do it and not me ? 86.158.235.148 (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did you do this and who warned you? Pahari Sahib 13:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it was canvassing. But what happened to the usual courtesy the nominating editor should have immediately after nominating the article for deletion. Please bear in mind that the article falls under WikiProject India. It should ideally have been posted on WP:India's talk page. In that case, I would discount the canvassing actions of the concerned. Mspraveen (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean in "that case", there were multiple posting, including this one on your own talk page. Why does an article supposedly about Pakistani territory fall under WP:India Pahari Sahib 13:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The noticeboard is for India-related topics. "Pakistani territory" or not, it does need to be listed as an India-related topic. You cannot argue against the logic of it not being "India-related." =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say, why does it fall under WP India and not Pakistan. It was posted at WP India but not WP Pakistan, this does not alter the fact that was posted multiple times. Pahari Sahib 16:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being the nominating editor I'd like to ask you if you seriously consider not notifying WikiProject India about the nomination to be omissive? __meco (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Kashmircloud (talk · contribs) has only been an editor for a little over two weeks, we should assume good faith in that this user probably wasn't aware that canvassing is not acceptable in the form that the user's contributions log reveals. Assuming that this does not continue and is not repeated on future occasions there should be no need to do anything about Kashmircloud over this. I'm sure that at least some of the recipients of the polemic canvassing message will react negatively to its lack of neutrality, if not pandering. __meco (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this group of indian editors agree with canvassing then i must take direct action against this and remove POK page if it is kept 86.158.235.148 (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

??? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect: Per Nichalp, POK is a real-term used by the Indian government and the Indian media. I would suggest redirecting it to Pakistan-administered Kashmir similar to how India occupied Kasmir redirects to Jammu and Kashmir. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Ganeshk is trying to compromise here. Perhaps after AFD a protected redirect? Pahari Sahib 13:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Pahari Sahib...a protected redirect after the AFD is what I am suggesting. Pakistan-administered Kashmir will need to be updated with this usage. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion civil. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is an ongoing discussion at WP:CCN, I suggest questions like the Azad Kashmir article, deleting the redirect Indian Occupied Kashmir, etc. be brought up there. Even though Pakistan-administered Kashmir is a less POV name than POK, I do not see the point of having such an article. AJK and FANA are two separate political units, and each have their own articles. The term POK and its usage can be well dealt with in Kashmir conflict, AJK and FANA articles. --Soman (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin See Special:Contributions/Cast788 for canvassing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, there is also J-3b56 (talk · contribs). --Soman (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered that indian editors are sending messages i.e cast788 and kashmir cloud and asking them to delete the original message regarding there POV article POK before voting can someone please open there eyes to this blatant canvassing please 86.158.235.148 (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have been warned, and are probably socks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Ganeshk (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Agreed with Nichalp. If this gets deleted then Azad should be removed from Kashmir too for Azad Kashmir. snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowolfol4 (talk • contribs) [reply]

- Note, Snowolfol4 (talk · contribs) has no other edits than this AfD commentary. --Soman (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note again, it seems that Snowolfol4 (talk · contribs) is trying to pose as the establised user Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs). Too bad that SineBot cannot be fooled so easily. --Soman (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Above user blocked for impersonation and probable sockpuppetry. Please disregard his comment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The POV title as Nichalp and co. have summarised, cannot be a reason for deletion since there are plenty of articles with names that may offend someone and hence biased (Azad Kashmir is no differen from this one). Notability is ultimately determined by its usage in sources, and whether or not the Indian media etc. are POV, the usage of the term is common. Gizza^Discuss ^© 14:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common term where exactly let me guess india the POK term is a offspring of India and will stay in India no media outlets besides indian offcourse use this term utimately if in the event this POK article is kept then a seperate page for Indian occupied kashmir must be produced to counter it 86.158.235.148 (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are getting wikipedia policies. Delete would mean that the title would not exist. Redirecting would mean that anyone typing Pok would be redirected to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. As spoken above, POK constitutes two regions of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, while Indian-administered Kashmir is the same as Jammu and Kashmir. Since the topic on "Indian-occupied Kashmir" is present in the lead, is it necessary to have a pure cloned fork? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What im trying to explain is that a seperate POK article hence the one which you want to keep is totally biased and should not be used at all let alone be used as a redirect destination. Now what im tyring to explain is that that Pakistan occupied kashmir should just be a simple redirect as it is in Jammu and kashmir page not a seperate page which again is totally POV do you understand what i said if not ill talk to you on your talk page 86.158.235.148 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are calling for the article to be redirected to a more neutral title rather than it be deleted and throwing up a "page not found" on wikipedia. The discussion is here is if we have to "delete the article". If no, what are the alternate options. Let's limit the discussion to this page for the sake of all editors. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added the article to WikiProject Pakistan and to WikiProject International relations and I have notified those two projects on their project talk pages (re criticism above from user:Mspraveen) __meco (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the anonymous IP number posting various messages is the banned Nangparbat (talk · contribs). I suggest he/she be ignored along the lines of don't feed the trolls. --Soman (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Seems to be another commonly acceptable name for that region. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: merge or redirect with Pakistan-administered Kashmir. A google search for "Pakistan administered Kashmir" gives 40,000 results and a search for "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" gives 54,600 results. A special search in nytimes.com for "Pakistan administered Kashmir" (using site:nytimes.com at the end of search string in google search) generates 9 results and for "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" generates 129 results. But, these two titles refer to same geographical area, so a merge/redirect seems to be a good solution. --GDibyendu (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear redirect Why do we need two articles on the same thing? Any content should be in the Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Also why the big fuss over it and the canvassing? The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ultimately the instrument of accession was signed to India, and legally it belongs to India, whether rightly or wrongly is irrelevant.Pectore^talk 17:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite - I have to say I came here with the intention of voting for a delete, but after reading Nichalp's argument, I can't disagree with him. Azad Kashmir literally means "Free Kashmir". Isn't that a propoganda term coined and used by Pakistan too? Note that Azad Kashmir is only one part of Kashmir. There's a need for an article on all of Pakistani Kashmir (which was acquired from the 1947 war) including Northern Areas and areas that it ceded to China in 1965 (that was previously under Pakistani control). However the undeniably strong anti-Pakistani slur in the article has to be neutralised. S3000 ☎ 19:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S3000 unless you havent read properly the article named pakistan administered kashmi already exsists which includes all the 3 territories in pakistani kashmir whats the point of this propaganda article called POK unless you can give me a answer to this then POK article is just garbage anymore excuses beside the unification one because this is all covered in the pakistan administered kashmir article maybe we could produce a seperate indian occupied kashmir page ??? 86.158.235.148 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.158.235.148, unless you have not remarked, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is used by prominent political figures of the 2nd greatest nation on earth and in its official documents. Which official documents (besides blogs) do you have for Pakistan administered K., where on earth did you come across this? Bogorm (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I dont care of you think its the second greatest nation on earth lol india has no authority over earth let alone kashmir lol so your message is just illogical 86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mort de rire! India - 1 000 000 000 people, PRC 1 500 000 000 people, thence second largest! Bogorm (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no redirect no merge: Pakistan administered Kashmir is a term used by international community. POK is term used by India officially!!! and also in Indian media. The region is same but the views are different. It is about the mind-set of the people how it is looked at. The articles can differ in the way they are treated by different groups. It is same like Nazi Germany is different from Germany.--gppande «talk» 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - possibloy re-write afterwords, but this is ridiculous. It's so PoV it's untrue! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue??? Do a google and see for yourself. --gppande «talk» 21:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the sources in the article is you feel it's untrue. S3000 ☎ 10:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the citations in article are poor but they can be improved. The article in itself hold's merit for keep. PS: I'm strong supporter of RS. --gppande «talk» 10:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a figure of speech people. I don't believe Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry was calling people liars or anything. Please assume some good faith, thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although it is POV, I'm sure the many of you who have a strong need to see this article removed can contribute to make it a lot less POV. The title, though, should stay the same, considering it is an Indian term for an Indian place (not the region of it owned by Pakistan, but the region owned by India). Although Cast788 has been blocked, I do think he/she was doing his/her duty by telling me about it - hey, I love a debate :) (note the smiley face). If you think something is POV, fix it, not so it fits your bias, but so that it fixes the neutrality problem. 'Nuff said. BlackPearl14 ^talkies! 23:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as you can see a pattern its only indians who want to keep this heavily pro indian article 86.158.235.148 (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as I can see, you're being a little racist. It has nothing to do with being Indian. I personally respect what you are saying. I just think that maybe you can help tone down the article to make it neutral - that wouldn't be so hard, now, would it? BlackPearl14 ^[talkies!^•^contribs!]

One more thing: wasn't it that there is an article in a Pakistan POV on the same issue? Hmm...what was it... aha! Azad Kashmir! If this is to be deleted for POV issues, then shouldn't THAT be deleted for POV issues? BlackPearl14 ^[talkies!^•^contribs!] 23:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with BlackPearl14's conclusions and refute incontrovertibly 86.158.235.148's rude and fallacious allegations about only Indians willing to preserve the article - I come from the European Union, but that does not hinder me from being aware of the ordeal of the Kashmiri people under Pakistani occupation - read below Shri Rajnath Singh, Shri Lal Krishna Advani and Arun Jaitley's elcidations of the topic - they are breathtaking and touching! Please abstain from nationality-based accusations further ! Bogorm (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant and embarrassingly pov. Failing that redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir Dance With The Devil (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Do not delete this article as it very ably puts forward the Indian and International view on this problem. Rather a question mark on the neutrality of the "Azad Kashmir" article should be put as it presents very distorted and disturbing facts alongwith a propagandist title. POK is an unnaturally annexed part of India's Kashmir and remains so.--Rachitbhatia1993 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Do Not Delete Do not delete this article as it very ably puts forward the Indian and International view on this problem. When you are keeping pakistani view Azad kashmir in the same way it should also be kept —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondybaba (talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Account blocked as sockpuppet Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Please Do Not Delete this article as it is expressing International & Indian view on this problem. When pakistani view Azad kashmir is allowed here why not this ,else remove Azad kashmir also and keep the international view—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondybaba (talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulmisir (talk • contribs) Account blocked as sockpuppeteer Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do Not Delete this article as it is logical to be called like that in the same way they refered Indian kashmir as Indian Administered Kashmir is the same way it should be refered as Pak Occupied KAshmir or Pakistani Administered Kashmir.Azad Kashmir is just refered by Pakistan not by world it should also be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianbhoot (talk • contribs) 08:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Account blocked as sockpuppet Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, an sockpuppet case is opened regarding these three accounts, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pondybaba. --Soman (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - All three blocked. Please disregard. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep - the notion is represented in official Indian documents such as this (permits Hurriyat leaders to travel up to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir but Pakistan escorts them up to Islamabad, Shri Rajnath Singh), here(They were convinced that capture of Muzzafarabad, now the capital of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, was imminent.; an entity called the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) came into being, Shri Lal Krishna Advani) and here(official document quoted: "The unanimous resolution of India’s Parliament in 1994 records that Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is an integral part of India.", quoted by the venerable Arun Jaitley). All documents are highly informative for persons from countries not involved in the controversy as me about the legal status of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and moreover they corroborate a previous proposal I come across here to immediately move Azad Kashmir to POK, which I support. I am propense to heave the question of renaming Azad Kashmir to POK in concordance with the crucial documents quoted above and with the 1994 decision of Lok Sabha. At any rate this article is neutral, comprises numerous sources (18) and its deletion together with them would be a misdeed, marked by a complete privation of impartiality Bogorm (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this template above: I declare thereby that I am from a neutral location and have not been sollicited to vote by anyone Bogorm (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read this: India bans CD-Rom for crossing the line =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the news, however, Britain has committed innumerable atrocities during the Indian determination for independence, proceed circumspectly with their medias. Well, I am delighted to converse with an Indian. Do you find R. Singh's and Advani's quotations convincing and corroborating enough? Besides, I fully agree with the decision of the Indian goverment. Was it taken during Vajpayee's or M. Singh's tme in office? Bogorm (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came across some online sources of Pakistani origin that refer to the area in question as PoK. See this, this and this for example. S3000 ☎ 10:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you cared to read the article its a abstract from srinagar aka indian administered kashmir so this is not a pakistani sources its just using a qoute from indian sources understand ??? nice try though 86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC) The last article you mention is written by sushant a INDIAN lol 86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also the second article is again qouting from indian statements from politicians as i said nice try :) 86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To S3000) Magnificent. Now the usage of the term by both sides is ineffably clear-cut and this corroborates the right of this article to exist. Bogorm (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is this a joke 86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are published by reputable, Pakistani sources however. By publishing it means they accept the report / article. If you claim the "Srinagar" article was taken from an Indian source, why isn't the actual source stated? as how they did here (<--and that's why I never included that). The other is published in the "Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies" website! S3000 ☎ 10:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they publish qoutes doesnt mean they accept it THATS JUST A MAD CLAIM come on s3000 think properly freind your sounding very desperate at the moment with your claims 86.153.130.47 (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.daily.pk/world/worldnews/6917-british-mp-condemns-violence-in-indian-occupied-kashmir.html This is what pakistan thinks of indian administered kashmir lol 86.153.130.47 (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again you proove that the sources you provide are pathetic the source you have just provided redirects to kerelanext and its a blog lol please try again. Moving on its logic to include indian claims in pakistani newspapers the institute of peace studies is clearly qouting so please get that into your head even the indians do this if you ever bother to read the news so this claim of yours is again hopeless pakistani newspapers would never call azad kashmir POK they only qoute if you no anything of journalism qouting is used often lol srinagar is a place in india and they have many news outlets the fact that they state srinagar means some high official from there stated it because its the capital of JAMMU AND KASHMIR undertsand thats why they only use srinagar its simple really please come back with some solid evidence rather then redirects to indian sites and some lame blogs which redirect to indian sites such as kerela next and as you are misleading editors and readers 86.153.130.47 (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand my point. I was saying that this article attributes its source to the Kerala website. However this doesn't, which suggests the report was compiled by their own reporters / correspondents in Srinagar. BTW we aren't talking about situation in Indian Kashmir. Don't stray from the topic. S3000 ☎ 11:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont no how to explain this anymore ill say one last time the article from Thenews is qouting a official statement directly from srinagar (a territory under indian control) it is also the capital of indian administered kashmir so thats why they qoute it do you know how it works just research journalism and you shall understand my point. Another thing is that im not straying from the article i gave you that source to get you back into reality over what pakistan thinks of kashmir as you seem to be convincing your self with lame sources about what pakistan thinks of its own territory 86.153.130.47 (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A official statement by who from Srinagar? Because if it's by an Indian news agency, the source should have been stated. The fact is it is not. If there's no source stated, it means that TheNews' correspondents in Srinagar made the report. I don't think there's a rule of thumb that says Pakistani reporters in Srinagar should refer to Pakistani Kashmir as PoK. S3000 ☎ 12:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, this article looks strangely familiar. Looks more like "the news" article is a clumsy copyvio. India Journal should sue :-) Pahari Sahib 12:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S3000 i recommend you use other arguments besides the lame articles pioneered by India ones which i have layed waste to earlier on in my comments see above good luck in your search for other sources 86.153.130.47 (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC) S3000 if you can just click on the source provided by PahariSahib which i also found a minute ago its a clear carbon copy of your so called pakistani article please reply with your reaction 86.153.130.47 (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was it was posted on a well known Pakistani news resource without citing the original source. I feel that means acceptance, because it never said "according to PTI (or whatever)". S3000 ☎ 14:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again it clearly said srinagar on it so you assume its from srinagar its simple and this doesnt mean pakistan accepts POK term (nor does any country besides India) that doesnt even make sense at all 86.153.130.47 (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so, why doesn't this article say so although it's reported from Srinagar too? It clearly states IoK. It doesn't mean if a report is from Srinagar it has to side the country administrating it. S3000 ☎ 14:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on how to move forward in the discussion, noone disputes that 'PoK' is a term used by Indian government and in Indian media to refer to areas in Kashmir under Pakistani administration. For me, there are two sets of questions that needs to be asked in order to determine this AfD. First, should PoK refer to an geographic area or a political concept? The former case (as used in [21] or [22]) is clearly unacceptable and POV. In the latter case, the follow-up question would be whether there is any detailed Indian legal framework regarding PoK? If its just a blunt territorial claim, there is no need for a PoK article, the claim can be mentioned in J&K, AJK, FANA, Kashmir, Kashmir dispute articles, etc. But if there is a more detailed framework, say that there is a planned administrate network for these areas, that PoK residents are considered as Indian citizens, that the J&K state apparatus consists of dormant districts across the LoC, etc, then an article could be kept along the lines of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. My understanding of Indian politics is however such that I don't believe that to be the case, thus I'd argue for deletion altogether. --Soman (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about China and Taiwan, it seems there's a dedicated article for Chinese Taipei although it's clearly a propoganda name coined by China to consolidate its claim over Taiwan. Chihnese Taipei is only used to address Taiwan in certain sporting events. S3000 ☎ 11:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but why propaganda? Taiwan is part of People's Republic of China just as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is de iure part of India. The Chinese have not committed any misdeed regarding Pakistan-occupied Kashmir which could be conducive to its modern ordeal, right? Bogorm (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Taiwan never accepts this. They have their own argument and that's why it's called "Disputed" just as how Kashmir is. While you side China and India (on Taiwan and Kashmir), others have different viewpoints. S3000 ☎ 12:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand this. If POK is a commonly understood term, we should have an article on it. If an article Pakistan-administered Kashmir deals with the exact same geographic area, then we already have an article on POK and we need a simple redirect from POK to P-aK. The question should be "will there be (a reasonable number of) wikipedia users who will search for an article on POK?" rather than for us to try to make a decision on the political or geographical merits of the name and the region. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 12:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one billion users (population of Bharat)! Moreover, look at the three official sources above, using POK. Which non-Pakistani source would condescend to using PaK and show a blatant POV? Mine opinion is that PaK should redirect to POK, not vice versa. Bogorm (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark its a common fact that pakistanis portion of kashmir is regarded as administered by THE WORLD but some indian editors mainly on wikipedia insist it is occupied if that isnt POV then what is ?? 86.153.130.47 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan-administered Kashmir is the neutral way of collectively referring to this area. For non Pakistani sources how about here (Jane's Defence Weekly. Or the UNHCR, the BBC, CNN. Do all one billion people of India think exactly alike? and report things in exactly the same manner? How about an Indian website or Redriff another Indian website or AOL India

