The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 01:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epileptic Gaming[edit]

If you came here because you were told to, 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)).

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

Does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability; no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Claims to have appeared in the Wall Street Journal and the Attack of the Show, but I was unable to verify the claim. Article is also mostly trivia. VF10 (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• — VF10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Last afd closed as delete. Much too long to warrant a G4, but reads as nothing but trivia/fansite/spam without assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research with little apparent real-world notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Confirmed to have appeared in the Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition; 12/22/2007, Vol. 250 Issue 147, pW2, 0p. TheGunrun (talk • contributions) 05:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC) — TheGunrun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Could you elaborate? Also, what is the abovementioned appearance in Attack of the Show? I saw it sourced to a brief mention in a "Best of Stickam" article yesterday, but now it links to a video-segment with no mention of Epileptic Gaming at all as far as I can see. VF10 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Going by this, the mention in Wall Street Journal seems to be about "Up All Night" - not Epileptic Gaming though it's produced by many of the same people. VF10 (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per TheGunrun --H8erade (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the page does plenty to display the show's notability. I'll add some more stuff just so there will be no question in anyone's mind. — 99.148.150.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • That comment is more or less copied verbatim from the last AfD. Anyway, how do you think it's notable? "I'll add some more stuff" isn't a valid reason to keep an article; you might as well add it now to prove your point. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete regardless of the lengthy rewrite, all of the notability concerns raised at the initial AFD are still valid as no significant coverage in reliable sources appears to exist. Nancy ^talk 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note – Rally cry as shown on their forums here. MuZemike 21:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mm, one of them seems to have made a backup of the article; better be careful of any G4s, should it be deleted. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strictly neutral - but feel it fair to point out that the nominator is also a single purpose account —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also true. MuZemike 07:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • a single purpose account is just unfair and deceptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.150.240 (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - claim of notability is tangential. Marasmusine (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TiToAwesome[edit]

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

The article was created by a registered user, whose sole contribution was spending 15 minutes creating this article back in 2007. I cannot find anything reference to the company. A domain of this name exists, but seems to be of German origin (not Worthing), and there is nothing on the website anyway. The cites are links to a newspaper and radio station main domain, not to any specific story, certainly not about TiToAwesome.

My personal conclusion is "hoax". Putney Bridge (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax or extremely non-notable. 0 gnews hits; the majority of the non-wiki ghits are people telling Tito he said something awesome.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as likely misinformation. If this local company truly does have a turnover of 1.5 million pounds sterling, you'd have expected it to have a fair bit of local coverage by now. The link to a page that has nothing to do with the company makes me even more suspicious. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Prank. Qwfp (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable at best.--Charles (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No links or addresses to the company. After doing a Google search, I've found a website with the same name, but it doesn't look like a company. Techman224^Talk 22:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was brought to me as a blatant hoax, and a look at the article suggests that it's entirely made up of whole cloth. From some of the tone, it seems like it's likely also an attempt at disparaging someone. This hoax has been around since May of last year; it stops here. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Junior B[edit]

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

This article is wholly unsourced. Investigating more deeply, several claims are false (including most notably the #1 Billboard listing). This article runs afoul of WP:OR, WP:BLP, etc.. The principal editor contributes almost exclusively to this article, and some of his few other contributions are vandalism. He lists himself as the copyright owner of graphics in this article, suggesting that he may have a conflict of interest (or indeed, may be the person depicted). Therefore, delete. TheFeds 23:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Clare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (former pseudonym of Junior B)

• Also added Myron Clare. TheFeds 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• G3 blatant misinformation, chart positions are totally bogus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please make sure that File:Tjbentleys11.jpg, File:Bandmother.jpg, File:Junior_b_debut.jpg, File:Album_cover_live.jpg, File:Backinmylife.ogg, the files connected with the article, are deleted too. They're all tagged as public domain, but there's really no point in keeping them around if the article is BS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doctor Eggman. Kept the history for GFDL —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Eggman in other media[edit]

Doctor Eggman in other media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is largely redundant to Doctor Eggman which already has an overlong "summary" of Eggman/Robotnik/etc. in other media. I see nothing viable worth merging, as the Eggman article already covers it and then some. Furthermore, thanks to another stupid "YouTube Poop", this article is a target for stupid vandalism, including the repeated addition of the "Pingas" meme (where a clip of Robotnik saying "Snooping as usual, I see" is edited to make it sound like he's saying "penis".) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not recommend a merge either as in Doctor Eggman, there is already a section as "in other media" and even tagged that the section is too long. Therefore, I do not think this article is worth keeping when we have it under the main article. Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The "In other media" article was created separately on April 1, 2006. On April 2, 2006 the material still wasn't in the main article which means it must have been merged into it later. Since the section is going to remain in the article until an agreement can be reached on what to trim, this needs to redirect to the main article for attribution purposes (GFDL). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested above to Doctor Eggman. All useful information pretty much already in that article, but we probably need to preserve the edit history of this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW. DGG (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind uploading[edit]

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

80% of the article is OR, the rest is highly speculative synthesis from related research. absolutely riven with bad science. not a single research paper discussing the topic is cited. bad stylistically - wikipedia is not a place for personal essays. even the title is not widely used in scientific discussion on the topic. fictional refs and other fictional discussion has it's own page Jw2035 (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! DELETE! - As others have said. A bunch of random psuedoscience and un-attributed rubbish. Simmons001 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - for reasons above. Jw2035 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Speedy delete! After reviewing the article, I noticed that non of the cited referenced are related to the topic! All the referenced are related to other procedures. There is absolutely no manuscript or reliable, notable published paper about this topic and as it is mentioned at the beggining of this article, it is just an assumption. Not notable at all and does not have reliable or any, reference. Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Strike all the OR, and merge whatever is left over into Transhumanism or perhaps Life extension. It's a valid enough topic in a science fiction context, but it needs valid citations and reliable sourcing to qualify for its own article in any other context. Anaxial (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be a confusion between articles deserving deletion and articles needing to be improved. Once the topic is relevant, the point is how the article should be written —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolpho (talk • contribs) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The theory of mind uploading is highly relevant and timely because it is located in the domains of Strong AI (AGI), Computer Science, and Neuroscience. Another way of looking at Mind Uploading is through the concept of Whole Brain Emulation. This could become a substantial field within the decade. It ought not to be incorporated into Transhumanism (as mind uploading is not a philosophy and is not a life extension technique. It is a technological process whereby the contents of the brain could be transferred onto a non-biological platform). Because of Mind Uploading's tie-in with the fields of Computer Science and Neuroscience (including Whole Brain Emulation), it has credence. My suggestion is to give this article a few weeks and let those knowledgeable authors of this technological/scientific topic provide substantial language and references to improve its readability and authenticity. Natasha Vita-More (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A well-known theme in science fiction at least since Arthur C. Clarke's The City and the Stars, futuristic speculation, and philosophy of mind. Such a topic should be covered, and there's enough to say about it to justify an entire article rather than trying to merge somwhere. It's true, however, that the article in its current form needs work. Metamagician3000 (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears in numerous fiction and nonfiction works, under this name. Widely recognized as an important concept in both futurism and philosophy. --EliezerYudkowsky (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a very important field of research, which could have a very deep impact on the future of our species. The article must be kept on Wikipedia and, of course, maintained and improved. --Eschatoon (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If this is deleted on the grounds that it is unscientific, what about articles about extraterrestrial life, interstellar travel, time travel etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.240.15 (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with others above: the topic clearly deserves an article. It currently needs a lot of work, incl sourcing; but there's plenty out there in sf, futurism, and philosophy. I coincidentally had just read it over, and was going to edit something i found esp inadequate. Edit, not delete. Re merge: transhumanism has long been viewed on its talk page as at the limit or already too large; and life extention appropriately mentions uploading and points to the main article."alyosha" (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Do not merge with transhumanism, which is a larger area. Google Scholar shows that it is discussed in 21,900 research publications. Currently, brain simulation is a topical field. However, I know that some religious people do not like the idea that the soul one day could be simulated and the brain emulated in a computer. Mange01 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as separate article, per User:Wolpho, even if that means stubbing and restarting. Mange01, could you write a section on religious attitudes to the concept? I'd like to read it. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 22:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this deletion debate is in the news. See here: [1] — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - crikey, this has opened a whole bag of snakes! i try to mainly stick to sporting and hobby articles away from science and the day job, make a recomendation on one i randomly come across (and dont like the look of) and i'm being denounced in Wired! My issue is not with the subject -i agree that a topic on cognative simulation/mind uploading or whatever you call it should exist - but my problem is a technical one: that what is contained on this page is awfully presented, both scientifically and for a wikipedia article (mainly per 'Synthesis' on WP:OR). If Keep is the decision (and it's heading that way) this is going to require major rewriting. Fictional and non-fictional refs have to be separated; it considerably weakens a point or a fact, anywhere on wikipedia, if it is followed by a list of 'in (insert random anime show) this happens'. I quite agree with Mr Keim Unfortunately, the entry for mind uploading is, as user Jw2035 notes on its deletion page, almost entirely barren of scholarly or even cultural references. If it's not improved, it probably deserves to be deleted. So go to it, citizens Jw2035 (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I think that the subject area is a very important field of scientific research, I agree that the article could and should be improved. There are a lot of works on uploading from credible and respected sources, that should be added as references. I don't have enough time now, but will certainly add some references and rework some text in a few days. --Eschatoon (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Maybe get rid of some of the bad stuff, but don't lose all the great and well referenced stuff. And notice a lot of other people are saying keep on the talk page for that article. Brent_Allsop (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but needs to be heavily edited Critics make some valid points. Legitimate references are in short supply, despite leading scientists having written about uploading and related concepts such as machine consciousness. Nevertheless, critics need to understand the purpose of this article. There is no perfect analogy but consider the history of fusion power. Scientists have understood fusion reactions for many decades and have long predicted we will be able to build a reactor for a large-scale controlled reaction. These speculative predictions remain unconfirmed but open discussion of the concept is an important part of the science and engineering process, and many legitimate mainstream scientists and engineers feel similarly about uploading and related concepts. I agree with others who suggest some time is needed for editing. I plan to provide several legit references over the next 48 hours. Pwestep (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rework—the topic is notable even if the current state is undesirable. If this means that we cut out most of the article and are left with merely a high-quality stub, so be it. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 04:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and update. The topic is a classic thought experiment in philosophy and common in science fiction. There is plenty of relevant information in the FHI Whole Brain Emulation Roadmap PDF(itself an example of an academic treatment of the issue) that can be used to bolster the factual content of the page. Anders Sandberg (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Per consensus, and the article does not establish notability. Malinaccier (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bucknor[edit]

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

Article fails to meet the notability standards at WP:N, WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN JonBroxton (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate when/if make an appearance in a fully-pro league. GiantSnowman 21:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to fail WP:ATHLETE currently and notability is not inherited so relationship to Steve Bucknor is a nothing. Recreate if and when--ClubOranje^T 08:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, yet to play in a top level game, and it's been established that playing in junior representative football is not a case for notability. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Rather obviously not a notable sportsperson. Fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was All redirected to Gulaal. This stub was obviously talking about the same movie. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulal[edit]

Gulal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gulaal (2009 movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable Bollywood film. This is a stub, orphan, and I'm not sure if it's a hoax or not. Cssiitcic (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I had moved this article to Gulaal (2009 movie) before this nomination could be completed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources could be improved upon, but it's clearly not a hoax. Several notable publications discuss the film as can be seen from the summaries in this google search - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No its not a hoax. Just Google it, there are several sources IBN live[2]TOI. —SV 13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gulaal but Delete Gulal.Cssiitcic (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Delete the redirect. It is the author's misguided way of working around the fact there was already a Gulaal article, this one for a 2001 movie from the same country. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Loads of sources found by Google News[3][4], including several lengthy articles in The Times of India and The Hindu, two of the world's four highest circulation English language non-tabloid newspapers. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 01:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standen's Inverted Hierarchy of Needs[edit]

Standen's Inverted Hierarchy of Needs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research, non-notable. Jd027 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:N, WP:MADEUP, and WP:OR. Only source provided is a self-reference. No mention of this on Google whatsoever. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NFT tending towards nonsense. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, little to add to what's already been said. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:OR and WP:NFT both apply here. -- 80.168.225.88 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Boob[edit]

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

Looks like a hoax to me. No reliable sources could be found, and the external link provided is a wiki and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--can we not speedy this as a hoax? Drmies (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably, but I just wanted to make sure everyone agreed that it was a hoax. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - definitely a hoax. Colds7ream (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I figured it for a hoax, but wasn't sure because of today's Astronomy Picture of the Day. It's certainly not notable and it seems OR. --PLUMBAGO 21:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - No evidence of notability (even if not a hoax). --Quartermaster (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hoax: the only source cited says it was found on Mars "using Google Earth version 5" JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal kingdom (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Cannot find any reliable sources for this, only MySpace and Facebook. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BAND. Nsaa (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--there are no reliable sources that I can find for this, and it sounds extremely unlikely that a band with such a sophomoric article would have a deal with Warner Bros. Remove that claim, and there's nothing left but another MySpace band. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - meets CSD-A7. Colds7ream (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyright violation Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pajak pół kilo[edit]

Pajak pół kilo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable legend. Cannot find any mention of this in reliable, third party sources. The text is a copy-and-paste from what seems to be a blog. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. The 'reference' provided is evidence enough, it seems, of its notability. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The text is a copy-and-paste from what seems to be a blog. -- So shouldn't the article just be deleted (well, blanked, but there's nothing left after that) outright as a copyvio? Unless the article's author is claiming to be the author of the "source" too? If it is later determined that the article actually is notable, it can be recreated with better sourcing and less copy-pasting. -Bbik^★ 21:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Horsforth#Education. DGG (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horsforth Featherbank Infant School[edit]

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

Does not seem sufficiently notable for inclusion. All provided links are to the official website. Google returns few hits. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Horsforth. Colds7ream (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect into Horsforth. per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Horsforth#Education per precedent. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Article should only be merged if independent sources are found. Articles (or sections in case of lists) based solely on primary sources violate basic Wikipedia policy on verifiability and neutrality.- Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three independent external links added. PamD (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment links only prove the school's existence not its notability. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - sure, but that is precisely the point. If the links proved notability then that would justify a standalone page. What the links do is provide independent, reliable, verifiable information that can be merged. TerriersFan (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hardly, you could find similar for a post office or a police station. WP:ORG says: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. the depth of coverage in these links is hardly deep. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the links are definitely not considered suitable as a source for Wikipedia, they merely give the address like a yellow pages. WP:ORG says the following are exempted: Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories. why are you so keen to defend the existence of every school article in Wikipedia? LibStar (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This school fails WP:ORG — I agree. You said that "links only prove the school's existence not its notability" — I agree with that too. As TerriersFan said above, the article should be merged merged into Horsforth#Education, not kept. The sources verify the existence of the school, not its notability, so the best option over deleting this article is to salvage the content by merging it. Cunard (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Master Server Point[edit]

Master Server Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete was tagged speedy for vandalism, which I declined after significant changes were made to the article after the speedy tag was applied. Anyway, there seems to be no real-world notability or out-of-universe context. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't see any justification for this having a separate article to the game. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - following the link to teabagging makes it seem highly unlikely that this article is anything other than vandalistic misinformation, which is why it was speedied. The later additions do nothing to make it appear plausible. PamD (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Blatant original research and game guide content. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced, probably WP:MADEUP by a small group of gamers. On the whole, I doubt there are a significant number of people who actually take this seriously. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nabla (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Morgan[edit]