Pahari Sahib 13:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral or not, we can't wish away the term POK. A simple google search reveals 55,400 hits for POK and 27,400 for P-aK. Since P-aK appears to be more neutral (Q: What does the UN call the region?), we can keep POK as a redirect to P-aK. Can't just ignore it though. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 14:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best suggestion I've heard. The article should be AFD because it is blatant POV. There should then be a protected redirect to the neutral article where all points are covered. Pahari Sahib 14:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very reasonable. Protected redirect of POK to PAK and move on is sensible.--Regents Park (count the magpies) 14:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is one-sided pro-Musharraf stance. As already said (below), when there is Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, why does one launch an assault on the sensible Indian claim of POK????! Consider the precipice in the numbers of users searching for POK and PaK (quoted below), which does not corroborate your proposal. Bogorm (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is launching assaults here. POK and P-aK refer to the same geographical entity and it makes no sense to have two articles for the same geographical entity. Different political claims on that entity can more than adequately be addressed in the article itself. P-aK is less judgmental than POK because administered has a neutral connotation while Occupied implies illegal occupation. Wikipedia does not make those sort of judgments and a protected redirect more than adequately caters to the wikipedia users who search for Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN calls it pakistan administered kashmir not POK very well get ready for indian occupied kashmir page then 86.153.130.47 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC) One billion lol theres not even 35 million internet users in India freind your claims are so pathetic that its hurt now. Moving on India doesnt dictate anything over kashmir nor does pakistan the world calls both territories administered its not rocket sceince86.153.130.47 (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audiatur et altera pars - one billion users from Bharat! Bogorm (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This type of argument is not helpful. What about 1-1.8 billion Muslims around the world? --Soman (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am agree with Soman's argument that Pakistan occupied Kashmir is a political concept or term used by the Indian government, but there is a geographical article Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Mentioning that particular geographical area under the title PoK will show Indian POV. An article like this can be kept along the lines of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China which will deal with the term or concept, not with the geographical area. Regarding Taiwan, I am not agree with User: S3000. Taiwan is an integral part of the People's Republic of China, despite this they claim to be a separate country. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said Taiwan is not an integral part of China. All I said is that it's a contentious statement because not everybody recognises it as a part of China. There are several small countries that recognise Taiwan's independence. Anyway lets leave Taiwan and China out of the scene as it doesn't concern those 2 countries. S3000 ☎ 14:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think me comment has been misunderstood. First of all, no country in the recognize independent Taiwan, some countries recognize the Republic of China as the legitimate government of China. That clarification aside, the key issue is whether there is anything to 'PoK' more than a name. The Taiwan Province of PRC has a administrative structure, it has district divisions etc., even though PRC has never been in control of Taiwan. The Taiwan Province is represented in the parliament of the PRC. Is there any such structures for 'PoK'? What does Indian law say about 'PoK'? Are its inhabitants seen as Indian citizens? My understanding is that so isn't the case. --Soman (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those who support for PoK's deletion, please take some time to see this:

Pakistan administered Kashmir hit count on Wikipedia, August 2008: 69 hits

Pakistan occupied Kashmir hit count on Wikipedia, August 2008: 1,128 hits

PoK (which directly links to Pakistan occupied Kashmir) hit count on Wikipedia, August 2008: 1,456 hits

Stats retrieved using stats.grok.se/, created by Henrik. S3000 ☎ 14:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Azad Kashmir had 16515 hits and Northern Areas had 4331 hits - a total of 20,846 over the same period. While Kashmir conflict had 6,896. Pahari Sahib 14:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that POK is a political indian term is all the proof any one needs that its a biased term with POV written all over it stats dont mean nothing this is not a tv show where demand (form indians) will judge over articles ITS BIASED full stop. 86.153.130.47 (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your brilliant opinion. S3000 ☎ 14:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem 86.153.130.47 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S3000 what you got to say about the statisitics given by above your comment it again puts your claims to no use 86.153.130.47 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pahari, Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas are 2 seperate segments of Pakistani Kashmir, so it's not relevant. What we are talking about is a centralised article for all of Pakistani Kashmir. Hits matter because it shows what people are searching / looking for more often. Or in other words, what are the majority of those visiting Wikipedia addressing the area? It points towards PoK rather than PaK. S3000 ☎ 14:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S3000 Rather than searching for Pakistan-Administered Kashmir, most people seem to be searching for specific parts of the area. Also note Northern_Areas_(Pakistan) had 5,314 hits. Only people with a particular POV would search for Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. There already is a centralised article. Pahari Sahib 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need an article for 'Pakistani Kashmir' in the first place? Kashmir covers the overall region, Kashmir conflict the politics of the issue. There is no 'Pakistani Kashmir' administration, and such an article would simply be a content mirror of the Kashmir/Kashmir conflict articles. --Soman (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S3000 please read the pakistan administered article it covers all regions under pakistani control so whats your next excuse for keeping POK? 86.153.130.47 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)I dont really understand S3000 what do you want when all pakistani administered are clearly written in the pakistan administered article ??? there is no article about indian administered kashmir 86.153.130.47 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pahari, as others and I have said, there's a need for a centralised article on all Kashmiri areas under Pakistani control. What I'm trying to say is that it is a relevant topic. Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas make up 2 seperate entities (provinces) within Pakistan. India however is claiming the whole area as one single entity, which is Pakistani occupied Kashmir (as how the Indians put it). The entity claimed also includes areas which were ceded to China by Pakistan, which India considers is illegal as the areas ceded were undisputedly a part of the Princely State of J&K that Pakistan acquired as a result of the 1947 war. India still considers these areas a part of "Pakistan occupied Kashmir". In comparison with the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, it is all under one entity which remains unchanged, and Pakistan is claiming nothing more than Jammu and Kashmir (or IoK). That's the purpose of this article. Based on this I don't think that it deserves to get deleted. Moreover I don't understand the anon sockpuppet (86.X.X.X) trolling around here, who votes "delete" then makes remarks in support of a merger. His comments should be totally disregarded. S3000 ☎ 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have to disagree with you here, you say the "entity claimed also includes areas which were ceded to China by Pakistan", why should this be in an article called Pakistan Administered/Occupied Kashmir? The Aksai Chin is not under the control of Pakistan, it is governed by ChinaPahari Sahib 17:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is because India doesn't recognise it as a part of China but as a part of Pakistan occupied Kashmir. AK + NA + TKT = PoK.

Sorry for any ambiguoty, I didn't mean to include Aksai Chin. Only Trans-Karakorum Tract. Aksai Chin is a seperate issue with PRC and India claims it directly from them. It is not related to Pakistani Kashmir. China took control of Aksai Chin after the Sino-Indian war directly from India. S3000 ☎ 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Nichalp. 1.2 billion people, their government and media perceive the disputed territory as Pakistan occupied kashmir. The issue is not whether it is right or wrong. I am of the opinion the article can be written in NPOV way detailing Indian POV, Pakistan POV and the rest of the world POV. Redirection is not an option though it may be redundant with other articles. Finally I would like to thank the user who brought this important issue to my attention. Docku^Hi 15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a) I don't see 1.2 billion votes here b) Who are you thanking for brining this to your attention?

Pahari Sahib 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Docku is thanking Hax56 (talk · contribs), another Kashmircloud canvassing sock. --Soman (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care whether he is a sock? Docku^Hi 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wherefore is this reckless fervent harassing resentment when Indian people are defending the position endorsed by their country? The Pakistani position is here, so whe should have them both! Please, consider the notion tolerance! Bogorm (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soman, may I ask what makes you think all canvassing users are a sock of Kashmircloud? Not that I'm supporting him but it's not ethical to blatantly throw accusations. S3000 ☎ 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this edit by Hax56 bears a resemblence to this edit by Kashmir Cloud as does this edit by Cast788. All of which seems to be having the desired affect. Pahari Sahib 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ For reasons given below:

"Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" is a term widely used in Indian media. It is also the official term the Indian government for Kashmiri areas under Pakistani control. So, the encyclopedic value of this page is there as it is not some imaginary term.
And talking about POV, Both the terms, "Azad Kashmir" and "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" are POV terms but they represent the POVs of two nations and not just some individuals. Azad Kashmir means "Free Kashmir". And as User:Nichalp pointed out, isn't that a term which represents POV of Pakistan? So, Pakistani official POV terms are fine but the same rule does not apply to Indian official POV terms? Isn't that baffling?
There is no article covering the entire Kashmiri region under Pakistani control. Indian-Kashmir has this article "Jammu and Kashmir" and also articles on various divisions: Jammu, Kashmir valley and Ladakh. Pakistani-Kashmir has articles only on Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas.
The very content of this article should start with.. "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is a term used by India.." and doing so will make the apparent POV obvious. With the scope of this article very well defined right in the beginning, issues over its POV title should not exist.

To end, take time, think logically and then decide whether this article deserves to be there or not. --Enigma Blues (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted elsewhere there is a political entity officially called "Azad Kashmir" - it may or may not be Azad but that is its official name. Perhaps if you were Tibetan you could argue perhaps that the People's Liberation Army hasn't really liberated anyone. Should that mean there should be an article called People's occupation army? Was the Free City of Danzig really free, should there then be an article with German view to counter this. If you look at the lead section of the Azad Kashmir article (perhaps could do with a clean up) - you will see it is not really the mouthpiece of the government. The article merely reflects the fact that there is an entity with that name. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is clearly a viewpoint and therefore POV. Pahari Sahib 17:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no body is saying that "Azad Kashmir" is not a valid term. Both Azad Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir are different articles with different scope. And yes, if the Poles did have an official term for the Free City of Danzig during the time it was under German occupation, then that term, though a POV, had encyclopedic value. Let me give you a better example: South Ossetia is a de-facto independent state recognized only by couple of countries. And we also have an article on Shida Kartli, a Georgian name for an area which more or less corresponds to South Ossetia even though it does not have control over it. So, both Georgian and Ossetian terms for this piece of land get a mention and that is how it should be. I hope you get the point. --Enigma Blues (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Shida Kartli" is an administrative area that overlapped with South Ossetia, there is no hint of POV with these two terms. Whereas "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" is inherently POV Pahari Sahib 18:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" is a POV term for Pakistanis in a manner similar to the way "Azad Kashmir" is POV for Indians. So, it balances out. Right? Anyways, it is not about tit-for-tat or POV terms. It is simply about the encyclopedic value of a country's official term for a particular piece of land it lays claim on. Simple! --Enigma Blues (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, before anyone else points it out, my attention was brought to this page my some other user. But my decision to vote here was inspired by User:Nichalp's comments. --Enigma Blues (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless discussing Azad Kashmir because it only links to the lesser area of Pakistani Kashmir. What he's saying is that while Azad is the official term used by Pakistan, PoK is likewise the official term used on all of Pakistani Kashmir (Azad, Northern Areas, Karakorum tract) by India. S3000 ☎ 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is you dont bother looking for it here ill show you it Pakistan-administered Kashmir now take a look before making conclusions 86.163.153.184 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and may I bring it your kind notice that it was I who reverted the redirect of this page to Azad Kashmir [23]. Talk about taking "a look before making conclusions". :P --Enigma Blues (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well it means your comments dont mean anything you rant about no article which ecompasses all the territories in pakistani control but there is you dont want to read because it doesnt mention your POV 86.163.153.184 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I'm pretty sure somebody would have eventually reverted my edit. Talking about which, your IP address is very similar to 86.151.127.244, the one who reverted by previous edit [24]. In fact, this and this proves that I'm dealing with same person here. --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your straying now you claimed there is no article for pakistani admin regions but there is why did you lie when you knew there was and no one deleted that article just reverts 86.163.153.184 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about lying here. I just forgot about that article because I made that edit 6 days ago. I'm a human being who does not have a computer memory. Anyways, what is even more baffling is to see your sense of opportunism. First, you revert my edit and then you go around writing this?! Simply amazing. --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppurtunism wow its funny and very convenient how so many editors forget all about the Pakistan-administered Kashmir once they reach the POK page my freind and other freinds i see a pattern of editors just nodding there heads to kashmir cloud and false claims such as no unified page this all comes from POV mentality 86.163.153.184 (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I forgot about the article in manner similar to the way you forgot about the fact that you had a brief edit-war with me over the very same article. Your point being? --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it is also funny how a person who previously opposed an article now uses that very same article to support his points. --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your second claim of Azad kashmir being POV as i recall its pakistani soil even if india mouns over it they have no right to push there names like POK onto there soil its like pakistan renaming jammu and kashmir Indian occupied kashmir and creating seperate pages for it this is what some indian editors are doing 86.163.153.184 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Pakistan has an official term for Jammu and Kashmir (I think Pakistani media call it "Indian-Held Kashmir"), then that term has equal encyclopedic value as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see the thing is Pakistan doesnt push its POV onto indian territory like jammu and kashmir articles the word occupied is also mentioned there why do you want a seperate article just in Indias POV 86.163.153.184 (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Held is not the same as occupied its a mich lighter word its simple 86.163.153.184 (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? You mean to say couple Pakistani Wikipedians stand for Pakistan? You mean to say Pakistan will not push its POV given an opportunity? All I know is that India does not go around naming its part of Kashmir with explicitly POV terms like "Azad" Kashmir. Anyways, this conversation is getting off-topic. --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What i mean is that India can call jammu and kashmir what it wants pakistan cant do anything about that also india has not right at all to call azad kashmir POK i havent seen any pakistani editors conjuring articles like indian occupied kashmir just to tick of indians so i beleive Pakistan never pushes POV onto other soil besides during war offcourse just like india talks of locus standi i also say india should consider its locus standi 86.163.153.184 (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the history and talkpage of Jammu and Kashmir article and you'll notice the number of times Pakistani terms for Indian Kashmir was added. Even now, the article clearly mentions Pakistani term for Jammu and Kashmir. If you want talk about Pakistanis pushing POV, have a look at the contributions of User:Nadirali, User:Unre4L and User:Szhaider. Anyways, I'm also open to the idea of deleting the Pakistan occupied Kashmir article and instead merging it into Pakistan-administered Kashmir article. --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down look at azad kashmir it also states indias POK claim and pakistani editors wouldnt create seperate POV articles as the one created by indians i/e POK 86.163.153.184 (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC) P.S i cant give you as many as 10 indian editors who also abuse pakistani articles with there POV theres always bad apples look at kashmir cloud hes used around 5 seperate accounts to push his "SAVE POK" message 86.163.153.184 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I'm changing my vote to delete and merge with Pakistani-administered Kashmir. --Enigma Blues (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. We already have Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is by itself a totally POV term. Also, why does it matter what term India uses? It's Pakistani soil, not Indian. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The claim of it being Pakistani soil is disputed. Please get aquainted with the topic before making personal POV statements. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's under Pakistani control, so the least favorite name should be the Indian one. Also, "Pakistan-administered" seems much more NPOV to me than "Pakistan-occupied". Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However indian kashmiri soil is also disputed so its not for anyone to say which territory is disputed as both nations are claiming every part of kashmir better to stick no NPOV on both sides 86.163.153.184 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP. Why dont you create an account (just a friendly suggestion) so we have a better sense of with whom we are talking to. Docku^Hi 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, he can't, he's banned from wikipedia. I suggest his comments be ignored/reverted in the future, rather than answered. --Soman (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how you know that he is banned. If he really is, may be we should make the announcement bolder so no one else wastes their time talking to a banned user. Docku^Hi 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here: A comment to all editors/admins/etc. involved in this heated discussion and debate over the deletion of the PoK: IPs 86.163.153.184, 86.153.130.47, 86.158.235.148, among others, are all sockpuppet IPs of the blocked user Nangparbat. His/her racial and other comments are to be ignored from here on. That about covers it ;) BlackPearl14 ^[talkies!^•^contribs!] 22:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FOUR major problems WITH Pak AS suggested by nichalp

1. terrorism missed out : nichalp's suggestion (in the notice directing page) misses out out on the export of terrorism from pok..which is refereed as "cross border terrorism" in india and abroad..Kashmircloud (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. POK = PaK +(plus) trans-Karakoram tract - (minus) Siachen : pakistan administered kashmir leaves out the CHINESE ADMINISTERED trans-Karakoram tract region outside its purview..further siachen is claimed as part of "Pakistan administered subregion of FANA"...BUT, SIACHEN is india-administered (not pakistan administered!!!).. hence it differs from POK which includes AJK, FANA as well as trans-Karakoram tract..SO PAK NOT EQUAL TO POK...rather PaK + trans-Karakoram tract - Siachen = POK Kashmircloud (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. FOLLOW LOGIC UNIFORMLY : if we were to strictly follow UNITED NATIONS' stand, then AJK and FANA areas should be in a background map of Kashmir and Jammu.. (not of pakistan- AS IT IS NOW)..both articles should cease having post 1970 pakistan coined terms to refer to a region disputed from 1947..(time gap!!)...use all or none rule..if you believe UN wordings, then state UN positions everywhere WITHOUT PAKISTANI BIAS including the titles of "azad k" and other such "pakistan coined" places..else leave the topic as Pok with a redirect from pak (while mentioning the chinese control of trans-Karakoram tract)Kashmircloud (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. "PaK" is a term neither used by india nor pakistan officially or otherwise(unlike POK)..since we didn't remove a biased "azad k" article heading (since pakistan uses it after 1970s), it is appropriate that POK too must not be deleted/ altered since it is a stable term used since 1947..Kashmircloud (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I've tried to write up a replacement draft for Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Please see User:Nichalp/Kashmir. It may not be completely NPOV, so do add suggestions to the draft on the talk page. This is for *Suggestions only*. Absolutely NO RANTS will be tolerated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur completely with Kashmircloud - PaK is not used by India and Pakistan, the Pakistanis have their version - Azad Kashmir, so must the Bharat version be present too in order to prevent one-sidedness! As eluidated by him and other users, POK does not include only PaK, but a much wider territory, do not mislead the readers. Bogorm (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the issue in my draft. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that Bogorm is putting forth, having a 'Pakistani version' at Azad Kashmir and a 'Bharat version' at PoK is in direct contradiction to WP:FORK. Likewise we don't have separate articles for Republic of Macedonia and FYROM. If there are POV issue in the Azad Kashmir article, address those issues there. Unfortunately the name issue is not a POV issue, as 'Azad Kashmir' is a proper name of an administrative unit, not a description. We follow NPOV in the sense that we use the formal names for the existing administrations, Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir. --Soman (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you let Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia redirect to the Macedonist name and Macedonist stance is an incontrovertible POV! Look how the venerable Greek Wikipedia entitles its article - Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας. Why on earth should the sensible name be disparaged? I know that the occupants are powerful, but one should take in consideration the oppressed people too, otherwise they became not only powerful, but omnipotent and the neutrality, balance and impartiality are sacrificed, as here, if the current article is deleted. Bogorm (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you miss the point. We utilize Republic of Macedonia, the formal name of the state as its name for the main article. Likewise we have Azad Kashmir (shorten version of formal name) at the article name. We don't have separate articles for the 'Greek version' or the 'Bharat version', as that would be a pov fork. The fact that Greek Wikipedia has some different POV issues than English wikipedia in this case goes without saying. As per the 'occupants is powerful' rhetoric, have you visited Muzaffarabad? Noticed any insurgency against Pakistani rule? Perhaps 100 000s of protestors clashing with occupation forces, curfews issued by the ruling power? --Soman (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not miss the point, remember that you are discussing the peninsula where I dwell! Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is now in the hands of Macedonist reign just as here - both names are the terminology of the occupier, please let the defenders of the oppressed people have teir position elucidated - Greece and India (in Macedonia there are only Bulgarians and Greeks, but that is a long dispute, I can get loquacious, if I should elucidate it). Bogorm (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pakistan Administered Kashmir - This used to be a redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir or Azad Kashmir (forgot which of the two it is). But anyway, "occupied" is a POV term, and Indian Government nomenclature does not apply to Wikipedia articles ... no matter how many people like it. The region is officially under Pakistani administration, whether or not India does not recognize it is not relevant here. --Ragib (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, redirect PaK to Pakistan occupied Kashmir instead. Which evidence do you have of the usage of PaK outside Pakistan? The three important documents for POK are quoted above (Shri Rajnath Singh, Shri Lal Krishna Advani and Arun Jaitley)? Bogorm (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have already expressed your opinion above, so please don't butt in here. Did it escape your attention that all your quotes are Indian views? Calling a location "occupied" inherently shows the POV. What next ... British-occupied Malvinas, Russian-occupied Georgia, Chinese province of Taiwan? Wikipedia is NOT the space for Indian or any other kind of jingoism, nor is it a soapboax for canvassed campaigns. Nichalp, on the other hand, has a good proposal. --Ragib (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, British occupied Malvinas. Oh, no, this article does not exist... When I improve my knowledge of Spanish and make myself familiar with the Argentinian position, I shall take up its creation. Would you object? Bogorm (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POVFORK. Thank you for your esteemed opinion. I appreciate it more if you go up in this page and add your viewpoints to the place where you pointed out your vote. Have a nice day. --Ragib (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Give it a break! Paanchbaar try korlam. And its showing edit conflict everytime. :-) Btw, why do you want to waste your time with someone, who obviously is not aware of the term POV? Shovon (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that Ragib is wasting his time with me? I only wanted to preserve the article expounding the Indian position, if my support is futile according to the Indian Wikipedians, I can retract it. But as for now, I shall not, because the Indian position is indispensable for Wikipedians from neutral states in order to make themselves familiar with the opposite legal situation. Bogorm (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PaK. The version by Nichalp is a good, NPOV example of the proposed form for the article. Only thing missing is a map. I agree that PoK is a POV term, but so is Azad Kashmir. Sorry guys, for raising this. But after going through the whole discussion page, I believe that most of the editors only look at the issues wearing respective colored glass. Shovon (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day this POK article will be deleted no matter how many indian editors flock to this page to show there support for the article POV will not be tolerated p.s its pakistans territory so india cant rename it unless you want a seperate indian occupied kashmir with all the human rights abuses by india included i suggest you remove this article 86.158.238.188 (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the end of the month I will have created the same article in the Danish Wikipedia thanks to my knowledge of the language with all the crucial sources and the position of Shri Lal Krishna Advani, Shri Rajnath Singh and Arun Jaitley, no matter how many Pakistani editors throng hither to impose its deltion here. Bogorm (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC) All i can say now is bring it on brin krishan and every Pro indian source you want i promise to you that your mission of POV will be killed 86.158.238.188 (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir and protect the redirect. The term "occupied" implies that they should not be there and hence is not NPOV, the term "administered" does not. In addition the article is horribly biased in favour of the Indian position, Nichalp's draft is a lot better and Pakistan-administered Kashmir could be worse. Whether or not the term is widely used by the Indian media does not determine where our article should be, and if we use a title used by India we take their side in the dispute. It does make it a reasonable search term, hence the need for the redirect, but it does not affect the article title. Hut 8.5 16:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NEW Indian Occupied Kashmir Article Is Required[edit]

i propose a new article which states that india occupied jammu and kashmir so pakistanis point of veiw is also states if india is allowed to state its claims so should Pakistan this talk of azad kashmir is pathetic pakistan can name its territory what it wants it doesnt need indian agreement why not call jammu and kashmir occupied see how the indian editors react just a suggestion however :) 86.158.238.188 (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Also look at all the protests against india in the past few days im saying this because some editors claim that what makes azad kashmir free well ill tell you this kashmiris arent bombing us or fighting the pak army thats whats happening in Jammu and kashmir 86.158.238.188 (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can bring all your pro indian sources like krishan or whatever there names are i assure your POV POK article will be destroyed bye bye now86.158.238.188 (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose Kashmir appertains to the Republic of India. Bogorm (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh i see your point then also azad kashmir is a territory of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan POK must be removed then if this article is not produced hand in hand to acheive neutrality with POK. 86.158.238.188 (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that 86.158 is a banned user, please dont waste your time talking to him. Infact, someone adviced me to revert his edits rather. Docku^Hi 12:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See when it comes to crunch time over indian occupied kashmir the editors make excuses 86.158.238.188 (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nichalp's draft article User:Nichalp/Kashmir[edit]

First change needed is to not remove the word "Occupied". As per my comment above, it is the mindset of people that makes it different from Pakistan "Administered" Kashmir. So ideally, two articles SHOULD exist with the exact same term as used by Indian and international community. Remember : Occupied is NOT POV. It is official term used in India. --gppande «talk» 14:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"mindset of people" would be WP:OR for Wikipedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how? Wikipedia should be website which contains information of all known things to human beings. How can we skip a term popularly used in India from mentioning anywhere in Wikipedia? This would be too ugly. Imagine - majority of Indians know the term but not Wikipedia. It defeats the whole purpose of Wikipedia. --gppande «talk» 09:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

occupied is POV term on wikipedia it doesnt matter if indian government say it its still breaking rules and the indian government have no power over wikipedia 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC) There is already a pakistani administered kashmir page so whats the point of this since its made by a indian on the topic of kashmir its bound to POV so i disagree 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be I will advice gppande before he responds to this IP. I was adviced that the IP is a banned user. Thus, it is better you ignore him and respond :to other credible users. Docku^Hi 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again ducking the question i posed to ensure you dont have to answer something which you have no answer for 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When are administraters going to make a decision all i see is a circle of the same editors editing no new comments just the same jibberish 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the word "administered"? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothings wrong with the word administered the only thing wrong here is POK i also suggest keeping new articles on pakistan out for the time being we already have one 86.153.128.50 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Nichalp has written a fair article. Perhaps, the addition of "sometimes referred to as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in India" would help. (I say "sometimes" because, apparently, both P-aK and POK are used interchangeably in India - cf., the references provided by PahariSahib above.) --Regents Park (count the magpies) 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is already a pakistan administered kashmir page i think pakistani editors should get a chance of creating a article which is basically about there soil why do indians create pakistani pages 86.153.128.50 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question of ownership of articles by Indian or Pakistanis. See WP:OWN. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is good, but it doesn't solve the problem. We already have two articles on the same matter (Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) and now we got a third one. What should we do? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PoK
Recreate it as a redirect to PaK
Update PaK with my draft

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you cant just redirect it to nichalps version because no one has agreed yet to reduce conflict (which will probably happen again tdue to this new article from nichalp) 86.153.128.50 (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get what you are trying to say. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im saying that there is already a pakistani administered kashmir article whats the point of creating a new one the whole point of this discussion is just to get rid of the biased POK article 86.153.128.50 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Also why do you want to update PAK article for ??? i wont accept any merge of POK material with PAK 86.153.128.50 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Admiral Norton. Having an article with such title would not be a problem because "occupation" is a normal internationally recognized term. However, we are dealing with an obvious POV fork here. So, delete and merge any usable content.Biophys (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was saying above. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets go step by step. Everybody agrees that Nichalp has better version than current PaK and PoK. Lets first understand -

Is there a need for two separate article - 1) PaK 2) PoK ?

In my opinion Yes. As I said, PaK is how Government of Pakistan considers that area under its constitution. Similarly PoK is how Government of India treats it. Since there is 180 degree different policies of the two nation for the same area - I argue there is a need for two separate articles on Wikipedia. This is exactly what I mean by mindset, again. Its a mindset - a lay man reading from deep of Africa or top of Andes mountains of South America needs to understand how the two nuclear rival states sees the disputed area. --gppande «talk» 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the person from Andes will most likely be looking for info about the region. The Indo-Pak rivalry is well documented in Kashmir conflict, and having two articles on the same region based on Wikipedian's individual nationalist agenda is not acceptable. --Ragib (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles makes no sense to me. P-aK and POK are the same region. Different political claims can and should be handled in the same article. A lay man from the Andes would get only half the story if he/she wandered onto one or the other of the two pages, but would get a complete picture if there was just one article.--Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean an article should be split in two major sections. One for Pak view point another for Indian viewpoint? In such a scenario the article will keep growing and eventually would need a split anyways. --gppande «talk» 09:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word "Occupied" POV?

In my opinion No. As said above it is the official term used by India. It is not the only country to use this term. Soviet occupied Afghanistan, NATO occupied territories of Iraq, Morocco occupied Western Sahara are all examples used across the globe to identify the regions. It is general term used across the media for different regions. PoK is the term used by India and should be used as the title for the Indian view article. --gppande «talk» 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, why don't we also have "British-occupied Malvinas" along with the Falkland Islands article? --Ragib (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes. Occupied implies that Pakistan has an illegal claim over the region. However, the legality of its claim is still open to question. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Occupied does imply illegal claim, BUT this is an "Indian" viewpoint. Not Wikipedia's viewpoint. For Wikipedia to remain neutral I suppose viewpoints of both countries be included. Not the viewpoint of country which administers it. This holds true for vice-versa region also. --gppande «talk» 09:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a need for any redirect?

I believe no. Both the articles of PaK and PoK will have their individuality (based on which Government uses that term). This way, views of Indian Government and Pak Government would be laid in their respective articles and will provide detail knowledge on the political/administrative standings as per their law. --gppande «talk» 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Two articles for the same entity would be purely for definitional reasons. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the two articles are well written they would be much more than defination - believe me. Indian view point has tons of matter to write about PoK with good content. Not the content coming out nationalist feeling. Similarly Pak side will also have similar text about the region. It would much more than a dictionary. --gppande «talk» 10:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, but titling it in a way which favours one side or the other when the legality of the issue is still in question is also not in the interestes of wp. I wonder if there is way for the article to be titled in a way which reflects both positions.. Docku^Hi 23:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hold out much hope for a stable neutral article but the article should try to present the facts neutrally (irrespective of whether it tilts toward one side or not). I like nichalp's version because it works as a summary article that then directs the reader to more detailed articles (Kashmir conflict, UN resolutions, etc.). The political status of Kashmir (whether it be the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir or the Pakistani region P-aK) is too complicated to be addressed in this article itself. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(In any event, it makes no sense to have two articles on the same geographical region because two different POVs about the political status of that region exist. Both those articles would then be, by definition, non-neutral and in violation of the neutrality policy of wikipedia!--Regents Park (count the magpies) 00:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well, there is nothing wrong in having two different articles articluating two viewpoits if they are neutrally written and rightly attributed. We all know that earth is spherical, which did not and should not stop wikipedians from having an article on flat earth theory. Docku^Hi 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect analogy. The two articles above are about concepts, theories, while the article in question is about a single region. The two opposing viewpoints are adequeately handled, or can be handled in the article Kashmir conflict. If we start allowing articles based on each Wikipedian's personal nationalist viewpoint, then pretty soon we'd end up with 10s of articles describing the same geographic region. Examples include Falkland Islands, Aksai Chin (or "Chinese-occupied Kashmir" ;) ), Taiwan (or Kuomintang occupied Chinese province" in the jingoist jargon). --Ragib (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose creation of such articles because I stand by my opinion and analogy regardless of whether you like it or not. Docku^Hi 01:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your information. Just wanted to point out the silliness of such articles - (North Korean Occupied Korea ,South Korean Occupied Korea), (Falklands, British-Occupied Malvinas), (Junagadh, Indian-occupied Junagadh), (Jammu and Kashmir, Indian-occupied Kashmir), (Tibet, Chinese-occupied Tibet), (Sikkim, Indian-occupied Sikkim), (Taiwan, Nationalist-chinese-occupied Taiwan province). That will just turn wikipedia into Encyclopedia Dramatica :D. --Ragib (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how silly or genuine those article can be and that is why I am not going to oppose if you are going to create one of them. I however dont think this article in question is a silly proposition. For the record, My position is title the article in a way which reflects the positions of two sides or have two articles. However, you are welcome to ridicule my position and laugh at it if it helps relieve some stress off you. Docku^Hi 02:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider expressing your opinions for the above three questions just below them. This way we would be addressing the issue one by one. --gppande «talk» 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But last time I checked, Wikipedia had a policy titled WP:NPOV, and also "Government viewpoints" have exactly zero value in deciding Wikipedia content. --Ragib (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with the above user gppande it doesnt matter what india claims over pakistanis soil wether india calls it occupied or fairyland it doesnt matter what matters is neutrality occupied is NOT neutral. Also its so silly to have two articles one region its totally against wikipedia rules as a indian yourself you must agree to neutrality and veiw both regions as administered territories indian government (no government rules wikipedia to be clear) claims do not matter on wikipedia but we can mention the POK term on articles like PAK. However there WILL NOT BE A EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE LIKE POK just to accomidate Indian POV after reading the PAK article it covers everything so theres no need for a new PAK article 86.153.128.50 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to close this AFD. Please see The talk page =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have semi-protected this page for 4 hours due to excessive inflammatory comments by 86.153.128.50. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! I don't like his racism, I respect his viewpoints, but I cannot handle something against my culture and nationality. Wikipedia is harmonious, lets keep a unanimous, peaceful front! BlackPearl14 ^[talkies!^•^contribs!] 03:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of my position in table form.

Region	View1	View2
Earth	Spherical shape	Flat shape
disputed Kashmir region	Pakistan occupied	Pakistan administered

Two separate articles on two independent views on the shape of the earth (though one proven incorrect) in wikipedia highlight that two viewpoints of a geographical region if held by significant number of people and written in a way without violating wikipedia policies can be accomodated.