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

Not yet notable NationalTreasure (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--indeed, not notable, since this Google News search produces only a passing mention. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - is it fair that she, a television contestant gets an article, yet there are countless others who do not? I do not think being on a game show is enough to establish notability. T-95 (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or merge, but not delete. Such discussions belong on the article talk page, not AfD. kurykh 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The American Males[edit]

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

No reliable sources appear to establish the notability of this tag team. The sources on the article are from websites with no indication of any reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. PROD removed under the theory that they were the tag team champions, but being given a fake title in a scripted fight does not strike me as establishing notability. Otto4711 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - "theory that they were tag team champions" doesn't strike me as an unbiased view, having a swipe at me for removing the prod for some obscure reason. As for "fake title in a scripted fight" seems to be plenty good for every single Wrestling title article on here, even the Feature List ones. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your stated reason for removing the PROD tag was I see sources and they've held the WCW world tag title, they're notable enough for Wikipedia. I addressed the sourcing issue in the nomination. Sorry that you feel slighted by my reiteration of your other reason but I believe it was accurate. If other wrestling champion articles are also not independently notable then they too should be deleted, not used as an excuse to keep this article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, the "team itself" doesn't seem to be a notable one. If every team that held a tag championship had an individual article, there would be pages for Shawn Michaels and John Cena, Cactus Jack and Chainsaw Charlie, Kane and Big Show, etc. In fact, a lot of those articles were created and deleted by either prod or AfD. Therefore, there has to be a different criterion for notability for teams. In my opinion, a notable long-range storyline central to the company, several tag team titles, existence in several companies, or reliable third party sources would be good place to start. Unfortunately, this team has none of that. Therefore, because the individuals in the team are definitely notable (and neither have particularly a long article), I suggest merging the information into both articles with a redirect to either of them. Nikki♥311 20:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My concern with a merge is that the information would still not be supported by reliable sources. Should the information end up merged despite that, does the GFDL allow for merger to two articles and then a redirect to a third? I would suggest List of WCW Tag Team Champions#List of individual reigns as a possible redirect target. Otto4711 (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to disagree Nikki, there is no "different criterion" for tag teams, it's all the same: WP:Notability, that's where it starts and ends. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What I meant (and what I still stand by) is that having a championship is not enough to satisfy notability for a tag team to have a separate article rather than just being mentioned in the members' articles. As I stated above, having reliable third party sources would prove notability, which the article now has, so I change my opinion to keep. Nikki♥311 22:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- Like Nikki stated, it would be best to merge the info into the respective articles and redirect it to either male.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This was a notable team that competed exclusively together, under a team name, for an extended period of time. As such, they are more notable than any of the random pairings that various promotions have thrown together. I have added a bit to the article, and more information remains to be added. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is established by independent reliable sources that substantively cover the subject. It is not fame, nor is it popularity, nor is it achievement. Nor is it established by how long the team worked together or if the pairing had a team name. Where are the reliable sources? Otto4711 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Reliable sources have been provided. Some unproven sources are still present, but references #2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 19 fit the definition of reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Team is notable. Known widely amoung the wrestling community. They teamed in WCW, a company where reliable sources or sourceds in general are hard to find for PPVs, Nitro, or even Thunder. If sources is all that establish notbility then we should delete everything WCW, WWF, or ECW because reliable written sources are hard to come by.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Known widely among the wrestling community" is not the standard for notability. The team is notable per WP guidelines if and only if reliable sources exist for it. If reliable sources do not exist then per WP:N the article should not exist. If other articles suffer from the same sourcing problems then they should also be deleted. There is no exception to WP:RS for wrestling. Otto4711 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A written source isn't needed to source the article. The article can always be sourced with Cite episode.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also I find it weird that you are replying to everyone's comments that oppose, as if you don't want it deleted because of nobility, instead you seem to have another reason.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Find whatever you want weird, makes no difference to me. Note that WP:RS requires sources that are independent of the subject, so their appearances on various wrestling TV episodes do not qualify. Otto4711 (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, it just needs one or two reliable sources to remain an article and only "contentious" material needs to be fully sourced, so it's not like every single little detail has to be sourced in order for the article to stay. And how about you let people speak their opinion instead of hammering away at any and all comments that don't agree with you? MPJ-DK (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, indeed, nine reliable sources have now been provided. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10 now. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I could understand Otto's nomination, but MPJ-DK has sourced nearly every sentence. Also Otto's "fake title in a scripted fight" betrays an anti-wrestling agenda. Should we delete all wrestling articles about anyone since 1904? As the vast majority have been worked since then. The subject matter aside this meets WP:N easily. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And I can only take credit for 1 source, the rest is someone else's work - credit where it's due ;) MPJ-DK (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• An anti-wrestling agenda? Spare me. I could almost literally not care less about professional wrestling, your bad faith accusations to the contrary. The article was nominated not because it has anything to do with wrestling but because it was a piece of shit. Otto4711 (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is well sourced, they teamed for over a year, won the WCW World Tag Team Championship. They may not be one of the most notable teams in history, but they are notable enough to have an article. TJ Spyke 16:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep It's clear your not working as an unbiased party. Otto4711: The argument for deletion: "..being given a fake title in a scripted fight does not strike me as establishing notability." is pure nonsense which is not covered in any deletion requirement. Something being scripted or faked is largely irrelevant to whether something has established notability or not. Under that logic all things fiction and faked should be deleted from Wikipedia (Milli Vanilli to AFD anyone?). Professional wrestling articles are mostly going to have references that are specifically written about professional wrestling and are probably not going to be referenced by major media outlets, which seems to be your issue, but i digress. This tag team is notable as established by the references provided in the articles. — Moe ε 17:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• <sigh> The argument made in removing the PROD was that they won a tag team title. Wrestling is not real. It is scripted. It is not like boxing or MMA or the Olympics, where absent shenanigans titles are awarded based on real competition. Wrestling titles are given at the whim of the story editor. Thus, "winning" a non-competitive (i.e. "fake") title in a bout with a pre-determined outcome (i.e. "scripted") does not establish the notability of a tag team. Arguing in favor of the notability of a tag team on the basis of their "winning" a title illustrates that those making the argument dlack the most basic of understanding of our notability guideline. That's all I'm saying. Extrapolating that to all fiction or all hoaxes (I believe there may have been one or two stories in the mainstream press about Milli Vanilli, for example) is a ridiculously bizarre and foolish misreading of my argument. Apparently the news that wrestling titles are fake and scripted is something of a panty-bunching revelation to some of my fellow editors. Sorry to pop your balloons, wrestling fans. If you choose to believe that my pointing out that wrestling is fake and scripted means I'm "biased" against pro wrestling, feel free to live with your ignorance. It would be nice if you would assume good faith but I suppose that's too much to ask for. Otto4711 (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And again, professional wrestling being scripted does not alter its notability. The promotion they won the tag team titles in was one of the most notable promotions in professional wrestling history, probably second only to WWE. Your not biased because you know its scripted, your biased because your nomination was worded as trying to delete on the basis of the titles they won are irrelevant, which they are not. Those who follow professional wrestling here know its scripted and thank you for trying to spare us, unfortunately you decided to take the road of being a dick while trying to do so. — Moe ε 18:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be a violation of policy to respond to being called a dick by calling the dick-accuser a moron? Otto4711 (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Moe said, what does wrestling being fake have to do with this? Fine, then winning an Oscar or Emmy award doesn't count for squat in making an actor notable because acting is fake and it's a small group of people deciding who to give the awards to. TJ Spyke 18:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you, before trying to be clever again, read a WP policy or two. If the Oscars were considered fake and did not get worldwide media attention, in other words, RELIABLE SOURCES, then yes, they should not have WP articles. Is the concept of reliable sources really that hard for you to understand? Is there some particular aspect of it that baffles you? Because we may be able to arrange some sort of "Reliable sources for Dummies" thing for you if it's that far out for you. Otto4711 (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've all read the policies, we get them and we sourced according to them. What rubs people the wrong way is not you quoting policies but the condescending tone you use when talking about the subject matter. And before you claim innocence just save it, talking to the members of WP:PW like they don't actually know that wrestling is predetermined is condescending, as is your general tone through out this entire debate. I also notice that you keep debating the subject matter and not the fact that it now actually is in accordance with the rule you keep quoting as an argument to delete it. Or maybe you agree it's a keeper and now engage in a purely philosophical debate on reliable sources on Wikipedia?? MPJ-DK (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge While the sources seem to indeed be reliable they do not seem to make the team notable. The info in the article does not show me why this team is notable enough for its own page. While winning the belts is perhaps notable, if this is a main argument for notability than the quality of that championship should be considered. They only had the titles for a week and two of the three teams mentioned in that week, Harlem Heat & Nasty Boys, are far more notable. The titles are notable, but every single title reign is not necessarily notable enough for an article on a stand alone basis. This team was only part of Bagwell's career and it does not seem that it was either the most successful, nor with the most notable partner. Antol's article alone is quite brief and I think if the american male info was merged with both it would increase the quality of each wrestler's article more than any gain as a seperate article.MephYazata (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball Keep I am in agreement with the previous statements in favor of keeping this article. The nominator's view that the article is a "piece of shit" is not enough to warrant its deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Valone[edit]

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

Only assertion of notability is as director of an organisation which apparently is notable enough to have garnered an article itself.

A (brief, admittedly) web search turned up nothing that could be considered non-trivial independent coverage.

(Page was PRODded, but removed by anon IP.) Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed, page was previously AfDed, but it appears to have benn re-created. Should this therefore be speedy delete? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete on procedural grounds. Yes, Oli, I believe you're right: DRV is the venue if someone wants to re-create it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but perhaps not speedy. The first AfD result was "delete and redirect to book", and then the book was deleted, so this page was deleted as a page dependent on a deleted page. However, this page has less than the deleted page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bring It to the Block[edit]

Bring It to the Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape. No significant independent coverage, didn't chart. Fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NALBUMS "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; ". Nsaa (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable mixtape, trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability per WP:JANNMT.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Did any of these songs get on the charts? How well did the album sell? Whether its just one artists, or he mixed his own stuff with someone else, isn't relevant. I think "mix tape" has different meanings. Dream Focus 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify for you, this is a typical hip hop mixtape. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia–Uruguay relations[edit]

Latvia–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Only rationale given was "Don't be crazy." More non-notable diplomatic relations. Countries don't have embassies. No reliable, secondary, independent sources. No indication of actual relations apart from just existing. Jd027 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I looked for non-trivial mentions of the topic of Latvia-Uruguay relations in independent secondary sources and couldn't find anything. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there was something, anything worth mentioning, it might be a keep. Presently appears to merit maybe a sentence the relevant articles. Recognizance (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They don't even have embassies with each other, and there is no "meat" or substance to the article to speak of. Not notable. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yuk! Another Groubani creation of X's relationship with Y. Latvia doesn't have an embassy in Uruguay. Uruguay doesn't have an embassy in Latvia. Maybe we can have an article about my relations with Michelle Obama. I've never met her, but I think we'd be good friends. Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Here we go again? WP:N issues. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (A3) Article lacks substantive content. An agreement alone isn't enough to support a separate article. Actual actions need to have been taken in support of the supposed diplomatic relations for an article to be viable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Latvia has no embassy in Uruguay (which was one of the main points in the eventual deletion of Wp:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Estonia relations)? I can't see any other outcome, then: especially since Uruguay only has an honourary consulate (whatever that means) in Riga - with their main representation across the Baltic Sea in Sweden. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no real connection between these two; mere existence of diplomatic relations does not equate with notability, as well established by now. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The article has been rewritten during the discussion, leaving much of this AfD moot, but the general feeling is that this topic can likely be covered in a non-OR fashion.  Sandstein  06:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Accounting[edit]

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

A huge original essay. Laudak (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, weakly. Mostly because I am sceptical of the notion that accounting can have a philosophical dimension that wouldn't be better treated under more conventional titles like philosophy of economics or philosophy of law. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless the possibility of the notion, one must start from reliabkle sources which discuss it, not from the table of contents of the whole philosophy. Laudak (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There do indeed appear to be authorities who have sought a philosophical dimension to this field, and its ethical and representational problems. This article is a start, and there's no hurry. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the page contains several sources and it seems to be a valid concept -here. The way forward is to rewrite the page not to delete it. TerriersFan (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you looked carefully inside the refs you cite, the term is used in an informal, rather than scholar sense. Laudak (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Consistency, we're told, is the hobgoblin of little minds. Informally, there probably are "philosophies" of accounting just as there are "philosophies" of computer programming, skiing, or washing laundry. The real question is whether philosophers will perceive any actual philosophy in these philosophies that isn't already handled under a more familiar rubric. I agree, this is original research. It fishes philosophical terms out of the ether and uses them capriciously; the section on "epistemology" actually appears to deal with the semiology of statements produced by accountants. The real question is, does accounting pose any philosophical issues that aren't already part of some other and better established branch of philosophy? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'll withhold judgment pending possible additional sourcing, but it clearly violates WP:SYNTH at present. I do agree with Laudak's comment regarding Ihcoyc's vote. Votes should be based on policy rather than gut instinct. Provide sources that directly address this topic and you may have something. Recognizance (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Although my first impression was that this was purely the original synthesis of an editor who wanted to combine Arthur Andersen and Plato, the author is not the first to talk about the ontological and epistemological aspects of financial reporting [5]. I haven't checked to see if there's a copyvio; I hope not. Mandsford (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep My first impression on looking at this article is WTF?? I'm married to a CPA, so I can speak with some knowledge when I say that no accountant would talk this way. However, there are vital philosophical ideas at work in accounting -- the primary one being ethics, which amazingly is not mentioned in this article -- so the article is worth keeping but only after severe stubifying. -- llywrch (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: we already have an article on business ethics that could use expansion. Would an article about ethics in the philosophy of accounting cover anything that shouldn't already be covered there? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No. This is not just an ethical issue. There are considerable epistemological problems in accounting because of the difficulty of valuation and these are not resolved. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of you seem to grasp what I am saying. Unlike MBAs -- & to the best of my knowledge, any other professional certification -- to receive a CPA candidates required to pass a written test on ethics, in addition to that notably difficult standardized test. One of the areas they are required to take classes in to keep their certification is ethics. As for "epistemological problems", out of the many accountants I have met none have ever showed the slightest inclination to theorize on the meaning of "debit", "credit", or any of the other terminology they use. In that sense, they are more like engineers, who concentrate on the application of their tools to problem solving, rather than architects, who are interested in the theories they use to solve their problems, how these theories work, & how they affect the wider world. -- llywrch (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Truth in accounting for an example of such philosophical theorising. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did look, & thought long about that section of the book. My conclusion was that concern over correctly valuing debits & assets (which is the point of the passage quoted) is not the same thing as exploring the difference between "objective reality" & "normative reality"; to make that comparison is, to quote several people above, original research & not appropriate for Wikipedia -- whether or not it is a valid comparison. To repeat myself, this article needs some severe pruning. -- llywrch (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A good start on a notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A substantial start for a new article. Has references. Notable enough for Wikipedia. A topic in philosophy, a department that could use a few good articles. Weak rationale for deletion. Why waste our time with this process? This article is obviously just fine. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per two above, but needs work tying it together. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Mandsford, above, the topic appears to be sufficiently noteworthy to rate an article; but this article is not it. It's entirely an unreferenced essay and an unholy conglomerate of opinion, synthesis and original research. Yes, the article contains references, but they're not references to the "Philosophy of Accounting," which is the subject of the article. Delete, or stub down to the lede and rebuild with actual references that have something to do with the subject matter. TJRC (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree but the state of the article is no basis for deletion -rather it is a reason to fix it. TerriersFan (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that's the theory, but does that mean as long as an article has a title of a worthy subject it's retained? In this case, the entire article is a compendium of policy violations. Take out all the unsourced material that has anything to do with the subject, everything that's OR, and you have a blanked page. TJRC (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Although it reads like original research, there actually are sources that could be drummed up (in philosophy of business/business ethics). Give the author some time to improve this by adding genuine sources, I do not believe any of this is original research by one person, it's used more broadly than that.--Levalley (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]

Author's Comment

It appears that some of the objections to this page were founded on a question over whether a discrete philosophy of accounting actually exists. I would suggests it depends on your perspective / philosophical perspective perhaps. One debater has suggested that it is might be in the realm of philosophy of washing machines. Another claimed to have a wife who was a CPA and said that philosophy wasnt something that accountants thought about.

There is a philophy of accounting - it is embedded in the Frameworks issues by the IASB and FASB. Accountants, being mainly procedural people, are not inclined to debate their philophies much - most appear to prefer to apply the accounting standards almost as though they were handed down by the gods, rather than taking a step back and really questioining whether what they produce is fair, true, ethical etc. There are some in academic circles who do question them though :-).

The issue of ethics was also raised I would add that one of the causes attributed to the Enron scandal was that accountants applied the letter of the standards, rather than taking a step back and applying the principles of "fair presentation". Whether this is a fair judgement or not is subject to debate and is part of the somewhat "exciting" debate between the US standards setters and their international counterparts as to whose standards should prevail and how they should be applied.

It should also be understood that the ethics issues are not about doing right and wrong - they are about what constitutes a fair presentation of reality. At the top end of the profession, there are many contractual arrangements that could be presented in a number of different ways which could dramatically change the presented results. So the debate has the some elements of "black and white" ethics - but in truth its much more than that.

Forgive me, but I believe that there is philosophical debate raging at the moment within the profession and the reason I created this page was to try to get some real academic input on the subject. Perhaps I have made a poor start, but then I understood that the whole purpose of Wikipedia was collaboration. I invite you to help and make this a worthwhile page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkearney (talk • contribs) 02:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has references and is a perfectly valid article. The article was nominated because of original research, but since it is now referenced, that reason seems defeated. Dream Focus 08:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has no references about the "Philosophy of Accounting," however. In its current form, it has nine references. references 1 and 3-9 have nothing to do with philosophy; reference 2 has nothing to do with accounting. It remains completely unreferenced with respect to the subject, Philosophy of Accounting. All the material about the Philosophy of Accounting, the subject of the article, is OR. It is an error to treat an article that has no references about its subject matter as being referenced. These references are fig leaves, nominal only. This is exactly the sort of referencing that would be appropriate for a college essay; and that's the type of piece that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I would back down from my delete stance if the article backed away from its OR status, adding real references about the Philosophy of Accounting (which, as discussed above, apparently exist). But right now, this is just an essay of OR, with footnotes to support the author's opinions. TJRC (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I asked my wife the CPA what the term "Philosophy of Accounting" meant to her. She thought for a moment, then answered, "Isn't that what economics is supposed to be?" -- llywrch (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I think I get it now. It seems talk's point is that the I need to reference academic articles that provide evidence that Philosophy of Accounting actually exists. Hmmm - it sounds like a philosophical question in itself :-)

Funny thing is that I have searched numerous academic databases and found that the word accounting and the word philosophy very seldom occur in the same article. I know talk would say, that that it exactly his point. My counter-argument is that that just because the word philosophy does not exist in this context does not mean that the dimensions or philosophy are not at incredibly relevant and very much a part of the profession. I would say it does exist - its just not explicitly acknowledged. You have not commented on my post above - so I wont try to make the point again.

You are welcome to delete the page if you feel strongly that it does not exist because there are no academic articles on it. However - if I manage to get a paper published in a respectable academic journal that says that it does exist, then I guess you will be happy to reinstate it. I acknowledge that I will have to have some better verbage to put on the page in that case. Agreed?

Pkearney (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to llywrch with the CPA wife.. Okay mate, you have been brutally direct so, if you dont mind, Ill be brutal back. Context: I'm a Chartered Accountant and I have a Masters in Applied Finance - so I'm not coming from a zero base okay.

You may or may not know that there are two accounting professions in the English speaking world: CPA and CA's CPA's are American and CA's are the rest of the English speaking world. CA's (generally) have clubbed together and formed the International Accounting Standards Board - The US is now the only country that has not brought itself to harmonise with the international standards. There is a little professional rivalry at stake here..:-) The CA dominated international community argue that it is exactly because the CPA dominated accounting standards of the US do not embrace a higher philosophical ideal - that we have accounting debacles like Enron... Its not because they are morally deficient - its because they are following a procedure rather than taking a step back from what they have done asked themselves... "Do these financial statements fairly present the results of the business.

The whole concept of fair presentation in accounting is, in itself a philosopical issue!! What is fair presentation? Do me a favour... Ask your wife then whether she thinks that goodwill should be written off immediately or retained in the balance sheet. If she says it shoud be retained, then ask her how it leads to comparability with other companies that only have internally generated goodwill. Ask her what fair presentation means in this context. Then ask her how this issue is not a philosophical issue!!

Pkearney (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The nay-sayers' comments are not true and fair and so should be discounted. For example, source 3 clearly does have something to do with philosophy as its abstract indicates: "The method of such enquiries is explained using the work in the philosophy of language of Wittgenstein.". Anyway, my impression is that they have failed to convince and the article is here to stay. Please continue to develop it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me clarify my comment, then. The work cited as source 3 may, taken as a whole, have something to do with philosophy, but the content of that work having to do with philosophy is not being used as a source. It's being cited for the proposition Questioning by the US Congress led to a study on "the adoption by the United States financial reporting system of a principles-based accounting system". No philosophy in sight, there. Again, this entire work is OR that is not citing anything about Philosophy of Accounting. Could an article theoretically be written about Philosophy of Accounting? Sure. Is this such an article? No, it's not. It is, in all aspects that discuss the subject matter of the article, essay, opinion and OR. TJRC (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion The objection to this article is that it's all an original-research essay, without drawing from any reliable secondary sources on the subject. Some have made the observation that it is at least theoretically possible that this article could be rewritten in a way that actually sourced from reliable sources on the topic. I propose that we close this discussion as no consensus without prejudice to renominaton, and allow Pkearney and some of the other proponents 30 days or so to turn this into a non-OR piece of work. If it's still a mess, it can be relisted. I'd rather the proponents devote their energies to improving the article than to defending it in its present form. TJRC (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Counter-Suggestion: Naah, in spite of talk's encouraging words - I think its not worth the effort. The fun of doing it collaboratively vanished and I would rather pursue my interest privately. The criticism is pretty aggressibe though - I see a lot of very mediocre and badly written pages out there - do they all get this level of roasting? Anyway - kill the page. I think you are right it is OR. Pkearney (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You can see a day's worth of nominations at WP:AFD/Y. It is not unusual for many of these to be impetuous, not having considered the article properly per the deletion process. Our editing policy encourages us to assist and the article rescue squadron tries to help in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete original research amounting to an essay and a content fork to boot from Accounting.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm happy to agree that there are philosophical presuppositions behind accounting--and the article's observations on ontology and ethics are the right places to start--but that the article is not about "philosophical presuppositions behind accounting" but about "philosophy of accounting." Notice the reference at the end to Philosophy of Law, Philosophy of Mathematics, and Philosophy of Economics: these are actual fields of scholarship with such things as university curriculums, journals, and so forth. There is no "philosophy of accounting" in the academic curriculum, nor are the journals which address this topic. Perhaps there should be! But there are not. This is a field which doesn't exist--though, again, perhaps it should! But when it comes to fields of scholarship, Wikipedia covers fields that actually exist, not just ones that should. Now perhaps it should be renamed "philosophical presuppositions behind accounting" (which the article's author seems to really mean). But then we need some secondary literature on that topic. Here the reference to accounting standards and the like is a reference only to primary sources. In other words, for the article to stay, there needs to be someone somewhere making the same kinds of arguments the article makes. And that, I'm afraid, doesn't seem to exist. (Or, if it does, no claim has been made for it.) Another way to put it: can we find please, just one philosophical source? Have any professional philosophers written on the topic?! Speaking as an actual academic in philosophy, I might suggest that the answer just might be "no". Tb (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Philosophical perspectives on accounting. Several of the authors have studied academic philosophy and one of them is a professional philosopher. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is one "Colin Lyas", whose work seems principally to be in aesthetics, and is not even listed on the faculty at Lancaster where the book you refer to has him. And which isn't even cited in the article! If we got rid of the O.R. in the article, what would remain? The boilerplate silliness on fields of philosophy reads like a primer, and the O.R. of the article's reflections on accounting standards is no good. So let's hear what Lyas has to say. Is there a second person who has written about this field from a philosophical perspective? And why doesn't the article cite them? Here's what I would like to see, to change my vote to a "keep": change the article to actually base its text on actual secondary texts on the field it describes, and drop all the primary and OR references, and see what remains. If the result is a real article, then great. Otherwise, bzzt. Tb (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having found a source of the type which you requested, I have already started rewriting the article to make good use of it. But your demands seem excesssive in the context of AFD and moving the goalposts is hardly sporting. The notability of the topic seems well-established and so work upon the article should not be subject to an arbitrary and capricious deadline. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that the field actually exists as an academic field of study, which is exactly how the article presents it, with its comparisons to Philosophy of Law, Philosophy of Mathematics, and Philosophy of Economics. It's no trouble at all to remove the OR bits right away--I can even do it for you, if you like. Then, if there's enough now for an article confined to what the secondary sources actually say, well and good. If not, then it's no harm to delete the article now, without prejudice to re-creating it once there are sufficient secondary sources to base an article on. Right now, the article is based on zero secondary sources. Tb (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes no claims that the topic is an academic field of study. The main context for the topic is the establishment of accounting principles and standards and these are commonly discussed in the journals and textbooks of the accounting profession. The article currently emphasises this context and so there is no distortion. My impression is that you are viewing the matter from the perspective of an academic philosopher but this is too narrow. Wikipedia is not an academic work - it is a general encyclopaedia. The philosophical thoughts of accountants may be beneath your notice but they are of some immediate significance in the real world - see Mark to market#Effect on subprime crisis and Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, for a practical example.

The cited discussion of Mark-to-Market shows that accounting is extremely important, and its rules matter. It does not show any philosophical discussion of that. (There is no subject called "Philosophy of firearms", despite the fact that firearms are very important and can kill people.) But it's pointless to debate here. Better is to fix the article, and then see whether the fixed article is satisfactory. I'll do my half: removing the OR and the boilerplate not really relevant to the topic, and then you can provide sources for the rest. Tb (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've taken the initiave to clean up the article considerably, removing the (often incorrect) philosophical biolerplate, the empty citations of standards documents without connection to the philosophical issues announced in the lead, and so forth. I've placed some key citation-needed tags to request citation of the key claims which go to the root of the question of this article's suitability for the encyclopedia. Especially, we need a citation for the claim that the substance-over-form question is of philosohical import, and the claim that the rules for reporting raise epistemological concerns. What is needed here--let me be perfectly clear--is not an argument that they are connected (that would be original research, but rather, a citation to a secondary verifiable source which asserts the connections in question. Tb (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Holocaust. Also hid the band article history —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holocausto[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Never got beyond the stage of releasing a couple of demos twenty years ago, no coverage in reliable third-party sources. Searches are confusing as there are mutliple bands with the same name (some of which may be notable), but this Columbian outfit is not. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - If deleted, this should probably redirect to The Holocaust. "Holocausto" is Spanish for "Holocaust", and a plausible search term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Sounds reasonable, as long as that doesn't preclude someone writing an article on one of the other, potentially notable Holocaustos (the Brazilian one has multiple releases on Cogumelo, for instance). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--I concur with nominator, and Linguist's suggestion is valid. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable band. JamesBurns (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Holocaust. The band fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, WP:EXISTENCE. Cannibaloki 03:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If redirected, it would probably be wise to delete the article's history. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's WP:BLP1E. You're free to merge the content about the virus and its significance, but the person is only notable to the event of the virus's spreading. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the article is about the virus. Thus, this violates the biography of living persons policy. slakr^\ talk / 05:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Smith (virus writer)[edit]

David L. Smith (virus writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pretty clear WP:BLP1E. Almost all of the info is already in Melissa (computer worm). --Jaysweet (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with nom, person notable for one event only. The article already exists at Melissa (computer worm), so there really is no reason for a separate article for the author. Jd027 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and JD027 --Moloch09 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article itself doesn't have an AfD notice. I can't remember how to do it without relying on Twinkle as a crutch, and my crutch apparently broke since the last time I used it :) --13.12.254.95 (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((subst:afd1)); added to article. -Atmoz (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BLP1E. Recognizance (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: not sure I agree with the "person notable for one event only" reason. Smith could be considered notable as 1) the author of a notable virus; 2) causing the most financial damage from a virus to date; 3) one of the first to be prosecuted for writing a virus; 4) and working for the FBI as an undercover agent. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first three could certainly be included in the virus article itself. In the fourth, many people work as sources for the FBI. This doesn't make all of them notable. Regards, Jd027 (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that he is a notable source for the FBI, and can be referenced as such, i.e The register. And, with reference to 2 and 3, that the crime is a well-documented historic event. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable for the virus and for the results of it. One invention is sufficient, if it is sufficiently important--in a positive or negative sense. DGG (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable for X and for the results of it" undermines the entire premise of WP:BLP1E. Perhaps we need a section titled Articles about people notable only for one event and the results of that event, heh... Also, I would argue that the Melissa virus does not constitute an invention. Unless it was the first mass mailer and/or first virus to use Microsoft Word macros, which is not my impression... "Mass mailer" is an invention, but "a particular mass mailer" is not, no more than this comment is an invention.

WP:HEY: If someone can successfully expand the part of the article dealing with Smith's later work with the feds, using reliable sources and establishing the notability of said later work, there would be a much stronger case for a "keep" here. --13.12.254.95 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 01:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore[edit]

En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete for being an OR essay. No assertions as to why this page is even notable in the first place, or if the issues are as serious as the page's creator said. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, although I'm not quite sure why the nominator removed the previous prod simply to send this to AfD. Ironholds (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I did something wrong, please let me know. I apologize beforehand. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 14:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afterwards, actually :P. I was simply pointing out that a prod, if left unchallenged, would have led to exactly the same result as a successful AfD. Ironholds (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that tidbit. Will remember that, going forward. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 17:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the kind suggestion of LinguistAtLarge, I'm re-posting the flwg here:

To facilitate your review/verification of my Wiki page, here's another link to the Strata Titles Board (STB) Circular issued in 2004 to clarify the 1999 Land Titles (Strata) Act (LTSA) which I have also added to my Wiki page:

[[6]] Strata Titles Boards Circular 1/2004

Whether a clarifying STB Circular has the effect of a "statute" is an open question (to me). This clarification effectively affirmed a window of up to 24 months to nail down an en bloc sale based on a Reserve Price established upfront (ie, even earlier than 24 months) in a moving (ie, for en bloc sales, usually frenzied upward-moving) property market. To date (ie, for nearly a whole decade), the en bloc industry along the entire value chain (viz, starting from the en bloc sale committee, to the property marketing agent/en bloc lawyer (both of whom operate under "no sale, no fee" structure), to the developer-buyer, to the STB, to the courts) takes this 24-month window as law.