I know some people are going to call this analogy ridiculous and irrelevant and some are going to point to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Well, opinion is an opinion, there goes. Docku^Hi 03:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: May be I should clarify that I put the viewpoints in random order, definitely no other intention. Docku^Hi 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't need two different articles on the same subject, just include both viewpoints. Forking POV's is not the answer and the term 'occupied' is a POV phrase used by the Indian media, per Hut 8.5. - Icewedge (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...voting ended a while ago, mate. Nichalp wanted to close it in favour of his new proposition. Perhaps, favour isn't the correct word in this little sentence ;) BlackPearl14 ^[talkies!^•^contribs!] 05:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this AfD is not closed yet. There were two proposals to close it, but it isn't not closed as of now. --Soman (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion -- Once this is closed, how about using our collective energy in collaborating to make this a featured article? FA are more stable, and would serve as a model article of collaboration from opposing groups. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now that's an interesting suggestion, perhaps we could see also then see emergence of Wikipedia:WikiProject India Pakistan Collaboration? :-) Pahari Sahib 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No to the proposal of a NAC at this point: Settling for 'no consensus' in this afd just makes the editwarring permanent. This afd had been settled as delete long time ago if it wasn't for the nationalist canvassing and constant disruptions. The way forward is semiprotection and discussion concrete positions. I appreciate Nichalp's initiatives as very constructive, although I don't fully agree with them. --Soman (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G11 or 12, take your pick with a side of SALT. . TravellingCari 17:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pines City Colleges[edit]

This mess of an "article" reads like an advertisement of the college's accomplishment and does not remotely resemble an encyclopedia article. It doesn't even say where the college is! Speedy deletion was declined by Od Mishehu (talk · contribs), even though the article creator repeatedly vandalized the article by removing the tag; now it's mainly edited by other SPAs. Delete it with fire. JuJube (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Article is mere advertisement of the courses offered within the college. It provides with no encyclopedic information. Should be deleted.Hitro 17:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This is not an article, and as such should be nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL clearly applies to articles, not projectspace. WJBscribe (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians[edit]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I know I'm going to get hate message for this, BUT, policy is Wiki is not a memorial. I'm not unsympathetic, my father died in March of this year, but I kept any mention of it off any pages, even my own userspace so that I wouldn't run afoul of this policy. If you want this page, the policy on this has to change, other wise the page can't be here. It wouldn't make sense to have WP:NOTMEMORIAL and yet have memorials anyway KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would say that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is intended to apply to article space, not project space. However, there may be other good reasons for deleting this. Mike R (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just noticed that this is at AfD; it should be moved to MfD. Mike R (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep does no harm, serves the community memory, not in article space, and IAR. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - IAR. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Pfaffenberger[edit]

This article has been re-created several times today and I would like to bring it here to either put it to bed for good or see if there is enough consensus to keep it. This article is mainly advertising for a private practice and subject is non-notable beyond that. TN‑X-Man 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent sources are produced which back up these claims. As it sits right now, it's just "I'm very influential- we know because I said so." Friday (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's barely a claim of notability here, no independent sources, and it appears to be autobiograpy and spam. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Peacock (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty clearly a WP:COI in play here as well... just look at the creator's username! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. No evidence of significant citability of her research: very little in GoogleScholar[25] and GoogleBooks[26]; I also checked the WebOfScience and Scopus and found very little there. Apparently just a few publications published by her and almost no citations of her work. No other evidence of her research having made significant impact that I could find anywhere else (awards, honors, etc). Does not seem to have a webpage at Oregon College of Oriental Medicine and it is not very clear what sort of facult position she has there. All in all, does not pass WP:ACADEMIC based on the evidence available. Nsk92 (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of scholarly impact required to pass required to pass criterion 1 of WP:PROF (two hits in google scholar, grand total of one citation of her work - see NSk92's comments for link). No claim, or evidence to suggest, any other criterion of WP:PROF is met. Article makes no claim to passing WP:BIO and a google search suggests that she is not the subject of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nsk92 and Pete Hurd. Looks like a badly formatted CV and the "infobox bodybuilder" doesn't really help either. --Crusio (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt. --Buridan (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayview (Need for Speed)[edit]

Fancruft article, unsourced since 2007, and two other related articles deleted in like (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockport (Need for Speed) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palmont) 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Need for Speed: Underground 2. Nothing here appears notable to me, but if there is, merge is the best option. Peacock (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete twaddle from beginning to end. An unlikely search term and the whole article seems to be written form one fan's ideas of what he has seen in the game. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. MuZemike (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to be almost completely WP:OR on a non-notable topic. There are no appropriate sources to reliably correct this article, and so it cannot meet WP:V. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of nations finishing at the top of the medals tables at the Summer Olympic Games[edit]

This article exists as content fork because of a dispute over the inclusion of this table on the Summer Olympic Games article. Some editors feel that there is undue weight given to these rankings by the inclusion of this table, especially when there is some controversy about who is "first" (see the recent creation of Olympic medal table for one response to that). Also note that we also have this information listed on a per-Games basis (e.g. 2008 Summer Olympics medal table), so I question the need to present this information in an alternate format (with an arbitrary cutoff (WP:NPOV) of "fourth place"). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added the similar Winter Games list to this nom. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons provided in the nom. This is not how we solve disputes and there is room in Summer Olympic Games for this table so that is also not a reason to create this fork. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify a point here; the relevance of these tables is beyond the scope of an AfD debate. The articles should be judged on their own merits and as such they fail utterly per WP:CFORK. Everything else is a content dispute that should be resolved on the relevant talk pages. I notice these were created without prior agreement among the involved editors which further supports the WP:CFORK argument in the nom. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I created a separate article as even some people in favour of the table felt that it did not necessarily belong in the main article about the Summer Olympics. Also, when asked, nobody seemed to object to it's inclusion as a stand alone article. I am new to all this though, so sorry if I'm not following the usual conventions or allowing adequate time for people to respond to discussions. Lukens (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. It was a slow moving discussion and though I will assume good faith here there was no consensus that the tables should be forked. You guys need to work this out on the relevant talk pages instead. Forking and having the debate here instead isn't the way to go. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I supported the removal of the table from Summer Olympic Games and I don't think it needs inclusion in wikipedia as a seperate article either. Basement12 (T.C) 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, ~~fails WP:SYNTH~~. --Tone 16:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it's utterly useless (and frankly will just invite the 'Count by gold!' 'NO! Count by total!' edit-warring that's already been going on). Prince of Canada^{t | c} 16:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~^{(changing vote - see below)} I feel this article is better suited to inclusion as a separate article, as it should lessen any undue weight it gives to medal tables rankings when included in the main Summer Olympic Games article. I don't think the fact that this information exists in separate tables means it should not also be included here in summarised form - it would take a long time to look at the individual medal tables so as to piece together this information if it was something you were interested in seeing. Many of the arguments given in the past for deleting the article, and deleting it from the Summer Olympic Games article could also be used as arguments for deleting the individual medals tables, or other summaries of the data, such as the All-time Olympic Games medal table article. The IOC may not officially recognise the medal tables; however, I suspect that the vast majority of people who have an interest in the Olympic games also have an interest in medal tables positions. I feel this article adds value, it is something I assumed would be included on wikipedia, and I searched for it for a long time - I did eventually find it, but the next time I wanted to check it, I found it had been deleted again. I agree that '4th' is an odd cut off point, and would be more than happy to see this changed. Also, to prevent any debate over the ordering of nations, I would be happy to see the article include tables based on both methods for ordering (gold first, or total medals first). Lukens (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OK, I'm changing my vote to delete (for now) so that we can try and gain consensus about what should eventually happen to this list here - Lukens (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nomination. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is harmless, factual, and informative. I myself have at times wanted a table of information just like it. As for why we need it when the same information exists on a per-game basis: What if a reader wants to know who got the most medals in every game? It's much easier for them to consult one or two articles than it is for them to consult dozens and put together the information themselves. The cut-off at the top four nations is arbitrary, but it seems to me that it's just to make the table easier to read. Including every NOC for every game would make the page slow to load and difficult to navigate. I don't think it violates NPOV. Also, I don't believe it violates WP:SYNTH, because it doesn't draw any new conclusions from the material. There's no original argument here. It's just arranging readily available information in a table. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination does not mention WP:SYNTH at all. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments do though. Lukens (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Totally agreed with Orange Tuesday. The article is harmless, informative, its content is not controversial as the rules for listing the nations are clear, and gives a "summary" of the top sport-nations, something like a list of winning teams in other sport-related articles. - Sthenel (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But "other sport-related article" typically include that information within the main article, not as a content fork. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is because they have official "winners"; I feel that the fact that the medals tables are unofficial is a good reason for not including this in the main article (where it would be comparable to other "winners" tables for other sporting contests), but is not a good reason for excluding it all together. I think context is important here, and having it as a separate article removes the undue weight given to the list; I don't view this as forking to avoid the debate, but forking for a more suitable context. Also, other games (Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games) include overall medal tables in the main article, yet, for the Olympics, this is included as a separate article, so it could also be argued that it is just following the example set by that article. Lukens (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The medal table is included as a seperate article mostly due to issues surrounding page length. Basement12 (T.C) 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is existing information, it is of great interest (despite the IOC's wishes) and is just the kind of article I would expect in an encyclopedia. If you must, include the IOC comment as a disclaimer. Personally I would like to go further and see comment on the rise and fall of the Soviet block, the rise of China, the response of countries to their 'poor' showing, the benefit of 'home advantage'... but this is right into Original Research territory (and all probably anathema to the IOC!). As for edit wars, if someone wants to make a "most medals" table, please go ahead... Wikipete 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD discussion seems to be turning into a debate about whether or not the content is useful, which really ought to be kept at Talk:Summer Olympic Games where it started. My nomination of this article for deletion was because I object to the creation of the article as a content fork to bypass that discussion. That reason alone should be the reason for considering whether this should be deleted or not. As that guideline says, both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the usefulness of the information is entirely relevant to this discussion, and I think it would be too narrow of us to only focus on the Content Forking rule. If the consensus of this AFD is to delete the page, then what happens to the information? Will it get remerged into the Summer Olympics article, or will it just disappear? I'm no Wikipedia bureaucracy expert, but my instinct is that it will just disappear, and the fact that it was deleted will make it difficult for it to be added again. If people find these pages useful, then this is a problem. Look, perhaps Lukens was too hasty in the creation of these pages, but just deleting them isn't going to help resolve the dispute. All the parties involved in this should come to a consensus over whether or not the information is useful and whether or not it deserves its own page. Then we can decide whether or not to delete the pages. That would be a more constructive approach than preempting that consensus and deleting these articles based on a rules violation. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The discussion should continue at Talk:Summer Olympic Games#List of Nations finishing at the top of the medals tables to find consensus. The page history of that article shows versions that had these tables, so content does not "disappear". Also, any administrator can move content from a deleted contribution into user space (for example), to help advance development, if that is necessary. Again, the right place to find consensus on this material is where the discussion started, not in an AFD discussion of an ill-conceived fork. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is subject to POV and all information already exists in relevant medal table articles. If consensus is to keep, the two lists should be merged into one. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content fork of all the individual articles on the Olympic games, such as Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics, etc. Subject to POV as well, which is just not a good combination. Tavix (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IOC medal tables are unofficial rankings and are never used for declaring a "winner" of any Olympics. This article pushes the notion that that the listed countries "won" their respective Olympics. Thus, it gives undue weight to a personal/minority opinion. P.S., for those stressing to keep the article, arguments that the topic is interesting should be avoided per WP:ILIKEIT. --Madchester (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We seem to have got into a bit of a mess here (sorry, probably my fault for creating this as a separate article prematurely); however, I'm a little unsure as to what the next step should be. If this article is deleted, then we are back to square one, and back to trying to gain consensus as to whether this should be included in the main Summer Olympics article. Even I feel it probably shouldn't, as I feel in that context, it possibly does give undue weight to the idea of nations "winning" games (something I feel it does not do as a separate article). The difficulty is, that we'd be trying to gain consensus on several things at the same time, a) should it be included in the main article?, b) should it be included as a separate article?, c) should it be included at all?. Could someone with more experience in these areas please suggest the best steps forward to get these questions resolved with the consensus of the community? Also, I don't think it puts across a personal/minority point of view, or give undue weight, to the idea of finishing at the top of medals tables than any of the individual medal tables do. I also feel that the fact that the IOC do officially recognise the tables is not a reason to delete this article, and if it is, then it is also reason enough to delete all other Olympic medals tables and mentions of rankings, as well as other synth articles such as All-time Olympic Games medal table (which could be argued should be deleted for many of the reasons that these articles are). In the mean time I will copy the articles to my user space in order to maintain them. Lukens (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes, you will be back to where you started because there was no consensus yet. This is really beyond the scope of an AfD though. There is no way around gaining consensus before you post or re-post disputed content. Consensus wins over some arbitrary deadline for when debates should be over and AfD is not the venue to continue that debate. The next steps in dispute resolution aren't really relevant yet but you are of course free to create a request for comments. Again, that is really not relevant to this debate though. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My main concern is about how consensus can be gained when there are multiple options on which consensus is needed to be gained. Any advise on how to do this would be appreciated - does anyone have experience of similar situations?. I understand that AfD is not the place for such debate, but surely there is no harm in discussing here what steps should be taken next. It's all well and good saying the discussion should continue on the original talk page, but I'm not sure what format this should take in order to best gain consensus as to what should happen to this table a) Keep in main article, b) Have as separate article, c) loose all together (ignoring the question as to whether it should be a single article along with the Winter Olympics list). A poll could take place in the talk page, but my understanding is that polling is a practice that is discouraged. Also, people may feel strongly that it should not be in the main article, but not object so much to it being in it's own article, but their preference would be for it being deleted; or strongly that it should be in the main article, not mind it being in it's own article, and strongly against complete deletion - obviously such opinions can't really be expressed in a poll, and it will also be difficult to tell at all when consensus is reached. Basically I'm requesting advise on how we can go about getting consensus on what should happen to the lists, I understand that debate should not happen here, but don't want us to be stuck in limbo due to no clear plan on gaining consensus. Lukens (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The way to do this is to have the debate about having these as single articles or not here and then have the debate about including it in the main article or not on the talk page of the main article. Very little of what is being said here adresses the concerns in the nom which are that these two articles were created prematurely as inappropriate forks to reintroduce disputed content. That is what is being debated here, the rest belongs on the article talk page. To see how to proceed from there if no consensus can be reached please read WP:DR, specifically the part about creating a request for comments. We do not disregard consensus in favor of quick solutions. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure that is the solution. If it is felt that it was forked prematurely, then surely there must have existed a way to gain consensus prior to forking, and so the fork should be deleted, and consensus should be gained as if the fork had never existed. Just because consensus hadn't been reached to fork it, that doesn't mean it would never have been reached. I'm happy to agree that it was forked prematurely, and that more discussion was needed; however, I still feel that it should, eventually, exist as its own article. So, by your suggested solution, I would still vote to keep it, even though I agree that it was probably forked without adequate consensus. Lukens (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I've started an attempt at gaining consensus, without things getting too confused. No doubt I'm again not doing things the way they should be done on wikipedia, but have become impatient at waiting for a better suggestion: see here - Lukens (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is redundent (spelling?) to All-time Olympic Games medal table, and it's biased toward the idea that the total medal count determines being at the top. If you want to see the most total medals, just go to the alltime total page and sort. No reason to have such an article. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The All-time Olympic medal table show something completely different. You can't see which nations finished at the top of the tables at individual games from that table. As you suggest, it is the ideal table to see which nations have won the most total medals, but that is not at all what this list shows. Lukens (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete As per nom. Perakhantu (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undue weight and not useful as an encycloedia article.SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow. Gone. TravellingCari 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make Money[edit]

PROD contested without comment. Concern is How to make money is not an encyclopedic topic per WP:NOTHOWTO. It also appears to be original research. Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, original research and WP:HOWTO/WP:MADEUP. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTHOWTO. Schuym1 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not howto. not to mention non-notable, non-verifiable, spam, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, unless something exceptional happens to remedy these issues. I rather doubt it can. I've tried to assist the contributor here and offered to talk to him further about this article, here, but his response was simply to remove the PROD and the advertising template without comment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of encyclopedic value here - violates WP:OR. Get a job. Peacock (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comments. - TexMurphy (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep both. Synergy 05:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of Indonesia in Houston[edit]

I don't see how these articles meet the notability criteria. There is at best minimal coverage in independent reliable sources of the consulate, and that coverage simply establishes that the consulate exists. Karanacs (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating

As a note, the parent articles of the nominated articles are Diplomatic missions of Russia and Diplomatic missions of Indonesia WhisperToMe (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both as there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources for both verifiability and notability. I have added a few more sources and expanded the Indonesian consulate article as bit as well. - Dravecky (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as per Dravecky. Additional sources for Russia can be found by searching for "Генеральное консульство Российской Федерации в Хьюстоне". This is another source, for example. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both, conditionally There needs to be more substance in these articles. If after a while they remain stubs, they should be removed. Kransky (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a WP:STUB is not a reason to delete an article which meets WP:N. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per significant coverage. Additionally, both Indonesia and Russia are major petroleum producing nations and it's of no coincidence they have diplomatic missions in the center of the US oil industry.--Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is clear. Everyking (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ff m 22:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxi Mounds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