It is beyond me as a mere citizen to challenge this - so I take it as part of the game rules and, accordingly, this is only a comment. However, this legislative effect created a business structure and modality that exacerbates the dire predicament of owner-occupiers (especially) who face the following crushing prospects in buying a replacement family home post-en bloc:
Squatters (rent until the market hopefully crashes),
Refugees (buy apartment in another estate of equivalent or older age and risk being en bloc yet again - there are letters to the press of such experiences),
Downgraders (buy public housing flats or move from central to suburbs),
Downsizers (buy in same neighbourhood at "twice the price; half the size").

BTW, I run this blog using my pseudonym of "The Pariah" at: www.singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com and a condensed version of my analysis of this piece of legislation is set out in this blog entry: [[7]] The Source and Themis
(but I suppose Wikipedia etiquette would NOT allow me to embed links to my own blog - Correct??).
(SINPariah (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Pls excuse me for being a befuddled Wikipedia newbie. But it looks like my postings on Arbiteroftruth's talk page disappeared yesterday. So I will repeat them here:

1. Again, to facilitate verification, I have added links in my new Wikipedia page to external web-sites of (a) the Attorney General's Chamber for the Land Title (Strata) Act and (b) the Supreme Court for the written judgement on Regent Court en bloc suit.

As the AG's Chamber link requires the Wiki user to know the name (viz, Land Titles (Strata) Act) or the chapter number (viz, Cap 158) before this statute could be accessed, it is not user-friendly to Wiki users unfamiliar with Singapore laws. How can I make the link more user-friendly pls?

As the Supreme Court web-master archives the judgements every calendar quarter, this Regent Court en bloc written judgement would eventually disappear from the "Current Judgements" web-page. How can I affix the link so that the judgement is available for viewing post-archival?

2. Likewise (despite being a non-technie), I've managed to convert the flwg into jpeg image files: (a) the statistical charts of the Urban Redevelopment Authority and Jones Lang LaSalle Research and (b) the pertinent page extract from the Singapore Academy of Law Journal article. However, my attempt to attach these under "insert a picture gallery" has resulted in rectangular blobs! As I obviously do not hold the copyright to these charts/article, can I add them to Wikipedia Commons with the necessary source attributes? If I'm assured that it's ok, then I will muck around to attempt an upload from Wikipedia Commons thereafter.

Your kind assistance would be much appreciated. Kindly e-mail me at:
<singaporeenbloc@gmail.com>
(SINPariah (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Do not Delete this article: I have found this article to be both accurate and informative and reflects the other side of the coin on this matter. As a victim of a failed attempt of an en bloc sale of my private condominium in Singapore, there are salient facts not generally known to owners beforehand. The rosy picture painted in the media is not an accurate reflection of what happens on the ground and the safeguards found in the Statutes for the minority owners are constantly being watered down by the Courts. Certainly, as an owner of a middle to low end private apartment, the assertion that the issue is not as serious as the pages's creator said is wrong, and it is indeed very serious to all those who are burned at the alter of En Bloc. In my estate alone, that would include many who would have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in their savings accounts had the majority been successful in their attempt at selling the estate in 2007(rising property market) at as price set in 2005(low property market). Buying a property at 'half the size, double the price' was the reality, as my research into a possible replacement property revealed at the time. I can only wait with dread at the next attempt to sell my home without my permission, at a price set by others and with very weak legislature to protect my interests. This article is correct in pointing out the weaknesses, pitfalls and untruths that lie behind this particular law. Itshometome (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The fact remains, my friend, that the article is completely based on original research, uncorroborated by experts, and we are not even sure if the issue is trumped up, in an effort to make it more serious than it truly is. The article cannot stay. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 06:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The contents are corroborated if you care to read the links embedded in this newly created Wikipedia page to the Land Titles (Strata) Act, Cap 158, Part VA and First-Fourth Schedules, the Strata Titles Board Circular No 1/2004, the High Court written judgement. Respectively, the sources are the web-sites of the Singapore Attorney General's Chamber, the Strata Titles Boards under the Ministry of National Development and the Supreme Court. What better pedigree can one get, ugh?

Reply 2 - The author of this Wikipedia page (SIN Pariah) has disclosed e-mail address <singaporeenbloc@gmail.com> for you to contact the author if you would like to verify the statistical charts of Urban Redevelopment Authority and Jones Lang LaSalle Research and article page extract from the Singapore Academy of Law Journal. It is only because of the author's non-technie skills and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's tools that these statistical charts and journal extract are displayed as rectangular blobs. To date, Arbiteroftruth has not contacted SIN Pariah in any attempt to verify these statistical charts or journal extract.

(SINPariah (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

My friend, stats can be something that is twisted and contorted to something that it isn't. The fact still remains that this is an original research, and Wikipedia does not allow articles of original research. If you have a few experts to back you up on this, it would be totally different. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 16:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arbiteroftruth: The statistics were published in Singapore's Business Times with attribution to URA and Jones Lang LaSalle research. Surely, public record is available to be attached as jpeg files in Wikipedia? The statistical charts are on my latest blog entry dated March 2009 (Para 3 entitled "Civil Service (URA/SLA)") at <www.singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com>. You could add up these published stats for yourself. Feel free to check it out to satisfy your validation or verification process.

I have kept a soft copy of a forum letter written to the press published in Today paper on 27 Dec 2007 by a Lucy Huang, recounting her post-en bloc refugee experiences. As I am not familiar with the technie aspects of Wikipedia, I don't know how to successfuly upload a jpeg file. Again, I urge you to contact me via e-mail <singaporeenbloc@gmail.com> so that I could attach the jpeg file for your verification to corroborate the dire prospects faced by private condo owners post-en bloc.

Surely, being on Wikipedia's panel of editors/reviewers, I hope you'd Seek Out Truth BEFORE you Arbitrate On Truth. I thought Wikipedia purports to be a platform to reflect ground realities and various schools of thought and NOT a platform for the "Who's Who" and the Powers-that-be. Am I mistaken perhaps? If I am so mistaken, then my apologies indeed.

(SINPariah (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is an information platform, not a platform for information that is contorted, and certainly not a platform for lies. You still cannot corroborate your information, and prove to me that you did not contort information, and turn them into damned lies. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The statistical charts are from Business Times. No contortion. No lies - damned or otherwise. Since I am not even technie enough to load jpeg files into Wikipedia, I'm NOT clever enough to massage pdf, gif or jpeg files!

Found a soft copy of another press report (The New Paper, 26 Aug 2008) about en bloc vandalism in an estate that is currently under en bloc sale process. Upon any request to my e-mail address <singaporeenbloc@gmail.com>, I stand ready and willing to e-mail as file attachment to anyone who cares to verify/validate "information" on this newly created Wiki page.

(SINPariah (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

i am a lawyer in private practice in singapore who also happened to be a non-consenting owner to an enbloc attempt to sell at a grossly unfair price and can relate to and confirm many of the things said by sinpariah especially under unjust law - in relation to what is alllowed by law under the 12 + 12 = 24 month window. (Vijust (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

vijust

• Weak delete the phenomenon is perhaps notable, but this article is unsuitable for Wikipedia as it is shot through with original research. (disclaimer: Singaporean) Kimchi.sg (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The content has potential, but cannot stay in current form.

1. Content should be written from a neutral point of view.
2. This is a valid issue for inclusion, but current prose is written as an original essay.
3. Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme is shorter than this; any salvageable content would be merged into a "Criticism" section.
4. The news articles and citations can be reworked into encyclopedic prose, and does have potential to cover the points in the article.

- Mailer Diablo 15:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad of and impressed with the wealth of information in this article on the current enbloc situation in Singapore. As a minority dissenter who have been involved in such a process, I can verify that the contents are well-balanced and educational. I notice Arbitorfortruth still has some reservations on this article. Why not take up SINPariah's offer and contact the originator for proper verifications?

suntzeren(Suntzeren (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete. Upon reading "What Wikipedia Is Not", I have to say that the content is (a) a personal essay (b) a soapbox, which represents an unbalanced view of en-bloc sales in Singapore. This is clear from the non-neutral position and rhetoric of the content author. The author has already established his/her feelings on the matter on en-bloc sales on his/her own blog but I don't think Wikipedia should be a further platform to promote his/her non-neutral views. It represents a very specific perspective on en-bloc sales, especially the advocating of '1-4-1 exchange' which has no supporting evidence. I would suggest corroborating evidence for statements such as 'the authorities to date have NOT been receptive to proposals for one ADDITIONAL option' (evidence?), 'Anecdotal accounts corroborate these poll findings' (evidence?), 'this trend of STATISTICAL PURCHASE DISPLACEMENT BY FOREIGNERS in CCR..is likely a direct consequence of en bloc sales facilitated by such en bloc law' (source?), 'it could take nearly six months from the date of application' (reference?), 'Bodyguards were employed' (reference?), 'Even earlier suggestions by lawyers..to develop a Best Practices and Code of Conduct were not taken up by the authorities' (reference?) etc. Unless substantial changes are made, the content is not suitable for wikipedia.

Wikisider (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kimchi, Mailer Diablo and Wikisider. I have left a message on Kimchi's talk page about my jpeg file attachments and would appreciate some guidance/help as I'm really NON-technie. I have started amending the article and now that a friend has helped me put in the citations for the Land Titles (Strata) Act (which is the source for all the points that I made in this Wiki article), I will plug in a slew of citations at the various tagged places. Just give me a few days to tidy it up.

Where the points relate to newspaper reports (eg, what the specialist en bloc lawyer said about 1-4-1 exchange), I have the source, the date, BUT Singapore's press media database in DIGITAL FORM is very limited (UNLIKE in the USA). The articles are archived every 7 days and there is no way to obtain an archival URL. I went down to our National Library to check if I could get an ISSN or IBSN number but even the archives in our National Library are in microfiche form and can only be accessed on the library premises and only photocopies could be made - that doesn't help to provide a digital access for Wiki's verification purposes. And I'm trying to limit the non-free copyright use to as FEW jpeg images as possible. Ditto for the Hansard Parliamentary Reports - I have the full volume/column references and would include that in the citation source but, again, there is no way to obtain an archival URL. So would that help in your Wiki review/verification pls, Kimchi, Mailer Diablo and Wikisider? Your guidance pls.
(SINPariah (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi! I've stuck in a whole bunch of citations to the LTSA law and various articles. Is it better now? I'll need some time to clean up the Wiki page and say stuff in a different tone.

Comment The emphasis should not be on a different tone but to move away from using wikipedia as your soapbox. The content clearly presents one side of this controversial matter and hence its neutrality is greatly questioned. Further content to balance the article, not additional references to the law, should be added. If anything, limit any personal opinions on the matter to a sub-category on Controversies, rather than having them located almost everywhere in the content. For example, assume your audience is the Singapore Government - how would you rewrite the content to ensure it is not seen as seditious or libelous?

Wikisider (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimchi - I want to better organize the stuff by adding new sections so that they appear under the "Contents" box. I don't know how to do it. Could you stick the codes and instructions in this talk page pls? Much obliged, (SINPariah (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment- I think the general consensus here tend towards having the article deleted. Therefore, I think we can do what is right now, and delete this soapbox from Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 02:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure we can. However in the interest of following due process and getting more people to chip in (half the contributors are SPAs) we should wait on that until the alotted time is up. Ironholds (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carina Axelsson[edit]

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

Nonnotable author... Existence of a book on Amazon doesn't demonstrate notability for the book or author. Worldcat search for both titles shows extremely small number of libraries that stock the book. I only saw nine for the first one and three for the second one. and WP:NB threshol rules state a bare minimum of 12 are necessary to even be worth considering to see if it meets other more stringent criteria. DreamGuy (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR. Jd027 (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I might be mixing her up with some other celebrity by the same name, but Google seems to spit stuff out in German and Swedish. We should have people with the proper language skills look at those sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Google search appears to show that aside from being author article subject is engaged or receives heavy press coverage as romantically linked to Danish royal family. Some suggestions that book(s) may be notable as well. But that needs capable translator to report as per MgM above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some of the German sources provide substantial coverage of the subject as an author, e.g. [8][9][10], and her relationship with Prince Gustav seems to get plenty of coverage in the gossip columns. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR. Articles which appear are gossipy magazine and weblogs, wordpress, blogspot; unverified, highly speculative. Most contain inaccurate (or press-release) information, little better than US tabloid-style supermarket publications. Her relationship with a minor German princeling (mediastized House) and *his* distant relationship to Danish royalty appears to be sole reason for her appearance in Swedish and German "pink press" publications. Could combine with his Web page, but fails on any notability on her own merits. Being a girlfriend isn't notable, and Living people sections need a bit more substance to them. Better as a fan page on a blog somewhere. PR (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Although she is not widely known in the United States, she is very notable as the controversial member of the Danish Royal family as a result of her common-law relationship with the Danish Royal Prince. This information has been repeatedly removed from the article by an editor with a clear COI who calls himself ProperlyRaised. She is also notable for her series of children's books which have been widely published in several languages. Many Danish language 3rd party independent refrenences exist. She also is regularly featured in gossip and other such low-quality magazines, but then what major international celebrity isn't? Unionsoap (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Books translated into multiple languages are usually an indication of notability. That a Danish children's book isnt held in the US & Canada is not an sign on non-notability--a low worldCat result is irrelevant here. She also seems to be notable in other respects. Anyway, if one goes by the GNG, there are sufficient references, and that they are not in English does not detract from them. DGG (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:POINT nomination, as admitted by the nom. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica)[edit]

Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Multiple editors are actively engaged in keeping real-world information out of the article, leaving only a plot summary. Since that is not enough to sustain an article, I am nominating ot for deletion. I will witdraw if article is allowed to contain the real-world context it deserves. — Edokter • Talk • 14:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Your nomination seems immature and isn't a valid reason to delete. It sounds like "Do thing my way or else". Dream Focus 14:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is pointy. But the fact remains that if that information is left out, all that is left is the plot. That's the point I'm trying to get accross. — Edokter • Talk • 16:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to consider reading WP:POINT. I think it explains why some editors will not take this AFD seriously, and believe it was made in bad faith. Thanks. --Banana (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This post implies that this article wasn't nominated in good faith. One should not respond to disruption by being disruptive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong speedy keep. Nominator does not cite any problem with the article subject, only other editors' behaviour. The behaviour of other editors is not a valid reason for deletion. Neither is the current state of the article, as we are required to consider whether it could become an acceptable article later during its development, and nominator basically admits that information he has tried to add to it will allow it to become acceptable. JulesH (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong speedy keep as per JulesH. Deletion is not a solution to editorial disagreement, any more than euthanasia is to a medical difference of opinion between two dentists over a patient--Moloch09 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per JulesH and Moloch09. Please try and work with other editors to determine what information should go into the article. Thanks--Banana (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: I do not think it is good policy to delete articles due to some kind of edit war. The submitter admits that there is "real-world information" (regardless if it is kept out) to support the article; so by all admissions the article is notable. I think User:Edokter acted in good faith, this policy is not clear, i.e. not set out at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per JulesH. No real reason for deletion has been given. Content disputes need to be worked out elsewhere. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Ukrainians[edit]

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

This article is a typical attack page. What we have here is a compilation of mistakes of some historians that are perported to be an evidence of existance of such a phenomenon. One doesn't need to go far to see that this term is used as disparaging term for Ukrainians in general and Ukrainian historiography in particular. The Google hit on this term gives more than 49,300 hits in Russian while only 3,740 hits in Ukrainian where this term is presented as native. Moreover, this term is featured prominently in the anti-Ukrainian literature that explicitly denies the existance of a Ukrainian people, one of which is listed as the first reference in this article. The mere fact that mistakes or hoaxes that are present in any national historiography are synthesized into a separate article about particularly Ukrainian mistakes is grossly unfair to any national group and should not exist in Wikipedia. The best this article deserves is a paragraph in the existing article Ukrainian history. This article used to be a translation of a similar article by one and the same author in the Russian Wikipedia, now that that article has been rightfully deleted it is time to have a second look at this article in the English Wikipedia too. Hillock65 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Fringe theories, misconceptions and hoaxes have legitimate place in Wikipedia, so do real-life nationalist theories. These are not grounds for deletion, and this was one of the reasons the previous AFDs failed. On a side note, the term appears to have very limited (yet nonzero) currency in Ukrainian wikipedia so your point may indeed be valid. On another side, the Russian wiki article was deleted February 15, 2008 as well as Proto-Ukrainians and Ancient Ukrainian Literature (as a package) [11]. The closing admin ruled "A number of editors (four listed) raised opinion that the article is original research. Others (three listed) objected based on the amount of references, but this opposition was overruled as superficial. Further editors raised another arguments for deletion. Verdict: Delete." Go figure. NVO (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't read Russian or Ukrainian, but trying a google translate of the first two sources doesn't seem to say anything about traditional of the Ukrainian people. The first one is purportedly written by Nikolay Ulyanov, recognizable as Vladimir Lenin, talking about Ukrainian nationalism, and the second one, labelled "Res Gestae Saxonicum" ([12])-- did the Anglo-Saxons mention the Ukraine? The mythologies and folklore of the world have been written up in English sources, so I'm not sure why one can't find this legend in something that can be verified without having to rely on non-English material about the українознавства. I'll be surprised if it isn't a hoax. Mandsford (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Saxons comprise more than the small group who migrated from Saxony to Britain & became part of the Anglo-Saxons. They extended into the Balkans. The book is a famous classic.--see the article on it.DGG (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article give too much undue weight to an extremely marginal pseudoscientific phenomena. I would save a paragraph or 2 for the fakelore.Galassi (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - undue weight is being given to a rather marginal concept (the marginality of which is not really reflected in the text). Perhaps deserves passing mention in Origin of the Ukrainians, Ukrainian historiography, Prehistory of Ukraine or similar worthy articles waiting to be written. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - gathering together selective info (WP:OR) to prove a WP:POINT using "conclusions" mainstream historians reject qualifies an article for deletion, IMHO. Interestingly, the article Tadeusz Czacki does not even mention the issue, while the article in question says "the term was introduced by Tadeusz Czacki". Looks to me like "the term proto-timewarp was introduced by Albert Einstein" :) I don't think selecting various misunderstood "facts" from physics can justify creating an article Proto-timewarp. An encyclopedia is about what the MANKIND knows, not what some individuals did not figure out yet. Nevertheless, 1-2 sentences can be added to a section "Mistakes and hoaxes " of an article Ukrainian historiography to be written, or to the article Ukrainian history (meaning about Ukraine and Ukrainians, not only by Ukrainian historians). Dc76\^talk 10:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A funny comparison, IMHO, would be 42: knowing the answer, but not knowing the question. Here we know the answer (Proto-Ukrainians), but from the article we can not figure out what is the question. :) Dc76\^talk 11:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep National mythology is notable. It could go into prehistory, but its sufficiently distinctive. Shall we eliminate all the articles on Scamndanvian and Greek mythology also? The article makes it very clear this is not authentic history. That the ruWP deletes articles is no concern of ours. DGG (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a mythology. It is a compilation of random mistakes or hoaxes made by some people and blown out of proportion by the author of this article. Which source per WP:SOURCE points out this is a national mythology? They point out only to instances of mistakes or hoaxes. --Hillock65 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scanidnavian and Greek mythology is discussed in reliable secondary sources, this one is not. Colchicum (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as it doesn't satisfy our sourcing policies and is impossible to fix. As a mere collection of historical misconceptions, many of which have little to do with this peculiar term, it is not encyclopedic, while generalizing statements like "In Ukrainian Romantic nationalism, the ancient Ukrs or Proto-Ukrs (Ukrainian: протоукри) are a mythical people," which could in principle make it look encyclopedic, are unsourced and pure original reserach. Colchicum (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, impossible to find reliable sources — NickK (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The article was rewritten during the discussion, leaving the nomination and the arguments for deletion mostly moot, and since then, most comments have favored a merger, which I suggest should be discussed on the article talk page now.  Sandstein  06:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture[edit]

Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced trivia (WP:RS, WP:N, WP:TRIVIA that was created without attribution and still has all the problems listed at WP:POPCULTURE. I read through the whole list and saw very little to nothing that should be in the main article if it was a Featured Article, enforcing my point that this is trivia and doesn't require merging (even then, it is fully available in the page history of the main article). The list was prodded and second-prodded in February, but the prod-tag was removed, claiming this list was appropriate and was not trivia (I strongly disagree). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly oppose any kind of merge. None of the content of the list is significant to understanding the film. Allusion and reference are some of the most straightforward elements of writing, and their mere usage does not merit mention. I see no evidence that any of these items has had any impact on popular understanding of the film itself, and they should thus not be part of the original article. Mintrick (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a recommendation for deletion? Because AfDs discuss deletion proposals (as was the intent of my nomination here), not merge proposals. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I've found that deletion debates for these articles can, in fact, end in a merge. I'm not sure I really favor deletion, as new and inexperienced users (IP editors) often add to these lists, and we may not want to drive them away. On the other hand, I don't really think the content is encyclopedic, so deletion is hardly a terrible outcome. I simply want to forestall any attempts at merging, while remaining neutral on the question of deletion. Mintrick (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (no merge) This isn't just "miscellaneous information", it's outright trivia. The collection here is not related to the movie at all as its just a collection of random facts and snippets that violate WP:TRIVIA which states Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts. and goes on to state A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, list, or table. The parent article is already well-developed so it doesn't need the trivia section to suggest further developments, and none of these actually would help the article since they aren't related to the subject matter. It wouldn't need more than a passing mention in the main article that states the obvious (is: FBDO has recieved numerous mentions in popular culture). This collection also violates WP:N in that the spinoff subject isn't notable in its own right as the topic (the film's appearance in popular culture hasn't recieved significant coverage in third-party sources. As it stands, this article contains no citations so even if it was about a notable subject (which it is not) it could be deleted as a synthesis. Overall, this is a orignal research about a nonnotable topic which goes against the trivia guidelines. This can't be fixed by cleanup as even a well-cited article on this subject would fail WP:TRIVIA and WP:N, so the only viable option is to delete it. A one sentence mention (without any specific examples to encourage its reformation) in the parent article is sufficient. ThemFromSpace 17:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but trim. The article is in pretty poor state, but there's a lot here that can be improved. This is a film that has had non-trivial effects on popular culture, including popularising a catchphrase ("Anyone... Anyone?... Bueller?") that is now (i.e., over 20 years after the release of the film) widely used outside of its original context. This article documents two uses of the phrase in other cultural works, and Google reports "about" 81,000 uses of this phrase in its index (I know that the "about" figure is unreliable, but I've verified by clicking through that there are over 1,000 of them). This film has clearly had an important effect on popular culture, and therefore merits an "in popular culture" article. That said, this particular article needs a lot of work to come up to standard. JulesH (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's preventing that information from being in the main article? This is much too long and unwieldy, but a popular catchprase might warrant its own section in the main article. If covered in an encyclopedic manner it would add to the encyclopedia while preventing this listcruft from accumulating. ThemFromSpace 17:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete good god. Fun movie, i enjoyed it at the time. But this is a ridiculuous fansite content fork, full of trivia and non-encyclopedic garbage.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication that "Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture" is the subject of reliable sources and the article as it exists is a trivial repository for everything that in the unsourced opinion of any editor who stumbles across it is similar to FBDO. Strongly oppose merging any of this material to the film's article per WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. Otto4711 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I remember a similar article that was deleted in 2007, and it may be that the content was merged back into the page about the film. As in 2007, this is the "in popular culture" article at its very worst: unsourced, and composed of uninteresting trivia about mentions of the beloved 1986 movie. Arguably, the phrase "Anyone? Anyone?" still gets a laugh 23 years later, and there may be a bunch of 22 year old men named "Ferris", but I'm not sure that the film had a lasting influence on pop culture. Mandsford (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Showing how a movie could end up influencing so many other types of media over such a large period of time, is encyclopedic. Perhaps an article listing how popular culture can influence itself. List whatever series had the most impact in other media. Dream Focus 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable pop culture, in scores of citations. This can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep use in notable works is what makes such articles appropriate. That is not trivia; trivia is the accumulation of miscellaneous odd details about the production This is a discussion of the pattern of what was described earlier as "Allusion and reference, some of the most straightforward elements of writing"--and therefore important and notable. We want to do more than just "understand the film;" per NOT PLOT, we want to do a great deal more , we want to understand the significance of the film. The only question about whether it should be a separate article is the amount of material, and this is enough. DGG (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the question about whether or not we should have a particular article is notability of the subject matter. Unless the topic of this movie being in popular culture has recieved more than trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, than per deletion policy it should be removed. Our deletion policy reads Reasons for deletion include... articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. The burden of proof is on those who assert that the subject of the film's appearance in popular culture is notable. A list (even well-sorted) of facts doesn't show any notability as verifiability != notability. As it stands, nothing on this page is encyclopedic, meaning nothing is discussed at all, it's just listed as (assumed) fact. This is just a laundry list of trivia, and WP:TRIVIA reads in bold Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts. If that doesn't apply to the creation of this article, what does it apply to? ThemFromSpace 02:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) use in notable works is what makes such articles appropriate - um, no, reliable sources that are about the subject of the article are what makes such articles appropriate. "A VHS copy of the film can be seen in Clerks" tells us nothing about either FBDO, Clerks, or FBDO in pop culture in the absence of a reliable source that demonstrates that there was a reason for this tape box to appear rather than some other random tape box from the prop department or Kevin Smith's stack of tapes at home or wherever it came from. Holding up a ferret that's called "Ferret Bueller" as opposed to, say, Ferret Fawcett or Will Ferret, tells us nothing about ferrets, SNL, FBDO or FBDO in pop culture. This article is just one more example of editors manufacturing meaning out of randomness, advancing the synthesized notion that a few dozen passing mentions in the course of a quarter century means that FBDO in popular culture is a topic of encyclopedic study. News flash: it's not. Otto4711 (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Trim severely. Obviously, the TV series is influenced by the film and the many direct spoofs are relevant in showing how the film influenced popular culture, but the random posters appearing in the background and scene similarities that can be explained because they're otherwise common in film need to go. Some points are relevant to the effect the film had on popular culture, but clearly not all of them. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you identify these instances so that it would still make sense to keep the list, or perform that trim yourself? All the somewhat keep-worthy stuff doesn't even make up a line in the parent article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand There are a lot more references to this movie than what is mentioned and considering the long list of references (and potentially longer list), this article should not be merged. If a poster for it is shown, I think it should be kept as it is a visual reference. However, this article does need citations. Quistisffviii (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand the frequent pop culture references to the movie demonstrate notability. The main expansion that is needed is the addition of sources to support the many connections. Alansohn (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please copy and paste the portion of the general notability guideline which supports your contention that frequent pop culture references to a topic is the Wikipedia standard for notability. Please cite the sources that substantively cover the concept of "Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture". Otto4711 (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Should be easy to source (I would think) and seems like it has had a significant impact on popular culture. That said, the article needs significant improvements. -User:Hobit
• Keep as with Catcher in the Rye, Louie Louie, and Animal House who'd've guessed...? -65.246.126.130 (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A laundry list of mostly unsourced and irrelevant trivia. Articles like this give Wikipedia a bad name; we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fansite. PC78 (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to eliminate anything you don't like, because you believe it makes the wikipedia look bad. Is that your motivation here? Just curious about your thought process. Dream Focus 14:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be absurd. What part of "mostly unsourced and irrelevant trivia" are you struggling with? The article fails WP:N, WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, and probably other guidelines as well. PC78 (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which opposes "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". This is a list of items whose only relationships with each other is referencing a film. None of these items are "famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic"; they have their own fame and do not get any kind of boost for referencing Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Like other editors said, it is straightforward trivia. If anyone can find significant coverage from reliable sources about how the film has made its mark in popular culture, please include it at the film article itself since that article is not lacking space. Unless that article grows to 100+ KB, there is zero need to have this sub-topic floating around in its own mess of an article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction: Ferris Bueller (TV series) is the only item that is famous. None of the others come close to qualifying. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: this movie is extremely culturally significant, that's why its been parodied so many times. I don't see how WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies to it (personally I think that rule should be overturned anyway, it makes no sense at all, its only purpose is to support the deletionists' agenda). TomCat4680 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to include reliable sources at the film article saying, "Because of the film's popularity, it has been parodied many times in subsequent media." We don't need indiscriminate examples of every single time it has ever been mentioned in the public eye. In addition, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is under WP:NOT, an official Wikipedia policy. If you disagree with policy, please start discussion expressing your concerns at WT:NOT. This is not the place to snub one's nose at policy. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll snub my nose at policy all I want. WP:TRIVIA is another stupid rule that makes no sense except to push the deletionist agenda. So is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:POPCULTURE. If I think a rule makes no sense I'm not going to follow it. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wait a minute. it's true we can Ignore all rules to improve the encyclopedia, but usually we dont have to. WP:TRIVIA is a guideline, & therefore flexible, & it does not prohibit this sort of article; it practice it means what we interpret it here to mean. WP:POPCULTURE is an essay, and not a rule at all--but it does not prohibit them either, just says to do them carefully. ORIGINAL RESEARCH however is policy, excellent and extremely important policy, that we all should be very reluctant to deprecate. But it is not violated here. Collecting together scattered material is not OR, but the usual way of writing an encyclopedia. If there is undocumentable material, or OR amounting to opinion and synthesis, it should be removed. Learn about policy, and how to apply it carefully and with judgment. Deleting this is applying it without good judgment. DGG (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original research here is not the gathering of disparate bits of information. The OR is the synthesis of taking those disparate bits of information and drawing a conclusion from them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mostly trivia. I'd hate to see every single popular film article have a page like this. I enjoy reading about these types of details, but it doesn't need to be here. I'd recommend adding a prose section in the "Impact" section in the film article about the most notable occurrences with sources. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not meant personally, but it is often the very fans of the material who dislike our having articles on it. A sort of reverse ILIKEIT. DGG (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - since this AFD opened, despite the vigorous protestations of those who insist that this article would be easily sourced and despite the article's being flagged for rescue, the only sourcing of substance that's been added to the article is "Movie connections" material from IMDB. IMDB is not a reliable source and the fact that IMDB contributors have noticed the inclusion of passing references to FBDO in other movies or TV shows does not constitute the basis of an encyclopedia article. It seems clear that there are no reliable sources for the subject "Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture" and that this article remains a repository of trivia. No one in favor of keeping this article has made the case for it and indeed they resort to such outbursts as "I'll snub my nose at policy all I want" and wild accusations of a so-called "deletionist agenda" which to my way of thinking is all but an admission that the article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is not referenced for a start, IMDB is not a reliable source. Secondly these "refs" only prove that Ferris Bueller has been mentioned in other programs/films, not documenting it's impact on popular culture. Also per Erik. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as non-trivial information verified in reliable sources, which means it is unoriginal research. This discriminate list is presented in a non-directory manner. No reason beyond trumped up versions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT has presented for deletion. A true reading of policies and guidelines would suggest we keep this article. And in any case, as it is interesting, useful, discriminate, and relevant to many readers and editors, we can always ignore all rules as it is far more important that we retain information our editors come here to edit than adhere to every last word written on some obscure and ever changing guideline written by a minority of our community. Moreover, obviously readers and editors well beyond the handful commenting in this snapshot in time discussion come here looking for this information. There is absolutely no valid reason whatsoever why we would not at worst redirect with edit history intact. One could perhaps make a case for a merge, but there is no real reason beyond an WP:IDONTLIKEIT to not try something else per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Finally, I am beginning a significant revision that addresses and nullifies many of the concerns expressed above by reworking the article to not simply be a list, but rather a discussion on its reception in popular culture that will focus on secondary source analysis. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing my vote to keep per revisions by A.Nobody. This is not the same article that was originally nominated, and the improvements show that an "in popular culture" article really can be about something's influence on pop culture. Not that long ago, when it seemed like every Wikipedia article included a moronic reference to The Simpsons or Family Guy, an "ipc" article usually meant that silly stuff was being separated from a serious encyclopedic article. Since the advent of entertainment wikias, there's been less of this on the original Wikipedia. This has been transformed into something more intelligent. Mandsford (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no reason for content about a film's role in popular culture to be apart from the film article at this point. If that article was bursting at its seams with content, then such a section could be one of a few that could be split off. At the moment, this is not the case, seeing how another rescue of this kind of article scrapes the very bottom of the barrel and tries to play up the topic on its own as much as possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to the recent edits, I have to say that this should be merged into the main article. It is, as Mansford said, no longer about appearances of the film in popular culture and if this is kept and not merged the title itself should be changed to reflect the new balance. Why have this as a separate article at all? The new "academic analysis", "characterization" and "music sections" would bolster the main article and make it fully encyclopedic and not just a plot rehash. Sure, most of this artical is still trivial and should go as name-drops of the filim in other media aren't encyclopedic. But if we would merge the newly added academic material to the main article it would distinguish it from around 95% of other film articles. It's a win-win situation as all encyclopedic material here would be retained per WP:PRESERVE and the original article would be strengthened. ThemFromSpace 19:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I copied the academic content to the film article. The film article is not lacking in space, so the content best belongs there. The presence of such content does not justify the presence of miscellaneous bits of trivia, so I have removed this trivia from the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would strongly suggest to the nominator to use a merge tag next time. The first edit of the nominator in this article was the nomination for deletion, in violation of WP:PRESERVE. Articles for Deletion by their very nature often tend to be contentious and adversarial, making editors choose stark opposing sides, so the opportunity for comprimise is harder in such a forum. Ikip (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep well referenced article now, I will strongly consider supporting a merge later. Ikip (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing administrator please note the article has gone through extensive revisions since the AfD nomination.[13] with the addition of several references. Ikip (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also please note that useful contributions are already replicated at Ferris Bueller's Day Off#Impact, so nothing is going to be lost. Quite a few editors don't believe in this as a valid topic for its own article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included on Talk:Ferris Bueller's Day Off Ikip (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• closing administrator please note that the extensive revisions did not do anything to address the fact that this is a trivial, indiscriminate and non-encyclopedic content fork and should be deleted.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. all towns are inherently notable. now there's a link, one of about 12000 that a quick google search might have produced. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cibuyo[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. No references listed or external links. ←Spidern→ 12:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