She's a pornstar, she has large breasts, they're fake, she had a dodgy technique done so they're currently the largest boobs in the world... oh and she published a book on exotic dancing. Is she notable just because she's got big breasts? _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her boobs may be fake but she convinced Guinness to list them. I checked. She really is in Guinness. She's a porn actress with mainstream RS attention. Good enough. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. WP:IDONTLIKEIT but, she has been covered in reliable 3rd party sources some examples. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per her being in Guinness. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability requirements and, in answer to the nom's final question, the answer in this case actually is Yes. 23skidoo (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep somebody has to have the biggest. I bet those boobs give her back problems. Tavix (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Third Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Per WP:MUSIC#Albums: unreleased albums are non-notable without "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". Article fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V (also WP:HAMMER). Also bundling the non-notable/non-charting single from the album, similarly lacking media coverage and reliable sources. (Note: Previous AfD was for someone else's untitled third album.)—Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL.Kww (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying per other's comments: Delete the album as crystal. Delete the single article as a violation of WP:MUSIC#Songs, as there is insufficient information to create a reasonably detailed article. Technically, perhaps I should call for merge, but there is so little information that calling it a merge is kind of a joke. Any information that in this article should be in Fefe Dobson.Kww (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The single is the theme song for a TV show on a major cable network, VH1. It has also been used for commercials on other major networks like NBC and ABC. In addition Fefe Dobson is notable herself, so wouldn't her album be too? Also check out what Rhapsody said. If you delete this, you will just have to remake it. Even if you delete the album page, you can not delete the single as it is OBVIOUSLY notable. Russ is the sex (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those comments are irrelevant. If the single is notable, that doesn't make the album notable. And remaking it can't do anyone harm. Fefe Dobson being notable doesn't matter, as it's not out yet. Unnotable Third Studio Album. Spec ial K 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete the album then and NOT the single. Be careful what you say to delete because Hello Control bundled them together. Russ is the sex (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I meant. But thanks for pointing that out. Spec ial K 15:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC#Songs says nothing about theme songs being notable: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists", none of which apply to this song. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC#Songs is about songs, not about official singles released by artists. The page about her SINGLE is not about a random song off of her CD. The article is not about a random song off of her CD. Russ is the sex (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that WP:MUSIC does not apply to singles (which I believe it does), then what is notable about this non-charting single? If its only notability is as the theme song from a TV show, it should redirect to the TV show's article. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC#Songs very definitely applies to singles.Kww (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fefe Dobson's forthcoming album may or may not be notable, but "Untitled Third Studio Album" is gravely deficient as an article title. A host of artists may have untitled third studio albums; if they continue to record, this will inevitably follow their second studio album. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this article needs to be hit with a big WP:HAMMER! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt anything that is untitled blah, blah, blah... it's not-notable, it's not verifiable, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and Merge~~. I will merge the stuff into the Fefe Dobson article about her third album until more information is released. The album is verifiable and notable. In the meantime, the single article should NOT BE DELETED because it does not violate WP:MUSIC#Songs. WP:MUSIC#Songs is for SONGS and not SINGLES. If you follow that logic, you would have to delete any article about a single released by a notable artist that hasn't charted yet or didn't chart. You wouldn't do that to Saturday (song), Dick Lips, etc. I will get on the merge of the new album information later today. The Fefe page needs a bit of a rewrite anyway. I have to do homework and get to class soon. Russ is the sex (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot vote twice. JuJube (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no Merge/Redirect because it's hammertime. "Watch Me Move" has an article; that's enough. JuJube (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:HAMMER. Title isn't known, single is a long way from charting. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smash this with the aforementioned hammer: no title, no release date, no reliable sources; fails WP:CRYSTAL anyway. Cliff smith ^talk 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete album page per WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL until title known. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete STOP! CRYSTAL HAMMER TIME! Tavix (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 22:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gates' law[edit]

The article is hopelessly unencyclopedic. None of the "proofs" are from WP:RL. Although humorous, (and I will probably quote it to a few friends this week), I simply don't see it as notable. My hunch is that someone is trying to use wiki to push this "law" into the mainstream. Bachrach44 (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you searched at all to see if Gates Law is already mainstream?--Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RL?? AndyJones (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete funny but not notable -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete *saves text for personal amusement* It's good, but it's not right. Unencylopedic, no sources yadayada. --Ged UK (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alas, truth and notability are not equivalent. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although this might make a useful footnote to Wirth's law. The "references" contradict themselves about the putative source of this aphorism, there's no original source to which one can refer; I agree with the nominator that this is non-notable and there are no reliable sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G10) — This article is intended to attack/disparage Bill Gates. MuZemike (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree. If the article referred to a notable term, the article would not be intended to attack/disparage Bill Gates, but instead report a Verifiable account of other people's disdain for the output of Microsoft, using Gates as a figurehead. It further claims that the origin of the term is from a memo he wrote, so it isn't necessarily meant as an attack at all. -Verdatum (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Neologism. Get the term added to the Hacker's dictionary or some equivalent authority first, and then it can have an article. It's certainly cute, and now that I know it, I can't wait to use it in conversation. But it doesn't need an article yet. -Verdatum (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save You happen to be wrong: http://www.jargondb.org/glossary/gatess-law--Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, unencyclopedic, almost vandalism. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gates' Law (2nd nomination). Colonel Warden (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gates' Law Where the first vote had double the votes of the second vote. Anyway, can you really call this a vote, when there number of voters are so few?--Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a vote, it's supposed to be a debate. --Ged UK (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete " WikiScrubber (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save It may be bootstrapping, but there is a entry in the jargon entry that conforms to this article, to wit: Gates's Law “The speed of software halves every 18 months.” This oft-cited law is an ironic comment on the tendency of software bloat to outpace the every-18-month doubling in hardware capacity per dollar predicted by Moore's Law. The reference is to Bill Gates; Microsoft is widely considered among the worst if not the worst of the perpetrators of bloat." http://www.jargondb.org/glossary/gatess-law and another entry over at http://catb.org/jargon/html/G/Gatess-Law.html So, the question is whether one can generate and bootstrap a neologism into entry on Wiki by getting it entered it in other less strict places. Tough question given that we have no standards, but you have to measure success in some way and pointing to at least two outside word lists sounds like one unless you want to have a minimum Google hit number that confirms the usage. This would succeed on the first and likely fail on the second. However, I think two independent word lists that isn't simply user submitted and created is sufficient in this case. Cyferx (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By Google search results, Gates Law + Gates's Law is used more often than Wirth's Law, is it not? Do a search of both adding the phrase "Moore's Law"--Campoftheamericas (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh beans! It's a joke, get it? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SNAFU! It's a joke, get it? We don't want people to be looking things up when they don't know what they mean! We don't want culture to be chronicled! History should not be recorded! Take down Wikipedia now! It's a joke, get it?--Campoftheamericas (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Brickner[edit]

I have doubts about the notability here, and I think it should be reviewed. rootology (C)(T) 13:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete subject may be notable (as he has had coverage away from this "one event" ~~here for instance~~ but, this article is 100% WP:COATRACK. Better to get rid of it now and write a proper one. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I suppose improvement in a timely fashion is better than starting over. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable guy. the page is being attacked because of sarah Palin. He heads a large organization. It and he are in the headlines all the time. I'm heading to the airport . I hope that some responsible editor keeps the page up.Elan26 (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Comment He may be notable as head of a well-known national organization (not sure if he meets WP:BIO myself), but the article should be about David Brickner, not focus on a single appearance he made an Alaskan church. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This man is the head of a highly visible, controversial, albeit very small religious denomination. Wikipedia has quite good coverage of these New Religious Movements and the only thing that surprises me about the article is that it hadn't been written earlier.Jmkleeberg (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised the article did not exist earlier, too. I first ran into Jews for Jesus when I was in Israel in the 1980's. Their head person then was a Notorious anti Semite, too. The members I talked to denounced him. Similarly, we should not paint the entire Jews for Jesus with remarks this guy made. I think most peole join not because of Brickner's views, but because they are Jews who converted to Jesus and they like the title of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs)

Keep He's the head of a notable religious movement. OTOH, the re-created coatrack about Palin's pastor is irrelevant - one source leads nowhere, none show Palin was present, and there is original research about that sermon in the article. Edward321 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 02:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep - I agree entirely with Jmkleeberg's remarks -- hard to believe nobody had even started this article when he's been head of the org for 12 years. Cgingold (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ABSOLUTE KEEP I heard about this guy on cable news, before Palin was nominated, when he claimed that Palestinian bulldozer terror attack was God's punishment on the Jews. Does this trigger any memories? It was not that long ago, and was one of the most covered terror attacks in Isreal (images from Iraq being down, the media reran the images over and over, with Brickner's rants described over the images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs)

A better KEEP argument is that all Jews for Jesus should not be painted with Brickners anti Semitic remarks, so he should have his own page. I think the guy is also invoved in massive litigation for something, if anyone want to look it up. EricDiesel (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Info for KEEP If his speaking at Sarah Palin's church is a basis of the DELETE request, all of the sources at the time of my writing this PREDATE Palin's nomination. Every article that ties to a controversy involving Palin should not be the target of Deletion. I am new here; is there an Wikipedia expression for a "deletion attack on all articles related to a politician"? EricDiesel (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC) EricDiesel (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More for KEEP There are over 20,000 web pages for "David Brickner" AND Jews on Google. This many web pages can not exist for someone who is not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please stop for a moment and reread what I wrote. I'm saying the guy probably is notable but, that the article is being used as a coatrack (hence saying weak). You don't help the project or the specific articles you seem to be concerned about by making Wikipedia content about politics or accusations against concerned editors. My opinion on this entire group of articles has 100% nothing to do with politics and is based firmly in Wikipedia policies and guidelines for what is and isn't appropriate. too be honest more afraid you are hurting the legitimate keep arguments at these articles with some of your behaviour but, have been having trouble trying to find a nice way to ask you to stop. I'm trying now. Please "vote" once on these subjects supporting your "vote" with policies and guidelines of the project and desist from continueing to "hound/harass/spam" the discussion. BTW the answer to "is there an Wikipedia expression for a "deletion attack on all articles related to a politician?" is that you are probably looking for WP:POINT or similar. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am just learning the terms. I was responding to "I have doubts about the notability here" at the very top, and assumed from reading the definition of coatrack, and seeing names from five other Palin deleted pages, that coatrack referred to being a cover for a negative article about Pailn. Should I delete my middle entry re- Palin? Thanks EricDiesel (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it needs to stay there for transparency purposes. You can however strike it through if you wish by added <s> to the beginning and </s> to the end. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jews for Jesus is a notable organization. Its current head warrants an article. The articles needs cleaning up, but that is beside the point. --Crunch (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Jews for Jesus is a notable (though controversial) organisation. This suggests that its current head is also notable. All WP:COATRACK material appears to have been removed, this has left a rather poor article, little more than a stub, but that suggests that the article should be improved, not deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--semi-protect and BLP Watch it as needed, but Brickner is a notable religious leader whose absence from Wikipedia would diminish the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☄ 11:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeProblems[edit]

Lack of clear notability, sourcing. Does not appear to be particularly notable. rootology (C)(T) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important topic and organisation. Sources are presented in the article, images and timestepping. Do not delete it. --Dima1 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the multiple non-trivial 3rd party source that are required per WP:Notability? rootology (C)(T) 13:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site. The Times article mentions the site as one of many dealing with customer complaints, it is not about this site in particular, which just leaves The Register article. That is not enough to pass the notability requirements. Tassedethe (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but tag any problems) as the article is the subject of one primary review and has various mentions in others, plus the bar should be lower for this type of site, which is less likely to garner attention. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, I like consumer organizations, but this seems to be just an internet forum. While there is a single "primary review" (per previous comment), it still doesn't seem to rise above the notability radar screen. I'm assuming that a website or internet forum is not notable based on a single review or occasional media citations. HG | Talk 06:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of substantial third-party coverage. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is evidence and reason to believe the article can be improved. TravellingCari 03:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Cranky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Lack of clear notability, sourcing. Does not appear to be particularly notable. Katzman may possibly be notable, but I don't know if Mr. Cranky is. I realize this is the third nom, but two sources? And he gets his reviews republished sometimes in a lone newspaper? Thats not overly notable by today's standards for us. rootology (C)(T) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I reviewed the previous AfD. There is a lot out there that isn't added to the article yet. I believe notability has been established, but the article requires significant cleanup and addition of the 10 or so sources that the previous AfD dug up. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You only need one good reputable third-party source to establish notability, and this has the Seattle Times and Wired. That's plenty. Can always be expanded, sourced, yadda-yadda, but it's viable. 23skidoo (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is the 3rd nom but there was no first nom? Weird, unless it was bundled with something else? WikiScrubber (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (without prejudice) but tag and/or expand (eg with screenshot, infobox). WikiScrubber (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Windows Live. Mr.Z-man 01:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Live Help Community[edit]

Lack of clear notability, sourcing. Does not appear to be particularly notable. Can be redirected, if there is consensus for that, but I have no idea where within the farm of various windows pages. No independent notability. rootology (C)(T) 13:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It was an independent Microsoft entity that was part of its "Windows Live" series of online services started in 2007. Unfortunately Microsoft discontinued it in 2008. It's purpose had been stated in the article. I have updated the article with sources that are still available. Each independent Windows Live service officially provided by Microsoft are deemed notable on Wikipedia, even if the service no longer exists (that is not a criteria for deletion). The article does not fail WP:NOTE in this case and should be kept. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The previous vote is the article's author and should likely be ignored. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I apologize for forgetting to disclose that I am the author of the article, and I thank you for pointing that out. Secondly, there is no rule that states the author's opinion should be ignored in this matter. I was invited by the nominee to participate in this dicussion and consider myself to be making valid statements. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Windows Live. NN site with only blog refs. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leak-Free[edit]

Lack of clear notability, sourcing. Does not appear to be particularly notable. rootology (C)(T) 13:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and non-verifiable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; apparently this is about some kind of gaming source code community related to Half-Life, though upon reading it I'm as clueless as ever. Does not meet the website or business notability guidelies. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criterion WP:CSD#A3, as lacking meaningful content. If anyone wants to create a redirect or to establish an actual article there, that is, of course, perfectly acceptable. Somebody must have written some notable poetry then. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1695 in poetry[edit]

Why do we need an empty article? — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete lack of content. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Currently, the "years in poetry" are redirects to the equivalents in "years in literature". This should simply be redirected to 1695 in literature which does have content. I agree that red links should not (and don't need to) be turned blue until there's something to say. Mandsford (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A3) — No content. There are also a LOT of other articles (i.e. 1691, 1692, 1693, etc) that are exactly the same. MuZemike (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an obvious speedy delete. I just wanted to comment that I love the implication that absolutely no decent poetry came out of 1695. -Verdatum (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Poorly written, but the site has had a LOT of press in the UK (mostly negative, but hey ho). Needs a good rewrite, but clearly notable Black Kite 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faceparty[edit]

Lack of clear notability, sourcing. Does not appear to be particularly notable. rootology (C)(T) 13:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well-known social networking site, along the lines of Facebook and MySpace. Has received coverage in The Register and other news sources. Article requires adequate sourcing and cleanup, not deletion. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although not as notable as it once once due to the rise of the big three networking sites (MySpace, Facebook and Bebo), it's still notable. ~ NossB (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Where else would i go to find out wtf happened and what was with teh salami. Now i know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.134.173 (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No idea why it was nominated for deletion in the first place. I havent had the chance to clean the article up before, but it isnt bad enough to warrant a deletion. Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Faceparty is still a notable website. It is referenced in many online sources and UK news papers including the Guardian. It has many thousands of members (and millions of ex members) and it has raised a fair amount of controversy. This makes it a very notable article. Munta (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 marked it as an A7 speedy, but there is consensus here as well. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simulation123[edit]

Queried speedy delete. Its author claims that it is notable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per db-club, I don't see anything that makes me think otherwise. JuJube (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual reliable source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added reliable source for notability, in the form of [27]. Currently sourcing others. Also restructured and rewrote topic. Anima007 (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per db-club per JuJube above. Forum stats: "151 Posts in 107 Topics by 35 Members" since its inception in October 2007 say that this is definitely non-notable. --Millbrooky (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No change Disagree with "definitely" per Millbrooky above as these are figures for forum members not simulation user group members, of which there are more. Further to this, notability is distinct from popularity. Within the simulation community, Simulation123 is unique in its aim. An active effort is currently being made to locate further sources by myself, and possibly by others in the academic community. Anima007 (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. In the 35 GHits there is nothing that comes close to being significant coverage, let alone multiple examples. Nuttah (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hissey[edit]

Delete. Here is my first test for the new notability guidelines at WP:MLB. This is a 4th-round draft pick who is just a few months out of high school. More importantly, during the notability discussions, we agreed that articles for ordinary minor league players articles would need independent reliable sources to clarify notability. MLB.com is not independent and the other source appears to be a simple blog site and is not reliable. In contrast to other sports, baseball has a huge number of professional players (see WP:ATHLETE) who never achieve any sort of real-world notability or recognition. Therefore it was agreed to establish separate guidelines for baseball. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nomination, there is nothing about the player to establish notability under the current or former guidelines. Hardnfast (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I kind of hate to do this, because I fully support the attempts to create bright-line rules for notability of athletes. The problem is, while this particular player fails the sub-guidelines, he meets the general guideline at WP:N. For sources we have two articles about him individually here (local daily newspaper for Charlottesville, VA - it appears that the player was going to attend school there) and here Scout.com article - (I believe that this is considered a reliable source for sports articles as they are independent of the professional leagues, and have their own reporting staff). There is also a brief mention about his signing here, (Boston Herald) although there is second paragraph relevant to the story that is now archived, and can't be seen from the free site. I'll post a brief exerpt to the Afd talk page. So, in sum, while I won't lose sleep if this article were deleted, there is sourcable information to establish notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I love it. The point of the guideline changes was to stop people from almost programmatically creating legions of WP:INDISCRIMINATE redundant articles pulled directly out of baseball-reference and baseball cube.com. That's what's happening at WP:BASEBALL - people going for quantity over quality. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before I decided on my !vote, I did try to make sure I had truly reliable sources. I know what you mean about the mass production of cookie-cutter articles. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The presentation of a local paper article, a Scout.com profile, and one breif mention in the Boston Herald doesn't make him notable. Nearly every drafted ballplayer ever meets those guidelines, which I believe the point of the new baseball guidelines was to correct that. Black ngold29 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. We have to draw the line somewhere to indicate "significant coverage" (per WP:N), and three articles, especially minor mentions in only works closely related to the person's organizations (college, MLB team, and baseball in general), is not significant enough for inclusion. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much idea about deletion. Baseball has a huge number of professional players who never achieve any sort of real-world notability or recognition, but baseball is not a truely international sports like soccer or tennis. A guy living in China or Libya may know nothing about even the best baseball players, but on the other hand, people like me who are obsessed with baseball know small details about the sport. Hissey was drafted by the Red Sox in the 4th Round, and personally I feel he deserves a Wikipedia article. I won't lose sleep if the bio is deleted, but my vote is Keep. AdjustShift (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get nine hits from a Lexis search; most of which are just wire service reports about his drafting. I agree that being taken in the 4th round is potentially significant, but there is very little to build on here. I've written plenty of articles on minor leagues, and my own view is that they aren't presumptively notable until they've spent a year or two in AAA--you've got to find something interesting. Selection to All-Star teams, participation in a noteworthy event that got press coverage, or some bizarre human-interest angle. I know there's talk about building articles about minor league organizations, which would include capsule biographies of players, so perhaps this content could be kicked into someone's userspace pending such a development? Otherwise, delete. Mackensen (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really it seems to me that this article would fail even the general WP:N guideline of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, so if the new WP:MLB guideline is to have any force at all it is imperative that we rid the project of players as far on the margins as this one. Indrian (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I'm open to the suggestion that all guidelines be waived for anything having to do with the Boston Red Sox, perhaps as a sixth pillar. HG | Talk 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there is some validity in the comment that his position might at some point have some notability, consensus is that this is not sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE TravellingCari 03:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Robertson (footballer)[edit]