321 (song)[edit]

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

Notability, if any, not yet established. Probably useless junk. Juvenile Deletionist 19:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence this charted on Billboard [14], nothing on allmusic either [15]. Non-charting song, no covers, not notable. JamesBurns (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above. Deletion Mutation 15:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geozone[edit]

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

As per WP:N. There isn't a single source I can find to state that a "Geozone" is a Geographic Zone. This page is very trivial. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP is not a dictionary, unless the article is speedy expanded into an encyclopediac topic. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the article has grown, it's just an encyclopedic one and it's enough for a stub.--Auslli (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --HighwaytoHell (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • — HighwaytoHell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note – user provides no reason for rationale. MuZemike 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is maybe just a stub, but there are so many stubs in Wikipedia. It will be worth to see if the entry will grow - I think the theme is interesting and future-related.----Eldrewitsch (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a neologism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs) 2009-03-19 20:29:45
  • Comment: The article Geography does not include the term "geozone." If reliable sources are not added soon, I consider the term to be a non-notable neologism. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coment: I have added more links. One of them is from the California State (Geozone for Kids) and the other ones are more generalistic about geozones. There are 260,000 entries in yahoo with "Geozone", so I believe that this article perfectly could be considered at least as a stube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auslli (talk • contribs) 2009-03-20 16:36:06

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, indeed, if one plugs the word into a search engine, pages result. The number isn't relevant. But what is relevant is that none of them appear to define a coherent concept, shared by any two, of what a "geozone" is. The links supplied by Auslli really don't. They are just nonce word names for web sites. The "Geozone for Kids" WWW site, for example, doesn't document anything called a "geozone". That's simply a playful and enticing name for a section of a WWW site aimed at a youth audience.

  Searching, I find plenty of people defining geozones. But they are all nonce definitions, of a "geographic zone" of some kind, whose only usage is in the same context where they are defined. For example, page 193 of ISBN 9780849333491 defines a concept of a geozone. It's apparently copied pretty much word-for-word from a 2006 Microsoft patent application, and I can find no evidence that it has escaped that patent application into software, let alone into the minds of anyone else other than the people who wrote the application. I have my doubts that it even qualifies as human knowledge at all. Certainly the people who copied the patent application word-for-word into their book don't give the appearance of understanding what it is, otherwise they'd have explained it better, in their own words. Every other thing that purports to define what geozones are — and there aren't that many of them — is the same. Even the notion of a geozone in the linguasphere language code is not a generalized concept found anywhere outside of that specific context.

  There's just no coherent concept, other than the woolly "It's a geographic zone, of some sort.", to be had. Putting together one would require us to synthesize a novel concept in Wikipedia where one does not exist in the world at large, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article admits it is "a word that actually have many interpretations" and per Uncle G there is not enough agreement to make anything but a vague and woolly article. JohnCD (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree for two strong reasons 1) as "WP is not a dictionary" and 2) neologism Parvazbato59 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm no geologist, so perhaps an article on this could exist. But the entirety of this article comes off as confusing nonsense. -Verdatum (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pickled cucumber. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New greens[edit]

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

No references, a google search comes up with only unrelated terms, or a few recipes from user generated content sites and blogs. Only one incoming link, and no mentions on Wikipedia that are referring to a food item. Ipatrol (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pickled cucumber Nancy ^talk 10:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. It is certainly a commonly used term over here in the UK (but then I work in a Jewish delicatessen) but there is no reason to keep it as a separate article. Ironholds (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect sounds like a plan. Hiding T 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per Atmoz, the nominator was in error. I've restored the article and linked the right article on the dab page. According to the naming conventions shorter names should be preferred. Mgm|^(talk) 08:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZONG[edit]

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

duplicate with Zong (Pakistani mobile operator) Wikidavem (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Boldly redirected to disambiguation page Zong. No need for an AFD here. Otto4711 (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Zong (Pakistani mobile operator) was moved to ZONG, so the nomination statement is incorrect; it is not a duplicate. Previous version available here. -Atmoz (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjan[edit]

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

Not notable newspaper which lasted only one year. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect somewhere like List of newspapers in Pakistan. No real need to be at afd. Hiding T 11:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect I fully agree with you! It is a reall disaster to delete such articles that are about the history of such old newspapers or a book or etc,. Such information must be retained. I would also recommend a merge to List of newspapers in Pakistan. Parvazbato59 (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There obviously aren't any issues of promotion since it is discontinued, but it's probably important in context. Can someone find sources other than the paper's website? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These sources give a bit of coverage and this suggests that there has been coverage elsewhere. I know that's not much, but they do confirm that this was Pakistan's first daily newspaper written in Punjabi, and that it played its part in the issue of tension between the central government and Punjab - an issue that has still been very much alive in recent weeks. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Beatty[edit]

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

Non-notable assistant coach of college level sports. Does not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_people. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a message for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football to comment here, they might have some ideas on what to do. Hiding T 11:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like find several reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage about him? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or add to the discussion. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and let's just keep an open mind. That tends to be the best plan. Hiding T 13:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He was a professional CFL player, having played for the Baltimore Stallions and Hamilton Tiger-Cats^[16][17]; therefore, meeting the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. –  LATICS  talk  13:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the CFL player factor, I believe being a position coach at a major, D-I FBS program in a BCS conference is notable. Many of those coaches at that level are interchangeable with their NFL counterparts (and transition to-and-from quite regularly). --Bobak (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_people being an assistant coach at college level isn't enough alone. But the CFL is likely enough to meet the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it says being a well-known assistant coach in college football is good for notability --which would include the definition I made above, if only slightly more specific. --Bobak (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats the key term "well known" meaning hes received non-trivial media coverage, JUST being an assistant coach isn't enough alone, you also need the non-trivial media coverage. But I think the point is moot since he played for CFL so probably meets WP:ATHLETE — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a fan of college football, I'm not sure if I would consider him well-known. But then again, many assistants aren't well known outside of their region of the country, even the bigger ones. :s –  LATICS  talk  20:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no contest if he actually played during his time in the CFL. However, I couldn't find definitive proof that he did, and, if someone can show that he did not actually play in a CFL game, then I would change my vote. I disagree with saying that all positional coaches in the BCS are notable. Strikehold (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Raeky, in all these recent AFDs, you keep referring to that essay, which clearly states that it was rejected by the community as not meeting consensus. Why do you keep using it as a metric? Strikehold (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yea, but virtually everything I nominated I was modern day people (BLP's) and I felt that they did not meet the criteria of WP:BIO let alone anything special for an athlete. I'd rather see borderline pages discussed here for their merit then to just keep everything in blind faith. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that notability of athletes is currently governed by whether they can meet either WP:N or WP:ATH. Strikehold (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically WP:BIO and WP:ATH, and yes I agree. This probably isn't a prime example, I did overlook the sentence about his CFL involvement, but the bulk of what I nominated for PROD or AfD genuinely didn't meet WP:BIO or WP:ATH. Just playing college level sports isn't notable. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added refs showing Canadian connection.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see any evidence at all that he played in a regular season CFL game. The two news sources that Sumoeagle179 linked are promotional articles of the new staff, which isn't a reliable source. It seems more likely that he was cut before the pre-season of the CFL. Can't find nothing at all on google news or the Baltimore Sun archives from 1995-1997 that he played a game with the CFL. The only source I found was that Beatty signed with the Florida Bobcats and was soon released in the preseason back in 1996. Until any sources show he played in a regular season game, the CFL stats fail WP:V, thurfore he fails WP:ATHLETE. Secret ^account 16:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noted the same points, but voted "Keep" because I think we should err on the side of caution. Clearly, he was "on" two CFL teams, to say he never played is speculation. I spent some time searching, and I cannot find any good compilation or databases of all-time CFL players (like Pro Football Reference or Database Football for the NFL). Strikehold (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't think we should "err on the side of caution" with BLP's. If no sources exist to say he played a regular season game, then it seems pretty clear cut? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should err on the side of caution when not doing so means deleting someone's work and removing useful and correct information, purely due to speculation. This isn't about something potentially libelous if untrue (and in fact, everything in the article is true according to sources), so being a BLP is irrelevant. Multiple sources confirm he spent two years in the CFL; none found as of yet show that he doesn't meet WP:ATH. Waivers and releases of NFL players are regularly reported in the media. I'm sure the same happens for CFL players in Canadian media, so if it happened, it exists somewhere. Until further information is found, the article should stay. Strikehold (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-admin closure, you can't close it, it's not clear consensus to keep! Theres several people here that think it should be deleted. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 11:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with a non-admin closure, but let's not exaggerate: There are not "several people here that think it should be deleted." There was one person other than the nominator (you) who voted delete. Strikehold (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Strikehold (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Perez[edit]

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

It is not clear that this person meets the notablity criteria. The article is, of course, a festival of conflict of interest, but this could be fixed if reliable sources were available. His strongest claim to fame seems to be as a professional baseball player, but he apparently never actually played a game in the major leagues. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a message for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball to comment, they might have some sort of thoughts on a way forwards. Hiding T 11:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the baseball project not have been more appropriate.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably. Can't believe that... Hiding T 15:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as hoax. I'm surprised this went through. The article says he played in the minors in the 1980s, but thebaseballcube.com shows 0 rich perez's playing at that time (sans 1 who played in the Rookie league in 87). It says he attended Franklin High School, which lines up with this Perez (http://thebaseballcube.com/players/P/Richard-Perez.shtml), but didn't have a career. Plus, the colleges listed on that and in the article are different. Lastly, it says he was traded for Cesar Cedeno at one point. The Cedeno trade was for Ray Knight straight up, with no extra players. If there is factual information in here, it's muddled within a bunch of lies. Wizardman 15:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with the above. Baseball Reference shows no record of any player with this name playing in the 80s. There are two in the nineties but there are huge disparities between the listed career information of these two players ([18] and [19]) and the information given in the article. Delete. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete He appears to be a real person. The Las Vegas Review-Journal published this 2005 account of his son's death in Iraq that cites the father's minor league baseball claims. That and a related column in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin were the only reliable secondary source Google hits I got when looking for "rich perez" and "best damn". The problem is that these are both articles about the son and don't really do anything to establish the notability of the father. There may be other sources out there but I'm not optimistic. Rklear (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I think his broadcasting career makes him barely notable... The two guys cited by KV above are not the right player... This guy played in the 80s according to the timeline... and BCube and BReference are spotty on pre-90s minor league stats... I think the article needs a complete rewrite and better sourcing.. but he does seem to have a long running radio show in a major market and is apparently the originator of the "Best Damn..." show... among other broadcasting work.. that just barely gets him over the threshold. Spanneraol (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given the large amount of apparently false material in the article (the nonexistent Cedeno trade, the absence of his name from the Astros' 1986 transaction log, etc.), it should probably be nuked regardless of any notability questions. If someone wanted to start a clean stub on him afterwards, that'd be fine. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep in mind that this false material isn't a Wikipedia hoax per se, rather an apparent case of resume padding by the subject himself. If he were notable it would probably appear in the article as a source of controversy, with his claims matched against external evidence. Not that that matters, because notable he ain't. Rklear (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another, more complete source for minor league baseball players and statistics is the SABR minor league database. For the 1980s the only Rich or Richard Perez listed is the player Wizardman already identified, "Richard L Perez," who played 45 games in a rookie league in 1987. This Richard L Perez (born 1967) is a bit young to fit the biographical information given in the article, and his baseball career is non-notable anyway. I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out whether this article is a hoax or simple resume padding (as suggested by Rklear). Besides the articles mentioned by Rklear, I found his name mentioned in two more news stories from reliable sources—both are articles on his son's death in Iraq, [20] and [21]. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter whether it's a hoax or resume padding—there simply aren't enough reliable sources to qualify this guy as notable, as a baseball player, as a sportscaster, or as anything else. BRMo (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Like the editors above, I can't find any evidence independent of the subject of any kind of baseball career. Can't verify the NFL gig, so if it's real it's not notable. The broadcast career seems to be real, but notability just ain't there. Same for the movie career.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Relist separately. Procedural closing without prejudice to permit immediate relisting separately--its clear that these may be of unequal notability DGG (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T.M. Kamble[edit]

T.M. Kamble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Related Pages:

B.C. Kamble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Republican Party Of India (Khobragade) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Republican Party of India (T.M. Kamble) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

B.D. Khobragade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mass-AfD for a load of new articles on splinter parties and their politicians. The notability of the politicians comes from being the leader of various split factions of the Republican party of India, which is only valid if the factions themselves are notable. I've found no evidence that the newly formed parties are notable. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like something needs to be done, definitely. I'd support deletion with no prejudice against seeing decent articles appear in their place one day. I don;t have the knowledge to know where best to merge or redirect to. Hiding T 11:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd assume the Republican Party of India, but that is little more than links to articles like this. I'm not even sure how notable that core party is. Ironholds (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's all a bit of a mess isn't it? I don't really have the subject specific knowledge to know whether we're getting close to POV forking with all of this. Hiding T 14:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be leery of relying on "we can't find evidence of notability" for the splinter parties - my experience on looking at articles on Indian political parties is that even thoroughly notable ones can sometimes appear at first glance to be trivial, and we should avoid encouraging systemic bias this way. The main RPI is definitely notable (it's had Lok Sabha seats), and the Khobragade splinter ditto (it took two seats in the 1977 elections); the Kamble faction doesn't seem to have taken any seats at a national level, but this doesn't automatically make it subnotable - given the scale and fragmentation of Indian politics, achieving something at the state level would be more than sufficient. Shimgray | talk | 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay, at the state level, they're based in Maharashtra. According to the voluminous election statistics website, the RPI (KM) got 0.22% of the vote in seats they contested there in 2004; 1% in 1999; 3.4% in 1995; and they didn't seem to be registered in 1990. Would 3.4% of the vote in a constituency, in a normal election, be enough to class a party as notable in a European or UK article? If so, we probably ought to keep this one :-) Shimgray | talk | 14:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think so. We normally do it by seats won, with exceptions for parties with good coverage by the press/significant percentages (MRLP, Green Party, etc). Ironholds (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Kindly refer the following links for the different factions of republican Party of India. These factions are an important political force in India's second largest state - Maharashtra.

These parties are recognized parties, having got recognization from Indian Election Commission. These leaders are very popular leaders in Maharashtra. However their party is smaller as far as number of MPs/MLAs are concerned.

These RPI factions are more notable in India than some splinter Maoist/Naxal parties like CPI(M-L) and CPI (Maoist).

http://www.ambedkar.org/books/tu3.htm

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/india/news/article_1361655.php/Ambedkar_golden_jubilee_fails_to_reunite_RPI_factions

http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990731/ipo31016.html

http://www.expressindia.com/news/election/fullestory.php?type=ie&content_id=44194

http://www.hindu.com/2004/03/29/stories/2004032901971300.htm

http://news.webindia123.com/news/ar_showdetails.asp?id=710030020&cat=&n_date=20071003

http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19980116/01650364.html

http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2007-September/010208.html

http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/07muslim.htm

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ocjlRwK1y5cC&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323&dq=%22Republican+Party+%22+BC+Kamble&source=bl&ots=K4NAGyvQRm&sig=AqpcBY8IWGcOoNNKY_hwAhjT-WA&hl=en&ei=CNXQSYfEI5agkQXQtNHrCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

http://www.mail-archive.com/zestcaste@yahoogroups.com/msg10106.html

http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/19990731/ipo31016.html

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/cops-force-shift-of-republican-party-rally/386524/

http://in.astrology.yahoo.com/48/20080705/814/tnl-maharashtra-s-dalit-leaders-in-a-moo.html

http://ibnlive.in.com/politics/electionstats/votespolled/1971/RPK.html

http://archive.eci.gov.in/GE2004/pollupd/pc/candlwc/RPI(KH)PCnst.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivatphil (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/2003/07/20/stories/2003072007860800.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivatphil (talk • contribs) 14:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as blatant advertising. Hiding T 11:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princely International University[edit]

Princely International University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spammy article about a university by correspondence. No assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 09:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 07:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Project[edit]

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

Non-notable albeit large school musical with no independent sources Murtoa (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Murtoa (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't know - it seems to be a project which involves a large number of people, and, with a few extra sources, perhaps from local newspapers, it could do rather well as an article... Colds7ream (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Advertising for future production, although well-meaning.--Grahame (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just clarifying that the Wall Project is not an "large school musical" as described by Murtoa, its an charitable initiative by Wesley College and Nuworks. It features the theatrical performance but will also include other activities. Sheepunderscore (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nuworks appears to simply be the operating arm of the director of the musical who is very closely aligned to musical productions over the years at the Glen Waverley campus of Wesley College. This musical is very much aligned simply with the school - the only publicity or coverage at all to date has been a brochure for school parents and involvement in the project appears limited to Wesley present and past students. Also, any planned additional activities outside the musical remain totally unspecified at present. Murtoa (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:N and is spammy. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  1. The Director of Wesley Student Theatre - Glen Waverley Campus is currently also the director of Nuworks which is an independent company.
  2. Community involvement: Dandenong Brass Band, past & present staff & parents and local primary school.
  3. Involves a large amount of people & planning.
  4. It is NOT an ordinary musical because it is an charitable initiative which features a theatrical production, this project if of large significance.Sheepunderscore (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 1. merely confirms that for the purpose of this production, Nuworks and Wesley are closely linked. The person in question directs most of the school productions at the GW campus. Neither 2 nor 3 confer notability. Re 4, there is simply no evidence that it has any significance beyond the theatrical production. That it is charitable doesn't confer notability. Murtoa (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just left a message for WP:AUS to take a look, seems to be in their area. Personally, I'm leaning towards deleting because nothing is turning up. Hiding T 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nick-D and Grahamec, as I can't find anything either - it seems to be a school production with some outside help. Orderinchaos 15:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Quite interesting, particularly being a major Floyd fan, but sponsorship by a charitable organization does not imply notability to me. If the original artists were some how involved, it might be worthwhile, particularly if major articles by independent sources were written, but that does not appear to be the case. Perhaps this will change as the project draws closer. Oh, and it suffers from some WP:CRYSTAL issues which I will fix just after this. -Verdatum (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment perhaps leave a small comment about it on the school's article.58.175.156.135 (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as likely hoax utilising doing the best thing. Am prepared to be wrong and see the article restored if my error can be verified. Hiding T 11:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vaire air[edit]

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

Neither the airliner, nor its founder show up in Google or Google News. For an airliner with more than 200 machines, I find that pretty remarkable. I can't be sure since I don't know where the company is from and what paper sources to look for (which is why I am using AFD for more input over another method), but I have serious doubts about its verifiability. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - This is an obvious and crude hoax. There is no 'Vaire air' or 'Fabulous Alliance'. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and tempted to speedy delete this one since a fleet of 205 widebody aircraft, including 10 Airbus A380s (which would be well over half of all A380s so far produced) is a ridiculous claim which can be seen through. By comparison, American Airlines has 140 widebodies. Sanction the creator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close for relisting . Procedural close--The article has been rewritten so drastically that most of the discussion is no longer relevant , suggest immediate relisting to deal with remaining issues more understandably DGG (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan[edit]

American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This nomination is further to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan, where concerns have been raised that the article (which is a content fork of Coalition casualties in Afghanistan per this discussion here) is in violation of WP:OR, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The main contributor has posted that his intention is to give "the real number of all American soldiers killed as the result of the war in Afghanistan", and according to other editors the figures given cannot be sourced in the form they're presented in the article. I applaud the author's motivation and in no way wish to diminish the sacrifice of those individuals who have tragically lost their lives, but I don't believe Wikipedia is the right place for this. EyeSerene^talk 09:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per EyeSerene's excellent and very comprehensive nomination. The article is probably also a copyright violation as its content appears to have been lifted directly from http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx after filtering out the non-fatalities using the tool at the top of the page and leaving out some columns (according to Special:LongPages it's currently the 3rd longest article in Wikipedia, and obviously hasn't been researched or typed from scratch since it was created only nine days ago - note that icasualties.org claims copyright over its content and doesn't cite any sources [it may not even be a reliable source as it also doesn't provide any background about itself]). The article's creator (User:BobaFett85) has a history of using Wikipedia to advance their own theories on the numbers of casualties in recent wars (as is evident from the messages on their talk page), and this is another example. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By the way, this is the second content fork on this topic created by User:BobaFett85. Another one was very recently deleted as a result of the discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keepI will state this by the numbers:
  

Number 1: I myself admited in the discussion of that other article that was a content fork and deleted that I made a mistake by creating it and I myself proposed to delete it. Yes, I did make a mistake with it. But this here is not a mistake.

Number 2: This article is most definetly not a content fork. There is no copying of the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan in this article. Several editors, including myself, expressed concern that the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan was getting to large because it listed all US soldiers killed in Afghanistan, including their name, age and circumstances of their deaths. It was proposed that an article with a list of American forces casualties be created so to shorten the article. So I took it upon myself. And when I finished I just moved the content of that previous article into this one and deleted it in that one.

Number 3: You are so much voiceing your concern that this is in violation of the memorial rule. Then I ask - Why didn't you nominate Coalition casualties in Afghanistan for deletion since it also listed US soldiers killed, including names, age and circumstances of death? Also, why don't you nominate for deletion these articles as well: British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001, Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan, German Armed Forces casualties in Afghanistan? By your definition they also go against the Memorial rule. Why are you so against this article when it is almost identical to those others. And don't tell me it's just because it is too large.

This argument appears to fall under WP:WAX, but quite possibly those other pages should be nominated as well.—RJH (talk)

AGREED. This sounds like a telling point. We have to be consistent! Wallie (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 4: The references can be and were checked. They come from a notable source. Icasualties.org which has been used by all major news outlets.

Number 5: The article was created so a definite number of all US soldiers fatalities in the Afghan war can be had. The article Coalition caualties in Afghanistan listed only those killed within Afghanistan, but not those killed in other countries while supporting operations in Afghanistan. Just like dozens of soldiers who died in Kuwait are listed as victims of the Iraq war. Thus thanks to this article and icasualties.org it was found that 28 soldiers died in other countries in support of the war in Afghanistan.

Number 6: It was verified using icasualties.org that the number given by DoD is incorrect. The DoD says 601 soldiers died in or around Afghanistan, while icasualties.org has listed the names of 608 soldiers who died in or around Afghanistan. All of the names listed by icasualties.org were verified by the DoD itself. So the conclusion is the DoD has given an incorect number. This article helps to resolve that problem.

Number 7: There is no original research here. First of, 636 names have been listed in the article with solid references, thus 636 died. As to explain the source. Icasualties.org, again said a notable source, has listed the names of 608 soldiers to have died in Afghanistan or as a result of wounds received in Afghanistan. Another 24 soldiers were listed to have died in other Arabian countries, while supporting operations in Afghanistan. Also, another four servicemen have been found to be missing from icasualties.org's list, but were confirmed by DoD to be victims of operation Enduring freedom, their deaths are also listed with references. Thus the final number is 636. No original research here involved.

Number 8: For my conclusion, like I stated in that other discussion, I have a proposal. If you realy so much want to delete the article I have a proposal as to delete the names of all soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan and just leave the paragraph which states the 608 number of killed in those countries with icasualties.org as it's source. But, we leave the names of the 28 soldiers who died in other countries while supporting combat operations in Afghanistan, along with their sources, so that the deaths of those 28 can be confirmed and linked to the war. Is this OK with you Nick-D and EyeSerene?BobaFett85 (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No; that would still be a POV fork from Coalition casualties in Afghanistan (which is the correct place for such a short summary of fatalities) and would contain original research. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur with Nick. Removing the actual casualty list would get rid of the memorial issue, but the reason you seem to want this article to exist is as a vehicle for your advocacy of different casualty numbers to the official ones. What makes icasualties.org a more reliable source than the US DoD? You seem to be engaging in both original research and synthesis; you may well be writing 'the truth', but our editorial policy is 'verifiability, not truth' (from WP:V). These, too, should go... which leaves us with nothing other than what's already in Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. Incidentally, I take the same view on all such articles; this one was nominated because it's the one that was raised on the milhist talk page. EyeSerene^talk 11:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ResponseIcasualties.org is more reliable because it lists all of the names given by the DoD itself, obviously the DoD has stated a lesser number than the number of the names they have given. Also icasualties.org is a realy notable site since it is used when giving numbers of war dead by all of the major news outlets, including AP, BBC and others.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can someone explain to me why most of the info from from Coalition casualties in Afghanistan was deleted, and the other page was put on for deletion. BobaFett85 mentionned the overload of info or sth. But now the info will be lost for ever, all mine and other's their add's are lost for ever, by one single move, so why ?. (I know, I asked this to some of you in person, didn't know about this page, so asked the question here again) Perelada (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this is fundamentally an editorial dispute. AfD is not WP:WQA. I suggest this nomination is withdrawn and the editorial dispute resolved on the relevant talk pages, after which the deletion (or not) of this article will be an uncontroversial decision that need not be brought here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is nominated as a possible violation of the policies listed in the nom and as a POV fork; it's rather more than just an editorial dispute (every AfD could be characterised as such if we were so inclined). If its deletion didn't require discussion I would have prodded it, but per WP:DEL#REASON this fits the AfD remit. I'm also not really sure what WQA has to do with this AfD. EyeSerene^talk 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons mentioned by EyeSerene, and consider the same action for this class of articles. Little informational value, and most of those listed don't justify their own articles so the list as a navigational tool argument can't apply. ALR (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on the basis of Wikipedia:No Original Research, no verifiability, and Wikipedia:Content forking.

Bobbafett85 claims above that "The references can be and were checked.". This is simply not the case - there is a severe deficit of verifiability. Just to take one example (there are many), his main contention on the article page and here is: "Of the American deaths, 608 have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, while 28 died in: Kuwait, Bahrain, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Qatar, the Arabian sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, while supporting operations in Afghanistan.[22][23][24][25][26]" That is not at all backed up by the sources he lists: The 1st and 2nd sources listed, in fact, contradict the line, while the remaining 3 sources listed make no mention whatsoever of Afghanistan.

Not a reason to delete. There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia with conflicting text/data. If something is wrong, we fix it up. That is part of the reason we are here, is it not? Wallie (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He writes above: "The article was created so a definite number of all US soldiers fatalities in the Afghan war can be had." No such published number is available, as has been pointed out in earlier discussions, but Bobbafett seeks to synthesize one through the creation of this article. That is clearly POV fork and Wikipedia:Original Research/synthesis.

He writes above: "the number given by DoD is incorrect / the conclusion is the DoD has given an incorect number / Also, another four servicemen have been found to be missing from icasualties.org's list". Again that spells out Wikipedia:Original Research and Bobafett's point of view that the DoD's official tally and icasualties.org are both wrong while his own specially-conducted study is somehow right.