Not notable fails WP:ATHLETE. Did not appear in fully professional league game or represent full national team. Page recreated as partial copy of previously deleted William Robertson (English footballer) deleted under WP:PROD

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions.--ClubOranje^Talk 11:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-pro league. --Jimbo^[online] 12:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article's creator, Pollensa5, should probably be warned about recreating deleted content. Basement12 (T.C) 13:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely the captain, and player of the year, at Canterbury United, a team in the top level of football in New Zealand is clearly notable. Nfitz (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Athlete in the context of New Zealand: He is a professional player in the semi-professional league which is the highest level of the game in New Zealand (given that Football Kingz and Wellington Phoenix play or played in the Australian national league). It would be rather ironic if imported professionals fail notability but non-professional teammates who happen to play for their national side pass. dramatic (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nom) Current criteria demands fully professional in fully professional league. Teammates may pass notability by virtue of representing their country internationally - which is recognised criteria - not by playing semi-pro. Evidence is only that he is semi-professional as it is a semi-pro league. That he may choose to live entirely on the earnings from it is neither here nor there. It does not make any footballing achievements (or lack thereof) more notable.--ClubOranje^Talk 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played in a fully professional league, thus he fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Top level of football is not notable in New Zealand, period. Just because he's the captain and player of his non notable squad doesn't give him an article. GauchoDude (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No position at a non-notable club confers notability. If there were extensive references to how much better than any other player in the team or league in NZ national press cited I might be swayed, but at the moment the article makes no claim of notability that meets criteria. Kevin McE (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 12:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per below. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoHello[edit]

Contested prod. Web communications company with no assertion of notability. The article and its references focus on the rationale that led to the creation of this concept, and none of the references mention this company, even in passing. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at the edit history of this article, I noticed a ((db-spam)) tag that was removed by the article's creator. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam and "warn" article creator as appropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - blatant spam and tagged as such. Author warned. Spec ial K 13:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete per all the reasons above.. TravellingCari 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to the Monty Hall Problem[edit]

The problem is covered in detail, with introduction, in the Monty Hall problem article. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first version of this introduction article. Rome was not built in one day! There are also other introduction articles to main articles, so I dont see a problem here. I think there is an advantage of having an alternative and easier to understand introduction article especially when the main article takes a more high flying approach. --Pello-500 (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the simple solution presented in this article is not discused in the main article. So the two articles complement each other well. the purpose of this introduction article is to explain the problem in an easy way so the reader can get up to speed and if interested continue to the more advanced version in the main article.--Pello-500 (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded article. I'm sure good intentions abound but, this article is simply not needed and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to keep the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is simply a content fork created by Pello-500. Contrary to what the name suggests, this article is not an introduction to Monty Hall, but rather a wrapper around Pello's preferred presentation of the solution. He already failed to get this content into Monty Hall problem through edit warring and sockpuppetry. This forked version has deficiencies in clarity, detail, formatting, and referencing, and has been discussed already at Talk:Monty Hall problem. Pello needs to participate in that discussion, rather than heading out alone into the wilderness. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicative and hard to follow. Out! Brianyoumans (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per TenOfAllTrades - appears to be a content fork intended to circumvent consensus againt this text at Talk:Monty Hall problem. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I haven't read the discussion & history on the Monty Hall problem article I can see the holes in the argument, and have noted them on the talk page. TrulyBlue (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content fork being tendentiously pushed by a single editor who has already opened a content RFC on this same issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicative, poorly sourced, poorly written.The Glopk (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is POV content fork. I followed Monty Hall problem and participated in its discussion for several months (as IP 67.130.129.135 prior to creating an account), both before and during its latest FAR. I can attest that the main article represents the well reasoned consensus of extended discussion among many editors addressing correctness, reliable sources, level of detail, choice of analyses, pedagogy, and clarity of exposition. Forking an alternate version of this featured article is inappropriate. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Secret of NIMH. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Brisby[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Long term unsourced article and I can't find any sources. Hut 8.5 10:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps redirect to The Secret of NIMH, but honestly there's nothing worth merging here. Just a lot of fancruft. JuJube (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost entirely plot summary. No references on the article now, and my google search for reliable sources came up completely dry. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion, nor is WP:JNN. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said why it isn't notable - the article doesn't cite any sources, hasn't for a long time, and nobody here could find any. Essays do not override concerns rooted in policies and guidelines. Do you know of any sources? Hut 8.5 08:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick glance at this seemed like there's potential. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites and other unreliable sources giving trivial mentions. If you refine the search there's actually only 79 unique hits, and that includes Wikipedia and pages talking about unrelated subjects. Hut 8.5 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to The Secret of NIMH. Lacks sources, assertion/evidence of notability. (And, shit, I just Friday night taped over my childhood, original broadcast copy of the movie.) --EEMIV (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 22:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Story[edit]

Non-notable computer game that's still in construction. Somno (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and non-verifiable through significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks absolute third party sources and notability. Wikipedia is not crystal ball. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails aspects of both WP:N and WP:NOT, including WP:DIRECTORY and WP:CBALL — typical for an MMORPG article. MuZemike (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

First of all, I made this for people to recognize Final Story. Lot of people think it's a private server. Also I writed a note on the last of the wiki article. Also It's a fun game, it exists, it's notable, read the article, click here, and then downlaod and play it. It is a safe link, no viruses. Yes, you can delete it if you wish, because it is a fan game, and it isn't as notable as other fan-objects, like the famous dojinshi Raruto, etc. So yeah delete it if you wish, but first hear my opinions, and say what you think. User:Joey7wk —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ADVERT. MuZemike (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-notable record label seicer | talk | contribs 18:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HHN Records[edit]

Unsourced, non-notable/start-up record label. Prod removed by creator without comment or alteration.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are respectively a non-notable artist on the label, his EP, and an unreleased album from another non-notable artist:

Delete all HHN Records non notable label. fails WP:CORP. lacks secondary sources. Chuck Vorhies fails WP:MUSIC. lacks secondary sources. lacks releases, awards, airplay. Bigger Than You unreleased album from non notable artist. fails WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bayou tsunami Ep The Bayou tsunami Ep was already nominated. article creater removed the AfD message. delete album of non notable artist. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt. Blimey, missed that prior AfD. well spotted etc. tomasz. 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fails WP:N. Spec ial K 13:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Duffbeerforme. - Basement12 (T.C) 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they aren't notable. Tavix (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
tomasz never gave a reason why, only thing they said was "non-notable/start-up record label". That's not a reason. The Prod said, If I didn't feel it was not justifiable I could remove the notice, which I did. On the External area of the HHN Records article, there are three links to official pages of HHN Records. Offical website, Imeem page, and myspace. Plus, I just added two links to the reference area.GhostDog21 10:06, 4, September 2008 (UTC)
- Subjects should be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and non-notable IS a reason for removal. The article needs to cite WP:RELIABLE published sources independent of HHN. Self-published sources like MySpace and blogs are not acceptable. As for the references you supplied, the charts is self-published and 2 sources are copies of each other, mentioning HHN in passing. Their independence is questionable. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gene93k, Those charts were not published by HHN Records. The charts were pubishled by music media outlets that are not affiliated with the label. Which makes those charts published sources independent of HHN. Also, on the Chuck Vorhies article I added a link to the reference area, which leads to a published source independent of the artist and label. GhostDog21 09:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as none meet the notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my comments above. The label fails WP:CORP, the artist fails WP:BIO, and the works fail WP:MUSIC for lack of WP:RS. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land Down Under (2008 film)[edit]

Fork of Land Down Under (film), made by long-time sockpuppeteer User:Gerald Gonzalez. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land Down Under (film). Blake Gripling (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This looks like a G4. A participant in the first AfD turned a redirect page into an article right after the debate closed as delete. While I can't see the deleted article or understand the Tagalog sources on the new page, I do see some of the same problems discussed in the first AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, perhaps? Blake Gripling (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a G4, it's significantly expanded. Still don't think it's notable, but it's definitely not a G4. TravellingCari 12:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block Clearly fails notability, and sockpuppeteers are not welcome. Bye bye. Spec ial K 13:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: The original AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land Down Under (film). Has puppetry been proven, or is only an allegation? The article does seem to have addresssed the concerns of WP:Crystal that were brought up in the 1st AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep As recreated, the article may quailfy under WP:NF's Other eveidence of notability, item 3. How many companies are making films in Tagalog? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question: there are a good number, really. (Coming to think of it, Filipino film companies rarely produce films other than Tagalog, if at all (recent notable non-English and non-Tagalog exceptions are Panaghoy sa Suba and Kaleldo)), so, yes, Star Cinema isn't the only company that produces Tagalog films (there's Regal Films, GMA Films, Seiko Films, Viva Films, RVQ Productions and others). The original AfD for this one was based on the premise that the article was created using mere rumors as the references. In other words, no reliable sources existed way back then, not even in TV or newspapers. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Weak Keep, article has been improved somewhat from its previous state. Give the editor a little more time to expand upon it to establish notability, and if this is not forthcoming, then it should be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The movie ahd already began filming. Read This, It says "Now that shooting for Angel Locsin’s movie under Star Cinema, Land Down Under, is underway, ..........". Shrekclear (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G3 - obvious hoax. --Angelo (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faliq[edit]

Obvious hoax article, with the number of appearances for Newcastle. Should be mark as a spam as well.Frankie goh (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This originally was posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korg i3. I moved it here. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. I'm not familiar with the notability guidelines for for soccer players (perhaps my even calling it soccer shows why :P ), but simply checking the website of the team this guy supposedly plays for shows no mention of him at all, not in the news section or the roster section. Did you try speedy tagging this? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☄ 11:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Powell Smith[edit]

Mr. Smith is barely notable and few sources can be found on him. In his article, his personal website (that, truthfully, is not a great source of information, not to mention that personal websites are not good sources.) is used as the main source of information and apart from a student newspaper, sources are not readily available for this article.

CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 06:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or merge into The Brick Testament. "Barely notable" is like "a little bit pregnant." You either are or you aren't. The article's far from a gem, and there's surely a problem with WP:RS, but that's better resolved by other means than AFD in my mind. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand about notability, and he's more "not" notable then he is. While he's got a bit going for him, very few sources can be found... when there is a lack of sources to use it leads you to believe that the subject must not be notable. I would suggest merging per the Wikipedia One Event policy. He does have something, but its more his project then him. The project its self is not covered by many sources but is notable. CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 07:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if WP:ONEEVENT applies, unless you're also looking to AFD Vendetta: A Christmas Story for lack of notability. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I had missed that... to tell the truth a search shows that even Vendetta: A Christmas Story is (truthfully) non-notable. I hate to say it, but besides an IMDB page, there is not many sources on it... I don't mean to slam this guy, but apart from the Brick Testament, his notability looks mighty low. Brendan's got a nice PR team going for him, but apart from him and his friends... not much. CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to comply with the verifiability policy, as evidenced by the absence of citations from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (A7, no assertion of notability). Hut 8.5 10:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OneGoodDeed[edit]

I originally speedied this. It was removed by an IP with no other edits, and for some reason I'm choosing to respect that. As I said in the edit summary for the speedy and in the tag I put with the AFD notice, this just does not come across as encyclopedic to me. The organization described in the article does exist, but existence does not equal notability or any other threshold for inclusion. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G7, the author blanked it. jj137 (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo Tycoon Wii[edit]

Pure Crystalbalism. Google turns up nothing but wild speculation. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With an apparent release date of over a year and change from now, I don't see how this could possibly anything other than speculation. That and how noteworthy is this right now? - Dlrohrer 2003 04:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be WP:OR, i dont know where the editor got the information from. Until something certain comes up, delete. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 05:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yahoo Answers would even delete this . Clearly fails WP:V. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR either way its got to go. Basement12 (T.C) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — see WP:BOLLOCKS. MuZemike (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinkadelica (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Day Fatalism[edit]

Fancruft, non-notable and no sources Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what the nominator said, but look into whether or not the book is notable, perhaps an article on that? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 04:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eight mentions in Factiva for the book (including a couple of reviews), one for "Dark-Day Fatalists" (a reviewer said the Fatalists "allow McGann to examine religion's role in a mechanised, violent, dehumanised world", but that's all that's mentioned), none for "Dark Day Fatalism" or "Dark-Day Fatalism"; therefore it's a non-notable fictional religion. Somno (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopeless lack of sources. <10 hits on Google outside of Wikipedia, and they appear to be spam. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BroadwayWorld[edit]

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

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

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

After cleaning up spamming across wikipedia of links to this site, I noticed the article to the site itself was recently written by the person who spread the links. I prodded the article with the following reason: "Fails to meet WP:WEB. Article of a highly commercial website created by a single-purpose account with the intent on promoting the website. The website has not recieved significant third-party coverage in the news, on the web, or in scholarly journals; nor has it won any major awards or is distributed via a major third-party source."

The main criteria for inclusion is discussion of the website in major independant sources. I can not find any such discussion of this site other than simple name-dropping. I don't really see how the article can be cleaned up and turned encyclopedic since the result would be bare-bones and only contain some statistics about the site. Themfromspace (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As previously mentioned to Themfromspace:

I strongly believe my inclusions of links from the BroadwayWorld database are NOT spam. It is a unique resource for theatre, unlike any other database (IMDB, IBDB, etc.) and contains signficant amount of the individual's information. The links are desirable additions to WP articles. Please follow-up with me.

The pages from BroadwayWorld contain no information that could be (or already is) included within the articles themselves. Unless there is information that is impossible to transfer to the articles without violating copyright then the pages should not be linked to. Themfromspace (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

BroadwayWorld has their own newsdesk, and thus their own articles, compile credits from around the world in their database (which aren't available anywhere else) and works hand-in-hand with the people themselves to include other information, resumes, headshots and other information. I believe they also associate their videos and interviews with their database entries. Also, they have an extensive amount of their own photographs. None of that can be included on WP.

Wouldn't all the data on IMDB and IBDB go against your aforementioned comment? All of that data "could" be included within the articles themselves. Again, their site is rapidly becoming the major resource for theatre-related credits, photos, articles, yada yada for people.

I have updated the original page (which already had received some updates by other WP users) to try to add some outside references to the site. In addition, BroadwayWorld pages are heavily cited as resources by many other people like me trying to update WP. Theatrefan2007 (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, aside from press releases the only reference I can find is a brief mention in a New York Times article [28] describing the website as "commercial-ridden". Somno (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and not covered significantly in multiple reliable 3rd party sources for verifiability purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive357#Link_spamming_-_broadwayworld.com Theatrefan2007 (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the merits or lack thereof of the article in question in relation to policies and guidelines of wikipedia. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are individual references and links to indicate the Notability and Verifiability of BroadwayWorld.

Entertainment Weekly picks up BroadwayWorld's news (look at the right column) - http://www.ew.com/ew/news/stage/0,,,00.html
3 Variety stories:

Website traffic comparions of BroadwayWorld vs the other major theatre websites Playbill, Broadway.com and TheatreMania

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/photosynth.net?site0=broadwayworld.com&site1=playbill.com&site2=broadway.com&site3=theatermania.com&y=r&z=3&h=300&w=470&c=1&u[]=broadwayworld.com&u[]=playbill.com&u[]=broadway.com&u[]=theatermania.com&x=2008-09-04T16:47:36.000Z&check=www.alexa.com&signature=2CzgFkEE2rdTYZ5OlPiqen1Peeg%3D&range=3m&size=Medium

Theatrefan2007 (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't seem to understand the meaning of notability. The website must be discussed through third-party sources, not name-dropped. For example, if the New York Times ran a full article devoted to BroadwayWorld itself and how the website was impacting the world of theatre, that would satisfy the notability criteria. None of the links you provided do that. The first link was of a newsfeed of the website, this is different from the website's content being published via Entertainment Weekly. NONE of the Variety articles are devoted to the website; in all three links the website was mentioned as a trivial detail. The alexa rankings play no direct part establishing notability: popularity doesn't necessarily correspond to notability. The last link was not a third-party source, as it was promotional material made by the company. The LA Times link led to a 404 error. Themfromspace (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand the meaning of notability. I beg to differ with the idea that a website must be "discussed" to be notable. If other sources utilize the site and/or reference it, it's implied notability.

On a somewhat related note, they just put up an exclusive video of backstage at the Broadway musical RENT (soon to be closing.) The cast were given cameras for BroadwayWorld. I think it's a given that not reputable websites would not have that ability. http://www.broadwayworld.com/videoplay.cfm?colid=31749&a=on

I think the links I provided, along with the arguments made [here] clearly show that the site is Verifiable.

I'm not sure how much more examples you could come up with for a site.

Please tell me what more needs to be shown to state this is a reliable, notable website and thus should not have its article deleted.

I've fixed the LA Times link. Theatrefan2007 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The LA Times link doesn't discuss the website either. You're just proving the existance of the website through linking articles that cite it. The articles have to be about the site itself! From the general notability guideline: the sources must "address the subject directly in detail" and also "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". From the Notability guidelines for websites: the content (broadwayworld.com) must be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". None of the sources you provided are examples of a source where the website is the subject. For example, the subject of the first Variety article is how movie companies are putting more of their content on the web. In my opinion, nothing can be done to show that this is a notable website because it is NOT. Themfromspace (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully some other folks will weigh in on this topic as well. Theatrefan2007 (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BroadwayWorld is a completely reputable website that is entitled to its own entry on Wikipedia. Not only is it a news site, with a database of theatre history, it is also responsible for original content that is not like anything else on the web for theatre lovers. For those admins who take issue, I refer you to their show previews, and interviews with casts and special content made only for the site. In my opinion, it's Wikipedia's job to allow a person with a broad interest, in this case theatre, to find endless information to places that they may want to know about. I see absolutely no reason why allowing this page to exist causes an issue for anyone.

And I don't believe that saying "In my opinion, nothing can be done to show that this is a notable website because it is NOT. Themfromspace (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)" is helping anyone. Something that is notable to one person may not be to you, which is why I think more people than you or I need to look at the site, and the links that were given in reference, and come to an overall opinion, not that of just one person. It's one of the great things about Wikipedia.(204.56.6.51 (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

And if there is still an issues, will somebody please tell me why entries for places such as the Internet Broadway Database are still intact? Or lead me to where it's notability was verified? Thanks. (204.56.6.51 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE. MuZemike (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~Speedy Delete this non notable spammer as G11. Warned for COI too. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — User needs to be reported to WP:COIN if there is a conflict of interest present. MuZemike (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody even reading any of the sources? I'd be happy if someone would give a good/thoughtful response. (204.56.6.51 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

How about this. Yes people are reaind the sources. Even giving them thought AND trying to find better ones without success. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we get some more opinions on the site in question and the included documentation. Thank you. Theatrefan2007 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People will get around to looking at the article and the AfD in there own time. If appropriate an admin will relist the AfD when the time comes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WikiScrubber - I cannot see any reason why this article would fall under the criteria for Speedy Delete Theatrefan2007 (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Can you please provide me some specific examples of what WOULD work to get this article legit? Thanks! Theatrefan2007 (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After searching I can find no significant coverage of the website to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure), Nominator is new to WP and thus is unfamiliar with the deletion policy. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give It To You[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Per Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs. AFDaccount (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International chart activity, notable enough to merit a standalone article. Townlake (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its definitely noteable and the article has enough of a description that it shouldn't be merged or deleted. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 05:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International hit. But I'm unsure if this is more notable than the Jordan Knight song, so consider moving to Give It to You (Eve song), and move Knight's song to the main title. Spec ial K 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charted, single by notable performer. Nothing AfD-worthy. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not AfD-worthy. --Badgernet ^Talk 14:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure), Nominator is new to the site and unfamiliar with the WP deletion policy. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Now That You Got It[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs, the fact it is not even notable because it was barely released and where it was released it performed poorly. Maybe a small mentioning of it somewhere in the album's article about this being a single? But I don't think it's notable enough for an article. AFDaccount (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, lots of international chart activity, plenty of independent discussion of the song - standalone article warranted. Townlake (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above, nothing wrong with this article. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 05:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep notable single with lots of chart activity on major charts. Indianescence (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep single from well-selling notable album, charted. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep I hate the song, and think it's really annoying. But it's clearly notable as it's an international hit (Oh and #5 in South Africa defines poor performance now, does it?) from a big-selling album and by a notable artist. Spec ial K 13:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notable single --Badgernet ^Talk 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure), Nominator is new to the site and unfamiliar with the WP deletion policy. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 18:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Winter[edit]

I do not believe it is notable per WP:Notability_(music)#Songs. Plus alot of the references for the large amount of chart positions are outdated and are for the charts in general and cannot prove that the song reached the peaks listed. The only working referenced peak is the one in Germany where it peaked at #6. But still I do not think that achieving top ten status in one country for a short time makes it notable enough to warrant an article. If anything wouldn't a small mentioning of this single and the top ten peak in Germany be suited for somewhere in the album's article? I have edited Wikipedia for a very short time, and this is my first time actually using a registered account, as well as my first time nominating an article for deletion. I apologize greatly if I've done anything wrong in the nomination process. -AFDaccount (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Because there is actually nothing in the article that warrants a deletion. WP:MUSIC states that it's notable if it did reach a major chart. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of chart activity and international notability. Townlake (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable single in the Europe especially with a popular video. I seriously oppose its deletion. Indianescence (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep definitely charted, definitely notable. Single from notable album by notable performer. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Big hit lot of places, passes WP:MUSIC. Although I don't know what Tim Rice-Oxley is doing writing for that thing. Spec ial K 13:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not AfD-worthy.--Badgernet ^Talk 14:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The A7 criteria is not applicable here; It's not a bio or a band, company, or group - except that the group of two teams with these rosters on this date might be considered a group, but that's an awful stretch. Fortunately, the author has consented to the deletion, below, so G7 works just as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2, 2007 Braves vs. Phillies[edit]

Notability of a single, early season baseball game is something that I simply cannot see. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on entering other games, but it's not really working out. Maybe when I'm a little more experience I'll be able to start this project up again. (In other words I concede). -DCnative311

Speedy delete There are already respective pages for the teams' 2007 baseball seasons. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 03:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of thing is why retrosheet.org exists. Useful info, but not what Wikipedia is for. Townlake (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete unless its an incredibly famous game, they should not have individual articles. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 05:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no assertion of importance/significance. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Thirty MLB franchises, 162 games involving two teams each --> 2,430 regular season games just in 2007 alone. This is a horrible idea. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Absolutely nothing to suggest that this is independently notable. Save for the day someone creates an MLB Wikia site. 23skidoo (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, not notable, doesn't give any reason why this is notable enough to sustain an article. It's getting cold in here, is it not? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7 and so tagged and author warned. Spec ial K 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idrees Danishpajooh[edit]

Unreferenced. Returns 30 hits on Google, half from Facebook. El aprendelenguas (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 03:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per User:Irk - fchd (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hammer time! TravellingCari 03:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Kandi 2nd Album[edit]

I am requesting for this article to be smite by the ten pound crystal hammer. Tavix (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. A 2008 album by the artist cannot be confirmed to exist by WP:RS. The alleged title looks like WP:OR. Little evidence of it exists outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smash to pieces with big crystal hammer... or just delete. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete until we can find a user rich enough to make a crystal hammer. Any volunteers? Spec ial K 13:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell? His last attempt wasn't bad.... Lemon martini (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an ancient MIDI file somewhere called Crystalhammer... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer per my law. Title isn't known, nor is anything else. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: unverified, unsourced, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Cliff smith ^talk 21:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 other keep comments apart from creator. TravellingCari 03:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiport[edit]

Contested prod. Neologism being described as a class project. The article merely states that it will be expanded over time, and the creator admitted that he himself has coined this term. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Blatant spam. Tavix (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiport is described as community based support within the IT industry through wikipedia software.

In addition:

Of course I coined the term. There is always someone somewhere that coins any and every term that we have used. Wikiport is a proven method of community based self help technical support through wikipedia software. There is no word yet coined to refer to this practice so I simply created one. The practice of the aforementioned can be witnessed at http://www.supportwiki.cisco.com

This is not blatant spam and your proposition of such is not only offending, but irresponsible and baseless.

I am a senior at the School of Information and Library Science at UNC Chapel Hill. If you wish to confirm my identity send an email to notquiteleet@unc.edu or visit my website http://www.notquiteleet.com

I have been an IT professional for the past 8 years and I heartily contest any proposal to delete this topic before I can add more content to it, within the next 5 days.

Notquiteleet (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Honestly, no one really cares about who you are unless you are. Notability is not inherited and since the article isn't about you, anything about you doesn't apply. Secondly, this is a bunch of neologism. The term isn't notable enough to be used in any context. Tavix (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. Leet, I'm sure you mean well, but you're proposing to do something that simply isn't allowed here. Townlake (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term may be made up but there is no term that currently describes this practice. Before deciding so hastily on the validity of the coined term, perhaps you should take the time to become familiar with the merit of the phenomena. I will be continually updating the page over the next few days. Yes it is my first wiki page contribution, but I dont recall that being a legitimate penalty against any contributor and certainly violates the spirit of what wikipedia is intended to be.

I would also ask who exactly you are to be the ultimate authority on what is and what is not "notable" enough to be used in "any context". Unless you are an active component of every information circle on earth you cannot possibly be the judge of notability. Hell, this term may be in wide use in some information societies and simply not publicized yet.

Notquiteleet (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the aforementioned WP:NEO, and I'll even throw in WP:AUTO. Writing about yourself or something of your creation is strongly discouraged, if only as a check on notability. If you/your creation is truly notable, someone will get to it. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notquiteleet can easily dump it in Wiktionary when it becomes well known. But for now, stick to your workplace. Spec ial K 14:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not writing an autobiography. I am documenting what is coming to be a very wide practice using enterprise collaboration software (wiki) to provide technical support. You guys are so quick to judge when you dont even have a full scope understanding of the issue in front of you. That is a great example of irresponsibility.

Now in the case that the coined term isnt "popular" or "notable" enough, please qualify and quantify exactly when a term has achieved such a status. I will look forward to an exhilarating, thorough, and well articulated response other than "no" or "delete".

Notquiteleet (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Notquiteleet: self-admitted neologism. I also can't help noticing that, in the first couple pages of Google results for "wikiport", there are at least three seperate other definitions and as far as I can tell not a single usage reflecting Notquiteleet's definition, do I'd be very surprised indeed if this ever does take off. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over. A good article on "Wiki support community" or "Support wiki" would be welcome. Notquiteleet would be well advised to refrain from naming it after his own protologism, to review Wikipedia policy on notability and verifiability which will answer his questions, and to begin by collecting reliable sources first, before writing the article. Happy editing! ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is I provide linked evidence to current and well established organizations practicing the phenomena I described. The first few google results in use of the word in several contexts. One is wikiport as in the act of using wiki to test additional software features. It plays on the phrase of "porting" as in porting games from one software platform to another. Another entry is for a script someone wrote for the wiki environment to copy content from one wiki subsystem to another, again relating to porting software as "port" is a common term and function in that community. The last result of my search page has an entry about wikiport that refers to a web site portal used to access aggregated content. One result actually uses wikiport as the name of a variable in a software script.

My representation of this term with the provided links of evidence of this practice seems to be much more credible than the top 10 google search results.

Notquiteleet (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. There is an overwhelming consensus behind this policy. If you want anything to be covered here, it needs to first be covered elsewhere. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this original neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 21:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an original thought. This is a documentation of a widespread practice.

Notquiteleet (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Itub mentions below, you might be able to make an article title "Wiki-based technical support" that documents this practice, if you can find a few reliable sources to back it up. However, there are no such sources that refer to "wikiport" in this context - this use of the term is your original thought. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please understand and try not to take this personally. There are at least three long-standing policies to the English Wikipedia, behind which there are broad consensuses, that would have to be thrown out to keep this article. And that simply isn't going to happen. I see that, except for a few isolated edits months ago, you're brand spanking new here. Welcome. You'd do well to familiarize yourself with the policies we are quoting and understand why we are saying what we are. By the rules that maintain the English Wikipedia, this article should be deleted. And that's really about all there is to it. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 04:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article using a descriptive title such as Wiki-based technical support is certainly feasible if good sources are found to document the practice without conducting "original research". However, I don't think it is appropriate to coin and promote a new word to describe the concept here. --Itub (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty obviously a neologism that people aren't using yet. "Tech support wikis" are a concept worth covering somehow (well, at least briefly in related articles), but there's no need to come up with new terms... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This may be a neologism, but it also appears to be a redundant one; most of the Google hits I was able to find on the term wikiport refer to the act of porting data from Wikipedia to elsewhere. The 'widepread practice' referred to by the article's author does not appear to be that widespread.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chart success means it passes WP:MUSIC#Songs Black Kite 23:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dean and I[edit]

Non-notable song that fails to meet crietrion at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs Grimhim (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unless I'm mistaken, charting is a notable thing for a song. Unless of course it's orginal research. RockManQ (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would be nice to have sources for the interview stuff at the end of the article, but it was a Top 10 single in Britain - passes MUSIC. Townlake (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: "Passes MUSIC"? I think not. The fact that it charted isn't justification alone for an article. "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". There are a lot of words here about the song, but little that provides any significant information for an encyclopedia article. Grimhim (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I would have thought all the words about the lyrics can be easily verified. But I see your point - song lyrics should not warrant an article, however good (or bad) they are. And there are an awful lot of chart singles to get through. I am surprised there is not a policy, e.g. only UK or US No 1 singles. I'd be happy with a smaller article without any words about lyrics. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Possibly fails WP:RS now, but give it time to improve. I'm sure it will, given that the AFD worked wonders for Robin Simon. Spec ial K 14:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't think that chart singles are by any means inherently notable (although #1's usually come pretty close), but I'm usually willing to give the benefit of the doubt to anything that hit Top 10. There're two sources, so I'm sure this article can be improved. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A1. There is simply no way to identify the subject or context of this article. Smashville^BONK! 05:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissy[edit]

Hoax. Delete Horselover Frost (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. I've already deleted this, and was surprised to see it back so fast. No way to even identify the subject. Dlohcierekim 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify-- per Euryalus. Speedy delete. Dlohcierekim 03:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smells hoaxy, no assertion of notability either. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this is the immediate recreation of a speedy deleted article. Speedy delete (again) as no context, nonsense and no assertion of notability. Alternatively, delete as either non-notable or a hoax.

Speedy delete reasoning - Lacks sufficient context to identify the article subject (Chrissy who?). Is patent nonsense - became a pimp at age 4 and got a record deal at age 5? Found a ship of "convicts" in the Arabian desert and hitched a ride to Tokyo where he became famous? No assertion of notability other than "the kids are constantly wanting to find out about him".

Alternative "delete" reasoning -- No sources, no coverage in reliable secondary sources (or anywhere else) for the alleged records or performer, no evidence of an enduring contribution to his field, no awards. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Put simply, something made up at school one day. Euryalus (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This apparently refers to Christopher Winter, aka "Icy", for whom I get no V or RS on Google. The content of Christopher Winter is the same as the article currently under discussion. Dlohcierekim 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either as recreation of deleted material or under forecasted blizzard conditions. Townlake (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Walker (Rugby Player)[edit]

This article is about a player in a Victorian amateur Rugby Union club called Harlequins (not to be confused with the English club Harlequin F.C.). Rugby Union is weak in Victoria and this player is not notable. Grahame (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes. Appears to be a vanity article created by Lhwal2. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, union hardly scores a presence in Victoria, if he made the Wallabies squad then we'll look into this :P Non notable Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 05:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. More wannabe than Wallaby. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Definitely looks like there’s a conflict of interest from the author. Must be said though that there are some pro rugby players running around in Victorian leagues especially since the Melbourne Rebels. IRANZ too is a significantly important facility where many future professionals are developed and not just anyone can attend. He may become something but at the moment he’s notoriety is questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trippie99 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Trippie99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, rugby is not as weak in Victoria as some of those above are suggesting (with crowds of 50,000+ at test matches at Telstra Dome), but this particular player is a long way off meeting the notability standard. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep I withdraw, given the presence of another source from Country Standard Time. I'm still not sure if Kathie Baillie really meets notability outside of Baillie & the Boys, but there seems to be just enough to say about this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love's Funny That Way[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Love's Funny That Way

Non-notable album. Only source is an Allmusic review, which is the only source I could find anywhere that even mentioned this album. Also note that Kathie Baillie is a redirect to Baillie & the Boys, so technically the performer doesn't even have her own page, which especially makes this dubious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence supporting retention

This album has been reviewed, mentioned, or is available for purchase at, among other web locations:

Country Standard Time

Amazon

Country Music Television

Backspace (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
Delete, does not appear to have the level of sales necessary for notability. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Performer from a notable act, independent mainstream news coverage, full track listing, sufficiently notable album on balance. Townlake (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep Album by notable artist, ~~but I don't know if that makes it notable. I'll have to leave this to everyone else.~~ And someone really should create an article on her. ~~Would that make it notable?~~ Spec ial K 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking closely, it looks like it passes. Spec ial K 14:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volksmusik TV[edit]

Possibly non-notable TV station, article created by the gentleman who founded the station. GNEWS shows no hits, a normal Google search shows only TV listings (to be expected) and anti-Scientology sites (Oliver Schaper Oschaper (talk · contribs) is apparently a Scientologist). Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peephole TV. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment Please check your resources for your claim. Station has been in operation in Europe and Americas according to the RTR (Austrian Governmental Agency for broadcast licenses) broadcast permit, no major contributer for this article has been listed on official RTR documentation (see [www.rtr.at]) has been involved with the foundation of this station. Station is actively broadcasting and Google provides plenty of information on this channel.--70.1.174.14 (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)— 70.1.174.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