Comment My delete is for this specific 9-day-old article, as this is the article being considered and discussed here and each article is different. As has been correctly pointed out, this 9-day-old article is now already the 3rd longest on Wikipedia (Special:LongPages), clocking in at 385,953 bytes. The page is also almost certain to grow by 25% this year given the surge of US troops in Afghanistan, meaning this page will be the 2nd longest article within just a few weeks, and will be the longest article on Wikipedia within just a few months.

76.68.251.94 (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, OR structurally change it to look more like a chronology of attacks on Americans--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you please provide your rationale for why the article should be kept? WP:GTD states that "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's very hard to find one. Wikipedia has a rule against almost any argument. OMG discount freely --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There has been a lot of good work go into this article. The article can be sectionalized, if it gets too long. The concept of the article is very good, very relevant, and will be of interest to many people worldwide. Wallie (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With all respect, that seems to be WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. Given that the article became the 3rd longest article on Wikipedia nine days after it was started its clear that little work actually has gone into it: the editor who created it has just lifted vast qualities of data from the single unreliable source it relies on (violating that site's copyright in the process) and converted it into a Wiki-friendly table using software. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Comment I agree it is disconcerting that it is so long. Are you sure it is the 3rd biggest after only 9 days! It sounds like a formatting issue mainly. I just don't think it should be deleted out of hand. It seems like a valuable list. As for copyright, I am sure that it cannot be in violation, otherwise the article would have been deleted anyway for that reason! Wallie (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the excellent nomination, the article clearly violates several wiki policys. In addition the main source being used appears to be a very weak secondary source; looking around the website there is nothing to verfiy the information is 100% accurate.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep, with caveats I think with some work, quite a bit of work given the number of fatalities listed, this article has potential. I offer a "keep" opinion provided that some conditions can be met to improve the article's quality and to make it more credible and encyclopaedic.

First, currently the article mostly presents information listed at Icasualty.org. Hopefully what is there serve will provide a framework that can be expanded upon with info from U.S. DOD and media reports. On the Canadian Casualties' page, we strive to present a concise, yet informative description of each incident, focused on the 'what' 'where' and 'how' of each incident (something like "killed when his patrol came under RPG fire 20 Km. Southwest of Kandahar. 3 other soldiers wounded"), supported by a couple media sources and the DND release. "Killed in Action, Afghanistan" doesn't cut it. On the Canadian article, we had the advantage of starting out when there were only a dozen or so fatalities and have simply maintained the list since then. To bring the U.S. list up to speed after 8 years will require a lot of work. But like I said, the Icasualties info provides the basic framework to find those other sources. As that more detailed info and those sources get filled in, a picture starts to emerge of how the war is being fought.

Secondly, I think there need's to be a consensus the scope of the article, i.e. on which deaths are listed. This has been the source of this whole mess. is it an article about US military deaths in Afghanistan, American deaths in afghanistan, or an article about deaths as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom- Afghanistan?. Does it only include combat deaths? all deaths in-country? or all deaths in support of operation OEF-A? How is it determined which deaths are actually in support of OEF-A? Etc... BobbaFett, this means that you and other editors will have to come to an agreement, and it may not be what you want. If the consensus is to include all deaths occurring in support of OEF-A, what is the method to ensure that only deaths in places like Qutar, the Arabian Sea, The Pursian Gulf, Saudi Aribia, Kuwait, the Red Sea, Yeman, Bahrain, Turkey, Kansas, Washington D.C, Germany, etc, were actually in support of operations in Afghanistan, as opposed to Operations in Iraq or the pre-OIF sanctions or OEF- Horn of Africa?

Finally, I think the article could use some standardisation. One thing I noticed is with the unit listings, They range from Divisions, to regiments, to detachments. On the Canadian page, we've pretty much standardised on listing the regiment or battalion or smaller units when necessary. The locations listed vary from a country, to a district, to specific places such as Bagram Air Base. I think here more precision is key where ever possible and I'm sure that for many of these fatalities, the info is out there.

Regarding the 'memorial' issue, I think the key is to focus on presenting information on the incidents resulting on the deaths, rather then on the individuals themselves. Hopefully with what I've laid out above, a more complete picture will start to emerge. As I read through the entries on the Canadian page, patterns start to become apparent; you can see the clusters of fatalities when major operations take place, you can see how the Canadian forces have adapted to the insurgency in ways such as by suing heavier vehicles, and how the insurgency has responded by using larger and larger IED, etc... It's not right there in the narrative, but it becomes apparent.

Any hoo, that's about all I have to say on that. Sorry for the long windedness. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I purposly named the article American Forces casualties in the WAR in Afghanistan and not just American Forces casualties in Afghanistan so to sum up all of the casualties of Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan. Mike laid out a few interesting things we have to discuss on the category of inclusion of the deaths. I think, if the article survives this discussion, it should be renamed American Forces casualties of Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan. There is no problem to conclude weather the fatalities were part of OEF or OIF since the DoD clearly states that upon the confirmation of the identity of the casualty. All of those who died in Germany have been thus far designated as dying of wounds received in Afghanistan. As for is it part of OEF - Horn of Africa or OEF - Philippines, I went on the basis that all of those who died in Africa died as part of OEF - Horn of Africa and all those who died in Southeast Asia died as part of OEF - Philippines, there were five more who died in Cuba (obviously not Afghanistan) and one more guy who died in Mali (obviously as part of OEF - Trans Sahara). Except for these four there are no more sub-operations of OEF except OEF - Afghanistan. Note - the 21 who died as part of OEF - Horn of Africa died in Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti, Yemen and the Seychelle islands. Also Mike nicely pointed out that we need to replace the current references that link to icasualties with new ones, individual ones, maybe DoD confirmation press releases, and expand on the circumstances section of their deaths. The current form of the article is only a basis and a template for future expansion so for it to be more like the Canadian casualties article.BobaFett85 (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment A couple of days ago you stated that the article should be cut back greatly to a brief overview of the total number of casualties and use non-DOD data (paragraph 8 in your keep vote). Now you're arguing that it should be greatly expanded to include the circumstances of each individual's death and be referenced with DOD data. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isnt "I went on the basis that all of those who died in Africa died as part of OEF - Horn of Africa and all those who died in Southeast Asia died as part of OEF - Philippines, there were five more who died in Cuba (obviously not Afghanistan) and one more guy who died in Mali (obviously as part of OEF - Trans Sahara). Except for these four there are no more sub-operations of OEF except OEF - Afghanistan." supporting that the article is comprised via at least some original research?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this information seems extremely POV; it's a POV fork, at the very least, and reaks of Original Research. I'm also unsure as to what it achieves - there are official websites that list these names, surely? Skinny87 (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sure I had already voted on this one ! Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nominators reasons of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the page doesn't seem to be anything more than a reproduction of the icasualties.org list. User:BobaFett85 has a history of pushing POV on not just casualty information but timeframes and and outcomes of various conflicts. Further, I highly suspect him to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Top Gun, who used to maintain similar lists before he was blocked.Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReplyWho are you? Listen Lawrencema, I have no idea who you are now and who Top Gun is, and if you mean the lists of victims of war than yes I maintain some of them. Currently I update Afghan insurgent and security forces casualties and update the Iraqi insurgent and security forces casualties since nobody else does them and that I only do every 15 days or so, you can check it in the edit history, some of those edits I went and not edited for more than a month even. And as far as I can see the last user who updated those two articles before me was some guy named Guyver, he was doing it every posible day, he stoped I don't know why. And what timeframes and results of conflicts are you talking about?BobaFett85 (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReplyWhy come up with inflammatory comments such as this? Also, you mention POV. We shlould always look into our own souls before accusing others. Everyone has a POV! Wallie (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Earlier today Bobafett was acknowledging on another editor's talk

page that this article was created to prove the DoD figures wrong: ([27]). Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Reply That's because it is wrong and the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan was using that incorect number. That's no secret, I already stated this on the begining of this discussion I think two or three times. All of the names that icasualties.org listed were confirmed by DoD but the number didn't match up with the DoD's summed up number.BobaFett85 (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I think you need to link to a source which mentions the discrepancies between the figures the DoD uses and the figures given in icasualties.org, otherwise it is OR. At the very least, you need to provide links to the two figures for reference. Creating a whole article just for you to reconcile two different sets of figures seems a bit excessive, and as another editor suggests, reeks of original research. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I did provide them in the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan, I put references. I stated that 608 soldiers were reported killed (608 names on icasualties.org, all confirmed by DoD) but also noted that the number is higher than the one given by DoD. If you want I can put the DoD's number also so we stated the number of dead is between 601 and 608. But currently I think you should consider my compromise proposol about listing the incidents of deaths of soldiers like in List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq. We don't list the names of soldiers so it wouldn't be in violation of the Memorial rule.BobaFett85 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Could it be because the US DOD does not consider these few soldiers to be fatalities of the fighting in Afganistan? It also seems somewhat excessive that an entire article as been created so, from what i can see from here, prove the US DOD wrong.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply I think that's exactly what the DoD thinks. In fact they explicitly say so: "OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM includes casualties that occurred on or after March 19, 2003 in the Arabian Sea, Bahrain, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Persian Gulf, Qatar, Red Sea, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. Prior to March 19, 2003, casualties in these countries were considered OEF.src. At any rate, it seems a consensus on the scope of the article needs to be found, and reliably sourced. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • ReplyThey consider them part of OEF that's for sure, they are not on the official list of Iraq casualties, checked at the CNN list. If everybody agrees I will delete the list tonight and replace it with a table with numbers of deaths by province and country. Are we in agreement?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply Please provide a link to what you are calling the "official list of Iraq casualties" as well as a link to the "official list of Afganistan casualties". CNN/Icasualties/AP is not what I'm looking for here. I'd like the DoD lists if they exist. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply I think the DoD hasn't got a list. Only numbers. Both CNN and icasualties count Iraq only after March 19, and both CNN and icasualties have put on their Afghan list those killed before March 19 in Kuwait, Bahrain, etc.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Compromise solution TheFEARgod proposed an interesting compromise before. We delete all of the names, ALL of them, but we will make up a new list, a chronological list of attacks on US forces, a chronological list of deaths of US soldiers in the war. But we will not put the names of the soldiers, just the numbers of how many died in specific incidents and tell about the circumstances of those deaths as short as posible. A kind of list like those others: List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq, List of insurgent fatality reports in Afghanistan, List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports, List of Afghan security forces fatality reports, Timeline of Somali war (which in essence only lists deaths of people in the war by date). If it would be in that form than the article would not be a memorial.BobaFett85 (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those kinds of articles are also often deleted when they come to AfD. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 which seem to be the very similar to what's being proposed. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply But these articles I stated have not been nominated or deleted and I think Iraqi insurgent casualties was nominated two or three times for deletion and all three times it survived the nominations with overwhelming majorities because editors found the article is nedeed since no definite other source for the summed up number of insurgent casualties exists. Also, the one you mentioned, list of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008, was in violation of the Memorial rule, this kind of article I am proposing wouldn't be.BobaFett85 (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE - TALK ON A COMPROMISE SOLUTION HAS BEEN STARTED ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE OF THE ARTICLE
  • Disagree This is hardly a compromise - more like a capitulation. The whole focus of the article is the list of names. As stated earlier, other countries have a list of names. Wallie (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted yesterday Wallie by another user, who you agreed with, that is not a legit argument see :WP:WAX.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I may have agreed with the user on certain points. I don't necessarily agree with WP:WAX. It is easy to quote all sorts of guidlines, like this one. I think it is an excellent argument to point out similarities. They are called models in scientific thinking. Wallie (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply We would still make the list Wallie, the names wouldn't be there but we would report chronologicaly on the incidents of the deaths of the servicemen. That way the article wouldn't be anymore the third largest on Wikipedia. This way everybody would get at least half of what they want, TheFEARgod was the one who proposed it originaly besides giving his keep vote. Like I said, everybody would get what they want, we would report on the incidents of deaths of the soldiers and there wouldn't be any violation of the Memorial rule. And to confirm the numbers so there would be no doubt about them being Original Reasearch we would make a table at the top that would be based on individual referenced numbers and we would sum up the total, this part is per Lawrencama.BobaFett85 (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Reply What is the problem with the names? Memorial rule? - Would that mean that we cannot have lists of anyone who died? There seems to be a lot of rules and not much common sense here. I think this is a useful list as it stands. I cannot imagine anyone who has relatives on the list objecting to it - unless it had details the disagreed with, of course. Will this apply to the lists of non American casualties in other articles too? Wallie (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re re ReplyThe thing is, most likely this list wouldn't have been a problem if it was small like the Canadian or British list, that's what I was arguing this whole time, we have the Canadian and British list but they don't alow it based on the Memorial rule. But, and on this I have to agree with them, this list is too long so to simply leave it as it is. This is the best posible way. We would still have a list of deaths in specific incidents, by the numbers, but without the names. That would reduce the length of the article 20 or 30 times. We could at least write a bit more about the circumstances of the deaths of the soldiers.BobaFett85 (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What no-one on the side of the article seems to have explained is what the point of the article is. Wikipedia isn't a memorial, and the war in Iraq is simply one conflict of many, and not a particularly long or violent one compared to others in history. Why does this list (and other casualty lists) need to exist on wikipedia? And if it does exist, then why not lists of casualties for other, more significant conflicts, such as Vietnam, World War II, or the Great War? What makes Iraq (and Afghanistan, for all the nations participating) so different, so important that their names should be memorialized? A simple statistical table, perhaps broken down by country, would surely do - that's all we have in other conflict articles. Skinny87 (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I anticipated this would be a contentious nomination (it didn't take a genuis!), so would would like to thank all contributors so far for the good quality of the discussion. BobaFett85, the problem I have with your suggestion is that while it will solve the memorial and length issues, these aren't the only significant problems with the article. With the greatest respect, I feel you're suggesting turning it into an incident list because it will still permit you to include your own personal interpretation of the casualty figures. It's been pointed out before, but our inclusion criterion is "verifiability, not truth". I can understand why you want to do what you're doing, but you must understand that by taking figures from various places and using them to reach a different total to the official one, you are (in the words of WP:SYNTH) "putting together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Even if we know or believe the published data is wrong, the WP:V policy means it's all we have to go by and is all we're allowed to report. I appreciate that it's frustrating - many of us have had to deal with this when writing articles - but it's the way the Wikipedia community has decided we must work. EyeSerene^talk 16:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restructured the article to meet most of Wikipedia standards now. Tell me what you think? This is without the list of hostile incidents incured by the US forces. This has been agreed to in principle by EnigmaMcmxc and Lawrencama and done per discussion with them. We would state both the icasualties number and the DoD number, both of them, we wouldn't leave out any of them. Yes the official lesser number reported by DoD is the official one, but most medial outlets, CNN, BBC, AP and others are reporting the higher number given by icasualties and most regard icasualties's number more notable than DoD's. But I have laid it out and now several editors have agreed to present both numbers and per Lawrencama's proposols to point out how we came to icasualties's number. I have now come to the point that I am to tired to discuss this any more and if you still want it like that I would also go the extra mile and forget the list of incidents and not iclude it in the article. We would only maybe list several notable incidents of large numbers of fatalities from large battles like operation Red Wing, opeartion Anaconda or battle of Wanat.BobaFett85 (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While i agreed with most of what you have done i did note on the talkpage that the article is still POV pushing. I believe the article should state the DOD figure followed by a line stating this is contested by the internet source. Not present the internet source as the definante figure.
  • On top of that with the why the article is now structured, should it not be merged with Coalition casualties in Afghanistan; with the information from here being inserted into the US subsection?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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