But none of the information meets WP:RS. And there's an obvious conflict of interest here, whether the names are listed or not! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Proposed deletion is poised by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry seem to be based on his dislikes rather than real interest in this article. Google provides plenty of news reports which should be included.--Whereismycardude (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC) — Whereismycardude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^{Stricken as sckpuppet Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

I have no interest in the article. Never having seen the channel, or heard of it prior to this, I can't really say whether I like it or not. Google provides no news reports, as shown by this link: GNEWS Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REMAINUK Admin looks for TV-Listings of an US based adult channel on uk-version of Google. Not even HustlerTV is listing their programming. What has the creation of the article to do with Scientology? If you have a problem with Scientology keep this opinion for yourself.Oschaper (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC) — Oschaper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm looking on the UK version of Google, yes - but the UK version searches worldwide, as does the US version. I have nothing against Scientology - I know a little about the cruise ship problems (it's in my field of expertise) and the protests, but I certainly don't attend them. I was pointing out that the only Google hits for this TV station are either TV listings, or anti-scientolopgy sites, niether of which are reliable sources. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears both non-notable and non-verifiable in accordance with Wikipedia Policies and guidlines WP:N, WP:CORP, and WP:V to name a few. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Honestly can't decide Spec ial K 14:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have yet to see any WP:RS yet for notability.Groupsisxty (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~REMAIN~~Please pay attention that this site is part of the Wikipedia Germany TV-project (please refer to the discussion page).--Whereismycardude (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC) ^{Stricken as sockpuppet Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

And who was it created by there? A user named 'Oschaper'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the assessment provided by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) in the nom, as well as rationale given by Jasynnash2 (talk · contribs). The socking disruption in this AFD and another by the same user is also concerning. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is just an advert. I would suggest merging it into Oliver Schaper, but his antics don't seem to have got him enough press coverage to merit an article yet. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pov Pervert 5[edit]

Article is blatantly POV (No pun intended) and consists of weasel words; fails to mention any notability as a porno IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Heh, nice pun; on to serous matters though. Delete as per nom. RockManQ (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Changed to Weak Keep based on vertifable XRCO award win RockManQ (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That XRCO Award is a recognized award in porn and the Best of 2005 win is verifiable.[29] I will check for other coverage, but this film does a critical reception. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hmm, if we can find sources for the XRCO Award to show that she did indeed win it that would be a pretty darn good reason to keep. RockManQ (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)~~ Thanks for finding that, I didn't notice the source you posted at first. RockManQ (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never challenged the accuracy of the XRCO win. I did not mention that because it is still not particularly notable. There are countless pornographic movies produced annually; one award, if none other were mentioned, does not make it notable. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 03:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to recuse myself. FYI I reviewed, nominated, and voted for POV Pervert 5 in the selection process of the XRCO Awards. Out of 5000 new releases, the XRCO gave awards out to seven movies in 2005. Six if you discount best movie series being a movie. Point of comment is, many movies produced, not many get awards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The XRCO is also not the only award program for adult entertainment. Also, the article is not likely to expand further than having a POV win; because it is a gonzo release, it'll simply be a recount of each scene by scene. My point is that one win, even from a major organization, does not make it notable. This is why I recommended that if you think this is that notable, you or someone else who thinks this article should be kept should create an article for the series as a whole. I've noticed there are some for series, like My Baby Got Back and Britney Rears. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 04:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - XRCO win is documented; however my vote is on the weak side as I sincerely doubt this entry will never get above stub level. Tabercil (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Borderline notable. I don't think that stubs are a problem though. Spec ial K 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 a speedy, but not notable either. Black Kite 22:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a Rainy Summer Day[edit]

Contested prod. No information about the notability of this novel, or even about its author. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I can't make heads or tails of this one. Speedy through Criteria for Speedy Deletion, G1. RockManQ (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC) If we can't speedy it then delete for no verifiable sources and no notability demonstrated. RockManQ (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely not speedyable under G1 - fictional material is specifically excluded from that criteria, and this isn't truly "patent nonsense". Not surprisingly, though, a Google search for verifiable sources on this subject came up empty. Townlake (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly looks like something just made up to me. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as a7. Tagged and author warned. Job done. Spec ial K 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No Not in an A7 category either. Someone else thankfully removed the tag. Townlake (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was obviously made up in school in one day. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no verifiability. Also, it's largely a plot summary. SunDragon34 (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 03:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorg Compression[edit]

Notability and Verifiability in question. Typing "Reorg Compression pandya" in Google and Google News yields six unrelated hits and zero hits respectively. I cannot also verify online the existence of any of Pandya's papers that focus on organizational chaos on Google Scholar.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - source given doesn't link to anywhere. Fails WP:V and WP:N; term itself could possibly be a neologism. Also, complete gibberish; basically the article itself has numerous problems. RockManQ (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. The existence of provided book reference cannot be verified (zero hits on Google) and indeed Google searches about the subject in general don't produce much either. Han-Kwang (t) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 03:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Streamophone[edit]

Unreferenced article about a neologism. The alleged inventor of this word matches the username of the article creator. Violation of WP:MADEUP. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. JJL (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a neologism. RockManQ (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. A quick scan of the website that was mentioned doesn't reveal the author's name, else I'd have deleted the article as blatant promotion. It's sitting right on that cusp, though. Regardless, the article fails notability (a term used by one person) and verifiability (no independent sources). —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 02:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism that is, according to Google, not used once outside Wikipedia [30]. Vaguely self-promotional as well. Also WP:MADEUP. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. And WP:SNOW btw. WikiScrubber (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is some scope in WP:ATHLETE, but this person does not meet any of the criteria (yet). Black Kite 22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown (soccer, born 1985)[edit]

Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. GauchoDude (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:Athlete. Has not played at the highest level, either in a fully professional league or for the senior national team, nor did he play for the U.S. Men’s Olympic Team in China. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Not pro, not in Olympics finals team. Almost making the Olympic team means he is only almost worthy of an article--ClubOranje^Talk 03:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a college athlete participating in a NCAA Division I-A sport who has attained any non-trivial level of notability (I think being named in a preliminary Olympics squad is enough) would certainly be kept, unless he/she plays soccer it seems. It's a very strange state of affairs, don't you think? ugen64 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 02:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waylander (band)[edit]

Non-notable subject. Group fails WP:BAND with only a single release on a notable label. Libs (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, googled for five minutes and couldn't find anything that passed WP:BAND. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 17:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC by having albums on Century Media, Listenable and Blackend, all of which are notable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blackmetalbaz. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above, passes WP:MUSIC. RockManQ (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Passes WP:MUSIC. Spec ial K 14:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 reliable coverage shown Black Kite 22:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No (Song)[edit]

Does not assert notability. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable song. no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless I see some verifiable sources that assert notabilty. RockManQ (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability beyond the bald assertion "has quickly become a popular meme within the Internet community" is provided. --Stormie (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There's a few reliable sources (not tons, but a few); while I'm not convinced it is "notable enough", I'm also not convinced that it isn't, and I can see real-world people coming here to try to find info about the tune. Townlake (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habari[edit]

AfDs for this article:

article deleted three times, already [31]. the secondary sources are not reliable sources as required by WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE nor do the secondary sources or anything in the article do anything to establish notability, as per WP:N. Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that SourceForge qualifies as a reliable source. I also believe that being a finalist in the 2008 Source Forge Community Choice Awards would meet the notability requirement as well as the coverage in Smashing Magazine Morydd (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing Magazine... so notable a publication that it doesn't even have a wikipedia article. And being a finalist in some sorceforge award... if that were notable then why aren't there other reliable sources discussing it? Misterdiscreet (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article quality is quite good, and the subject does have some notability (though granted last month's project of the month, Enomalism, is essentially a dead project, and still vaporware after 5 years, so it's questionable as to whether they are a reliable source). WikiScrubber (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except Habari wasn't a project of the month. But even if it were, has that designation resulted in significant media coverage? If you can find a BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC or any other important coverage, then it may be worth a note. If not a single reliable site find the information newsworthy, nor we. And even then, it still might not be good enough per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM

I also dispute the claim that the quality is "quite good". The features section just about violates WP:TRIVIA as written. The Release History section could stay, since it's in the featured article Mozilla Firefox, but not even Mozilla Firefox's article discusses every minor release (eg. 2.0.0.0 through 2.0.0.16 or whatever the latest version of 2.0 is). The Development model section seems to be a violation of WP:NOR and WP:VANITY, as well. Not that any of that is a reason for or against deletion, per WP:UGLY. Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've stripped down the article to a more reasonable size (in my opinion). I'll leave the notability discussions to others, but I think it's notable. tusho (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The external sources sufficiently establish notability. In fact, these sources are better than most of the projects linked to from Blogging software. Bjohnson00 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources are better than most of the projects linked to from Blogging software. Totally irrelevant. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Besides, were time not an issue, I'd nominate them all for deletion. Or are you gong to arbitrarily set the bar so high that all articles must simultaneously be nominated for deletion for any to be deleted? That is, of course, insane Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS states, in reference to the definition of a Reliable Source, "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, and NBC, are not focused on reporting on Open Source software or blogging software, whereas SourceForge and Linux.com are. Additionally, there was no discussion, or objection when the notability tag was removed nearly 6 months ago. Obviously, I support keeping the page, but as a member of the PMC for Habari, my POV is heavily biased. Morydd (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you don't need to be focused on reporting on open source software to have articles on it. see, for instance, [32] [33] [34] for Linux, Apache, and Firefox, respectively. sourceforge isn't a news site and even if it were, it's irrelevant. take a look at the name. 2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards. it's a poll. it's the complete antithesis of WP:RS. linux.com is somewhat reliable, but they're not even entirely unbiased, themselves, given that they are owned by the same company that owns sourceforge.net. And even if they were, that's just one reliable source. one is wholly insufficient. if this were so notable, where are the other reliable sources?

here's more evidence of Habari's lack of notability. Special:WhatLinksHere/Habari. if Habari is so notable, why is it not notable enough to be mentioned in any other articles other than just link mills like List of content management systems and Weblog software? Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Academy Awards are also a poll. SourceForge is one of the largest repositories of open source code on the internet, and the people being polled for such an award are arguably the people most familiar with Open Source Software. I fail to see what linux.com and SourceForge being owned by the same company has to do with any sort of bias towards Habari. And your arguments based on Smashing Magazine's lack of an entry and the lack of links to Habari's page could be equally interpreted as information that is missing from Wikipedia rather than proof of lack of notability. Morydd (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the people being polled for such an award are arguably the people most familiar with Open Source Software. Nice WP:NOR violation. In any event, the Academy Awards are notable because get significant coverage in reliable independant sources whereas the sourceforge.net awards do not (and even if they did, remember that this project didn't win an award - all it got was a nomination).

And your arguments based on Smashing Magazine's lack of an entry and the lack of links to Habari's page could be equally interpreted as information that is missing from Wikipedia rather than proof of lack of notability.. The burden isn't on me to prove Habari's notability - it's on you. You feel Habari is notable enough to be linked to from other pages? Then be bold and update wikipedia. As is, your proposal is absurd and could be used as a justification to keep all pages. Why not create a wikipedia article on one of my two big toes? After all, the "lack of links to [my big toe's page] could be equally interpreted as information that is missing from Wikipedia rather than proof of lack of notability.". Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misterdiscreet: You claim "were time not an issue, I'd nominate them all for deletion" yet, you've now made the time to respond to this particular discussion 6 times, and are, thus far, the only person who feels strongly enough about this to respond at all. As for my claim that the people creating open source software are the people familiar with it being Original Research, you are probably correct, and if this were an article, it should absolutely be deleted. However this is a debate on if the article about Habari warrants deletion. I'm presenting my opinion on the subject, as are you. As for the Academy Awards being notable because they receive media coverage is backwards. They receive coverage because they are notable. They are notable because they are the result of people who are (theoretically) experts on film are choosing the best work in the media that they are experts in. The about page states "articles and subject areas sometimes suffer from significant omissions", so the argument "it's not in wikipedia" is not valid. So it basically comes down to an issue as to whether the articles linked are qualify as Reliable Sources and if Habari is "notable". In the opinion of myself and everyone but you who has entered this debate, they are, and it is. If you have a personal animosity towards Habari or any of the people working on it or on its wikipedia article, that would cause you to make deleting this article more important to you than deleting any of the other articles you feel should be nominated for deletion, I'm sorry and I hope you're able to work those out. Morydd (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claim "were time not an issue, I'd nominate them all for deletion" yet, you've now made the time to respond to this particular discussion 6 times, and are, thus far, the only person who feels strongly enough about this to respond at all.. If there was a point in all that, I've missed it. Oh - and by the way, you are another person who feels strongly enough to respond to at all. What do you think I've been doing this whole time? Talking to myself?

And as for my not deleting other articles... how much free time do you think I have? Deleting other articles takes time. Subsequently defending my position takes time. I don't have the time to do another simultaneous AfD as time consuming as this one. And what if I did do another one? What's to stop you from saying the same exact thing? After all, what's one more AfD to me? I do two AfD's, you'll complain that I'm doing three. I do three and you'll complain that I'm not doing four and so on and so fourth. Well, I'm sorry, Morydd, but I'm not going to do that.

Do you go around criticizing the Habari developers when they don't devote as much time to Habari as you think they should? If not, then it's exceptionally hypocritical to criticize me for those same reasons.

However this is a debate on if the article about Habari warrants deletion. I'm presenting my opinion on the subject, as are you. Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that WP:NOR violations are grounds to keep the article but that if they actually go into the article that they should be deleted? Absurd. You wouldn't be able to delete anything that way. Take the hypothetical article on one of my two large toes. The article, itself, may not establish notability, but you're suggesting that if it were nominated for deletion via an AfD that I could violate WP:NOR, say that my large toe defeated Stalin, and that we'd have to accept that prima facie because WP:NOR doesn't apply in AfD's? You, sir, are an idiot.

As for the Academy Awards being notable because they receive media coverage is backwards. They receive coverage because they are notable. They are notable because they are the result of people who are (theoretically) experts on film are choosing the best work in the media that they are experts in Actually, I'd say it's a self-perpetuating cycle. Does art reflect society or does it affect it? A little bit of both, actually. Same thing with the academy awards. Alleged experts wouldn't waste their time in the Academy Awards unless they were as widely covered as they are. Simultaneously, the Academy Awards wouldn't be as widely covered as they are without the involvement of these alleged experts. sourceforge.net has none. What is an "open source expert", anyway? The Linux devs and the Firefox devs, maybe, but those aren't the people participating in the sourceforge.net poll. Indeed, it's just end users like you or me. We're not notable so the sourceforge.net awards don't get coverage and notable people don't contribute due to lack of coverage - due to the fact that there are better things they can do with their time.

Are you seriously telling me that you think sourceforge.net's awards as notable as the Academy Awards?

The about page states "articles and subject areas sometimes suffer from significant omissions", so the argument "it's not in wikipedia" is not valid. You haven't been reading what I've been writing, have you? If there's an ommision, you can rectify it - you can Be Bold. Don't just do handwaiving, say "it is notable!", and leave it at that - show me that it's notable. The fact that you can't - the fact that you're instead opting to resort to these absurd arguments - only weakens your case.

In the opinion of myself and everyone but you who has entered this debate, they are, and it is. Argumentum ad populum, FTW!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterdiscreet (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Neıl ☄ 10:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lee (musician)[edit]

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

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

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Border speedy candidate but it does mention that Tipper Gore had issues with one album although no references besides blogs found. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author claims a song was used in the movie Bikini Island. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough notability for an encyclopedic biography. -Nard 00:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has trimmed article and has added more references including articles in rolling stone and hustler magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.25.192 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC) — 76.94.25.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (sock of user:Guitaro99?)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Shows articles in Rolling Stone and L.A. Weekly magazines. User:Guitaro99 02:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Only 1 !vote please. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not convinced that this article doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines and believe it should be retained. He has a new record coming out on HepCat records. Same label as the Stray Cats.The release is being touted as a historical collection of vintage,un-released punk music produced by Billy Zoom of "X" and Chuck Reed of Interscope Records. As his career expands this article will improve.--(Guitaro99 (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep I think the current refs establish some notablity. Despite a rocky start, I think there is some good stuff in this article, but it still needs more work. ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which ref? I am having a hard time finding any verifiable ref with his name in it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keepmost of the refs are about his bands, but all do talk about him at one point or another.D.Schneider(69.231.50.49 (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC))— 69.231.50.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment Also, re: above, if you go to "Bikini Island" ref. site at IMDB listed in article, you can see that the song "Shot Down" is listed there and so is his name in the Q&A section of IMDB re: movie.D. Schneider(69.231.50.49 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)) Re: Shot Down on the IMDB site , you can see his song and name under the section on the first page called FAQ.It's toward the bottom of the first page. D. Schneider(69.231.50.49 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 03:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jock sniffing[edit]

Only WP:RS is a book on sexuality. Which is fine, if the rest of the article didn't suffer from massive original synthesis, plus the fact that the quoted section from the book merely mentions the jockstrap as an analogue for male genitalia and doesn't even talk about the phenomenon of smelling it. Therefore, while this slang term is widely used, the lack of reliable sources makes writing an encyclopedia article impossible at this time. -Nard 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no references from non-trivial sources. If you can find even one single source i might support a single line mention in a more appropriate article on a greater topic. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pardon the pun, it looks like WP:BOLLOCKS to me. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is ridiculous, Jock Sniffing is certainly not worth an entry. --Hayden4258 (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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